Redistricting and Gerrymandering: How Electoral Maps Shape Democracy

Last updated 3 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

Every ten years, America redraws its electoral map. These aren’t just lines on paper—they determine who represents you in Congress, who sits in your state legislature, and whose voices get heard in the halls of power.

This process, called redistricting, is supposed to be fair and neutral. But too often, it becomes gerrymandering—the deliberate manipulation of district lines to rig elections and silence voters.

The difference matters enormously. Fair redistricting ensures every vote counts equally. Gerrymandering lets politicians choose their voters instead of voters choosing their politicians. Understanding both processes is essential for protecting democratic representation.

The way these lines are drawn affects who gets heard by elected officials, whose interests are prioritized in policymaking, and ultimately, who can win elections. The inherent tension lies in the fact that the necessary act of redistricting, designed to ensure fairness, also presents an opportunity for those in power to manipulate outcomes for their benefit.

Feature	Redistricting	Gerrymandering
Purpose	Adjust boundaries to reflect population changes and ensure equal representation	Manipulate boundaries for unfair electoral advantage
Legality	Legal and constitutionally mandated	Often legal if partisan, but can violate Voting Rights Act
Primary Goal	Equal representation (“one person, one vote”)	Entrench one party or group in power
Democratic Impact	Ensures fair representation of population	Creates predetermined outcomes and voter disenfranchisement

What Is Redistricting?

The Essential Process

Redistricting is the fundamental process of redrawing electoral district boundaries from which public officials are elected. This applies to U.S. House of Representatives seats, state legislative bodies like state senates and assemblies, and often extends to local government positions such as city council members or county commissioners.

A defining characteristic of redistricting is its regularity—it typically occurs every ten years, following the release of new data from the U.S. Decennial Census.

The primary purpose of this decennial redrawing is ensuring electoral districts within a state contain roughly equal numbers of people. This adherence to population equality is critical for upholding the democratic principle that every citizen’s vote should carry similar weight in the political process.

As populations grow, shrink, or shift geographically over a decade, district boundaries must be adjusted to maintain this balance. Without such adjustments, some districts would become significantly more populous than others, leading to voting power dilution for individuals in larger districts and overrepresentation of those in smaller ones.

Redistricting, therefore, is not merely a technical exercise but a vital mechanism for operationalizing democratic representation and ensuring governing bodies remain responsive to the nation’s evolving demographic landscape.

Different from Apportionment

It’s important to distinguish redistricting from apportionment. Apportionment is the process, also occurring after each decennial census, by which the 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives are divided among the 50 states based on their respective populations.

Essentially, apportionment determines how many congressional seats each state is entitled to. Redistricting is the subsequent process within each state of drawing the actual geographical boundaries for those allocated congressional districts, as well as for state legislative districts.

While apportionment sets the number of representatives, redistricting defines the constituencies they represent.

The seemingly routine task of redrawing these lines carries immense weight, as it directly influences political power, resource allocation, and the overall fairness of the electoral system, making it a high-stakes endeavor even when conducted with the best intentions.

Why Redistricting Is Necessary

The “One Person, One Vote” Principle

The necessity of redistricting is rooted in fundamental constitutional principles, most notably the “one person, one vote” doctrine. This doctrine, primarily derived from the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, mandates that electoral districts within a state must be substantially equal in population.

The U.S. Constitution, in Article I, Section 2, also requires that congressional representatives be apportioned among the states according to their respective populations.

The “one person, one vote” principle was solidified through a series of landmark Supreme Court cases in the 1960s, which dramatically reshaped the landscape of American democracy.

Baker v. Carr (1962): Opening the Courthouse Doors

This pivotal ruling established that challenges to the apportionment of state legislative districts were justiciable in federal court. Prior to Baker, courts had often considered such matters to be “political questions” outside their jurisdiction.

By opening the courthouse doors, Baker v. Carr paved the way for judicial review of redistricting plans and became a critical tool for ensuring fair representation.

The case arose from Tennessee, where legislative districts had not been redrawn since 1901, despite significant population shifts from rural to urban areas, leading to severe malapportionment. The Court held that the denial of equal protection due to such malapportionment was an issue federal courts could address.

Reynolds v. Sims (1964): Legislators Represent People, Not Trees

Building directly on Baker, the Supreme Court in Reynolds v. Sims explicitly established the “one person, one vote” standard for state legislative districts.

The Court declared that “legislators represent people, not trees or acres” and that the Equal Protection Clause requires that seats in both houses of a bicameral state legislature be apportioned on a population basis. This meant that districts must be drawn to be as nearly equal in population as practicable, ensuring that each citizen’s vote has substantially equal weight.

Wesberry v. Sanders (1964): Extending the Principle to Congress

In the same year as Reynolds, the Court extended the “one person, one vote” principle to U.S. congressional districts in Wesberry v. Sanders. The Court found that the phrase “chosen by the People of the several States” in Article I, Section 2, means that “as nearly as is practicable one man’s vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another’s.”

These rulings were revolutionary, fundamentally shifting political power from historically overrepresented rural areas to rapidly growing urban and suburban centers. They affirmed the judiciary’s role in interpreting and enforcing constitutional principles of equality, even when such enforcement involves intervening in processes traditionally viewed as purely political.

This judicial activism was crucial for establishing fair population standards and remains the bedrock against which all redistricting plans are first measured.

Population Standards Today

The standards for population equality differ slightly based on the type of district:

Congressional Districts: The standard is extremely strict. Districts must be “as nearly equal in population as practicable,” which in practice means they must be almost exactly equal, with deviations often limited to a single person.

State and Local Legislative Districts: The standard is “substantially equal” population. Generally, a total deviation of up to 10% between the most populated and least populated districts in a plan is considered constitutionally permissible, although this is not a rigid line. Some states have adopted even stricter population equality standards for their own legislative districts through their state constitutions or laws.

The Census Foundation

The Constitutional Mandate

The entire redistricting process is fundamentally tied to the U.S. Decennial Census. Mandated by Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, the U.S. Census Bureau conducts a comprehensive count of the nation’s population every ten years.

This count provides the raw data upon which apportionment and redistricting decisions are based. The Census Bureau furnishes states with highly detailed population counts, broken down to the “census block” level—the smallest geographic unit for which census data are tabulated.

These census blocks serve as the fundamental building blocks for mapmakers constructing new district boundaries.

Legal Requirements for Census Data

A federal law, Public Law 94-171, enacted in 1975, requires the Census Bureau to provide population data specifically tailored for redistricting to state officials. This data, often referred to as the “P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data File,” is typically delivered by April 1st of the year following the census.

However, unforeseen circumstances can cause delays. The 2020 data, for instance, was not released until August 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, compressing the timeline for states to complete their redistricting processes.

Who Gets Counted

For the purpose of apportioning congressional seats among the states, the count includes the total number of people residing in each state, encompassing children, non-citizens, and others who may not be eligible to vote.

This practice ensures that representation in the House of Representatives is based on the total population, reflecting the constitutional mandate for an “actual Enumeration.”

There have been political controversies surrounding attempts to exclude certain populations, such as undocumented immigrants, from this count, highlighting the political stakes involved even in the data collection phase.

The Redistricting Data Program

The Census Bureau’s Redistricting Data Program facilitates data transfer and collaboration with states. This program allows states to define specific small geographic areas for which they need population totals.

For the upcoming 2030 Census, the program includes several phases:

Block Boundary Suggestion Project (BBSP): States can suggest features like power lines or streams to be used as census block boundaries to create more meaningful data for their specific redistricting needs.

Voting District Project (VTDP): Allows states to submit their voting district boundaries for tabulation.

Critical Importance of Accurate Data

The accuracy and timely delivery of census data are paramount. Any delays or significant inaccuracies in the census count can have cascading negative effects on states’ abilities to draw fair and legally compliant maps within their own constitutional or statutory deadlines.

Such issues can compress the time available for map drawing, public input, and legal review, potentially leading to rushed processes and less than optimal, or even flawed, district plans.

Furthermore, the seemingly neutral and technical process of collecting and disseminating census data is deeply intertwined with political power and representation. Debates over funding for the Census Bureau, methods for ensuring an accurate count of historically undercounted populations, and the definitions of who is counted where all underscore that the foundation of redistricting itself can be a site of political contention.

The issue of “prison gerrymandering,” where incarcerated individuals are counted at the correctional facility rather than their home address, exemplifies these concerns. This practice can artificially inflate the population and political power of districts containing prisons while diluting the representation of prisoners’ home communities.

Who Draws the Lines?

There is no single, federally mandated process for who is responsible for drawing electoral district lines. This authority primarily rests with individual states, creating a variety of models with different implications for partisan influence and public accountability.

State Legislatures: The Most Common Model

In the majority of states, the state legislature itself holds the primary responsibility for drawing both state legislative and U.S. congressional district lines. Typically, new maps are passed as regular legislation, meaning they must be approved by both legislative chambers and are often subject to a veto by the governor.

Approximately 34 state legislatures control their own district lines, and 39 control congressional lines in their state (including states with only one congressional district). In some states, like North Carolina, the governor has no veto power over redistricting plans passed by the legislature.

