The political story of late summer is Donald Trump’s demand that Texas redraw its congressional districts in brazenly gerrymandered fashion, which the president may believe is his best chance to protect Republicans’ razor-thin House majority in 2026.

He knows from experience. Having lost the House majority in 2018 during his first term, chances for carrying out the rest of his second-term agenda will otherwise be nil.

Republicans are rushing to carry out Trump’s agenda in whatever way they might be able to get away with. Naturally, Democrats are responding that they’ll attempt to do the same thing in “blue” states they control.

These are signs of full-blown political combat, yet it makes no sense. No one will win, and voters will lose. It’s not too late to stop the madness.

One Republican congressman from California, Kevin Kiley — serving his second term and far from a household name — understands this. He’s called on Speaker Mike Johnson and Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries to call a truce, and is introducing legislation to prevent further redistricting before the 2030 census.

The Constitution requires that House districts be redrawn after each census, and all 50 states did so for the 2022 election. There’s no earthly reason to do it again. As Kiley put it, “It’s not a good thing for either Democrats or Republicans. It’s certainly not a good thing for the country.”

Breaking up districts after just four years answers no need and creates further disruption for beleaguered voters. The new maps will depart even further from any semblance of fair redistricting.

Believe it or not, many Americans don’t know who represents them in Congress, and it usually takes a term or two for representatives and voters to become familiar with each other. It’s hard enough to encourage rational political discussion without creating confusion about who’s who.

Maine offers a national model for ending this political warfare. Its constitutional provisions requiring two-thirds approval for redistricting — with judicial intervention only if the parties fail to agree — is superior to the recent trend toward “independent” redistricting commissions.

Commissions have poor track records, not necessarily because of their own failings, but because redistricting is a quintessentially political process that needs to be controlled, not suppressed. Maine does that.

Yet even Maine could do better. Over the years, I’ve found that many voters can name either their state senator or representative, but not both.

That’s because House and Senate redistricting is done separately, and the resulting districts have no coherent relationship. Other states do it differently, requiring House districts to fit within the larger Senate districts.

This reform would benefit Maine voters, given the wide variance between House districts (151) and Senate districts (35). Some states have only twice as many House as Senate districts.

To do this, we’d have to change the state constitution. Years ago, a 99-member House and 33-member Senate garnered support, but not enough to be enacted. This would yield three House districts for each Senate district. One reason the plan failed was that it seemed too radical to House members. A more practical plan would match a 128-member House with a 32-member Senate.

The constitutional amendment to do so would affect only the House, whose numbers are fixed. The Senate, interestingly, can vary from 31 to 35 members. The provision reflects a compromise reached when Maine switched from county to district representation to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s Baker v. Carr decision mandating “one person, one vote.”

Not only would voters more easily identify their legislators, it would lead to more competitive elections as House members attempt to move to the Senate. We’re not in the consensus-building mode at the moment, but as we consider possibilities beyond 2026, it’s worth pondering.

*