The Terminal Asymmetry: Structural Entrenchment, Retaliatory Governance, and the Crisis of American Succession (2026-2030)

by Gemini 3.0, Deep Research. Warning, LLMs may hallucinate!

1. Introduction: The End of Cyclic Politics

The American political system, historically predicated on the cyclic alternation of power between two dominant coalitions, has entered a phase of structural ossification and existential maneuvering. As of January 2, 2026, the operational behavior of both the Republican and Democratic parties suggests a fundamental departure from the norms of “regular order” governance. Instead of competing within a shared constitutional framework to win temporary mandates, the prevailing political logic has shifted toward regime entrenchment and structural retaliation. This report provides an exhaustive analysis of this transition, specifically evaluating two competing hypotheses regarding the future of the United States electoral system: the likelihood of a permanent Republican hegemony secured through bureaucratic and logistical engineering (The Framework Hypothesis), and the counter-likelihood of a Democratic hegemony secured through radical constitutional hardball (The Retaliation Hypothesis).

Current indicators from the Authoritarian Threat Index place the United States at a threat level of 3.4 out of 5, categorized as a “Severe Threat,” with a projected 19.2% probability of democratic breakdown within the next four years.¹ This quantitative risk assessment underscores the gravity of the current moment; the mechanisms described in this report are not merely theoretical possibilities but are active operational realities as of early 2026. The convergence of a “restorationist” Republican executive branch, willing to utilize the administrative state to curate the electorate, and a “resistance” Democratic opposition, increasingly convinced that norm-adherence is suicidal, has created a volatile environment where the next transfer of power may well be the last meaningful one.

This analysis draws upon administrative law filings, legislative records, expert surveys, and geopolitical risk assessments to deconstruct the specific machinations—ranging from the United States Postal Service’s (USPS) postmark policies to mid-decade redistricting wars—that define this new era of “existential politics.”

2. The Republican Entrenchment Hypothesis: The Framework of Necessity

2.1 Theoretical Underpinnings: The Demographic Trap and Asymmetric Hardball

The hypothesis that the Republican Party is constructing a permanent framework to prevent future Democratic governance is rooted in the strategic imperative of political survival. Political science literature, specifically the theory of “asymmetric polarization” and “asymmetric constitutional hardball,” suggests that since the mid-1990s, the Republican Party has faced a structural dilemma: its coalition is geographically efficient but demographically stagnant.² The “Density Paradox” reveals that while the economy has concentrated in dense, Democratic-leaning metropolitan areas, the political system—specifically the Senate and Electoral College—favors sparse, Republican-leaning rural areas.⁴

However, as the popular vote margin widens against them, the reliance on passive structural advantages is no longer sufficient. Consequently, the party has moved toward active structural engineering. This “Framework of Necessity” posits that Republicans must alter the rules of engagement—civil service composition, voting logistics, and census data—to maintain power against a numeric majority. This is not viewed internally as “rigging” but as a “restoration” of constitutional order against an administrative state perceived as inherently leftist.³ The strategy is to utilize the executive branch’s plenary power to reshape the government before the demographic clock runs out, creating a “lock” that persists regardless of future voter sentiment.

2.2 The Bureaucratic Siege: Schedule F and the Deep State Reversal

The most sophisticated component of the Republican framework is the transformation of the federal civil service. The “Project 2025” initiative, a blueprint for the current administration, explicitly called for the dismantling of the “administrative state” and the installation of personnel loyal to the executive’s ideological vision.⁵

2.2.1 Operational Implementation: January 2026

As of January 2026, this theoretical blueprint has been operationalized through the re-implementation of Schedule F.

