The New Realist Podcast

We were on the air this afternoon when news broke that Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) was resigning.

Instant reaction above and additional thoughts below.

(1) Not a Surprise

The former congresswoman, who sought the Democratic nomination for president in 2020, indicated the decision was a result of her husband’s illness; he was recently diagnosed with a rare form of cancer. There is, however, context and history here which suggests that she might have been out regardless. It is well known that Trump has for weeks been publicly and privately polling people about whether Gabbard should be replaced. We also have reports that it was Roger Stone who, in April, convinced Trump not to fire her. While she remained, her colleague, head of the National Center for Counterterrorism, Joe Kent resigned noting that he could not in “good conscience” continue in the position and support the war in Iran because the nation “posed no imminent threat to our nation.” These are views Gabbard presumably shares, although she has not been as vocal on them of late. Finally, even though she was DNI she has been largely missing from public discussions of Venezuela and Iran. This and more suggests that her ouster was only a matter of time.

As Joe Mathieu noted, it wasn’t that long ago that Gabbard was pushing “No War With Iran” t-shirts (perhaps you can still find them online).

(2) If not a Win for the Neocons, another Nail in the Coffin for the America Firsters’

I argue this is a win for the Neocons (see definition below). Arguably from a policy perspective they have won already - just look at Venezuela, what is going on in Cuba, the threats to Greenland and most notably, Iran. So perhaps it is better to say it is another nail in the coffin for those like Gabbard, Kent, Megyn Kelly, Tucker Carlson, and other ‘American Firsters’; those who stand in stark opposition to the interventionist, hawkish approach to foreign policy that has come to define Trump’s second term.

What is a Neocon or Neoconservative (c/o Ebsco)

“Neoconservatism is a political ideology primarily associated with the advocacy of a strong military and an interventionist foreign policy aimed at spreading democratic values globally. Emphasizing the use of American military power to address perceived threats, neoconservatives, often referred to as “neocons,” believe in preemptive action to protect U.S. interests. The movement emerged in the late 20th century, with influential figures like Irving Kristol, who is regarded as its “godfather,” shaping its core principles.” Read more at Ebsco

(3) Kristi, Pam, Lori & Now Tulsi - Women of the Cabinet

Gabbard is the 4th woman to resign from Trump’s cabinet in the last few months. She follows Pam Bondi (Attorney General, Department of Justice), Kristi Noem (Secretary, Department of Homeland Security) and Lori Chavez-DeReme (Secretary of Labor, Labor Department).

4 women remain: Susie Wiles (Chief of Staff), Linda McMahon (Education Secretary), Kelly Loeffler (Small Business Administration) and Brooke Rollins (Agriculture Secretary). While not a member of the Cabinet, it is also worth noting Trump’s Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt.

Even prior to Gabbard’s resignation many questions were raised about the number of high profile women who have left Trump’s cabinet. It’s not so much a question as to why they were ousted or chose to resign, rather why male members of the cabinet facing similar headwinds remain ( i.e., Howard Lutnik, Kash Patel, Pete Hegseth, etc.)?

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit jeannesheehanzaino.substack.com/subscribe

This morning on the tarmac at Joint Base Andrews, President Trump gushed about his latest poll numbers. Not his 35% approval in the U.S., his 99% approval in Israel. All of which got him musing about the possibility that maybe when he’s done serving as president, he might run for prime minister of Israel.

“So maybe after I do this, I’ll go to Israel, run for prime minister. I had a poll this morning. I’m 99%.”

Joke or not, the comment rankled some supporters who were taken aback that their America First President was talking about running another country, especially when the nations debt is near $40 Trillion and inflation is climbing, along with the price of everything from housing and healthcare to groceries and gas.

In this ‘Only in DC!’ I offered an explanation.

He doesn’t care.

At least that is what he said as recently as yesterday when a reporter asked him about soaring price of gas and he dismissed the cost as “peanuts” before adding he doesn’t “even think about” what Americans are paying at the pump.

This comes just days after this exchange at the White House:

Reporter: “When you’re negotiating with Iran, Mr. President, to what extent are American financial situations motivating you to make a deal?”

Trump: “Not even a little bit… I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation. I don’t think about anybody.”

