Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

Opinion

How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

Demonstrators gather outside of The United States Supreme Court during an oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford to call for an end to partisan gerrymandering on October 3, 2017 in Washington, DC

Getty Images, Olivier Douliery
The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Col. Edward Carrington, Paris, 27 May 1788

The Problem We Face

The U.S. House of Representatives was designed as the chamber of Congress most directly tethered to the people. Article I of the Constitution mandates that seats be apportioned among the states according to population and that members face election every two years—design features meant to keep representatives responsive to shifting public sentiment. Unlike the Senate, which prioritizes state sovereignty and representation, the House translates raw population counts into political voice: each House district is to contain roughly the same number of residents, ensuring that every citizen’s vote carries comparable weight. In principle, then, the House serves as the nation’s demographic mirror, channeling the diverse preferences of the electorate into lawmaking and acting as a safeguard against unresponsive or oligarchic governance.

Nationally, the mismatch between the overall popular vote and the partisan split in House seats is small, with less than a 1% tilt. But state-level results tell a different story. Take Connecticut: Democrats hold all five seats despite Republicans winning over 40% of the statewide vote. In Oklahoma, the inverse occurs—Republicans control every seat even though Democrats consistently earn around 40% of the vote.


Texas has now officially redrawn its maps in a way that shifts it from one of the fairest states to one of the most distorted, giving Republicans nearly 80% of the seats while earning only about 59% of the vote. If California and other states follow suit, the result will be an escalating cycle of disenfranchisement, with each party trying to outdo the other in a political arms race. This arms race is not between us and a foreign power. It is against us, the American people. And it is American citizens' disenfranchisement as voters that will be collateral damage, impacting the entire legitimacy and accountability of the government to serve its citizens.

This is not about helping Democrats or Republicans. It is about ensuring that the voters should get the congressional voice they cast ballots for. When the rules are even, we can disagree passionately on policy and still trust the playing field to be fair.

Why the Courts Won’t Save Us

The Supreme Court’s Rucho decision (2019) said federal judges have no “clear, manageable standard” to stop partisan gerrymanders. Translation: if we want a standard, we have to write it ourselves.

Independent commissions, like those in Colorado and Michigan, work well when adopted. But most states still let politicians draw their own maps. A broader solution requires a national backstop that guarantees structural fairness.

Meanwhile, public trust is in crisis. Only 10% of Americans say they have confidence in Congress. And 67% view gerrymandering as a major problem. That collapse of legitimacy is corrosive to democracy itself.

So, what could states do to right the ship?

A Simple, Non-Partisan Fix

Here’s the proposal: a proportionality backstop for states with three or more congressional seats.

  • Each party’s share of seats should roughly match its share of the statewide vote.
  • A deviation greater than ±10 percentage points would be presumptively invalid unless needed to comply with the Voting Rights Act or respect communities of interest.
  • For example, if a party wins 60% of the statewide two-party vote, it should expect between 55% and 65% of that state’s House seats.

That’s it. Simple, transparent, enforceable.

If a proposed map strays beyond that threshold, map-drawers must justify why no alternative could do better. Otherwise, the courts step in and order a redraw.

This rule would not eliminate partisan competition. It would ensure that competition happens on a level field where voters, not politicians, determine outcomes.

Using 2022 Federal Elections Commission data and election results, the map below gives a sense of how this proportionality rule might play out in different states.



There are two paths that can yield these results:

Path One: Federal Action. Congress should immediately pass a proportionality law. There has been recent discussion in Congress of doing something to end partisan gerrymandering. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has discussed this issue with Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Calif.). Rep Kiley could lose his seat if California moves forward with its own redistricting.

Path Two: State Action. States can adopt proportionality rules on their own, with provisions that take effect only once enough other states join in. This approach removes the “unilateral disarmament” fear—no state would risk disadvantaging itself alone. It would instead create a path toward mutual fairness.

The key is political courage. Someone must go first. Until then, we are stuck in a dangerous cycle where each side justifies its abuses as retaliation for the other’s.

Why This Matters

At its core, this is about equal representation—the foundation of American democracy. Every community deserves its own authentic voice in Congress, not one distorted by cartographic gamesmanship. Americans agree; an August YouGov study on gerrymandering confirmed previous findings that large majorities of them believe partisan gerrymandering is a problem—in this study, 94%.