• The Mechanism: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has finalized regulations that reclassify tens of thousands of federal employees—specifically those in “policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating” roles—out of the competitive service and into the excepted service.⁷

• Legal Justification: The administration argues that the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act was an “unconstitutional overcorrection” to Watergate that improperly insulated the bureaucracy from presidential control (Article II). The new rule explicitly states that “accountability to the president” is the primary metric for employment tenure.⁷

• Scope and Scale: Estimates indicate that up to 50,000 positions are targeted for conversion. While this represents approximately 2% of the federal workforce, it encompasses the entirety of the regulatory and policy-making apparatus across the EPA, DOJ, State Department, and intelligence agencies.⁷

2.2.2 Long-Term Strategic Lock

The strategic brilliance of Schedule F lies in its asymmetry.

1. Immediate Purge: It allows the administration to immediately remove civil servants who might obstruct the implementation of controversial policies (e.g., stopping environmental regulations or civil rights enforcement).⁸

2. The “Burrowing In” Effect: More importantly, it allows the administration to fill these 50,000 positions with young, ideologically vetted partisans. Once instated, these appointees can effectively “burrow in.” Even if a Democrat wins in 2028, they would face a bureaucracy staffed entirely by opposition activists protected by the very civil service rules the GOP might reinstate upon leaving office, or simply by the sheer volume of litigation required to remove them.

3. Policy Paralysis: By stripping the institutional memory and technical expertise from agencies, the framework ensures that a future Democratic president would inherit a dysfunctional government incapable of executing a complex progressive agenda (e.g., Green New Deal, Medicare for All).⁹

Table 1: Implementation Status of Republican Entrenchment Mechanisms (Jan 2026)

2.3 The Logistics of Disenfranchisement: The USPS Postmark Ploy

While Schedule F targets the machinery of government, the alteration of United States Postal Service (USPS) procedures targets the machinery of elections. This change, implemented largely under the radar during the 2025 holiday season, represents a “logistical gerrymander” designed to filter out Democratic votes without passing a single new law.

2.3.1 The December 24, 2025 Rule Change

Effective December 24, 2025, the USPS revised the Domestic Mail Manual regarding the dating of mail.

• Old Rule: Mail was postmarked based on the date of collection (i.e., when a carrier picked it up or it was dropped in a box).

• New Rule: Mail is postmarked based on the date of processing at a central facility.¹¹

2.3.2 The “Grace Period” Trap

This change must be analyzed in conjunction with the concurrent legislative push in Republican states to eliminate “grace periods” for ballot receipt. In 2025 alone, states like Ohio, Kansas, and Utah passed laws requiring ballots to be received or postmarked strictly by Election Day, rejecting those arriving later even if mailed on time.¹⁵

• The Scenario: A voter in a rural or suburban area (where processing facilities have been consolidated and moved further away ¹¹) drops a ballot in a mailbox at 5:00 PM on Election Day. Under the old rules, this is valid. Under the new rules, the ballot travels to a facility 50 miles away and is processed the next day(Wednesday).

• The Outcome: The ballot bears a Wednesday postmark. It is legally rejected.

• The Partisan Skew: Because Democrats utilize mail-in voting at significantly higher rates than Republicans (a trend solidified in 2020 and 2024), this bureaucratic tweak disproportionately invalidates Democratic votes. Experts warn this creates “real challenges” for vote-by-mail integrity.¹¹

2.4 Information Warfare: Census Manipulation and Broadcast Licensing

The framework for permanent power relies heavily on controlling the flow of information and the data that defines the nation.

2.4.1 The 2030 Census: Defining the Electorate

In August 2025, President Trump issued a directive to the Commerce Department to alter the methodology for the next census, specifically to exclude undocumented immigrants from the apportionment count.¹²

• Methodology: Since a new physical headcount is logistically impossible mid-decade, the administration is using “modern technology tools” and data mining from the 2024 election and other federal databases to estimate citizenship rates.¹⁶

• Strategic Impact: The exclusion of non-citizens from the apportionment base would strip political representation from states with large immigrant populations—primarily California, New York, and Texas urban centers. Analysis suggests this could shift 5 to 8 House seats (and Electoral College votes) to whiter, more rural states, effectively baking a Republican advantage into the Electoral College for the 2030s.¹⁷

2.4.2 The FCC and Media Control

Beyond the census, the administration has signaled a willingness to use the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to punish media outlets deemed hostile. Threats to strip broadcast licenses from networks like ABC and CBS have been re-issued, with the administration characterizing negative coverage as “campaign contributions” to the Democrats.¹⁹ While the revocation of a major license is legally complex, the threatcreates a chilling effect, forcing corporate media owners to self-censor or soften coverage to protect their assets, thereby altering the information environment in favor of the incumbent.