This model is often criticized for allowing incumbent politicians and the majority party to draw lines that favor their own interests. The inherent conflict of interest—politicians drawing the maps for elections they themselves will compete in—creates strong incentives for self-dealing.

Advisory Commissions: Limited Independence

A smaller number of states utilize advisory commissions to assist in the map-drawing process. These commissions develop and recommend draft plans, but the state legislature typically retains the final authority to approve or modify them.

Examples include Iowa and Vermont for their state legislative districts, and Maryland, where an advisory committee assists the Governor in developing draft plans for the legislature.

While these commissions can provide some insulation from direct political pressure and may incorporate more diverse perspectives and expertise, their advisory nature means that political actors still maintain ultimate control over the final maps.

Independent Commissions: The Reform Model

A growing number of states have adopted independent redistricting commissions, designed to be more insulated from direct partisan influence and legislative control. These commissions are typically composed of citizens who are not current elected officials, lobbyists, or recent party officials.

Selection processes often involve screening by a nonpartisan body, random selection from a qualified pool, or balanced appointments by different authorities to ensure partisan diversity and independence.

States like Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Michigan, and Washington use Independent Redistricting Commissions for both state and federal districts. However, the degree of independence can vary significantly.

In some states like New York and Washington, the legislature can override the commission’s maps with a supermajority vote, though statutes may limit the extent of modifications. This backup legislative authority can undermine the commission’s independence if political pressure becomes too intense.

Politician Commissions: Formal but Partisan

In these states, commissions composed of elected officials or individuals directly appointed by them are tasked with drawing district lines, operating somewhat separately from the direct legislative process.

Examples include Arkansas, Hawaii, Missouri, New Jersey, and Ohio for state legislative districts, with some of these states also using this model for congressional districts.

While distinct from direct legislative control, these commissions can still be highly partisan, as the members are chosen by political actors and may feel beholden to the parties or officials who selected them.

Backup Commissions: Safety Nets

Some states have backup commissions that step in if the primary body fails to enact a redistricting plan by a certain deadline or if their plan is overturned by a court.

The composition of these backup commissions varies widely. They might include specific statewide elected officials like the Attorney General or State Treasurer, or members appointed by legislative leadership or the state supreme court.

Examples include Connecticut, Illinois, and Texas, which have backup commissions that activate under specific circumstances.

The Impact of Different Models

The entity responsible for drawing district lines is a critical factor influencing the fairness and outcomes of the redistricting process. When state legislatures, composed of partisan actors with direct stakes in election outcomes, control line-drawing, there is a heightened risk of maps being drawn to favor the majority party or protect incumbents.

Independent commissions, in contrast, are specifically structured to mitigate this direct partisan control, aiming for a more neutral and publicly accountable process.

This variation across states creates a “federalist laboratory,” allowing for observation of different approaches to a core democratic function. However, it also results in an uneven landscape of representational fairness nationwide.

A citizen’s ability to influence how their community is represented and the likelihood of their district being drawn for partisan advantage can depend significantly on the specific redistricting model used in their state.

Model	Key Characteristics	Gubernatorial Veto	Partisan Influence	Examples
State Legislature	Elected representatives pass maps as bills	Usually Yes	High	Texas, Florida, Georgia
Advisory Commission	Appointed members advise legislature	Yes (on legislative action)	Medium to High	Iowa, Maine, Utah
Independent Commission	Citizens selected through non-partisan process	Usually No	Low to Medium	Arizona, California, Michigan
Politician Commission	Elected officials or appointees serve	Varies	High	Arkansas, New Jersey, Ohio
Backup Commission	Activates if primary body fails	N/A	Varies	Connecticut, Illinois, Texas

Rules for Drawing Fair Lines

Map-drawers, regardless of whether they are legislators or commission members, do not operate with a completely blank slate. A complex web of rules and criteria, derived from federal law, state constitutions, state statutes, and court decisions, governs how district lines may or may not be drawn.

These criteria aim to ensure fairness, equality, and proper representation, though they can sometimes conflict with one another, creating challenges for mapmakers and opportunities for manipulation.

Federal Mandates

Equal Population: The “one person, one vote” principle, rooted in the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, is the foremost requirement. Congressional districts must be almost perfectly equal in population, while state legislative districts must be “substantially equal,” generally allowing up to a 10% total deviation.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965

This landmark federal law plays a crucial role in protecting the voting rights of racial and language minorities and significantly constrains how district lines can be drawn.

Section 2 of the VRA: This section prohibits any voting practice or procedure, including redistricting plans, that results in the denial or abridgment of the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a protected language minority group.

This applies to plans that are intentionally discriminatory as well as those that have a discriminatory result, a concept known as “vote dilution.”

Vote dilution occurs when the voting strength of a minority group is unfairly minimized through techniques like:

• “Cracking”: Splitting a cohesive minority community among multiple districts so they cannot elect their preferred candidate in any
• “Packing”: Concentrating minority voters into a few districts, thereby wasting their votes in those districts and reducing their influence elsewhere

The Gingles Test: The Supreme Court case Thornburg v. Gingles (1986) established a three-part test for proving vote dilution under Section 2:

1. The minority group must be sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district
2. The minority group must be politically cohesive (meaning its members tend to vote similarly)
3. The majority population must vote sufficiently as a bloc to usually defeat the minority group’s preferred candidate (known as racially polarized voting)

If these three preconditions are met, courts then look at the “totality of circumstances” to determine if vote dilution has occurred.

Section 5 and Shelby County Impact: Historically, Section 5 of the VRA required certain “covered jurisdictions” with histories of racial discrimination in voting to obtain federal “preclearance” before implementing any changes to their voting laws or procedures, including new redistricting plans.

However, in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the Supreme Court struck down Section 4(b) of the VRA, which contained the formula used to determine which jurisdictions were covered by Section 5.

While Section 5 itself was not invalidated, the Court’s ruling rendered it largely unenforceable because no jurisdictions are currently covered by the formula. This decision significantly altered the voting rights enforcement landscape, shifting the burden of proving discrimination largely to plaintiffs bringing lawsuits under Section 2 after a plan has been enacted.

Racial Predominance Standard

While race can be considered in redistricting, particularly to comply with the VRA and avoid vote dilution, it cannot be the predominant factor motivating the placement of voters into or out of a district unless the plan is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest.

This principle was established in cases like Shaw v. Reno (1993) and further clarified in Miller v. Johnson (1995).

Districts that are so bizarrely shaped that they cannot be explained on grounds other than race are viewed with suspicion and subject to strict judicial scrutiny.

Traditional State-Level Criteria

Beyond federal mandates, states often adopt their own criteria, which can be found in state constitutions, statutes, or court rulings. These commonly include:

Contiguity: All parts of a district must be geographically connected. One should be able to travel from any point in a district to any other point without leaving the district. Exceptions are sometimes made for islands or areas separated by water if connected by transportation routes.

Compactness: Districts should be geographically compact, meaning they should not be excessively spread out or have irregular, “bizarre” shapes. However, the definition of compactness can vary, and there are multiple ways to measure it. Perfect compactness can sometimes conflict with other goals, like keeping communities of interest together.

Preservation of Political Subdivisions: This principle encourages map-drawers to minimize the splitting of existing political boundaries, such as counties, cities, and towns, when creating districts. The idea is that existing governmental units often represent coherent communities with shared interests and established relationships with their representatives.

Preservation of Communities of Interest (COIs): An increasingly emphasized criterion, this involves keeping intact geographical areas where residents share common social, cultural, racial, ethnic, or economic interests and policy concerns. Identifying and respecting COIs is seen as crucial for effective representation, though defining what constitutes a legitimate community of interest can be subjective and contentious.

Preservation of Cores of Prior Districts: This refers to maintaining, as much as possible, the general shape and composition of existing districts to ensure continuity of representation for constituents and stability for incumbents. This criterion can help maintain established relationships between representatives and their districts.

Avoiding Pairing Incumbents: Some states have criteria aimed at preventing the drawing of new district lines in a way that would place two or more incumbent officeholders into the same district, thus forcing them to run against each other. This can be seen as either a legitimate attempt to maintain representation continuity or an illegitimate form of incumbent protection.

Emerging and Reform-Oriented Criteria

Some states have adopted additional or more specific criteria, particularly in recent decades as awareness of gerrymandering’s harms has grown:

Partisan Fairness/Prohibition on Partisan Gerrymandering: A growing number of states explicitly prohibit drawing maps to unduly favor or disfavor a political party or incumbent. Some states also prohibit the use of partisan data (like past election results or voter registration statistics) in the map-drawing process.

Competitiveness: Some state laws or commission guidelines encourage or require the drawing of districts where elections are likely to be competitive between the major parties, rather than creating “safe” seats for one party. The goal is to enhance electoral accountability and responsiveness.

Proportionality: A newer criterion adopted by a few states, this aims for the statewide proportion of districts whose voters favor each political party to closely correspond to the statewide partisan preferences of the voters, based on past election results.

