THE GERRYMANDERING WAR IS BAD FOR DEMOCRACY

Following each national census, there is a process whereby states redraw the boundaries of congressional and state legislative districts to reflect population changes. This process, redistricting, provides the opportunity to create maps that elect legislative bodies that fairly represent the voters in a community. In the words of our second President John Adams, redistricting creates an “exact portrait, a miniature” of the people as a whole.

What is gerrymandering? This derogatory term originated in 1812 from a political cartoon mocking a strangely shaped voting district created by Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry. Gerry signed a bill that rearranged district lines to benefit his political party. A reporter observed that one map in Essex County “looked like a monster.” He combined "Gerry" with "salamander" to create "Gerry-mander.”

Redistricting was designed as a non-partisan, once-a -decade effort, to fairly redraw congressional maps as populations change. The process becomes partisan gerrymandering when political parties in control of state legislatures (usually Republican) seek to rig congressional maps.

According to the Brennan Center for Justice, “Although gerrymandering has long been a problem in the United States, the redistricting cycle after the 2020 census was the first since the Supreme Court’s 2019 ruling (Rucho v. Common Cause) that says state gerrymandered maps cannot be challenged in federal court. Since then, Americans have seen gerrymandering ramped up to unprecedented levels — and the worst may be yet to come.”

Gerrymandering procedures have changed dramatically since our founding. Today, computer algorithms and detailed data about voters’ political preferences allow partisan map-drawers to submit partisan districts with surgical precision. These laser-focused computer-generated options can all but guarantee that a former competitive district will now vote Republican.

The excellent article published by the Brennan Center in August of 2025, Gerrymandering Explained, summarizes how the practice adversely impacts democracy. First, partisan gerrymandering is undemocratic. Political leaders choose voters instead of voters choosing elected officials. Electoral outcomes are virtually guaranteed by the creation of partisan maps. In extreme cases, the party drawing the maps may even be able to win a majority of its state seats even though it wins only a minority of the vote.

Second, gerrymandering impacts the national balance of power. After the 2020 census, Republicans controlled the redistricting process in more states than Democrats, and aggressively used this advantage. By Brennan Center’s estimates, maps used in the 2024 election had on average a net 16 fewer Democratic or Democratic-leaning districts than maps that complied with anti-gerrymandering standards adopted in some states.  Recent district maps in Texas, Florida, and North Carolina were especially subject to abuse. 

Third, while gerrymandering affects all Americans, some of its most significant costs are borne by communities of color. Targeting the political power of minority communities is often a key goal of partisan gerrymandering. Residential segregation and racially polarized voting patterns in the southern states means that “packing” communities of color into Black districts is an effective partisan tool. It ensures that white Republican districts, with fewer Blacks, are created elsewhere in the state.

For decades, the 1965 Voting Rights Act was a hugely successful shield against schemes that limit or dilute the voting power of communities with a history of being marginalized. Over the years, the act has led to the election of hundreds of federal, state, and local candidates of color in states with a history of discrimination.

This all changed in April, when the Supreme Court’s conservative majority struck down a Louisiana congressional map that created a second majority-Black voting district, calling it unconstitutional. (The case was permitted to be heard in federal court because it was based on the act and not on state gerrymandering.) This decision limits the ability to use race as a factor to ensure minority representation. It allows for the erasure of longstanding black congressional districts, particularly in the South.

This “Louisiana Map Ruling” gutted important provisions in the Voting Rights Act and reignited the gerrymandering wars. Republicans can now “pack” minority districts with Black voters and eliminate competitive majority-minority districts if it helps their party.

Immediately after the ruling, Republican governors in Alabama and Tennessee called lawmakers into special sessions to draw new congressional districts. Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry suspended the already underway primary elections for house seats to redraw congressional maps. Similar actions in South Carolina, Virginia, and Florida are expected. More Republican states will enact more “gerrymanders.” Their partisan efforts to control the House of Representatives will go further than ever before.

In another setback for Democrats, on May 8, the Virginia Supreme Court struck down a congressional map.  The map, recently approved by voters, allowed Democrats to gain as many as four House seats in the upcoming midterms.

What does all this mean for Pennsylvania? Thankfully, our commonwealth will not take part in the national rush to redraw congressional maps. For once, we are “lucky” that Pennsylvania has divided government with a governor that does not favor gerrymandering. In 2022, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was forced to step in and chose a representative congressional map after lawmakers deadlocked.

Nationally, gerrymandering in this 2026 midterm election year will reach historic levels of disruption. It will be characterized by unprecedented "mid-decade" redrawing of maps to gain partisan political control.

These actions by Republicans to remain in power, ignore the preferences of voters and prevent fair elections.