3. The Geography of Forever: The Mid-Decade Redistricting Wars

The most visible front in the battle for permanent control is the weaponization of the map itself. The convention that redistricting occurs only once a decade (following the census) has been shattered, replaced by a “perpetual redistricting” model where maps are redrawn whenever a party perceives an advantage.

3.1 The Texas Offensive (2025)

In mid-2025, at the urging of the President, the Republican-controlled Texas legislature convened a special session to redraw the state’s congressional map.²¹

• Objective: To squeeze out the remaining competitive districts and engineer five additional safe Republican seats for the 2026 midterms, acting as a firewall against potential national losses.²¹

• Legal Validation: Despite lower court challenges, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay on November 21, 2025, and a final ruling on December 4, 2025, allowing the use of the new maps.¹³ This ruling effectively codified the legality of mid-decade partisan gerrymandering, signaling to all states that “fairness” is no longer a federal concern.

3.2 The Democratic Response: California Proposition 50

Recognizing that unilateral disarmament would guarantee minority status, California Democrats launched a counter-offensive.

• The Measure: Proposition 50, the “Election Rigging Response Act,” was placed on the November 4, 2025 ballot. It authorizes the state legislature to temporarily bypass the independent redistricting commission to draw a new map specifically to counter “Texas’ partisan redistricting”.²⁵

• The Mandate: The measure passed with a decisive 64.4% of the vote.²⁶ This landslide victory signals a radical shift in the Democratic electorate’s psychology: voters are now willing to endorse explicit gerrymandering if framed as a necessary defense against Republican aggression.

• The “Arms Race”: This tit-for-tat escalation has spread to other states. Ohio, North Carolina, and Missouri (Republican) and Illinois and New York (Democratic) are now engaged in similar mid-cycle redraws.²² The result is a House of Representatives where the outcome is determined by legal maneuvering and map efficacy rather than voter persuasion.

4. The Democratic Retaliation Hypothesis: The Strategy of “No Choice”

4.1 The “Spiral of Retaliation”

The “Democratic Retaliation” hypothesis argues that if the Republican Party is successful in implementing the framework described above (Topic 2), the Democratic Party will conclude that the current constitutional order is fundamentally broken. Consequently, if Democrats regain power (Topic 1), they will likely implement “retaliatory” structural reforms of such magnitude that the Republican Party, in its current form, would be rendered electorally obsolete.

This dynamic is described by scholars as an iterated prisoner’s dilemma.²⁹ For decades, Democrats largely adhered to “cooperative” norms (e.g., respecting the filibuster, blue slips). However, faced with “defection” by the GOP (e.g., Garland blockade, mid-decade redistricting, Schedule F), cooperation has become irrational. The base now demands “Constitutional Hardball”.³⁰

4.2 The Retaliatory Arsenal: Structural Reforms

Should Democrats achieve a trifecta in 2026 or 2028, the following mechanisms are being prepared to “rig” the system in the opposite direction—or, as proponents argue, to “un-rig” it.

4.2.1 Admission of New States (DC and Puerto Rico)

The most potent tool in the Democratic arsenal is the admission of Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico as states.

• Strategic Impact: This would likely add four Senators (two from DC, two from PR) who would almost certainly caucus with the Democrats.³²

• Systemic Shift: The addition of four Democratic senators would permanently alter the balance of the Senate, neutralizing the structural advantage currently enjoyed by rural, white, Republican states.³⁴ It would make it mathematically nearly impossible for the current GOP coalition to hold a Senate majority.