Nesting: Some states require or prefer that state House districts be perfectly contained within state Senate districts (for example, two House districts forming one Senate district). This can simplify administration and create clearer representational relationships.

The Challenge of Conflicting Criteria

The sheer number of these criteria, and the fact that they can sometimes be in tension with one another, means that redistricting is inherently a complex balancing act.

For example, creating a compact district might necessitate splitting a community of interest, or VRA compliance might require a district that is not perfectly compact. The way these criteria are prioritized—whether explicitly by law or implicitly by the choices of map-drawers—is often a major source of debate and a key area where manipulation can occur if rules are vague or unenforced.

The evolution of these criteria, especially the inclusion of rules targeting partisan outcomes, reflects a growing public and legal awareness of the harms caused by unchecked political manipulation and a desire for more democratically responsive and fair representation.

However, the lack of universal adoption of such anti-gerrymandering criteria and the current federal judiciary’s reluctance to enforce them against partisan gerrymandering limit their overall impact, leading to an uneven playing field for reform across the country.

What Is Gerrymandering?

Defining Deliberate Distortion

While redistricting is the necessary and neutral process of redrawing electoral lines, gerrymandering is its deliberate and often controversial manipulation to achieve an unfair political advantage.

It is crucial to understand that gerrymandering is not synonymous with redistricting; rather, it is the subversion of the redistricting process for partisan gain, incumbent protection, or to dilute the voting power of specific groups.

The Campaign Legal Center describes it as “the manipulation of the mapmaking process for personal gain,” emphasizing that “gerrymandered districts hurt voters.”

The Historical Origins

The term “gerrymander” has a colorful history, originating in 1812 in Massachusetts. Governor Elbridge Gerry signed a bill that redrew state senate districts in a way that benefited his Democratic-Republican Party.

One of the newly drawn districts was so contorted and unusual in shape that critics likened it to a salamander. A political cartoon in the Boston Gazette merged Gerry’s name with “salamander,” coining the term “Gerry-mander.”

While the name was new, the practice of manipulating district lines for political ends was not. Even earlier, in 1788, Patrick Henry, an Anti-Federalist, reportedly attempted to draw congressional district lines in Virginia to disadvantage James Madison, a Federalist and a primary author of the Constitution.

This long history underscores that the temptation to manipulate district lines for political advantage is a persistent challenge in systems where those with political power also control the rules of their own elections.

Modern Technological Amplification

In the modern era, the potential for gerrymandering has been significantly amplified by technological advancements. Sophisticated mapping software, combined with vast amounts of detailed voter data—including past voting behavior, demographic information, and even consumer data—allows map-drawers to craft districts with surgical precision to achieve desired political outcomes.

This has made gerrymanders potentially more effective and durable than ever before. Where once gerrymandering required crude guesswork about voting patterns, today’s practitioners can predict with remarkable accuracy how different district configurations will perform electorally.

The availability of precinct-level election data, detailed demographic information, and powerful Geographic Information Systems (GIS) software means that mapmakers can test thousands of potential configurations and select those that best serve their political objectives.

The Negative Connotation

The negative connotation associated with “gerrymandering” is widespread. However, this general disapproval can sometimes obscure the legal complexities involved.

Distinguishing between the legitimate consideration of political data or community characteristics and an impermissible manipulation of lines for unfair partisan or discriminatory racial advantage is often a difficult legal task.

This complexity, particularly the challenge in defining clear legal thresholds for what constitutes an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander, has allowed the practice to continue, often shielded by claims of legitimate redistricting objectives.

The Gerrymandering Toolkit

Those who seek to gerrymander districts employ several common techniques to achieve their goals. The two most well-known and fundamental strategies are “cracking” and “packing.” These methods are designed to manipulate the distribution of voters to maximize the electoral success of one group while minimizing that of another.

Cracking: Dividing to Conquer

This technique involves taking a concentrated group of like-minded voters—such as supporters of a particular political party or members of a racial minority community—and splitting them across several different electoral districts.

The goal of cracking is to dilute the voting power of this group so that they do not form a majority or even a significant, influential plurality in any single district. By spreading these voters thinly among multiple districts where they are outnumbered by other groups, their ability to elect their preferred candidates is severely diminished.

Example: Imagine a city with a large, cohesive population that consistently votes for Party X. A map-drawer aiming to disadvantage Party X might “crack” this urban area by dividing it into three or four pieces, attaching each piece to a larger surrounding suburban or rural area that predominantly votes for Party Y.

In each of these newly configured districts, the urban voters for Party X would be outnumbered, making it difficult for Party X to win any of those seats, despite their strong support within the original city boundaries.

Packing: Concentration Strategy

This technique is the opposite of cracking. It involves concentrating as many voters of a targeted group as possible into a very small number of districts.

By “packing” these voters into one or a few districts, the map-drawer concedes those districts to the targeted group, often by overwhelming margins (such as 70-80% of the vote). However, this strategy simultaneously weakens the influence of these voters in all other surrounding districts because their numbers have been removed from those areas.

The packed districts become “sacrificial” wins for the targeted group, while the gerrymandering party increases its chances of winning a larger number of the remaining districts.

Example: If a state has a significant minority of voters who support Party X, map-drawers from Party Y might “pack” as many Party X voters as possible into one or two districts, ensuring Party X wins those seats with 75% of the vote.

While Party X secures these seats, its supporters are now less numerous in adjacent districts, making it easier for Party Y to win those neighboring seats with slimmer, but still comfortable, majorities.

The Mathematics of Wasted Votes

Cracking and packing are often used in tandem across a state’s map to achieve a desired partisan or racial outcome. The strategic effect of these techniques is to create “wasted votes.”

In cracked districts, the votes of the targeted group are wasted because they are insufficient to achieve victory. In packed districts, votes for the winning candidate beyond the simple majority needed to win are considered “surplus” or wasted because they do not contribute to winning additional seats elsewhere.

Effective gerrymandering is about efficiently distributing one’s own supporters to win as many districts as possible by relatively slim but secure margins, while causing the opposition’s supporters’ votes to be wasted through cracking or excessive concentration in packed districts.

This can lead to electoral outcomes where a party’s share of legislative seats is significantly disproportionate to its statewide share of the vote. The advent of sophisticated data analysis and mapping software has made these techniques more potent, allowing map-drawers to identify and group voters with remarkable precision.

Modern Refinements

Beyond the basic cracking and packing strategies, modern gerrymandering employs more sophisticated techniques:

Kidnapping: Moving a district to exclude a particular incumbent’s home, forcing them to either move or run in an unfamiliar district.

Hijacking: Combining the homes of two incumbents in a single district, forcing them to run against each other.

Bleaching: Systematically removing minority voters from a district to reduce their influence.

Sweetheart Gerrymandering: Creating mutually beneficial arrangements where both parties agree to safe seats, reducing overall competitiveness while protecting incumbents from both parties.

Types of Gerrymandering

Gerrymandering can manifest in several forms, each with a distinct objective, though they can often overlap in practice.

Partisan Gerrymandering

This is the most widely discussed form and involves drawing district lines to maximize the number of seats one political party can win and minimize the seats won by the opposing party.

The goal is to entrench the dominant party’s power, often making election outcomes predictable regardless of shifts in overall voter sentiment. A key outcome of partisan gerrymandering is the creation of numerous “safe seats,” where one party has such a significant voter registration advantage that the primary election, rather than the general election, becomes the contest that truly determines the representative.

Strategic Objectives:

• Create as many winnable districts as possible for the favored party
• Waste as many opposition votes as possible through cracking and packing
• Ensure electoral victories even with minority statewide vote shares
• Reduce the number of competitive districts to minimize uncertainty

Examples in Practice: In 2011, Republican-controlled states like Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Wisconsin drew congressional maps that allowed Republicans to win significant majorities of House seats even when Democrats won more total votes statewide. Similarly, Democratic-controlled states like Maryland crafted maps to maximize Democratic seat advantages.

Racial Gerrymandering

This involves manipulating district boundaries to dilute the voting strength of racial or ethnic minority groups, thereby reducing their ability to elect candidates of their choice.

This can be achieved by “cracking” minority communities across several districts or “packing” them into a minimal number of districts to limit their influence elsewhere. Racial gerrymandering that dilutes minority voting strength is illegal under the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Historical Context: Racial gerrymandering has deep roots in American history, often serving as a tool to perpetuate the disenfranchisement of African Americans and other minority groups. During the Jim Crow era, Southern states systematically used gerrymandering alongside other tactics like poll taxes and literacy tests to prevent Black citizens from electing representatives of their choice.

Modern Manifestations: Today’s racial gerrymandering can be more subtle, sometimes disguised as partisan gerrymandering. Because voting patterns often correlate strongly with race—for example, African American voters overwhelmingly support Democratic candidates—maps drawn to disadvantage Democrats can have the effect of diluting minority voting strength.

Legal Standards: Courts apply strict scrutiny to redistricting plans where race is the predominant factor. However, the Voting Rights Act also requires that minority communities have fair opportunities to elect representatives of their choice, creating a complex legal landscape where mapmakers must navigate between avoiding racial predominance and ensuring minority representation.