When Fox News’ Bret Baier later offered Trump a chance to walk back his callous statement, he instead doubled-down.

“That’s a perfect statement; I’d make it again. Very simple, when people hear me say it, everybody agrees.”

The New Realist is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit jeannesheehanzaino.substack.com/subscribe

Vice President JD Vance was in Bangor, Maine late last week as part of his work heading President Trump’s Task Force to Eliminate Fraud. The Task Force, first announced in mid-March, is charged with investigating and eliminating “fraud and mismanagement… [which] constitutes theft of the hard-earned tax dollars from Americans.”

The Pine Tree state is just one of several blue states that the Task Force has singled out for alleged fraud and abuse (others include California, Illinois, Minnesota, and New York). Earlier this year, Robert F Kennedy’s Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a report alleging Maine had “[m]ade at Least $45.6 Million in Improper Fee-for-Service Medicaid Payments for Rehabilitative and Community Support Services Provided to Children Diagnosed With Autism.”

During his visit Vance made headlines for an off-the-cuff comment that ‘dead people are voting for Democrats.’ Eventually, however he got back to the issue at hand - fraud. He told the audience how honored he was when “the president of the United States said

…JD, we've got a fraud problem, and I want you to tackle it," I was so proud and so happy to be able to do it… fraud isn't just about saving money. It's not just about protecting taxpayers, it's about protecting you. The money you send to the government and the services that you rely on. So for once, for the first time in a very long time, you've got an administration in Washington DC that is fighting for you, fighting to protect your tax dollars and fighting to put the fraudsters in prison, which is where they belong.

Vance went on to say how “unbelievable” it is that we’ve been “fleeced” by our “own government” for so long. “You have been fleeced by your own government for far too long, and we are stopping it every single day,” he added.

This was one day before the New York Times reported that the Trump administration was considering setting up a $1.7B slush fund, paid by tax payers, to compensate the president’s allies. Today the administration confirmed they are creating “a $1.8B fund to compensate those who claim they were targeted by the Biden Justice Department and Democrats.” A fund which, the Times goes on to write, forges “a pipeline to funnel taxpayer money to President Trump’s allies.”

This comes in the wake of efforts by the president’s party to wrest $1B in tax payer money to pay for one of Trump’s favorite projects, a new White House ballroom. Efforts by the GOP to include this in the reconciliation bill met with pushback from the Senate parliamentarian.

It also follows reports from the House Oversight Committee Democrats and others regarding the exorbitant sums that the president and his family have accumulated during their time in office. According to the House Oversight Dems, as of January this year, the president has received “an estimated $2.25 billion in realized profits… this total rises to as much as $9.7 billion when the value of Trump’s digital assets is factored in, with as much as $600 million coming from foreign interests.”

The New Realist is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit jeannesheehanzaino.substack.com/subscribe

The oddest elections of the 2026 primary cycle were this week in Nebraska and in both instances, Democrats showed that they too can play hardball.

First, was the race for incumbent Senator Pete Ricketts’ (R) seat. Given how red the state is, Democrats know their best shot is not a Democrat, but an independent who might caucus with them a-la Bernie Sanders (VT) and Angus King (ME). Enter Dan Osborn, a local mechanic and union member who ran as an independent in 2024 and came close to unseating Sen. Deb Fischer.

To clear the path for Osborn, Democrats needed to insure there was no one on their line who might split the vote. Enter Cindy Burbank, a retiree who promised to drop out of the race after she won the primary. The only wrinkle in this plan was Pastor William Forbes who entered the race after voting for President Trump several times. Democrats accused him of being a GOP-plant and campaigned vigorously against him. Their efforts worked, in the end Burbank won easily capturing more than 89% of the vote. The election, called minutes after the polls closed, paves the way for Burbank to drop and Osborn to show that the second time’ a charm.

Second, the race to replace retiring Republican Representative Don Bacon in Nebraska’s 2nd district. Also known as the ‘blue dot,’ this district is one of only three districts that former Vice President Kamala Harris won in the 2024 presidential election that is represented by a Republican in Congress, making it one of the Democratic party’s top targets to flip in November.