• Status: This is no longer a fringe idea; it is a core plank of the Democratic platform, endorsed by party leadership and framed as a moral imperative of civil rights.³³

4.2.2 Judicial Expansion (Court Packing)

Given the Supreme Court’s role in validating Republican entrenchment (e.g., Rucho, Shelby County, the Texas map ruling), Democrats increasingly view the Court as an illegitimate partisan actor that must be neutralized.

• The Proposal: Expanding the Court from nine justices to thirteen (or more) to dilute the conservative supermajority.³¹

• The Logic: Proponents argue this is a necessary response to the “theft” of the Garland seat and the “hypocrisy” of the Barrett confirmation.³⁷

• The Barrier: This remains the most controversial tactic, with significant internal resistance from institutionalists. However, if the Court strikes down other retaliatory measures (like the Freedom to Vote Act), the pressure to pack the Court may become irresistible.

4.2.3 The Freedom to Vote Act

To counter state-level suppression and the USPS/Grace Period trap, Democrats have drafted the Freedom to Vote Act.³⁸

• Provisions: This legislation would federalize election administration, mandating 15 days of early voting, establishing automatic voter registration, making Election Day a holiday, and banning partisan gerrymandering.⁴⁰

• Retaliatory Effect: By overriding the specific mechanisms of the Republican “Framework” (e.g., grace period bans, strict ID laws), this act would likely enfranchise millions of voters who lean Democratic, effectively flooding the electorate and drowning out the GOP’s efficiency advantage.

5. Probability Assessment and Scenarios

Based on the synthesis of intelligence regarding administrative momentum, legal realities, and expert consensus, we assign the following probabilities to two topics.

5.1 Topic 2 Probability: The Republican Framework Success

Topic 2: The likelihood that Republicans will have no choice but to create a framework now that prevents Democrats from ever getting into power again.

Probability: 60% (Moderate-High Likelihood)

Justification:

1. Intent and Necessity: The Republican coalition faces an existential demographic crisis. Without structural intervention, their path to the presidency and House majority narrows annually.⁴¹ The “No Choice” narrative is internalized by party leadership, driving aggressive tactics.

2. Implementation Status: Unlike the Democratic plans, which are aspirational, the Republican framework is live. The USPS changes are in effect.¹¹ Schedule F is in effect.⁴² The Texas maps are law.¹³

3. Judicial alignment: The Supreme Court has signaled it will not intervene in “political questions” like gerrymandering or mid-decade redistricting, providing a permissive legal environment for this framework.⁴³

4. Bureaucratic Friction: Reversing these changes (e.g., restaffing the civil service after a Schedule F purge) takes years. Even if Democrats win in 2028, the “Deep State” created by Schedule F will obstruct their governance, potentially leading to a failed administration that returns the GOP to power in 2032.

5.2 Topic 1 Probability: The Democratic Retaliation Success

Topic 1: How likely it is that this Trump administration will be the last time Republicans are in power due to Democratic retaliation.

Probability: 35% (Moderate-Low Likelihood)

Justification:

1. The Senate Hurdle: The primary obstacle to Democratic retaliation is the US Senate. Even if Democrats win the popular vote by millions, the geography of the Senate (where Wyoming equals California) makes obtaining the 50 votes necessary to kill the filibuster and admit new states statistically improbable.³⁴

2. The Court Check: The current Supreme Court stands as a formidable barrier to Democratic structural reform. Any attempt to admit DC as a state would face immediate litigation (likely citing the 23rd Amendment or the Enclave Clause), and the current Court would likely strike it down.

3. Internal Division: The Democratic coalition is broader and more fractured. Moderate senators (the “Manchin/Sinema” archetypes of the future) are historically reluctant to engage in constitutional hardball.⁴⁴

4. Reactionary Risk: “Retaliation” often breeds “Counter-Retaliation.” If Democrats pack the Court, Republicans (via state legislatures) might invoke an Article V convention or engage in nullification, leading to a breakdown of the union rather than a stable Democratic hegemony.

