Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The Hidden Cause (and Higher Stakes) of the Gerrymandering Crisis

We’re here because partisan electoral institutions failed us. They must be fixed before it’s too late.

The Hidden Cause (and Higher Stakes) of the Gerrymandering Crisis

California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks about the “Election Rigging Response Act” at a press conference at the Democracy Center, Japanese American National Museum on August 14, 2025 in Los Angeles, California. Newsom spoke about a possible California referendum on redistricting to counter the legislative effort to add five Republican House seats in the state of Texas.

Getty Images, Mario Tama

The first shots in the gerrymandering wars have now been fired. Texas Republicans rammed a new gerrymandered map through the legislature, forcing police escorts on Democratic lawmakers until the power grab was complete. California Governor Gavin Newsom has fired back with his “Election Rigging Response Act”— a response that will, sadly, also involve rigging elections. The Act would sideline California’s Citizens Redistricting Commission until 2031 so Democrats can oust five Republicans from California’s congressional delegation as payback.

To be clear, the actions taken by Texas and California are not equal—one’s a brazen power grab, the other a response to that power grab. But it’s still deeply concerning that California could become the first state to backtrack from independent redistricting, just when increasing polarization makes these and other independent institutions even more essential.


These developments are forcing America to recognize that we face two urgent and overlapping crises: authoritarianism and structural collapse. A uniquely tyrannical president is attacking our democracy, and our long-flawed democratic structures are unraveling. Each crisis is amplifying and enabling the other, so both must be faced together. Trump owes his second term in part to voters who believe the system is so rigged they’re willing to see it torn down. Stopping President Trump and what he represents will depend on showing Americans a better system ahead.

The gerrymandering wars have laid bare the unique Achilles’ heel at the heart of our structural dysfunction: We give partisan institutions immense power over the rules of elections. No other peer democracy entrusts politicians with control over as many pieces of electoral machinery as the United States. Ignoring these major flaws has long left American democracy susceptible to authoritarian capture, and now the bill is coming due.

The consequences are as predictable as they are catastrophic. Party control over election districts now denies our democracy the lifeblood of competition, accountability, and choice. Why try to persuade voters when it’s easier to gerrymander them into irrelevance? Why advance policies that the majority will support when so many rules allow insiders to ignore the majority and stay in power?

For decades, America relied on strong norms, (relatively) responsible leaders, and a political culture of forbearance to keep the ship of state steady despite these cracks in the hull. But now toxic polarization is tearing these cracks wider apart.

While partisan gerrymandering is an obvious example of the problem with giving politicians control over the rules of their own election, the structural problems go much deeper. One hidden cause of the current crisis is rising partisan manipulation of ballot measures, which has contributed significantly to the redistricting arms race over the past decade.

In three red states (Ohio, Missouri, and Utah), majorities backed strong, citizen-led anti-gerrymandering measures. But, in all three states, either Republican legislatures overrode the approved initiative, or Republican officials manipulated the ballot-measure process to deny the will of the voters. Had those voters’ wishes been respected, the constraints on gerrymandering facing blue and red states would be more closely balanced, the risk of an arms race would be contained, and Democrats would not be threatening to unwind two decades’ worth of progress toward fairer maps.

The Ohio example is particularly ugly. Blatantly misleading ballot language, written at the behest of Republican Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, told voters that the state’s independent redistricting initiative would establish a new taxpayer-funded commission “required to gerrymander.” Opposition messaging echoed this disinformation, claiming that a “No” vote would “stop gerrymandering.” In the end, the measure narrowly lost despite polls showing widespread support for the policy of independent redistricting.

In two other red states, Arkansas and Oklahoma, procedural hurdles of questionable merit kept independent redistricting commission ballot measures from ever reaching voters.

These disturbing power plays reflect the wider structural collapse of checks and balances, but they also highlight that large majorities of voters on both sides want fairness and accountability. This broadly shared desire to unrig the system is essential to stopping authoritarianism and building a more resilient democracy.

Ahead of 2026, two immediate steps are necessary: (1) the redistricting contagion must be stopped from spreading, and (2) ballot measure protections must be strengthened—and fast.

Stopping the contagion may require a voter referendum to block worse maps in Ohio and litigation to block worse maps in Florida and Indiana. (In these and other states targeted by Trump, laws provide for more defensive moves than in Texas.) It may require Democrats to join those Republicans in Congress who have introduced a mid-decade redistricting ban. And yes, it will mean mobilizing enough popular support so that anti-gerrymandering candidates can win the House in 2026—focusing in particular on those districts where gerrymandering efforts might overreach and give voters a chance to fight back.

Strengthening ballot measure protections is equally urgent. Voters in both red and blue states want to stop gerrymandering, and reforms must be won and defended in both red and blue states. If efforts to end gerrymandering are to continue making progress, then mutual disarmament will be necessary—and that will require “fixing the process first” in 2026 to 2028 to unlock the possibility of passing new redistricting reforms in 2028 to 2030.

On this front, Missouri and Utah are showing the way forward. In Missouri, a broad-based coalition is advancing an initiative that will make it harder for the legislature to repeal approved measures and for the secretary of state to mislead voters. And in Utah, reformers recently achieved a big win when a state court ruled the legislature unconstitutionally overturned a voter-approved measure establishing a ban on gerrymandering and an advisory redistricting commission. These kinds of efforts can enable successful redistricting reform and provide other benefits for our democracy over the long run—and they deserve to be an immediate priority for reformers across the 23 states with citizen initiatives.

Ahead of 2028 and 2030, reformers will also need to gather, work together, and pioneer new ways to (1) constrain partisan gerrymandering and (2) reduce the risk that partisan interference plays across the election landscape.