Incumbent Gerrymandering (Bipartisan or “Sweetheart” Gerrymanders)

Sometimes, district lines are drawn not necessarily to favor one party over another, but to protect current officeholders from both parties.

In such “sweetheart gerrymanders,” districts are configured to make it easier for incumbents of all stripes to win reelection, thereby reducing overall electoral competition and responsiveness. This type of gerrymandering often occurs when control of the state government is divided, and parties collude to maintain their existing seats.

Characteristics:

• Both parties agree to protect their incumbents
• Creates many safe seats for both parties
• Reduces overall electoral competition
• Can result in fewer swing districts statewide

Impact on Democracy: While this might seem less harmful than purely partisan gerrymandering, incumbent protection can be equally damaging to democratic accountability. When incumbents face little electoral threat, they may become less responsive to constituent concerns and more focused on maintaining their positions.

Prison-Based Gerrymandering

This practice refers to the way incarcerated individuals are counted for redistricting purposes. Most states count prisoners as residents of the correctional facility’s location, rather than their last home address.

Since prisoners (in most states) cannot vote, and prisons are often located in rural areas, this practice can artificially inflate the population—and thus the political representation and associated funding—of the districts containing prisons.

Conversely, it dilutes the population and representation of the prisoners’ home communities, which are often urban and have higher minority populations.

The Numbers Game: A large prison can add thousands to a district’s population count without adding any actual voters. This can significantly distort representation, giving residents of prison-containing districts disproportionate political influence while reducing the representation of communities where prisoners actually lived and to which they typically return.

Reform Efforts: A growing number of states have passed reforms to count incarcerated individuals at their home addresses for redistricting purposes. States like New York, California, and Nevada have adopted such reforms, recognizing that counting prisoners at prisons distorts democratic representation.

Intersectional Gerrymandering

While legally distinct, these types of gerrymandering can be interconnected. For instance, because race and party affiliation are often highly correlated in the United States—Black voters overwhelmingly support the Democratic Party, while white evangelical voters strongly support Republicans—actions taken for ostensibly partisan reasons can have a significant and disproportionate racial impact.

This overlap creates considerable challenges in legal battles, as map-drawers accused of illegal racial gerrymandering may argue that their intent was purely partisan—a defense that has gained traction in federal courts following the Supreme Court’s decision in Rucho v. Common Cause, which deemed partisan gerrymandering claims non-justiciable at the federal level.

Legal Complexity: The intersection of race and partisanship creates a legal gray area where it can be difficult to prove discriminatory intent. If a map disadvantages Democratic voters, and those voters are disproportionately minorities, determining whether the motivation was racial or partisan becomes a complex legal question.

Each of these forms of gerrymandering, in its own way, contributes to a democratic deficit by making elected bodies less representative of the electorate’s true preferences and demographic composition, insulating officials from accountability, and potentially distorting policy outcomes.

Legal Battles Over Gerrymandering

The drawing of district lines has been a frequent subject of legal challenges, leading to a complex body of case law primarily shaped by the U.S. Supreme Court. These legal battles have largely revolved around two main types of gerrymandering: racial and partisan.

Racial Gerrymandering in Court

The primary legal tool against racial gerrymandering is the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965, supplemented by constitutional Equal Protection claims.

Section 2 of the VRA is a nationwide prohibition against any voting practice or procedure that results in discrimination based on race, color, or membership in a language minority group. This includes redistricting plans that dilute the voting strength of minority groups, preventing them from electing candidates of their choice.

The Gingles Framework: The Supreme Court case Thornburg v. Gingles (1986) was instrumental in interpreting Section 2. It established a three-part test that plaintiffs must meet to prove minority vote dilution:

1. The minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district
2. The minority group is politically cohesive (its members tend to vote similarly)
3. The white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to usually defeat the minority’s preferred candidate (indicating racially polarized voting)

If these conditions are met, courts then examine the “totality of circumstances” to determine if vote dilution has occurred.

Constitutional Claims: The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment also provides a basis for challenging racial gerrymandering.

In Shaw v. Reno (1993), the Court ruled that a redistricting plan could be so bizarre in shape that it is unexplainable on grounds other than race, and thus could be challenged as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. This case introduced the concept that race cannot be the “predominant factor” in drawing district lines without a compelling justification.

Miller v. Johnson (1995) clarified Shaw, holding that if race is the “predominant factor” motivating the legislature’s decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district, the district must be reviewed under “strict scrutiny.” This means the plan must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest.

Recent Developments: More recently, in Cooper v. Harris (2017), the Court affirmed that two North Carolina congressional districts were unconstitutional racial gerrymanders because race was the predominant factor in their creation without sufficient justification.

Challenges under Section 2 of the VRA continue to be a significant avenue for combating racial gerrymandering, with recent litigation leading to court-ordered map redraws in states like Alabama, Louisiana, and Georgia to create additional minority opportunity districts.

Partisan Gerrymandering: The Rise and Fall of Federal Intervention

The Supreme Court’s stance on partisan gerrymandering has been more fraught and has evolved significantly over several decades.

Early Optimism: In Davis v. Bandemer (1986), the Court initially held that partisan gerrymandering claims were justiciable (meaning federal courts could hear them) under the Equal Protection Clause.

However, the Court set a very high bar for proving a constitutional violation, requiring evidence of “consistent degradation” of a political group’s influence statewide, a standard that proved exceedingly difficult for plaintiffs to meet in subsequent cases.

Growing Skepticism: In Vieth v. Jubelirer (2004), a plurality of the Court expressed the view that partisan gerrymandering claims should be considered non-justiciable because of the lack of “judicially discernible and manageable standards” for resolving them.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, in a crucial concurring opinion, agreed that no such standard had yet emerged but was unwilling to foreclose the possibility that one might be developed in the future, leaving the door slightly ajar for future challenges.

The Door Slams Shut: This door was effectively closed in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019). In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court declared that partisan gerrymandering claims present “political questions” that are beyond the jurisdiction of federal courts.

The majority, led by Chief Justice Roberts, argued that the Constitution entrusts districting to state legislatures and Congress, and that federal courts lack the constitutional authority and manageable standards to determine when partisan considerations in map-drawing go “too far.”

The Dissent’s Warning: The four dissenting justices, led by Justice Elena Kagan, argued that the majority was abdicating the Court’s responsibility to protect voting rights and democratic participation. Justice Kagan wrote that the decision would allow politicians to “entrench themselves in office” and “debilitate democracy.”

The Impact of Shelby County v. Holder

The 2013 Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder had a profound impact on the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, particularly concerning redistricting.

The Court struck down Section 4(b) of the VRA, which contained the “coverage formula” that determined which states and localities with a history of racial discrimination in voting were required to obtain federal “preclearance” under Section 5 of the VRA before making any changes to their election laws, including redistricting plans.

Immediate Consequences: The consequence of this ruling was significant: without a functioning coverage formula, the preclearance requirement of Section 5 became largely inoperative. Jurisdictions previously subject to preclearance are now generally free to implement new voting maps and other election changes without prior federal approval.

Shifted Burden: This has shifted the burden of challenging potentially discriminatory maps to plaintiffs, who must now typically file lawsuits under Section 2 of the VRA after a plan has been enacted. This makes it more difficult and resource-intensive to prevent discriminatory maps from being used, at least for some period, and has been seen by many civil rights advocates as a weakening of protections for minority voters.

Current Legal Landscape

The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence reveals a stark divergence in its approach to racial versus partisan gerrymandering. While it has established legal standards (however complex and contested) for identifying and remedying racial gerrymandering, it has ultimately deemed partisan gerrymandering a “political question” unsuitable for federal judicial resolution.

This has created a significant gap in protections against one of the most impactful forms of democratic distortion. The Rucho decision, in particular, has elevated the importance of state-level actions—through state courts interpreting state constitutions, and through legislative reforms or citizen-led initiatives like independent redistricting commissions—as the primary avenues for combating partisan map manipulation.

State Court Revival: Following Rucho, state courts have become increasingly important venues for challenging partisan gerrymanders under state constitutional provisions. State supreme courts in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and other states have struck down partisan gerrymanders as violations of their state constitutions, filling some of the gap left by federal court withdrawal.

The Democracy Deficit: The combination of Shelby County (weakening VRA preclearance) and Rucho (barring federal partisan gerrymandering claims) creates a particularly challenging environment for protecting voting rights, especially for minority communities whose voting patterns may align with a disfavored political party.

It becomes harder to disentangle racial and partisan intent in map-drawing, and the avenues for seeking remedies are more constrained and complex.