5.3 The Third Variable: Democratic Breakdown

The most alarming statistic in this analysis is the 19.2% probability of democratic breakdown.¹ This suggests a nearly 1-in-5 chance that the conflict described above does not resolve through a “permanent majority” for either side, but through the collapse of the democratic mechanism itself—violence, secession, or the suspension of elections. The “spiral of silence” and the normalization of political violence ⁴⁵indicate that the system’s resilience is lower than at any point since the 1860s.

Table 2: Comparative Risk Analysis of Structural Strategies

6. Conclusion: The Crisis of 2026

The United States is currently navigating a period of terminal asymmetry. The Republican Party, driven by the imperative of demographic survival, has successfully deployed a framework of entrenchment that utilizes the granular machinery of the state—postmarks, census algorithms, and civil service classifications—to insulate its power from popular will. This framework is active, legal under current jurisprudence, and highly effective.

The Democratic Party, recognizing the existential threat, has psychologically crossed the Rubicon toward “retaliation.” The passage of Proposition 50 in California proves that the Democratic electorate is now willing to embrace the very tactics they once decried, provided they are framed as defensive measures.

However, the likelihoods favor the Republican framework (60%) over the Democratic retaliation (35%) simply because it is easier to break a system using executive power than to rebuild it using legislative power. The inertia of the American political structure favors the incumbent who is willing to push boundaries.

The 2026 midterm election will not merely be a contest for seats; it will be a stress test for the American experiment. If the Republican framework successfully suppresses the vote and delivers a House majority despite a popular vote loss, the pressure for Democratic “retaliation” will transform into pressure for “resistance”—moving the conflict from the halls of Congress to the streets, and significantly raising the probability of the 19.2% breakdown scenario. The “last time” Republicans are in power may not be because Democrats vote them out, but because the system that allowed for the peaceful transfer of power ceases to function entirely.

Detailed Strategic Breakdown of Research Material

The “Hastert Rule” and Legislative Control

A critical, often overlooked component of the Republican framework is the internal legislative discipline known as the Hastert Rule.⁴⁷ This informal rule dictates that the Speaker will not bring a bill to the floor unless it has the support of the “majority of the majority.”

• Relevance to Entrenchment: Even if Democrats manage to peel off a few moderate Republicans to pass remedial legislation (e.g., restoring USPS standards), the Hastert Rule ensures that the GOP leadership can block it. This structural feature of the House converts a slim majority into an absolute veto, reinforcing the “framework” against bipartisan erosion.

The “Density Paradox” and Economic Divergence

The analysis of the “Density Paradox” ⁴ is vital for understanding why Republicans feel they have “no choice.” The economic engines of the country (Knowledge Economy hubs) are overwhelmingly Democratic.

• Implication: Republicans represent the geography of the country, but Democrats represent the economy. This divergence fuels the Republican desire to cripple the “administrative state” (Schedule F) because that state often regulates the industries (energy, agriculture, manufacturing) that form the GOP base, while benefiting the urban centers. The attack on the bureaucracy is thus a proxy war between the rural and urban economies.

The “Spiral of Silence” and Public Acquiescence

Research suggests that a “spiral of silence” ⁴⁵ may be masking the true extent of public radicalization. As discourse coarsens and “constitutional hardball” becomes normalized, moderate voices self-censor. This suggests that the “check” of public opinion—the idea that voters will punish a party for overreaching—is broken. The electorate is locked into tribal camps where any action by “our” side is justified to stop “them.” This psychological reality is the fuel that powers both the Framework and the Retaliation.