On the gerrymandering front, reformers could use multi-state agreements to ensure that state-by-state progress does not unintentionally skew representation in Congress or cause one party to unilaterally disarm. Such multi-state approaches can ensure a balanced way forward for new independent commissions as well as opportunities for other reforms that would combat gerrymandering, such as voting systems based on multi-member districts. Our organization—Election Reformers Network—works with reformers and policymakers on this full range of policy options, all of which would move us closer to the ultimate goal: a federal solution to end the gerrymandering wars for good.

On the partisan interference front, voters are starting to see why giving politicians control over so many other parts of our elections poses major risks as well. From party control over the certification of election results to blatant favoritism by secretaries of state, our country’s antiquated systems are buckling under the stresses of polarization. Good models exist to tackle these problems, and we can no longer afford to leave these vulnerabilities open to abuse.

These are the hidden causes and higher stakes of the gerrymandering crisis. To meet this bigger challenge, we need “anti-hardball”: implementing forceful but principled responses like those described above that “reduce the likelihood of constitutional hardball being played by either side.” Otherwise, we might look back on 2026 as the year that our democracy slipped away—not because of the seats that switched hands, but because it was the year we all gave up and gave in.

If we want to save democracy for ourselves and our children, we must demand more—we must fight for something better. And with the Voting Rights Act under threat and the 2030 census around the corner, this cause could not be more urgent.

Michael Parsons and Kevin Johnson are Senior Counsel and Executive Director of Election Reformers Network, a nonpartisan nonprofit dedicated to protecting elections against polarization.

Read More

A globe resting on the very edge of a risen plank.

Foreign policy experts discuss the Israel-Gaza crisis, Iran tensions, Russia-Ukraine conflict, China’s strategy, and the shifting global order.

Getty Images, Daniel Grizelj

What in the World Is Going On?

In this moment, when global politics feel overwhelmed by unprecedented change and intense international upheaval, the Network for Responsible Public Policy convened foreign policy experts to discuss tariffs, conflicts between Israel and Gaza, Israel and Iran, the U.S. and Iran, Russia and Ukraine, North Korea’s role in all of this, and more. As program moderator and Axel Springer Fellow at the American Academy in Berlin, Gideon Rose put it at the outset, “Everybody's really interested in trying to figure out what is happening, what will happen next, what the consequences will be. The first point to make is that nobody knows anything. We are in uncharted territory in various areas.” Rose was joined by distinguished scholars, F. Gregory Gause III, Minxin Pei, Kathryn Stoner, and Shibley Telhami.

On Iran: Greg Gause discussed the situation in Iran and mentioned that, happily, the worst-case scenario based on the U.S. attack on the Iranian nuclear facilities did not happen, which is good for everyone. That worst-case scenario would have been an Iranian attack on Gulf oil facilities to bring in other actors to counter the U.S. and Israeli attacks. His concern with the current situation is that, with the U.S. President insisting that the nuclear facilities were obliterated, U.S. intelligence assessments must now be questioned, as they will necessarily be skewed to conform to the President’s preferred reality. Since it seems unlikely that the facilities were, in fact, destroyed, Gause believes that Iran now has an enormous incentive to race to develop a nuclear weapon. In what would become a main theme of this conversation (long-term stability even in the face of intense short-term upheaval), Gause mentioned that he does not believe that the current situation in Iran will result in a change to the Iranian regime.

Keep ReadingShow less
Bernie Sanders Still Believes in the Democratic Party. Why?

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) speaks as New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani listens during the Fighting Oligarchy town hall at the Leonard & Claire Tow Center for the Performing Artson September 06, 2025 in New York City.

Getty Images, Michael M. Santiago

Bernie Sanders Still Believes in the Democratic Party. Why?

At a rally in support of Zohran Mamdani, Senator Bernie Sanders made a familiar declaration: My understanding is you won the primary, correct?” he asked, and then added: “I find it hard to understand how major Dem leaders in New York are not supporting the Democratic candidate. So we have another fight on our hands—the future of the Democratic Party.”

The words are vintage Bernie: Indignant, direct, a rallying cry for fairness. And yet, that he expects us to believe that he finds the behavior of the Democratic establishment “hard to understand” is nothing short of astonishing. After decades of first-hand evidence that the Democratic Party is structurally hostile to his politics, his campaigns, and his base, Bernie is not able to understand the party’s behavior and still thinks this is a fight inside the party? He still believes that the institution can be salvaged?

Keep ReadingShow less
Political Assassinations Are Part of the “Constitutional Rot” That Afflicts America
Gen Z and the Dangerous Allure of Political Violence
Gen Z and the Dangerous Allure of Political Violence

Political Assassinations Are Part of the “Constitutional Rot” That Afflicts America

Americans are learning that democracy is a fragile thing. If it is taken for granted, it can wither almost imperceptibly.

Signs of that withering are everywhere. I won’t rehearse them here.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Constitution and the American flag
"We don't need to tear down the Constitution. We need to breathe new life into it, reclaiming it as a living promise rather than allowing it to become a weapon in partisan warfare," writes Dr. Paul Zeitz.
alancrosthwaite/iStock/Getty Images

The Hidden Hinge of History: A Refreshing Look at the Constitution on Its Day

Constitution Day is September 17. In his Constitution Day Conversation with Fulcrum Contributor Rick LaRue, leading constitutional scholar and advisor Richard Albert places the document in a refreshing as well as reflective light. He teaches at the University of Texas at Austin, is a prolific author, and actively serves the field’s participants around the world, from students to governments. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Rick LaRue: Before tackling some contemporary challenges, a background question: In the main, constitutions shape governance and protect rights. The U.S. Constitution originally focused on the former and has mostly advanced the latter through amendments. How does this compare internationally?

Keep ReadingShow less