This very competitive race featured an influx of money and several candidates, led by political activist Denise Powell and State Sen. John Cavanaugh. The Associated Press called the race 24 hours after polls closed, declaring Powell the winner with 39% to Cavanaugh’s 37%. Cavanaugh, the more progressive of the two, lost narrowly in part because his opponents argued that if he was elected it could negatively impact the chances for a Democratic presidential candidate to take the White House in 2028. This is due to the funky way in which the state allocates its electoral votes. The winner of the state gets 2 electoral votes and an additional vote is awarded to the winner of each of its 3 congressional districts. This is why a single vote in the Omaha district can make a difference in a close race. During the primary Cavanaugh’s challengers said they were concerned the loss of his vote in the State Legislature could make it easier for Republicans in the state to abolish the ‘blue dot system’ – something which they have already tried unsuccessfully to do.

Whether the ‘blue dot’ concern was the difference in the election is unclear, but arguably as more than $5.5m in outside money poured into the race and local and state politics continue to get increasingly nationalized, these kinds of issues are ones that can make the difference.

The New Realist is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit jeannesheehanzaino.substack.com/subscribe

If you read one piece on the current state of the U.S. with Iran, make it Robert Kagan’s most recent article in The Atlantic “Checkmate in Iran.”

The fact that Kagan, a columnist and scholar, is also one of America’s most noteworthy Neo-conservatives is part of what makes his assessment of the war so devastating.

Perhaps the best way to summarize the work, which should be read in full, is by citing the lyrics of Kenny Rogers “The Gambler” – “‘you’ve got to… know when to fold ‘em, know when to walk away and know when to run.”

Kagan begins by noting that “[I ]t’s hard to think of a time when the United States suffered a total defeat in a conflict, a setback so decisive that the strategic loss could be neither repaired nor ignored.” He goes on to talk about the most devastating wars in modern American history, from WWII and Vietnam to Afghanistan. In each, he claims, the U.S. was ultimately able to either ‘reverse losses’ or leave without damaging our standing in the world irrevocably. Not so he writes of this current war of choice.

Defeat in the present confrontation with Iran... can neither be repaired nor ignored. There will be no return to the status quo ante, no ultimate American triumph that will undo or overcome the harm done. The Strait of Hormuz will not be “open,” as it once was. With control of the strait, Iran emerges as the key player in the region and one of the key players in the world. The roles of China and Russia, as Iran’s allies, are strengthened; the role of the United States, substantially diminished. Far from demonstrating American prowess, as supporters of the war have repeatedly claimed, the conflict has revealed an America that is unreliable and incapable of finishing what it started.

Speaking of gambling, Kagan notes, “President Trump likes to talk about who has ‘the cards,’ but whether he has any good ones left to play is not clear.”

Kagan’s conclusion is like that of so many military and Middle East experts, unless the U.S. is prepared to send in ground troops and topple the regime, and remain on the ground in force until a more stable government is put into place – all the bravado is for naught. This is why he concludes that “walking away now” is the ‘least of the bad options available.’

For such a complex situation, our top three options can be summarized easily:

1. Walk away (i.e., fold ‘em, Kagan’s advice’)

2. Finish the job (i.e., regime change, which cannot be achieved without boots on the ground and a willingness to pay huge costs – economic, political, humanitarian, etc.)

3. Double down on current efforts (i.e., maintain the status quo as it pertains to the blockade, etc. which would be economically costly and politically painful for Trump and the GOP in particular)

When it comes to which of these bad options is in the long term interests of the U.S., Kagan is right in arguing the answer is #1.

The New Realist is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit jeannesheehanzaino.substack.com/subscribe

The price of gas has now topped $4.50/gallon and, according to the latest NPR/PBS/Marist poll, 63% of Americans blame President Trump, while more than 8/10 say it is straining their budget.

In the face of this, with consumer sentiment at historic lows and the economy set to dominate the upcoming Midterm, you’d think the White House would be fighting hard to address the issue of affordability. They are not. Just consider the statements made by the president and his Chief Economic Advisor over the last 24-hours.

While seated in the Oval Office yesterday, surrounded by UFC Fighters, Trump launched into a diatribe about how strong the economy is. His measure? The stock market.