Case	Year	Issue	Key Ruling	Impact
Baker v. Carr	1962	Justiciability of apportionment	Federal courts can hear malapportionment cases	Opened door for judicial review
Reynolds v. Sims	1964	State legislative equality	“One person, one vote” for state districts	Required population equality
Wesberry v. Sanders	1964	Congressional district equality	Extended equality principle to Congress	Mandated congressional district equality
Thornburg v. Gingles	1986	Minority vote dilution	Three-part test for VRA violations	Framework for racial gerrymandering challenges
Shaw v. Reno	1993	Race as predominant factor	Race cannot predominate without justification	Limited race-conscious districting
Miller v. Johnson	1995	Strict scrutiny standard	Racial predominance triggers strict scrutiny	Strengthened anti-gerrymandering standards
Davis v. Bandemer	1986	Partisan gerrymandering justiciability	Partisan claims justiciable but high bar	Opened door but limited success
Vieth v. Jubelirer	2004	Manageable standards	No clear standards for partisan claims	Signaled judicial skepticism
Shelby County v. Holder	2013	VRA preclearance	Struck down coverage formula	Weakened voting rights enforcement
Cooper v. Harris	2017	Racial predominance application	Affirmed racial gerrymandering standards	Continued protection against racial gerrymandering
Rucho v. Common Cause	2019	Federal partisan gerrymandering	Partisan claims non-justiciable	Closed federal courts to partisan challenges

Real-World Consequences of Gerrymandering

Gerrymandering is not an abstract political game; it has tangible and often detrimental effects on the quality of democratic representation, electoral competition, voter behavior, and the accountability of elected officials. These consequences ripple through American democracy, affecting everything from policy outcomes to citizen engagement.

Impact on Elections: The Safe Seat Epidemic

One of the most direct consequences of gerrymandering, whether for partisan advantage or incumbent protection, is the proliferation of “safe seats.” A safe seat is an electoral district where one political party or a specific incumbent has such a dominant advantage in voter registration or past voting patterns that the outcome of the general election is largely predetermined.

In these districts, the most meaningful electoral contest, if any, occurs during the primary election of the dominant party.

The Numbers Tell the Story: Analysis by organizations like the Brennan Center for Justice consistently shows a low number of genuinely competitive U.S. House districts in any given election cycle. For instance, in the 2024 elections, only 37 districts were decided by five or fewer percentage points, and a striking majority—nearly 6 in 10 House districts—saw the winning candidate prevail by 25 or more percentage points.

This lack of competition is not an isolated phenomenon but a persistent feature of recent election cycles. Historical data shows that the number of competitive House seats has declined dramatically since the 1990s, with gerrymandering being a significant contributing factor.

Campaign Strategy Distortions: When districts are engineered to be non-competitive, it fundamentally alters the nature of political campaigns. Candidates in safe seats have less incentive to appeal to a broad spectrum of voters or address the concerns of those outside their party’s base.

Instead, their primary focus shifts to securing the nomination of their party, which often involves appealing to more ideologically committed primary voters. This dynamic can lead to a political system where new ideas and diverse candidates struggle to gain traction, and entrenched interests face fewer meaningful challenges.

Resource Allocation: Safe seats also distort how campaign resources are allocated. National parties and donors concentrate their spending on the small number of competitive races, while vast swaths of the country receive little attention or investment in electoral competition.

This creates a two-tiered system where residents of competitive districts receive significantly more attention from candidates and parties than those in safe seats, potentially affecting the quality of representation and responsiveness to local concerns.

Impact on Voters: The Disenfranchisement Effect

Gerrymandering can profoundly affect citizens’ perceptions of their role in the democratic process, leading to a cascade of negative consequences for civic engagement.

Psychological Disenfranchisement: When district lines are drawn to preordain electoral outcomes, voters, particularly those aligned with the minority party in a “packed” or “cracked” district, may feel that their individual votes are meaningless or carry little weight.

This sense of disenfranchisement can lead to voter apathy, disengagement from the political process, and ultimately, lower voter turnout. Studies have indicated a causal link between higher levels of partisan gerrymandering and reduced voter turnout, particularly in midterm elections.

The Futility Perception: Research shows that voters in heavily gerrymandered districts often develop a sense of futility about political participation. When election outcomes appear predetermined, citizens may conclude that their engagement—whether voting, volunteering, or advocating for issues—will have little impact on political outcomes.

Differential Turnout Effects: Gerrymandering can also create differential effects on turnout across different communities. In cracked districts, minority party voters may become discouraged and vote at lower rates. In packed districts, majority party voters may become complacent, while minority party voters may feel their votes don’t matter.

Civic Knowledge and Engagement: The lack of competitive elections in gerrymandered districts can also reduce civic knowledge and engagement. When outcomes are predetermined, there’s less media coverage, fewer candidate debates, and less public discussion of issues, leading to a less informed electorate.

The Vicious Cycle: This creates a detrimental feedback loop: as fewer diverse voters participate, especially in low-turnout primaries in safe districts, elected officials may become even more responsive to a narrower, more partisan segment of the electorate, further alienating other voters and reinforcing the perception that the political system is unresponsive to their concerns.

Impact on Governance: Polarization and Accountability Deficit

Gerrymandering is widely seen as a significant contributor to the increasing political polarization in American governance, with effects that extend far beyond election outcomes.

Incentive Structure Changes: By creating more ideologically homogeneous, or “safe,” districts, gerrymandering alters the incentive structure for politicians. In such districts, the primary electoral threat often comes not from the opposing party in the general election, but from a challenger within their own party during the primary.

To fend off primary challenges, incumbents and candidates are often incentivized to appeal to the more ideological “base” voters of their party, rather than seeking common ground or compromise with the political center.

Legislative Dysfunction: This dynamic can lead to a legislature composed of more ideologically extreme members, making bipartisan cooperation more difficult and contributing to legislative gridlock. While some research suggests that voter self-sorting (people choosing to live in communities with like-minded individuals) is also a major driver of polarization, there is a consensus that partisan redistricting can amplify and exacerbate these existing partisan divides.

The Median Voter Problem: In competitive districts, candidates must appeal to median voters—those in the political center—to win elections. In safe districts created by gerrymandering, the median voter in the primary election (which effectively determines the winner) is much more partisan than the median voter in the general population.

This shifts representation away from the center and toward the extremes, making compromise and moderation politically disadvantageous for many elected officials.

Reduced Accountability: Furthermore, gerrymandering significantly reduces the accountability of elected officials to their constituents. In a safely gerrymandered district, incumbents face a lower risk of being defeated in a general election, regardless of their job performance or responsiveness to the broader needs of their district.

This lack of electoral threat can lead to officials who are less attentive to constituent concerns and more focused on national party agendas or special interests. The reduced accountability fostered by gerrymandering can result in policy outcomes that are misaligned with the preferences of the median voter or the broader public interest.

Policy Extremism: Research has shown that legislators from gerrymandered districts are more likely to take extreme positions and less likely to engage in bipartisan cooperation. This can lead to policy outcomes that reflect the preferences of partisan bases rather than broader public opinion.

Impact on Minority Representation and Communities

Racial gerrymandering specifically targets communities of color, employing techniques like cracking and packing to dilute their collective voting strength and diminish their ability to elect candidates who represent their interests.

Underrepresentation Consequences: This practice can lead to the underrepresentation of minority groups in legislative bodies at all levels of government. Such underrepresentation is not merely a matter of numbers; it has profound consequences for the allocation of public resources and the prioritization of policy issues that disproportionately affect these communities.

Resource Allocation: Issues such as funding for schools in minority neighborhoods, access to healthcare, affordable housing, environmental justice, and criminal justice reform may receive less attention when the communities most affected lack a strong voice in legislative chambers.

Research has documented how districts with reduced minority representation often receive less state and federal funding for infrastructure, education, and social services, creating a cycle where political disenfranchisement leads to economic disadvantage.

Historical Continuity: Even when gerrymandering is ostensibly partisan, it can have a disproportionately negative impact on racial and ethnic minorities due to the strong correlation between race and political party affiliation in many parts of the United States.

As the Brennan Center notes, the Supreme Court’s Rucho decision, which deemed partisan gerrymandering non-justiciable in federal courts, has created a situation where racially discriminatory maps might be defended on the grounds that they were drawn for permissible partisan reasons, rather than impermissible racial ones.

Intersectional Effects: This makes it more challenging to protect the voting rights of communities of color, who may find their neighborhoods cracked or packed under the guise of partisan strategy. The legal complexity of distinguishing between racial and partisan intent has created new challenges for civil rights enforcement.

Community Cohesion: Racial gerrymandering can also fragment communities of interest, separating neighborhoods with shared concerns and making it more difficult for residents to organize around common issues. This can weaken community bonds and reduce the effectiveness of grassroots advocacy.

Economic Impact: The political marginalization caused by racial gerrymandering can have significant economic consequences. Communities with less political representation often struggle to attract investment, secure infrastructure improvements, and advocate for policies that support economic development.

Long-term Democratic Health

Beyond these immediate effects, gerrymandering poses serious threats to the long-term health of American democracy.

Legitimacy Crisis: When electoral outcomes consistently diverge from popular will—such as when a party wins a majority of seats despite receiving fewer votes—it can undermine public confidence in democratic institutions and create a legitimacy crisis.

Institutional Decay: The entrenchment of incumbents and reduction of electoral competition can lead to institutional decay, as elected officials become less responsive to changing public needs and preferences.

Feedback Effects: The various consequences of gerrymandering can reinforce each other, creating a self-perpetuating cycle of democratic dysfunction. Reduced competition leads to less accountability, which reduces voter engagement, which makes it easier to maintain uncompetitive districts.

