Rose Bialk/The Mossy Log
In 1812, a Massachusetts governor by the name of Elbridge Gerry signed a law redistricting the state’s electoral districts to benefit his party. The new boundaries were so oddly shaped that critics said one district looked like a salamander. A political cartoon in the Boston Gazette popularized the portmanteau “Gerry-mander,” which quickly became the term for the practice of manipulating electoral maps for political advantage.
More specifically, the term gerrymandering is used to describe the process of drawing congressional districts in ways that either divide or concentrate certain groups of voters to favor one party. This allows politicians to choose their voters, instead of voters choosing their politicians, creating a Congress that reflects partisan strategy more than the actual will of the electorate.
This problem makes the government fundamentally unrepresentative of the American people — and it is only getting worse. Just this year, Texas, California and other states have started the process of maneuvering toward more gerrymandered districts.
Gerrymandering has already been creating less-representative electoral races. An April analysis from FairVote, a nonpartisan organization centered on advocating for proportional representation and ranked choice voting, argued that more than a year out from Election Day 2026, 81% of House seats are already decided, highlighting a lack of competition in congressional elections and a need for election reform. According to their research, just 9% of 435 House races will truly be competitive elections where either candidate could realistically win. This assessment is informed by the 2024 House elections where a whopping 84% of House races were decided by 10 percentage points or more, meaning candidates won their races by wide margins.
These figures are just the latest in a general trend towards less representation in America. In 1998, nearly 40% of congressional seats were competitive. In the decades since, this number has been whittled away. The reasons are many, but can be simplified down into a growing partisan divide in America. More partisanship means less people are willing to share power with the other side, which means less fairness in elections to ensure victory for the side in power.
This backslide has precedent. In 2013, the Supreme Court’s Shelby County v. Holder’s decision only exacerbated this process. The Voting Rights Act (VRA) had required localities with a history of discrimination to receive federal approval before making any changes to their voting laws. But the Supreme Court found that was unconstitutional. Doing away with this provision paved the way for states to undo years of voter protections. Within minutes of the decision’s announcement, Texas was calling for changes to the state’s voting law.
While the VRA as a piece of legislation is focused on preventing race-based gerrymandering, undoing these laws arguably results in partisan gerrymandering due to the historic voting patterns of these minority districts throughout the South. Undoing the VRA, which the Supreme Court seems to be doing, would result in the loss of up to 19 democratic districts, all of which are in the South. So while changes to the VRA might seem to be about race, they also impact partisan outcomes.
In 2012, the year before the Shelby decision, 27% districts were competitive — a decline from the 40% in 1998 — but still a significant percentage of House districts. In 2020, just seven years after the Shelby decision, that number had decreased to 17%.
The 2019 decision Rucho vs. Common Cause added to this withering away of gerrymandering restrictions by effectively legalizing partisan gerrymandering. The ruling determined that while partisan gerrymandering may be unfair, it is a “political question” that federal courts cannot resolve, leaving it up to states and Congress to address. With inaction from Congress and indifference from the states, partisan gerrymandering marched on unfettered.
Today, the Supreme Court — an undemocratic institution in its own right — stands poised to gut many of the other key provisions of the VRA. Namely, the court could end the legal requirement of states to provide race based districts — effectively eliminating many majority Black districts across the country and especially in the South.
Earlier this year, Texas underwent so-called mid-decade redistricting. This means that as opposed to the normal redistricting, which takes place every 10 years, Texas is redrawing maps in the middle of the ten year period.
The new maps would increase the number of Republican districts from 25 to 30. It should be noted that the current Texas map is already considered biased to begin with. Such a shift could tilt the balance of power in Washington, D.C. strongly towards Republicans, especially when considering how narrow control of the House already is.
The gutting of the VRA that the Supreme Court seems poised to do could enhance this already jarring process. Without the VRA, states like Georgia and Florida could erase many democratic districts all together, despite being relatively evenly split states.
In response, Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom asked voters to approve Proposition 50, giving California the ability to do mid-decade redistricting, just as Texas has. Newsom claims the plan is needed to save democracy – the only way for Democrats to compete for the House — but Newsom’s plan disenfranchises voters all the same.
If you are a democrat, you may argue that Newsom’s gerrymandering is both just and ethical, that it is needed to preserve democracy. But is it any different than if a red state did the same thing? Texas would contend that their gerrymandering is a response to Illinois gerrymandering. Illinois would then counter that its gerrymandering is a response to Ohio, or North Carolina, or many other states. These states would then say New Mexico, or Massachusetts gerrymandered before they did, and so on and so on. Turtles all the way down.
In saying this, I do not mean to suggest that I think this issue can, nor should, be equally attributed to both sides. Of the 16 states given a “poor” rating on Princeton University’s redistricting report cards, 13 were states won by Donald Trump in 2024.
There are those who may argue that gerrymandering has been too long a tool of Republicans, that if they do it, Democrats should fight fire with fire. This stance, while understandable, misses something entirely. If all states across America draw their districts to benefit one party, Republicans, by virtue of controlling the levers of power in more states, will end up with the advantage. The decision to gerrymander a state like California might even encourage some red states to further gerrymander in response, setting off an arms race.
At one time, California was part of a trend toward nonpartisan, independent redistricting commissions. The passage of Proposition 50 sets that progress aside. As more blue and red states follow suit, it may only be a matter of time until America is no longer a representative democracy at all.
If the amount of competitive house seats has fallen over 20% in the decades since 1998, what is to say there will be competitive House races at all in 10 years, let alone 20.
As I look down the long road of history, I see a country that has one party in the majority in perpetuity even though elections are frequently held and contested.
I think it is far more likely that this whittling away of competitive elections is how democracy will die in the United States. Comparisons have been drawn between the direction of the United States and fascist dictatorships, but the path I see is more akin to Orban’s Hungary.
Under Viktor Orbán, Hungary’s democracy has been hollowed out from within. Since 2010, his Fidesz party has rewritten election laws, redrawn districts and stacked courts to secure permanent power. In Hungary, elections still occur, but outcomes are largely predetermined, a democracy in name only.
The United States is not yet Hungary, but as gerrymandering deepens and competitive races vanish, it risks following a similar path: one where elections continue, but true choice disappears. If democracy is a system where the party in power can lose elections, where are we headed?
About the Author