“The stock market’s higher now than when we started this war, and I thought oil prices would go to $200 or $250 — it’s at $100 now — and I think you’re surprised, and I’m surprised, but even if it went to $200 it would have been worth it.”

As relevant as the market may be to those few Americans wealthy enough to be invested in it, as well as those who retain lucrative portfolios, that is not the reality for the majority of Americans. Instead, as prices surge, most Americans are struggling to pay for gas, food, shelter, healthcare and other necessities.

Couple that with the bizarre statement made by Kevin Hassett, Trump’s National Economic Council Director, yesterday on Fox Business. Instead of celebrating the strength of the market like his boss, Hassett tried another tactic - boasting about how much consumers are forced to pay for everyday items using their credit cards. A real win for the big banks, if no one else!

“In fact, I had the head of one of the big five banks in my office yesterday going through the credit card data. And just as Secretary [Scott] Bessent said, credit card spending is through the roof. They’re spending more on gasoline, but they’re spending more on everything else, too. And so in terms of the jobs picture for the rest of the year, it’s really hard to see having the unemployment rate go up, for example.”

The remark went viral for all the wrong reasons, eliciting a good deal of pushback from the left, including:

* Sen. Bernie Sanders - “Trump’s chief economist is right: ‘Credit card spending is through the roof.’ Americans are forced to put more of their spending on credit cards because of outrageously high prices. That’s a win for big banks charging 30% interest rates. It’s a disaster for working people.”

* Rep. Katherine Clark - “They’re openly bragging on national TV about raising your costs..”

* Sen. Elizabeth Warren - “The Trump Administration is raising your costs and celebrating it on live TV.”

* And my personal favorite, Pod Save America’s Jon Favreau who said, “We must consider the possibility that Kevin Hassett is secretly working for the Democrats.”

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit jeannesheehanzaino.substack.com/subscribe

There is hardly a role that Marco Rubio hasn’t assumed in the Trump administration. To date, he has worn multiple hats, including: Secretary of State, Acting National Security Advisor, USAID Acting Administrator, Acting Archivist of the United States, White House Surrogate and Messenger, and Diplomatic Envoy on Venezuela.

Over the weekend we learned that there is one more role we can add to Rubio’s list - DJ. That’s right, while President Trump was hosting a golf tournament at his private club, the Secretary of Almost Everything was getting the crowd dancing at a wedding with what someone described as “good Cuban uncle energy.”

The world only learned of Rubio’s DJing skills when White House Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino posted a video on social media showing the Secretary with headphones on stand behind the set-up, hyping up the crowd.

Public servants deserve a break, just like the rest of us. But lets be real, Friday marked 60 days of the War with Iran. We are at a critical time in the conflict and as everyone who studies the region - or war in general - agrees, the only solution to this is diplomatic. And yet, as the price of gas and everything else rises (gas neared an average of almost $4.45/gallon this weekend), instead of working with the myriad of other countries who also want the War to end and the Strait of Hormuz to be open, the nation’s top diplomat was mixing tracks.

That might even be understandable if it came on the heels of whirlwind trips around the globe to get negotiations up and running, yet by all accounts since the War began more than 60 days ago, Rubio has only been outside of the United States once - on March 27 when he attended the G7 Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in France.

As the New York Times reported late last month:

Rubio — consumed with his second role, as Mr. Trump’s national security adviser — has not traveled much at all [recently].

During the Biden administration, Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken made 11 foreign trips from January 2024 to late April 2024, stopping in roughly three dozen cities, according to the State Department. So far this year, Mr. Rubio has visited six foreign cities, including a stop in Milan for the 2026 Winter Olympics.

Rubio’s DJ stint has resulted in a number of meme’s - but there are high stakes here and the public deserve better from the president and the nation’s top diplomat who have an obligation to the American people, as well as the world, to work hard to bring the war to a negotiated and diplomatic end.

The New Realist is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit jeannesheehanzaino.substack.com/subscribe

Friday marked 60 days since President Trump informed Congress that military operations had begun in Iran. The deadline is critical, under the 1973 War Powers Act, after 60 days the president must seek authorization for the use of force or terminate military activity. Alternatively, he could seek a 30 day extension.

Instead of doing either, the administration has advanced a novel theory, first posed by the Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth last week - that the 60 day clock had been paused as a result of the cease fire.