Racial gerrymandering is more than just an electoral tactic; it is a mechanism that can perpetuate and exacerbate broader social and economic inequalities. By diminishing the political power of minority communities, it limits their ability to advocate effectively for the resources and policies needed to address historical disadvantages and contemporary challenges.

The legal and political battles over racial gerrymandering are thus deeply intertwined with the ongoing struggle for civil rights and full democratic participation in the United States. Each redistricting cycle often becomes a new flashpoint for these fundamental issues, reflecting the enduring tension between efforts to achieve equitable representation for all citizens and attempts to maintain existing power structures that may disadvantage minority groups.

The Movement for Fairer Maps

In response to the negative impacts of gerrymandering, a significant movement advocating for fairer and more transparent redistricting processes has emerged across the United States. These reform efforts encompass a range of strategies, from establishing independent bodies to draw maps to implementing stronger rules and leveraging technology for greater fairness and public engagement.

This movement has gained momentum as public awareness of gerrymandering’s effects has grown, and as citizens have become increasingly frustrated with political dysfunction and declining electoral competitiveness.

Independent Redistricting Commissions: The Promise and Challenge

One of the most prominent reform proposals is the establishment of Independent Redistricting Commissions (IRCs). IRCs are bodies designed to be separate from the state legislature and are tasked with the responsibility of drawing electoral district maps.

Their primary purpose is to reduce partisan bias and the potential for gerrymandering by removing the map-drawing authority from elected officials who may have a direct self-interest in the outcome.

Structure and Composition: IRCs are typically composed of citizens who meet certain eligibility criteria, often including restrictions on recent political activity, lobbying, or holding public office, to ensure a degree of independence.

The selection process for commissioners varies by state but often aims for partisan balance (e.g., equal numbers of Democrats, Republicans, and independents or members of minor parties) and may involve screening by nonpartisan panels, random selection from qualified applicant pools, or appointments made by diverse authorities.

Examples of IRC States: States like Arizona, California, Michigan, Colorado, and Washington have implemented IRCs, often as a result of citizen-led ballot initiatives. The constitutionality of using such commissions for congressional redistricting, even when created by ballot initiative, was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015).

The California Model: California’s Citizens Redistricting Commission, established in 2008 and first used in 2011, is often cited as a successful example. The commission consists of 14 members: five Democrats, five Republicans, and four members who are not affiliated with either major party.

Commissioners are selected through a multi-step process involving applications, screening by auditors, legislative leader input, and final random selection. The commission is required to hold public hearings, consider public input, and draw maps that comply with federal and state criteria while prioritizing communities of interest and competitive districts.

The Michigan Experience: Michigan’s Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission, established by a 2018 ballot initiative, represents a newer model. It consists of 13 randomly selected citizens: four Democrats, four Republicans, and five independents.

The commission’s work in 2021 was closely watched as a test of citizen-led redistricting, and while it faced some challenges with partisan dynamics, it ultimately produced maps that were generally viewed as fairer than previous legislative maps.

Effectiveness and Challenges of IRCs

The track record of IRCs is mixed, and their success is highly contingent on their specific design and the political environment in which they operate.

Potential Benefits: Well-designed IRCs can lead to maps that are perceived as fairer, increase electoral competitiveness, better reflect community boundaries, and enhance public trust in the redistricting process.

Studies suggest that independent commissions are significantly more likely to actively seek and integrate public feedback into the maps they produce. Some commissions, like California’s in earlier cycles, have received generally positive reviews for their transparency and ability to implement maps without major legal challenges.

Research from institutions like USC Price School of Public Policy indicates voters are more likely to believe the redistricting process is equitable when they learn their state uses an independent commission and understand its workings.

Documented Improvements: Academic research comparing commission-drawn maps to legislature-drawn maps has found that commissions tend to produce:

• More competitive districts
• Better adherence to traditional redistricting criteria like compactness and preserving political subdivisions
• Greater responsiveness to public input
• Maps that are less likely to be challenged in court

Challenges and Limitations: However, the effectiveness of an IRC heavily depends on its structure and powers. Commissions that are merely advisory and can be overridden by the state legislature may have little impact on preventing gerrymandering (as seen in Utah and initially in New York).

Similarly, commissions that are evenly split between Democratic and Republican appointees without a mechanism for breaking ties can suffer from partisan deadlock, failing to produce maps (as experienced in Virginia and New York).

Design Elements for Success: Research suggests that successful IRCs typically include:

• True independence from legislative control
• Clear, ranked criteria for map-drawing
• Processes that encourage consensus-building
• Adequate funding and professional support
• Strong transparency and public participation requirements
• Final authority over redistricting (not merely advisory)

Public Awareness Challenge: Some academic research suggests that while commissions may perform slightly better on average than legislatures, the sweeping changes anticipated by reformers have not always materialized, and large partisan biases can still appear in commission-drawn maps.

Public awareness and education about how IRCs function also remain significant hurdles to building trust and ensuring their legitimacy.

The Political Reality

The movement for IRCs, frequently propelled by citizen-led ballot initiatives, reflects a strong public desire to reclaim democratic processes from what are perceived as entrenched political interests.

However, these reforms often face substantial political and legal opposition from those who might lose power under a more neutral system, highlighting an ongoing tension in democratic governance.

Opposition Strategies: Politicians and parties that benefit from gerrymandering often employ various strategies to oppose or undermine IRC initiatives:

• Legal challenges to ballot initiatives
• Legislative attempts to modify or weaken commission powers
• Funding opposition campaigns
• Appointing partisan actors to supposedly independent positions

Implementation Struggles: Even when IRCs are established, they may face implementation challenges:

• Inadequate funding or resources
• Political interference in the selection process
• Legal challenges to their maps
• Public relations campaigns to undermine their legitimacy

Strengthening the Rules: Enhanced Criteria and Mathematical Fairness

Beyond who draws the lines, another avenue for reform focuses on the rules and criteria that guide the map-drawing process itself. Advocates propose strengthening these rules to make them more robust and less susceptible to manipulation.

Clear Prioritization of Criteria

A key recommendation is for states to clearly define and rank their redistricting criteria in order of importance. When criteria are unranked or vaguely defined, map-drawers have significant discretion, which can be exploited for partisan or discriminatory purposes.

A clear hierarchy can provide better guidance and limit arbitrary decision-making.

Examples of Clear Hierarchies: Some states have adopted explicit ranking systems:

• Iowa prioritizes population equality, then compactness, then preserving political subdivisions, with partisan data explicitly prohibited
• Colorado ranks criteria including equal population, compliance with the Voting Rights Act, preservation of communities of interest, and competitiveness

Benefits of Clear Rankings: Clear criteria hierarchies can:

• Reduce subjective decision-making
• Make it easier to evaluate map quality
• Provide legal standards for court review
• Increase public understanding of the process

Mathematical Fairness Metrics

In recent years, there has been growing interest in using mathematical and statistical metrics to provide more objective measures of partisan fairness in electoral maps.

The Efficiency Gap: This metric measures “wasted votes”—votes cast for a losing candidate, or votes for a winning candidate in excess of what was needed to win. A large efficiency gap suggests that one party’s votes are being converted into seats much more efficiently than the other’s, potentially indicating a partisan gerrymander.

The efficiency gap is calculated as the difference between the parties’ wasted votes, divided by the total number of votes cast. A gap of 7% or more is often considered evidence of significant bias.

Partisan Symmetry (or Bias): This assesses whether each party would win the same number of seats if it received a certain percentage of the statewide vote. A lack of symmetry indicates bias.

For example, if Party A would win 60% of seats with 52% of the vote, but Party B would only win 40% of seats with 52% of the vote, the map shows partisan bias.

Mean-Median Difference: This compares a party’s average vote share across all districts to its median vote share. A significant difference can indicate that district lines have been drawn to systematically disadvantage one party.

If a party’s average vote share is significantly higher than its median vote share, it might indicate that the party’s voters have been “packed” into a few districts where they win by large margins.

Lopsided Wins Test: This statistical test compares the margins of victory for each party. Gerrymandered plans often result in the disadvantaged party winning its few seats by very large margins (due to packing) while the advantaged party wins many seats by smaller, but still safe, margins.

Seats-Votes Curves: These graphs plot the relationship between vote share and seat share, showing how electoral outcomes change as vote preferences shift. Symmetric curves indicate fair maps, while asymmetric curves suggest bias.

The Promise and Limitations of Mathematical Approaches

The goal of these metrics is to bring more quantitative rigor to the analysis of potential gerrymanders. However, significant challenges remain.

No Universal Standard: There is no single, universally accepted mathematical standard for fairness, and different metrics can sometimes yield different conclusions about a map’s bias. A map might score well on one metric while performing poorly on another.

Judicial Skepticism: The Supreme Court, in Rucho v. Common Cause, expressed skepticism about the judiciary’s ability to adopt and manage such standards for partisan gerrymandering at the federal level, deeming such claims non-justiciable.

