Washington lawmakers opened their 2026 legislative session Monday with House Majority Leader Joe Fitzgibbon, a West Seattle Democrat, backing a bill to amend the state constitution to permit mid-decade congressional redistricting if other states move first. Fitzgibbon frames the measure as defensive, responding to “states around the country at the behest of Donald Trump” that “redraw their congressional maps in the middle of the decade,” positioning the proposal as “protecting our democracy” by allowing Washington to act if other states pursue early redistricting. Democratic leaders and Governor Bob Ferguson have signaled support, with Ferguson pointing to California’s recent actions while saying he generally wouldn’t want to change Washington’s system. But the proposal reveals tensions between maintaining non-partisan redistricting norms and responding to partisan manipulation in other states, raising questions about whether Washington should abandon its principled approach to preserve competitive advantage or maintain standards even when other states don’t.
The constitutional amendment requirement reflects how fundamental redistricting rules are to Washington’s political structure. The state constitution currently mandates redistricting following each decennial census, creating once-per-decade cycles that coincide with new population data. Allowing mid-decade redistricting requires constitutional amendment rather than simple legislation, meaning the measure must pass both houses with two-thirds majorities and then receive voter approval in a statewide referendum. That high bar reflects recognition that redistricting rules directly affect who holds power and shouldn’t be changed through simple legislative majorities that could manipulate boundaries for partisan advantage.
Fitzgibbon’s framing, that states are redrawing maps “at the behest of Donald Trump,” connects the proposal to broader concerns about Trump administration pressure on Republican-controlled states to maximize partisan advantage through aggressive gerrymandering. Several states have pursued or are considering mid-decade redistricting following the 2024 election, using various justifications from correcting legal violations to responding to population changes. Whether those efforts actually occur at Trump’s direction or simply align with Republican strategic interests that Trump supports is less clear than Fitzgibbon suggests, but the political reality is that multiple Republican states are considering map changes outside normal redistricting cycles.
The defensive framing positions Washington’s potential constitutional change as reactive rather than proactive, not pursuing aggressive gerrymandering but rather maintaining ability to respond if other states manipulate maps in ways that affect congressional balance. That argument appeals to Democrats who generally support non-partisan redistricting but worry that unilateral commitment to fair maps creates disadvantage when Republican states pursue maximum partisan gain through gerrymandering. The tension between principle and power animates debates about whether Democrats should match Republican gerrymandering tactics or maintain commitment to fair maps regardless of what other states do.
Governor Ferguson’s reference to California’s recent actions acknowledges that Democratic-controlled states have also considered or pursued redistricting changes outside typical cycles. California, the nation’s most populous state with 52 congressional seats, provides model for how states with independent redistricting commissions can still face pressure to redraw maps when partisan balance shifts or legal challenges arise. Ferguson’s statement that he “generally would not want to change Washington’s system” while supporting this constitutional amendment reflects the same tension, preferring non-partisan redistricting norms but willing to create flexibility if competitive disadvantage from other states’ actions becomes too significant.
For Washington specifically, the state’s congressional delegation currently leans Democratic but includes competitive districts where boundaries significantly affect outcomes. The 2021 redistricting following the 2020 census created maps through Washington’s bipartisan redistricting commission, a structure designed to prevent extreme partisan gerrymandering by requiring cross-party agreement. That system has produced relatively fair maps compared to states where single-party legislatures draw boundaries for maximum partisan advantage. But fairness provides no electoral benefit if other states’ gerrymandering creates national congressional majorities that override Washington’s delegation regardless of how fairly local maps are drawn.
The constitutional amendment Fitzgibbon proposes would apparently allow mid-decade redistricting only “under certain circumstances,” language suggesting triggers based on actions in other states rather than open-ended authority for Washington to redraw maps whenever convenient for the party controlling the legislature. What those specific circumstances would be, how many states must redistrict early before Washington can respond, which states count toward triggering Washington’s authority, determines whether the amendment creates narrow defensive option or broader flexibility that could be used for partisan purposes beyond the stated justification.
Republican response to the proposal will likely frame it as Democrats seeking to manipulate boundaries for partisan gain while dishonestly claiming defensive necessity. Republicans could argue that if Democrats believed in fair redistricting, they’d maintain current standards regardless of what other states do, and that creating authority for mid-decade changes invites exactly the manipulation Democrats claim to oppose. That partisan divide reflects broader national polarization where each party accuses the other of gerrymandering while claiming their own redistricting is fair or defensive necessity.
The early-season introduction of this proposal, described as already stirring partisan friction, indicates Democrats plan to make it a legislative priority despite the high bar for constitutional amendments. Getting two-thirds majorities in both houses requires significant Republican support unless Democrats hold supermajorities, which Washington’s legislature doesn’t currently have. That means either the proposal is primarily symbolic, establishing Democratic position without expectation of passage, or Democrats believe they can persuade enough moderate Republicans that the threat from other states’ gerrymandering justifies providing Washington defensive flexibility even if Republicans don’t love the idea.