It is an interpretation of the law that most legal scholars suggest does not hold water given that the law clearly describes three circumstances under which the clock can be paused and a cease fire is not among them. The law says the clock pauses if congress (a) declares war (b) passes an Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) or (c) agrees to extend the deadline after receipt of an official request from the president; none of which has occurred.

Instead, last Friday the President sent a letter to congressional leaders arguing that the deadline no longer applies because “the hostilities that began on February 28, 2026, have terminated.” The letter arrived just as the President, speaking to retirees in Florida saying exactly the opposite.

You know we’re in a war because I think you would agree we cannot let lunatics have a nuclear weapon. Do you agree?”

Trump is not alone in this, he is being enabled by Republican leaders in Congress, beginning with John Thune and Mike Johnson, both of who have said there is no reason for the president to seek authorization at this point.

In trying to defend his unwillingness to hold the administration to the 60 day deadline Johnson said:

“I don’t think we have an active, kinetic military bombing, firing or anything like that. Right now, we are trying to broker a peace.” Then he added, “I would be very reluctant to get in front of the administration in the midst of these very sensitive negotiations, so we’ll have to see how that plays out.”

All of which begs the obvious question, if we are not at war, why are trying to broker a peace?

Already Republicans ranging from Senator’s Susan Collins (Maine) and John Curtis (Utah) to Josh Hawley (Missouri), Todd Young (Indiana) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) have expressed concern about this stance.

Collins, who is facing a tough reelection in a state which largely opposes the War, recently flipped her position voting in favor of a resolution to halt the war. Murkowski who drafted an AUMF, likewise said, “the president must have flexibility to respond to emergencies and imminent threats, and he does. But those are not ongoing military campaigns like we find ourselves currently mired in.”

Expect pressure to grow on these and other Republican members as they are home on break until May 11, in many cases, gearing up to run for re-election and facing a public that increasingly disapproves of this war. As CNN’s Harry Enten made clear, the data shows that they blame the president and Republicans for the impact the War is having on their lives, beginning with the skyrocketing cost of gas, groceries, and other goods; not to mention the over dozen U.S. soldiers who have been killed and the thousands of innocent civilians killed, injured or displaced as a result of this action.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit jeannesheehanzaino.substack.com/subscribe

Pete Hegseth went “Full Bondi.”

That’s how Joe Scarborough described the Secretary of Defense’s testimony before the House Armed Services Committee yesterday.

It’s an apt description.

Hegseth came out swinging with an opening statement in which he described members of Congress as the greatest threat facing America.

“The biggest challenge, the biggest adversary we face at this point are the reckless, feckless and defeatist words of congressional Democrats and some Republicans”

This continued during the Q&A when he repeatedly responded to basic questions by either dismissing them or accusing members of being anti-American.

This includes inquiries regarding increasing costs at home which Hegseth dismissed as a “gotcha” questions, without even acknowledging that the price of gas, oil, food, transportation, fertilizer and much more have spiked since the war began.

When, for instance, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) asked Hegseth about the economic costs borne by Americans as a result of the war, he said:

“I would simply ask you what the cost is of an Iranian nuclear bomb,” before charging that Khanna was “playing gotcha questions about domestic things.”

Likewise, when Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif) described the War as a “quagmire” and “political and economic disaster at every level” Hegseth ​questioned Garamendi’s patriotism.

“You ​call it ⁠a quagmire, handing propaganda to our enemies? Shame on you for that ​statement… Don’t say: ‘I support the troops on one hand, and then a two-month ⁠mission ​is a quagmire.’ ... Who are you ​cheering for here? Who you pulling for?”

The not so subtle implication is that if duly elected members of congress dare to question the Secretary on even the most basic aspects of the war or the administration’s decisions, they will be publicly labeled as un-American.

Since there has not yet been a congressional vote to authorize the war, the debate in Congress this week over funding is serving as a poor substitute, giving members the chance not only to ask questions about the administrations mind-numbing $1.45 trillion budget request, a 40%+ increase over last year, but also about the war itself - why was it necessary, was there really an imminent threat, what are our objectives, what is the administration’s strategy, and so on.

That is not just a right of Congress but a constitutional duty.

