This silly term, “gerrymandering,” has garnered a lot of media hype lately. You probably have a general knowledge of it, but you need to become very familiar with it. Gerrymandering will play a significant role in the mid-term elections next year and in the 2028 general election. It is legal, but unfair, and it may determine the next House of Representatives majority as well as the next president.
The word gerrymandering originates from Elbridge Gerry, Massachusetts governor from 1810 to1812. He earlier signed the Declaration of Independence. At the end of his term as governor, he approved a political district so strangely shaped, many thought it resembled a salamander. Later the word, “gerrymander,” became a derisive word describing the manipulating of electoral boundaries to get candidates of a particular party elected.
State districts for our national House of Representatives congressmen and congresswomen are divided into areas of nearly equal population. Presently, each district has around 760,000 people. Districts are based on total population, including non-citizens, rather than the number of voters (yes, even illegal immigrants are part of the count). These districts are subject to redrawing or redistricting of boundaries after each 10-year census. The boundaries are usually adjusted due to population growth, decline, and shifts based on the new census. Occasionally, districts will be eleminated in one state and added in another. It’s all in the Constitution. Total number of districts was set by Congress at the current 435 in 1913. Redistricting does not involve the two-per-state Senate.
This redistricting is normal and fair as long as it is done without partisan bias. However, gerrymandering occurs when the practice is manipulated for partisan gain. How does that happen? Well, the partisan majority legislature may get creative in how they draw the lines. One method is called “cracking.” Almost every state will have areas of consentrated Republicans and areas of consentrated Democrats. For instance, states may often have large inner-city populations of Democrats while outlying suburbs and rural areas have a Republican majority. A majority Republican legislature can draw boundaries in which the inner cities are divided up with a small portion combined with a large rural area. That gives Republicans a majority in the district and, therefore, virtually guarantees a Republican congressman. Conversely, a majority Democratic legislature can draw boundaries that encapsulate a large city population of Democrats and smaller population of rural Republicans for an almost sure Democratic congressman. Another method is called “packing” where large groups of opposition voters are drawn into one district leaving all other districts to the favored party. When gerrymandering occurs, the result is districts with very odd shapes and sizes. All that is necessary is that each district has close to the national average district population.
Why would the Constitution contain a process that is inherently unfair? The founding fathers were assuming the post-census adjustments would be minor and bipartisan and only to accommodate small population changes. I doubt they ever imagined gerrymandering. Both Republicans and Democrats have been using this loophole to their advantage for decades. My own state of Arkansas has sprawling, gerrymandered districts designed to essentially guarantee more Republicans than Democrats in every district, even though the state’s voters are about 35 percent Democrat.
The legality of gerrymandering was challenged in the Supreme Court in 2019. The court ruled that what states did in their redistricting was beyond the reach of federal courts. Only redistricting for racial purposes is prohibited by the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Therefore, each state legislature still determines what is allowable and not allowable redistricting in its own state.
Texas’ legislature recently passed a second redistricting plan since the 2020 census which they believe will gain them five Republican congressional seats in the 2026 and 2028 elections. The move has caused an outcry from several Democratic majority states. Texas can do this because the Constitution calls for redistricting after each census, but doesn’t specifically prohibit redistricting between censuses. The California governor immediately countered the Texas move by announcing a redistricting effort that would create five new Democratic seats. Redistricting midpoint in the census cycle is rare and is drawing the angst of some leaders of both parties.
California legislature approved an independent redistricting commission in 2008 to reduce partisan interference. So, if California follows through on their threat to counter the Texas move, it will require a statewide vote to reverse the 2008 law. Missouri is also considering midterm redistricting. Other states, particularly Democratic states, are studying the option closely. We may see a gerrymandering war across America over the next several months.
Although I applaud the current Supreme Court for most of their decisions, I believe they were wrong in not ruling against gerrymandering. The practice can impact federal congressional elections. Only federal courts can rein in the unfair process. The skewing of U.S. congressional seats based on manipulated state congressional districts just doesn’t pass the smell test for fair elections in my opinion. So far, the practice has benefited my party in my state, but, in all fairness, it opposes fairness. The Supreme Court or the U.S. House of Representative should ensure that all states form a bipartisan, independent redistricting authority to make any necessary electoral district adjustments after each ten-year census. Such authority should be only activated after each census with no adjustments permitted between census cycles. We should achieve a level redistricting playing field across America. As Charlie Kirk would say, “Prove me wrong.”