For Seattle’s representation, currently the core city is reliably Democratic but surrounding districts in the metro area have competitive elements where redistricting significantly affects outcomes. Changes to congressional boundaries could strengthen Democratic holds on marginal seats or potentially create additional competitive districts depending on how lines are drawn. The fact that Fitzgibbon, representing West Seattle in the state House, is backing this proposal rather than a statewide elected official or senator suggests Democratic caucus leadership sees redistricting flexibility as important enough to prioritize early in the session.
The reference to “familiar pressures to pass a balanced budget” in the context of introducing controversial redistricting legislation suggests Democrats are willing to create additional partisan friction beyond normal budget battles. Budget negotiations typically dominate legislative sessions and create enough controversy without adding constitutional amendments about redistricting. That Democrats are introducing this measure anyway indicates either that they view the issue as urgent enough to justify additional conflict, or that they believe establishing the proposal early creates leverage for negotiations later in the session.
Ferguson’s signaled support as governor matters because gubernatorial backing increases probability of legislative action and provides executive authority to advocate for the measure if it reaches voters as a constitutional amendment. A governor actively supporting a redistricting amendment can use the bully pulpit to frame public debate and mobilize voter support in ways that dramatically affect referendum outcomes. Ferguson’s careful framing, that he generally doesn’t want to change Washington’s system but other states’ actions create necessity, attempts to preserve his image as supporting good government principles while backing what opponents will characterize as partisan power grab.
The argument about “protecting our democracy” by allowing mid-decade redistricting invokes language typically used to oppose gerrymandering, not to justify creating new redistricting authority. That rhetorical move attempts to redefine what democracy protection means in context where some states manipulate maps for partisan advantage. Democrats argue democracy requires ability to respond to others’ manipulation rather than unilaterally disarming through commitment to fair maps that other states don’t reciprocate. Republicans counter that democracy requires maintaining principled standards regardless of what others do, and that abandoning those standards undermines the democratic norms Democrats claim to protect.
The practical effect of allowing mid-decade redistricting depends entirely on the specific circumstances that would trigger Washington’s authority and how redistricting would be conducted. If the constitutional amendment preserves the bipartisan redistricting commission structure, mid-decade map changes would still require cross-party agreement, limiting potential for extreme partisan gerrymandering. If the amendment bypasses the commission for mid-decade redistricting, giving the legislature direct authority, it creates much greater potential for partisan manipulation. Which structure the proposal includes dramatically affects whether it represents defensive mechanism or power grab.
For Washington voters who would ultimately decide whether to approve this constitutional amendment, the choice involves weighing concerns about other states’ gerrymandering against risks of abandoning Washington’s commitment to fair redistricting. Voters who prioritize maintaining Democratic competitiveness nationally might support providing Washington flexibility to respond to Republican states’ gerrymandering. Voters who prioritize maintaining non-partisan redistricting standards might oppose creating mid-decade redistricting authority regardless of what other states do. That division doesn’t necessarily follow partisan lines, as some Democrats value redistricting norms while some Republicans recognize partisan advantage from responding to other states’ actions.
The timing of this proposal, early in the 2026 session with presidential term just beginning and potential for multiple states to pursue redistricting changes across the next year, suggests Democrats are positioning Washington to act quickly if triggering circumstances occur. A constitutional amendment passed in 2026 could take effect in time to respond to 2026 or 2027 redistricting in other states, whereas waiting would delay Washington’s ability to act until redistricting in other states is complete and congressional balance already affected.
Whether this proposal advances beyond early-season friction to actual constitutional amendment depends on Democratic ability to build sufficient legislative support and eventual voter willingness to approve what opponents will characterize as abandoning fair redistricting principles. The measure’s framing as defensive response to other states’ actions rather than proactive gerrymandering attempt provides Democrats their best argument for passage, but it requires convincing both legislators and voters that the threat from other states justifies creating authority that could be misused even if current leaders promise to use it only defensively.
For Washington’s congressional delegation and national Democratic Party, the proposal represents state-level response to national partisan battles over redistricting that have intensified following Republican success in 2020 redistricting cycle. Democrats emerged from 2021 redistricting with significant disadvantages in multiple states where Republican control of redistricting produced maps favorable to GOP congressional candidates. Creating ability for Democratic-controlled states like Washington to respond through mid-decade redistricting provides potential counter to Republican gerrymandering advantages, though whether that race to the bottom improves democracy or simply escalates partisan manipulation of electoral systems remains contentious.
The fundamental question Fitzgibbon’s proposal raises is whether states committed to fair redistricting should maintain those commitments unilaterally or should match tactics of states that manipulate boundaries for partisan advantage. The answer depends on whether you prioritize principle over power, believe maintaining norms despite others’ violations preserves democracy better than reciprocal violation, or whether you believe democracy requires fighting partisan manipulation with counter-manipulation rather than unilaterally disarming. Washington legislators and eventually voters will decide which principle they find more compelling, and that decision will reveal whether the state prioritizes redistricting norms or partisan competitiveness when the two conflict.