Works cited

1. Threat Index - Protect Democracy, accessed January 2, 2026, https://protectdemocracy.org/threat-index/

2. ASYMMETRIC CONSTITUTIONAL HARDBALL - Columbia Law Review, accessed January 2, 2026, https://columbialawreview.org/content/asymmetric-constitutional-hardball/

3. Asymmetric Constitutional Hardball - Scholarship Archive, accessed January 2, 2026, https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3456&context=faculty_scholarship

4. America’s Democratic Party and the Crisis of American Democracy - Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung, accessed January 2, 2026, https://www.mpifg.de/1445519/hacker_max_planck_november_2025.pdf

5. Project 2025, Explained | American Civil Liberties Union, accessed January 2, 2026, https://www.aclu.org/project-2025-explained

6. Project 2025 - Wikipedia, accessed January 2, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025

7. Final Schedule F regulations to describe civil service protections as ‘unconstitutional overcorrections’ - Government Executive, accessed January 2, 2026, https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2025/11/final-schedule-f-regulations-describe-civil-service-protections-unconstitutional-overcorrections/409616/

8. Ensuring Continued Accountability in Federal Hiring - The White House, accessed January 2, 2026, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/10/ensuring-continued-accountability-in-federal-hiring/

9. Project 2025: The Plan To Seize Power by Gutting America’s System of Checks and Balances - Center for American Progress, accessed January 2, 2026, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/project-2025-the-plan-to-seize-power-by-gutting-americas-system-of-checks-and-balances/

10. Project 2025 Would Destroy the U.S. System of Checks and Balances and Create an Imperial Presidency - Center for American Progress, accessed January 2, 2026, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/project-2025-would-destroy-the-u-s-system-of-checks-and-balances-and-create-an-imperial-presidency/

11. USPS Postmark Rules Change: What You Need to Know - AARP, accessed January 2, 2026, https://www.aarp.org/government-elections/usps-postmark-changes/

12. Trump wants to change how the Census Bureau collects data | PBS News, accessed January 2, 2026, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-wants-to-change-how-the-census-bureau-collects-data

13. Redistricting in Texas ahead of the 2026 elections - Ballotpedia, accessed January 2, 2026, https://ballotpedia.org/Redistricting_in_Texas_ahead_of_the_2026_elections

14. Trump officials to send election observers to California and New Jersey - The Guardian, accessed January 2, 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/24/trump-election-observers-california-new-jersey

15. Rural Mail-In Ballots at Risk as Post Office Finalizes Changes to ..., accessed January 2, 2026, https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/rural-mail-in-ballots-at-risk-as-post-office-finalizes-changes-to-postmark-dates/

16. How much power does Donald Trump have to change the census and who is counted in it?, accessed January 2, 2026, https://www.politifact.com/article/2025/aug/08/trump-new-census-citizens-legal-residents/

17. Trump’s proposed census changes could have lasting effects beyond elections - Votebeat, accessed January 2, 2026, https://www.votebeat.org/2025/08/18/trump-census-changes-impact-data-redistricting/

18. Don’t Debase the Census | Brennan Center for Justice, accessed January 2, 2026, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/dont-debase-census

19. ‘Merry Christmas!’ Declares Trump Moments After Threat to Destroy Broadcasters Who Air Criticism of Him | Common Dreams, accessed January 2, 2026, https://www.commondreams.org/news/trump-threatens-broadcast-licenses

20. Trump says broadcast licenses should be terminated if networks are “almost 100% Negative” about him - CBS News, accessed January 2, 2026, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-broadcast-licenses-terminated-100-negative/

21. Explainer: Understanding the mid-decade redistricting push in Texas, accessed January 2, 2026, https://www.hks.harvard.edu/faculty-research/policy-topics/politics/explainer-understanding-mid-decade-redistricting-push-texas

22. Congress Bill Spotlight: Anti-Rigging Act, Banning Mid-Decade Redistricting As Texas and California Are Attempting - The Fulcrum, accessed January 2, 2026, https://thefulcrum.us/governance-legislation/mid-decade-redistricting

23. How the Texas gerrymandering battle could impact the midterms - Brookings Institution, accessed January 2, 2026, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-the-texas-gerrymandering-battle-could-impact-the-midterms/

24. Texas Redistricting, accessed January 2, 2026, https://redistricting.capitol.texas.gov/

25. Proposition 50 Arguments and Rebuttals | Official Voter Information Guide | California Secretary of State, accessed January 2, 2026, https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/proposition/50/arguments-rebuttals.htm

