The full episode is available to paid subscribers. Once you become a paid subscriber, you can connect your account to your preferred podcast player by following the directions here.

It’s hard to open the news these days and not get the sense that American democracy is on the fritz. And I’m not just talking about if you’re mainlining MSNBC. Within the past week, a headline at the Financial Times reads: “US sliding towards 1930s-style autocracy, warns Ray Dalio.”

The Wall Street Journal reads: “In Trump’s Second Term, a Bolder President Charges Ahead Unchecked. Trump is frequently riffing on authoritarianism and ignoring caution from advisers.” The New York Times reads: “Historians See Autocratic Playbook in Trump’s Attacks on Science.”

President Trump has tested and – according to the courts – exceeded the bounds of his power while in office.

He’s deployed the National Guard against governors' wishes, levied tariffs of all manner, frozen funding to universities, cut off law firms from federal contracts, fast tracked deportations using the Alien Enemies Act, fired a Fed governor and heads of independent agencies, installed allies at the Department of Justice… the list goes on.

Some of this may fall into the category of “things that Democrats don’t like,” and the remedy for that is to win elections. Some of it may be illegal. And in those instances, the remedy is the courts.

One of the most important tests of our system is whether the courts recognize breaches of the law when they happen and whether involved parties comply with court rulings once they’re made.

So on today’s podcast I want to get beyond what can sometimes feel like a nebulous freakout and talk about the cases asserting that Trump has exceeded his power and check in on where they stand.

According to Just Security, there are at least 390 legal challenges to the Trump administration's actions, so we don’t get to all of them, but we touch on some key ones. With me to do that is Professor of Law at Cardozo, Jessica Roth. She’s also the co-director of the Center for Ethics in the Practice of Law and a former federal prosecutor.

The video version of this podcast is available to paid subscribers at gdpolitics.com

Even before the mid-decade gerrymandering wars began, the 2026 midterms were on track to feature the fewest competitive House districts in modern elections.

According to Cook Political Report’s ratings, 84 percent of House districts are solidly in one camp and another 7 percent are likely Republican or Democrat. That means 91 percent of districts aren’t particularly competitive and 30 states don’t have a single competitive election for the House. Current gerrymandering efforts are likely to take more competitive districts off the table.

It’s a tricky moment for – well, the country – and also for good government groups that have long pursued election reforms like independent redistricting commissions. Common Cause, which has frequently sued over partisan gerrymandering, said it won’t fight California over its proposed gerrymander.

According to the nonpartisan group Unite America, which has also pursued independent redistricting reforms, this makes reforms to primary elections – where the vast majority of the midterm elections will essentially be decided – all the more important.

Unite America advocates for “open primaries” in which all voters (Republican, Democrat, and unaligned) can cast a ballot, and candidates from all parties compete together. They also advocate for instant runoffs in general elections, known as ranked choice voting.

Joining me on today’s podcast to make the case for these reforms is Richard Barton, a fellow at Unite America and political science professor at Syracuse University.

We’ve got a podcast full of election updates today. We kick things off with the latest in the gerrymandering wars. Both Texas and California approved new maps in their state legislatures. For Texas, that makes it pretty much a done deal, pending lawsuits. For California, that means the maps now go to the voters to approve and we have some new polling on what they think at the start of all of this.

Now eyes are turning to Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, and Florida for more Republican gerrymandering and to New York, Illinois, Maryland, Oregon and Virginia for more Democratic gerrymandering. Although, much of the Democratic gerrymandering may have to wait a cycle.

Next we look to the New York City mayoral race, one of the hottest items of the fall’s off-year elections. It’s getting about as New York as you can imagine. There’s more scandal surrounding Eric Adams, including one associate trying to bribe a reporter with cash stuffed in a bag of Herr’s potato chips. Zohran Mamdani led his supporters on a city-wide scavenger hunt and got panned online for failing to do a bench press rep solo at a campaign event. And Cuomo is attracting big money from Mamdani-skeptic New Yorkers, with his super PAC raising 1.3 million in a single week.

We also check in on the national environment, lest we get to Texas, California and New York-centric. With me to do it all is my former colleague and newly minted Chief Election Analyst at Decision Desk HQ Geoffrey Skelley.