Gerrymandering—Do All Votes Count?

The American midterm elections are coming up in less than a year. The stakes are high, as they determine which party will have control of the House and Senate for the next two years, control that could determine President Donald Trump’s power during his final two years in office. Will his agenda pass through Congress unabated, or will he face challenges from a Democratic Congress? As of right now, the Republican Party looks more likely to win the Senate, while the Democratic Party appears more likely to win the House of Representatives. However, that may soon change. California threatened to redistrict as well to counteract Texas’ plan, creating a “redistricting war”.

Each state’s leaders want to redraw as many of their districts as possible to add seats for their party in the House, a practice known as gerrymandering. While both sides may think gerrymandering is good, or at least necessary, there are much fairer solutions. Instead of turning to those solutions, though, politicians have defaulted to gerrymandering, which threatens the integrity of our upcoming elections. Gerrymandering is the process of changing boundaries of political districts to gain a political advantage. In 1812, Massachusetts Governor Eldridge Gerry signed a bill into law to redistrict Massachusetts’ state Senate districts, creating unfair districts, one of which resembled a salamander—hence the name “gerrymander.” Gerrymandered districts can be much worse than Gerry’s salamander, though, like Salt Lake City’s division into four districts to avoid a single Democratic district or a district that splits six counties to access small Democratic areas to avoid a Republican district that would otherwise exist. While the gerrymandering occurring right now isn’t that shocking, it still has the potential to flip the House. Texas’ new redistricting plan flips five formerly Democratic seats to Republicans. Furthermore, they are using a technique called durable majority gerrymandering: not only are more Texas districts Republican, each district is more R e p u b l i c a n . Even if Democrats get 5 percentage points more of the vote in 2026 than in 2024, Republicans will still hold at least four of their new seats—this technique ensures that they stay safe from swings in voting. In response, California has threatened its own gerrymanders, meaning America now finds itself in the middle of a redistricting war with the potential to change Congress for a long time. Even if this sudden burst of gerrymandering ends up balancing out, with each party shifting a similar amount of districts to their side, it still poses vast threats to the United States—the result of one election isn’t the main issue here. As shown by techniques such as durable majority gerrymandering, gerrymandering greatly limits voter representation. By creating a system in which districts are generally decided by large margins, politicians are making each vote count less. After all, during presidential election years, a big topic of conversation can often be about how important it is to vote in swing states, which makes sense—after all, in a state decided by just a few thousand votes, every vote truly counts. The same applies for swing districts, but with all of this gerrymandering, the amount of swing districts is decreasing. Each voter will feel less important, so a drop in voter turnout is also likely. However, some specific voters are being targeted the most. Recently, a twist in the redistricting war occurred that threatens to further undermine voter representation, especially for minorities. Section 2 of “ ” “As shown by techniques such as durable majority gerrymandering, gerrymandering greatly limits voter representation.” the Voting Rights act has long been interpreted to mandate creation of majority-minority districts, districts where the majority of voters are part of a minority group. These districts allow minority groups to elect “their own” officials—officials who minorities feel represent them well. However, on October 15th, the Supreme Court heard a case about whether Section 2 should be struck down. They will not release their decision until next summer, but that may still leave time for some last-minute gerrymandering. This gerrymandering would favor Republicans much more than Democrats, as 122 out of 148 majority-minority districts are currently held by a Democrat. In fact, this rule could allow Republican states in the Southeast to shift up to a dozen seats in their favor, leading to a potential scenario where Democrats could need to win the House popular vote by as many as five percentage points in order to get a majority (which could be a narrow 218217).

However, despite gerrymandering having been a prominent issue for decades, no problem with this scope has emerged: why? Before this Supreme Court case, there were two factors that balanced each other out, preventing one party from gerrymandering significantly more than the other. Many Democratic states have state laws restricting gerrymandering, and Republican states are generally bound by Section 2. If one side has less restriction, they will naturally gerrymander more to gain a political advantage, creating a lopsided voting system that gives them too much power. Clearly, gerrymandering is a detriment to the American political system, and we need a solution. However, a straight-up ban won’t work—states must be redistricted every ten years with each new census, creating potential for corruption. One common proposed solution is the creation of I n d e - pendent Redistricting Commissions (IRCs). IRCs are commissions, fully separate from state lawmakers, that draw a state’s districts. They generally stick to strict guidelines to ensure a nonpartisan redistricting process, attempting to avoid what is happening right now—gerrymandering. That is exactly why IRCs are needed; they redistrict states so that the party that gets more votes is more likely to win the House, the fairest possible outcome. Also, without durable majority gerrymandering, more House seats will be closely contested, allowing for bigger swings in representatives from each party and ensuring that one party does not consolidate major power for a long time. Admittedly, the party with the power to gerrymander more than the other, currently the Republicans, will likely not agree to the implementation of IRCs, wanting to hold on to their power, but at a time when neither party has a clear advantage, IRCs are a realistic p o s s i b i l i ty— and a beneficial one. G e r - r y m a n d e r i n g threatens our d e m o c r a c y . If one political party gets too much power, they will use it and take control of the American political system, denying voters their representation and denying people with differing views a chance. For example, removal of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act could effectively hand the House to Republicans. However, if our politicians can get their act together and band together to form IRCs, preventing anybody from gaining an unfair advantage, the justice of the American districting system can be preserved. “This gerrymandering would favor Republicans much more than Democrats, as 122 out of 148 majority-minority districts are currently held by a Democrat.”