Despite Hegseth’s suggestion to the contrary, polls show the majority of Americans do not support the War. As Nate Silver and Eli McKown-Dawson write, “net support for the war is at -15.2 in the Silver Bulletin average. Some of the most recent polls on the war — such as those from The Economist/YouGov (net - 27) and Reuters/Ipsos (-24) — are even more dire.”

Scarborough is correct to describe the Secretary’s testimony as ‘Bondi-ish,’ in addition, it was also a missed opportunity. Like all administrations, this one must go to Congress and the American public and explain the reasons why they have taken the nation into War. They must explain their intentions, objectives, and so forth, they must seek support, not just funding. This is not only a constitutional and legal requirement, it is a reality of politics - their inability or unwillingness to do this prior to the War, in the 60 days since it started, and yesterday on Capitol Hill is political malpractice.

The New Realist is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit jeannesheehanzaino.substack.com/subscribe

A Supreme Court decision today collides with events in Tallahassee, raising questions about the sanctity of districts redrawn in advance of the upcoming Midterm election.

This morning the Supreme Court struck another blow to the Voting Rights Act (VRA), ruling in Louisiana v Callais that Louisiana’s map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander and must be redrawn. The Court split 6-3 along ideological lines, with Justice Alito writing for the majority and Justice Kagan for the dissent.

The decision, released this morning, is worth reading in full. While the majority did not go as far as to overturn the VRA, Kagan argues the decision marks the culmination of a 3-stage effort by conservatives that began in 2013 with the Court’s ruling in Shelby County to gut the VRA.

At the first stage of this judicial project to destroy the Voting Rights Act, the Court maintained that Section 5 was no longer needed because in recent decades “African-Americans attained political office in record numbers.” Shelby County, 570 U. S., at 553; see id., at 549. At this last stage, the Court’s gutting of Section 2 puts that achievement in peril. I dissent because Congress elected otherwise. I dissent because the Court betrays its duty to faithfully implement the great statute Congress wrote. I dissent because the Court’s decision will set back the foundational right Congress granted of racial equality in electoral opportunity.

This ruling comes on the same day that lawmakers in Florida are meeting in a special legislative session to vote on new congressional maps redrawn by Gov. Ron DeSantis’ to give Republicans 4 more seats in Congress. It also comes on the heels of mid-decade redistricting battles that have raged across the country over the last year in the wake of President Trump’s successful efforts to urge Texas to redraw its maps. As a result, the GOP gained +5 seats in Texas, prompting Democrats to respond in kind in California where they too secured +5 additional seats. For anyone keeping tally, so far the efforts have been a wash - with Democrats currently up +1 seat.

If Florida adopts DeSantis new map and if it survives judicial scrutiny, the sunshine state is hoping to change that equation.

Of course, redistricting is always a fraught game so there are a lot of IF’s in this equation. All of this depends on IF:

(1) the 2024 election results they are using to redraw the maps result in the types of pickups they are betting on. This is unclear and there is plenty of concern in Texas, Florida and else where that this entire endeavor could backfire on the GOP. Incumbents, for instance, who are now forced to run in new, less safe districts where they have never run before are particularly concerned even in states where the GOP has a voter registration advantage.

(2) the new maps are subject to judicial scrutiny. The legality of Virginia’s new map which gave the Democrats +4 additional seats, is now being reviewed in court. Likewise the Florida maps, if they are approved, will be subject to judicial review. Complicating the matter is that in 2010 more than 6/10 Floridians voting to pass a Fair Districts Amendment that specifically prohibits partisan gerrymandering. Since there is no question that all of these efforts are partisan, Florida’s new map would be hard to defend on these grounds.

(3) For anyone who thought Florida was the last stop in the mid-decade partisan gerrymander wars, today’s decision by the Supreme Court could change the equation. For those anxious to see the gerrymander wars come to an end, the fact the Court left the VRA in place is welcome and may curb any further efforts. That said, the decision does require Louisiana to redraw its maps and could prompt other Southern states to do the same. If that happens, watch for blue states like Colorado and New York, both of which have ballot initiatives. to consider putting redistricting on the ballot going forward as well.

The New Realist is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit jeannesheehanzaino.substack.com/subscribe