State-Level Adoption: Despite federal judicial reluctance, some states are beginning to incorporate considerations of partisan fairness or specific metrics into their own redistricting laws or commission guidelines. Michigan and Ohio, for example, require consideration of partisan fairness in their constitutional provisions.

Technical Complexity: The mathematical complexity of these measures can make them difficult for the public to understand and for non-experts to apply, potentially limiting their effectiveness as tools for democratic accountability.

Automated Redistricting and Ensemble Methods

Algorithmic Map Generation: Computer algorithms can now generate thousands or even millions of potential district maps based on specified criteria. These “ensembles” of maps can be used as a baseline to evaluate whether a proposed or enacted map is an outlier.

If a map deviates significantly in partisan performance or other characteristics from the vast majority of algorithm-generated compliant maps, it might indicate gerrymandering.

Outlier Analysis: By comparing a single map to thousands of algorithmically generated alternatives, researchers can determine whether observed partisan outcomes are due to natural geographic clustering of voters or deliberate manipulation.

Applications in Court: These methods have been used in legal challenges to demonstrate that certain maps are extreme outliers that couldn’t have occurred by chance or through neutral application of traditional criteria.

Limitations: However, it is crucial to understand the assumptions and priorities built into any such algorithm. The results are only as good as the criteria and constraints programmed into the system.

Different algorithms with different assumptions can produce different results, and there’s always a risk that seemingly neutral algorithms might embed subtle biases.

Transparency and Public Participation

A cornerstone of nearly all redistricting reform efforts is the call for greater transparency throughout the map-drawing process and meaningful opportunities for public participation.

Historically, redistricting has often been a secretive affair, conducted behind closed doors by a select few political insiders. Increasing transparency and public involvement can act as a powerful counterbalance to self-interest and manipulation.

Key Elements of Transparent Redistricting

Open Meetings and Public Hearings: All meetings of the redistricting body (whether a legislature or commission) should be open to the public and well-publicized in advance. Multiple public hearings should be held at various stages of the process—before initial maps are drawn, after draft maps are released, and before final adoption—and in geographically diverse locations to ensure accessibility.

Virtual access to meetings and hearings is also increasingly important, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the value of remote participation options.

Public Access to Data and Maps: All data used by the official map-drawers, including detailed census data, any political data considered, and all proposed and enacted map files, should be made publicly available in non-proprietary, easily accessible formats.

This includes block equivalency files, shapefiles, and other technical formats that allow the public, researchers, and community groups to conduct their own analyses.

Tools for Public Map Drawing and Testimony: The public should be provided with user-friendly tools and platforms that enable them to draw and submit their own proposed district maps or maps identifying their specific “communities of interest.”

Modern web-based mapping tools make it possible for ordinary citizens to engage in map-drawing without specialized technical knowledge.

Clear Explanation of Decisions: Map-drawing authorities should be required to provide clear, public explanations for their decisions, detailing how they balanced various criteria and how public input was considered in the development of the final maps.

Application of Open Records Laws: The deliberations and records of redistricting bodies should be subject to state open records or Freedom of Information Act laws to ensure accountability.

The Challenge of Meaningful Participation

Transparency and public participation empower citizens and watchdog organizations to scrutinize the redistricting process, identify potential gerrymanders, and advocate for maps that better reflect community needs and promote fair representation.

However, for public input to be truly meaningful, it requires more than just symbolic gestures. It necessitates:

Accessible Information: Complex redistricting data and legal criteria must be presented in ways that ordinary citizens can understand and engage with.

User-Friendly Tools: The public needs access to mapping software and data that doesn’t require advanced technical skills to use effectively.

Genuine Consideration: Map-drawers must demonstrate that they seriously consider and integrate public testimony into their deliberations, not simply go through the motions of public participation.

Diverse Outreach: Efforts must be made to ensure that all communities, including those that have been historically marginalized or underrepresented, have opportunities to participate in the process.

Multiple Participation Channels: Different people prefer different ways of engaging—some through in-person testimony, others through online submissions, and still others through community organizations.

The effectiveness of transparency measures is often greatest when coupled with institutional designs, like well-structured IRCs, that are mandated or incentivized to prioritize public input and fairness.

Technology and Citizen Engagement

Digital Tools for Democracy

The rise of sophisticated but user-friendly mapping technology has democratized redistricting in unprecedented ways. Online platforms now allow ordinary citizens to draw their own district maps and submit them for consideration.

Popular Mapping Platforms: Tools like Dave’s Redistricting App, DistrictBuilder, and Representable have made map-drawing accessible to anyone with an internet connection. These platforms provide census data, demographic information, and easy-to-use interfaces that allow users to create legally compliant maps.

Community of Interest Mapping: Specialized tools allow residents to identify and map their communities of interest—neighborhoods or regions that share common social, cultural, economic, or political concerns. These community maps can then be used by official redistricting bodies to inform their decisions about how to keep related areas together in districts.

Crowdsourced Redistricting: Some organizations have launched crowdsourced redistricting efforts, collecting thousands of citizen-drawn maps and analyzing them to identify common themes and preferences. These efforts can demonstrate what communities actually want from their districts, as opposed to what politicians think they should have.

Educational Impact

These technological tools serve an important educational function, helping citizens understand the complexity and trade-offs involved in redistricting. When people try to draw their own maps, they quickly discover that satisfying all the various legal and traditional criteria simultaneously is challenging.

This hands-on experience can lead to more informed public discourse about redistricting and more sophisticated advocacy for reform.

Simulation and Analysis: Advanced users can run simulations showing how different map configurations would perform under various electoral scenarios, helping to identify maps that would be fair under different political conditions.

Data Visualization: Modern mapping tools can visualize complex demographic and political data in ways that make patterns and potential problems immediately apparent to users.

State-Level Reform Efforts

Constitutional Amendments

Many reform efforts have focused on amending state constitutions to include stronger anti-gerrymandering provisions and create independent redistricting processes.

Successful Ballot Initiatives: States like Michigan (2018), Colorado (2018), Utah (2018), and Missouri (2018) have passed constitutional amendments through ballot initiatives to reform their redistricting processes.

These amendments typically include provisions for independent or semi-independent commissions, stronger criteria prioritizing fairness and communities of interest, and enhanced transparency requirements.

Ohio’s Ongoing Struggle: Ohio provides an example of the challenges facing reform efforts. Despite passing constitutional amendments in 2015 and 2018 to reduce gerrymandering, the state’s Republican-controlled redistricting commission continued to pass maps that courts found to be unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders.

This led to ongoing legal battles and demonstrated that constitutional language must be both clear and enforceable to be effective.

Florida’s Reversal: Florida passed anti-gerrymandering amendments in 2010, but subsequent court decisions have limited their effectiveness, and some argue that gerrymandering has continued despite the constitutional provisions.

Legislative Reforms

Some states have pursued redistricting reform through regular legislation rather than constitutional amendments.

Statutory Changes: States can pass laws establishing new criteria, creating advisory commissions, or enhancing transparency requirements without amending their constitutions. However, these changes can be more easily reversed by future legislatures.

Interim Reforms: Some states have implemented interim reforms while working toward more comprehensive constitutional changes, such as requiring public hearings or providing mapping tools to the public.

Judicial Interventions

State courts have become increasingly important venues for redistricting challenges, especially after the Supreme Court’s Rucho decision closed federal courts to partisan gerrymandering claims.

State Constitutional Provisions: Many state constitutions contain provisions that can be used to challenge gerrymandered maps, including:

• Equal protection clauses
• Free and fair elections provisions
• Requirements for compact and contiguous districts
• Prohibitions on favoring or disfavoring political parties

Successful State Court Challenges: State supreme courts in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, New York, and other states have struck down gerrymandered maps as violations of their state constitutions.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s 2018 decision invalidating the state’s congressional map and ordering the creation of a fairer map is often cited as a model for how state courts can address gerrymandering.

Varying Approaches: Different state courts have taken different approaches to evaluating gerrymandering claims, with some focusing on partisan metrics, others on compliance with traditional criteria, and still others on the mapmakers’ intent and process.

Federal Reform Proposals

While the Supreme Court has closed federal courts to partisan gerrymandering claims, Congress retains the authority to regulate federal elections and could pass legislation addressing gerrymandering.

Congressional Legislation

The For the People Act: This comprehensive democracy reform bill, passed by the House in 2019 and 2021 but not enacted into law, included provisions that would have required states to use independent redistricting commissions for congressional elections.

The bill would have established national standards for these commissions, including requirements for partisan balance, transparency, and public participation.

The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act: This legislation would restore and strengthen the Voting Rights Act’s preclearance provisions, requiring jurisdictions with histories of voting discrimination to obtain federal approval before changing their election laws, including redistricting plans.

FAIR MAPS Act: Other proposed federal legislation has focused specifically on redistricting, establishing national standards for fairness and transparency while still allowing states flexibility in implementation.

Constitutional Amendment Proposals

Some advocates have proposed constitutional amendments to address gerrymandering at the federal level, though such amendments face extremely high hurdles for passage and ratification.

Proposed Amendments: Various proposals have been introduced in Congress to require fair and non-partisan redistricting, establish criteria for district drawing, or grant Congress explicit authority to regulate redistricting for federal elections.