26. California Proposition 50: Live 2025 voting results : NPR, accessed January 2, 2026, https://apps.npr.org/2025-election-results/california.html

27. 2025 California Proposition 50 - Wikipedia, accessed January 2, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_California_Proposition_50

28. As Texas pushes redistricting plan to add 5 GOP House seats before 2026 elections, other states may follow - CBS News, accessed January 2, 2026, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-redistricting-plan-california-new-york-illinois-indiana/

29. Stabilizing the US Judiciary by Threatening to Pack It - Verfassungsblog, accessed January 2, 2026, https://verfassungsblog.de/stabilizing-the-us-judiciary-by-threatening-to-pack-it/

30. Recap: “Constitutional Hardball” — Mark Tushnet | University of Miami Law Review, accessed January 2, 2026, https://lawreview.law.miami.edu/recap-constitutional-hardball-mark-tushnet/

31. Why Democrats should rig the Senate and pack the Supreme Court., accessed January 2, 2026, https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/why-democrats-should-rig-the-senate-and-pack-the-supreme-court.html

32. Carville calls on Democrats to ‘unilaterally’ pack Supreme Court, create new blue states ‘to save democracy’ - Fox News, accessed January 2, 2026, https://www.foxnews.com/media/carville-calls-democrats-unilaterally-pack-supreme-court-create-new-blue-states-to-save-democracy

33. Statehood | DC Democratic Party, accessed January 2, 2026, https://www.dcdemocraticparty.org/statehoodold

34. The Impact of the Filibuster on Federal Policymaking - Center for American Progress, accessed January 2, 2026, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/impact-filibuster-federal-policymaking/

35. Statehood | DC Democratic Party, accessed January 2, 2026, https://www.dcdemocraticparty.org/statehood

36. Capito, Colleagues Introduce Constitutional Amendment to Prevent Democrats from Court Packing the Supreme Court, accessed January 2, 2026, https://www.capito.senate.gov/news/press-releases/capito-colleagues-introduce-constitutional-amendment-to-prevent-democrats-from-court-packing-the-supreme-court

37. Court-Packing On the Table in the United States? - Verfassungsblog, accessed January 2, 2026, https://verfassungsblog.de/court-packing-on-the-table-in-the-united-states/

38. Text - H.R.155 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): Let America Vote Act, accessed January 2, 2026, https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/155/text/ih

39. Pass the Freedom to Vote Act: How Elections Would Look Different This Year and in the Future, accessed January 2, 2026, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/pass-the-freedom-to-vote-act-how-elections-would-look-different-this-year-and-in-the-future/

40. What the Freedom to Vote Act Would Do | Brennan Center for Justice, accessed January 2, 2026, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/freedom-vote-act

41. Renewing the Democratic Party | Third Way, accessed January 2, 2026, https://www.thirdway.org/report/renewing-the-democratic-party

42. Memo on January 2026 Pay Adjustments - OPM, accessed January 2, 2026, https://www.opm.gov/chcoc/latest-memos/january-2026-pay-adjustments.pdf

43. Midcycle redistricting deepens America’s divide, accessed January 2, 2026, https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/midcycle-redistricting-deepens-americas-divide

44. Electoral Dynamics of Constitutional Hardball: Insights Into Countering Democratic Backsliding - UC Irvine, accessed January 2, 2026, https://escholarship.org/content/qt6jv4h269/qt6jv4h269.pdf

45. What happens next? A tour of social scientists’ predictions for the Trump presidency, accessed January 2, 2026, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/tour-of-trump-predictions/

46. Understanding democratic decline in the United States - Brookings Institution, accessed January 2, 2026, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/understanding-democratic-decline-in-the-united-states/

47. The Hastert Rule - Congressional Institute, accessed January 2, 2026, https://www.congressionalinstitute.org/2013/07/17/the-hastert-rule/