Adopting a fair-share rule would restore trust, reduce polarization, and remind citizens that their votes matter equally. In a time of deep division, we cannot afford to let redistricting drive us further apart.

Congress and state legislatures alike have the power and responsibility to act. Passing a proportionality rule will not solve every problem in our democracy, but it will remove one of the most corrosive: the sense that the game is rigged before the first ballot is cast.

Fair rules make for fair fights. Let’s put an end to the gerrymandering arms race and recommit to a simple promise: that the people’s House should reflect the people.


Jacob Bornstein is President of Mediators’ Foundation and a co-founder and Executive Director of Better Together America.

Kristina Becvar is Executive Director of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund and Co-Publisher of The Fulcrum.

Read More

Jolt Initiative Hits Back at Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in Fight Over Voter Registration

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is running for U.S. Senate, speaks at an event in Lubbock on Oct 7, 2025. Paxton is seeking to shut down Jolt Initiative, a civic engagement group for Latinos, alleging that it's involved in illegal voter registration efforts. The group is fighting back.

Trace Thomas for The Texas Tribune

Jolt Initiative Hits Back at Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in Fight Over Voter Registration

Jolt Initiative, a nonprofit that aims to increase civic participation among Latinos, is suing Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to block his efforts to shut the organization down.

Paxton announced Monday that he was seeking to revoke the nonprofit’s charter, alleging that it had orchestrated “a systematic, unlawful voter registration scheme.”

Keep ReadingShow less
MAGA Gerrymandering, Pardons, Executive Actions Signal Heightened 2026 Voting Rights Threats

A deep dive into ongoing threats to U.S. democracy—from MAGA election interference and state voting restrictions to filibuster risks—as America approaches 2026 and 2028.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

MAGA Gerrymandering, Pardons, Executive Actions Signal Heightened 2026 Voting Rights Threats

Tuesday, November 4, demonstrated again that Americans want democracy and US elections are conducted credibly. Voter turnout was strong; there were few administrative glitches, but voters’ choices were honored.

The relatively smooth elections across the country nonetheless took place despite electiondenial and anti-voting efforts continuing through election day. These efforts will likely intensify as we move toward the 2026 midterms and 2028 presidential election. The MAGA drive for unprecedented mid-decade, extreme political gerrymandering of congressional districts to guarantee their control of the House of Representatives is a conspicuous thrust of their campaign to remain in power at all costs.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person putting on an "I Voted" sticker.

Major redistricting cases in Louisiana and Texas threaten the Voting Rights Act and the representation of Black and Latino voters across the South.

Getty Images, kali9

The Voting Rights Act Is Under Attack in the South

Under court order, Louisiana redrew to create a second majority-Black district—one that finally gave true representation to the community where my family lives. But now, that district—and the entire Voting Rights Act (VRA)—are under attack. Meanwhile, here in Texas, Republican lawmakers rammed through a mid-decade redistricting plan that dramatically reduces Black and Latino voting power in Congress. As a Louisiana-born Texan, it’s disheartening to see that my rights to representation as a Black voter in Texas, and those of my family back home in Louisiana, are at serious risk.

Two major redistricting cases in these neighboring states—Louisiana v. Callais and Texas’s statewide redistricting challenge, LULAC v. Abbott—are testing the strength and future of the VRA. In Louisiana, the Supreme Court is being asked to decide not just whether Louisiana must draw a majority-Black district to comply with Section 2 of the VRA, but whether considering race as one factor to address proven racial discrimination in electoral maps can itself be treated as discriminatory. It’s an argument that contradicts the purpose of the VRA: to ensure all people, regardless of race, have an equal opportunity to elect candidates amid ongoing discrimination and suppression of Black and Latino voters—to protect Black and Brown voters from dilution.

Keep ReadingShow less
Princeton Gerrymandering Project Gives California Prop 50 an ‘F’
Independent Voter News

Princeton Gerrymandering Project Gives California Prop 50 an ‘F’

The special election for California Prop 50 wraps up November 4 and recent polling shows the odds strongly favor its passage. The measure suspends the state’s independent congressional map for a legislative gerrymander that Princeton grades as one of the worst in the nation.

The Princeton Gerrymandering Project developed a “Redistricting Report Card” that takes metrics of partisan and racial performance data in all 50 states and converts it into a grade for partisan fairness, competitiveness, and geographic features.

Keep ReadingShow less