Federal Agencies and Resources

Census Bureau Role: The Census Bureau plays a crucial role in redistricting by collecting and disseminating the population data used for map-drawing. Ensuring adequate funding and accurate counting for the census is essential for fair redistricting.

Department of Justice: The DOJ continues to enforce the Voting Rights Act’s remaining provisions, investigating and challenging maps that dilute minority voting strength.

Obstacles to Reform

Political Resistance

The primary obstacle to redistricting reform is political resistance from those who benefit from the current system.

Incumbent Protection: Elected officials who have won office under gerrymandered maps often resist changes that might make their reelection more difficult or uncertain.

Party Advantages: When one party controls both the governorship and legislature, they may be reluctant to give up the ability to draw favorable maps, even if they support reform in principle.

Short-term Thinking: Politicians may focus on immediate electoral advantages rather than long-term democratic health, making it difficult to build coalitions for reform.

Legal Challenges

Reform efforts often face legal challenges from opponents who argue that new redistricting processes or criteria violate state or federal law.

Constitutional Questions: Challenges may claim that independent commissions violate principles of representative government or that certain criteria conflict with federal law.

Implementation Disputes: Even when reforms are enacted, disputes over their implementation can delay or undermine their effectiveness.

Technical and Resource Constraints

Funding: Establishing and operating independent redistricting commissions or implementing new transparency measures requires significant resources that states may be reluctant to provide.

Technical Expertise: Drawing legally compliant maps that satisfy multiple criteria requires technical expertise and sophisticated software that may not be readily available.

Timeline Pressures: The tight timeline between census data release and election filing deadlines can pressure reformers to accept imperfect solutions rather than pursuing optimal ones.

Public Awareness and Engagement

Complexity: The technical complexity of redistricting can make it difficult for the public to understand and engage with reform efforts.

Competing Priorities: Citizens may prioritize other political issues over redistricting reform, making it challenging to build sustained public pressure for change.

Partisan Framing: When redistricting reform becomes partisan-coded, it can lose the broad public support necessary for success.

Getting Involved: Your Role in Fair Redistricting

Citizens concerned about gerrymandering and wishing to promote fairer redistricting practices have numerous engagement avenues. Informed and active participation is crucial for holding map-drawers accountable and advancing reforms.

Education and Awareness

Understanding the Basics: The first step is developing a solid understanding of how redistricting works in your state, including who draws the maps, what criteria they must follow, and when the next redistricting cycle will occur.

Key Resources: Several non-partisan organizations provide valuable educational resources:

Brennan Center for Justice: Offers in-depth research reports, legal analysis, and information on reform efforts. Their redistricting section includes state-specific information and analysis of current maps.

Campaign Legal Center: Engages in litigation, advocates for independent redistricting commissions, and provides resources on fair maps. They offer guides on how to participate in redistricting processes.

Common Cause: Organizes grassroots campaigns, supports ballot initiatives, and publishes reports on redistricting practices. They have local chapters in many states that work on redistricting issues.

American Civil Liberties Union: Works on litigation and advocacy to protect voting rights and ensure fair maps, with particular focus on protecting minority communities from discriminatory redistricting.

All About Redistricting: A comprehensive resource with detailed information on laws, criteria, and processes in all 50 states, hosted by Loyola Law School.

Redistricting Data Hub: Provides access to essential data sets for map drawing and analysis, along with training and resources for advocates and researchers.

FairVote: Offers analysis of redistricting and its effects on electoral competition and representation, along with proposals for alternative electoral systems.

Direct Participation in Redistricting

When redistricting is underway in your state or locality, there are several ways to participate directly:

Attend Public Hearings: Most redistricting processes include public hearings where citizens can provide testimony about their communities and how they should be represented. These hearings are opportunities to:

• Describe your community of interest and why it should be kept together
• Comment on proposed maps and their effects on your area
• Advocate for specific redistricting criteria or processes

Submit Written Comments: Even if you can’t attend hearings in person, most redistricting bodies accept written comments and testimony that can be submitted online or by mail.

Use Mapping Tools: Take advantage of online mapping tools to:

• Draw your own proposed district maps
• Submit community of interest maps showing how your neighborhood or region should be defined
• Analyze proposed maps to understand their effects

Engage with Local Media: Write letters to newspaper editors, participate in local forums, and help ensure that redistricting receives adequate media coverage in your community.

Supporting Reform Efforts

Join Advocacy Organizations: Connect with state and local organizations working specifically on redistricting reform in your area. These groups often lead advocacy campaigns, educate the public, and monitor the map-drawing process.

Many states have coalitions of organizations working on redistricting reform, such as:

• Fair Districts coalitions in various states
• League of Women Voters chapters
• Common Cause state organizations
• ACLU state affiliates

Support Ballot Initiatives: In states where citizen initiatives are possible, support efforts to place redistricting reform measures on the ballot. This can involve:

• Volunteering to collect petition signatures
• Donating to campaign efforts
• Helping to educate voters about the issues

Advocate for Legislative Reform: Contact your state legislators to advocate for:

• Creation of independent redistricting commissions
• Adoption of clear and prioritized map-drawing criteria
• Enhanced transparency and public participation requirements
• Stronger prohibitions on partisan and racial gerrymandering

Electoral Engagement: Support candidates for state and local office who pledge to support redistricting reform and fair maps.

Building Long-term Capacity

Community Education: Help educate others in your community about redistricting and its importance. This can involve:

• Organizing educational events or forums
• Speaking to community groups, civic organizations, and clubs
• Using social media to share information and resources
• Writing letters to local newspapers

Coalition Building: Work to build broad coalitions that cross partisan lines and include diverse community voices. Effective redistricting reform often requires bringing together:

• Good government groups
• Civil rights organizations
• Business associations
• Labor unions
• Religious communities
• Academic institutions

Long-term Engagement: Remember that redistricting reform is not just a once-per-decade issue. Maintaining public pressure and engagement between redistricting cycles is essential for:

• Ensuring implementation of existing reforms
• Building support for future improvements
• Monitoring compliance with redistricting laws and court orders

Skills and Tools for Advocates

Technical Skills: While not required, developing some technical skills can make you a more effective advocate:

• Learning to use mapping software
• Understanding basic demographic and electoral data
• Familiarity with legal standards and court decisions

Communication Skills: Effective advocacy requires clear communication about complex issues:

• Learning to explain redistricting concepts to diverse audiences
• Developing compelling narratives about why fair maps matter
• Building relationships with journalists, elected officials, and community leaders

Research and Analysis: Understanding how to research and analyze redistricting proposals can help you make stronger arguments for reform.

The International Perspective

Understanding how other democracies handle redistricting can provide valuable insights for American reform efforts.

Different Approaches Worldwide

Independent Boundary Commissions: Countries like the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada use independent boundary commissions to draw electoral districts. These commissions are typically composed of judges or other non-political figures and operate with significant independence from political parties.

Algorithmic Approaches: Some jurisdictions have experimented with computer algorithms to draw districts based on specified criteria, removing human discretion and potential bias from the process.

Alternative Electoral Systems: Some countries avoid redistricting issues entirely by using proportional representation or other electoral systems that don’t rely on single-member districts.

Lessons for American Reform

Institutional Design: International examples demonstrate the importance of truly independent institutions with adequate resources and clear mandates.

Public Trust: Countries with successful independent redistricting processes often invest significant effort in building and maintaining public trust through transparency and accountability measures.

Legal Frameworks: Strong legal frameworks that clearly define roles, responsibilities, and criteria are essential for effective independent redistricting.

The Future of Fair Representation

The battle for fair redistricting represents a fundamental struggle over the nature of American democracy. The outcome will significantly influence whether the United States moves toward more representative and responsive government or continues to experience the negative effects of manipulated electoral maps.

Technological Developments

Advancing Tools: Redistricting technology continues to evolve, with new tools making map-drawing more accessible and analysis more sophisticated. These developments could democratize redistricting further and make gerrymandering more difficult to hide.

Artificial Intelligence: AI and machine learning applications may eventually provide new ways to evaluate map fairness and detect gerrymandering, though they also raise questions about transparency and accountability.

Real-time Analysis: Improved data collection and analysis capabilities may eventually allow for real-time evaluation of proposed maps and their effects.

Legal Evolution

State Courts: As federal courts have withdrawn from partisan gerrymandering cases, state courts are likely to play an increasingly important role in defining acceptable redistricting practices.

Constitutional Development: State constitutional law around redistricting continues to evolve, with new interpretations and standards emerging from litigation and reform efforts.

Federal Possibilities: While federal action on redistricting has been limited, changing political circumstances could create new opportunities for congressional action or even constitutional amendment.

Public Engagement

Growing Awareness: Public awareness of gerrymandering and its effects appears to be increasing, creating more pressure for reform across the political spectrum.

Civic Education: Efforts to improve civic education about redistricting and electoral systems may help create a more informed and engaged electorate.

Intergenerational Change: Younger voters, who have grown up with more access to information and technology, may be more supportive of redistricting reform than previous generations.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.