Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

America’s Gerrymandering Crisis: Why Voters Are Losing Power in Texas and Beyond

Opinion

America’s Gerrymandering Crisis: Why Voters Are Losing Power in Texas and Beyond

People rally during the "Stop the Trump takeover" demonstration outside of the State Capitol on August 16, 2025 in Austin, Texas. Over 200 nationwide demonstrations occurred today against the Trump administration's newly introduced redistricting plans.

Getty Images, Brandon Bell

Voters should choose their politicians, not the other way around. The Texas gerrymander and the partisan war it has triggered signal an extraordinarily dangerous period for American democracy.

Gerrymandering leads to less choice, less representation for voters, and less accountability for politicians. It also produces more polarization, as party primary voters rather than general election voters have the loudest say. And voters of color all too often suffer the most as their communities are cynically sliced and diced to engineer partisan advantage.


The phenomenon is not new. In the very first congressional election, Patrick Henry drew a House district to try to keep James Madison from being elected to Congress. Both parties eventually participated in the practice. Over the years, technology and an increasingly partisan governing style have made things worse. In last year’s election, only 37 House seats were competitive, and those were decided by five percentage points or less. Just 11 of those districts flipped between parties.

But what’s going on in Texas now is particularly wrong. Gov. Greg Abbott is pursuing a gerrymander to produce five new seats for Republicans, mid-decade (long after the census), at the expense of Black and Latino voters, all on orders from a sitting president. It’s a raw power grab.

It is part of an unprecedented White House push to tilt the electoral terrain in 2026 and beyond. Vice President JD Vance just met with state leaders in Indiana to urge redrawing of maps there. Florida, Missouri, and other states may follow suit. President Trump even called for a new census that would exclude undocumented immigrants. (That’s logistically impossible as well as unconstitutional.) Last week, the Brennan Center for Justice outlined how the administration aims to undermine election rules across the country.

It’s no surprise that Democrats are responding as they have across the nation: They’re outraged and have pledged to redraw maps in states they control. Gov. Gavin Newsom plans to put a new map before California voters in November to match Texas’s harvest of Republican seats. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul vowed to “fight fire with fire.”

But ultimately, a partisan redistricting arms race cannot be the only answer. We urgently need national redistricting standards that apply across the country — to red states and blue states alike.

On this topic, in recent years, the Supreme Court has walked away from its duty. In Rucho v. Common Cause in 2019, it declared that federal judges could not protect against unfair maps. Racial discrimination is still illegal, but judges now wink and allow politicians to gerrymander so long as they claim it’s about politics, not race.

Even so, the Court noted that Congress has the constitutional power to set national standards. And just recently, it almost did.

The Freedom to Vote Act sought to bar partisan gerrymandering nationwide. It also would have banned mid-decade redistricting and set other national standards — and made it easier and faster for voters to win relief. The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act would have strengthened protections against racially discriminatory maps. These landmark bills came achingly close to enactment in 2022. Together, they would stop what is happening today, cold.

National standards, like other reforms, do not flow from hazy idealism. They reflect a hard reality: Congress has the power to prohibit political abuse. President Biden did not press for these reforms until it was too late in his term. President Obama, too, did not demand action when he held power. This inaction reflected a repeated failure of imagination as well as will.

For too long, when it comes to protecting voters, to quote the poet William Butler Yeats, “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”

Those who want to undermine American democracy have shown that they will act with impunity. Those who profess to care about the law must respond with equal boldness. If they have the chance, they must act to unrig the system. While the Supreme Court helped get us into this mess, all eyes will be on Congress to get us out.


Michael Waldman is president of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law.

Read More

U.S. Capitol.

As government shutdowns drag on, a novel idea emerges: use arbitration to break congressional gridlock and fix America’s broken budget process.

Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

Arbitration Could Prevent Government Shutdowns

The way that Congress makes decisions seems almost designed to produce government shutdowns. Senate rules require a three-fifths supermajority to close debate on most bills. In practice, this means that senators from both parties must agree to advance legislation to a final vote. In such a polarized political environment, negotiating an agreement that both sides can accept is no easy task. When senators inevitably fail to agree on funding bills, the government shuts down, impacting services for millions of Americans.

Arbitration could offer us a way out of this mess. In arbitration, the parties to a dispute select a neutral third party to resolve their disagreement. While we probably would not want to give unelected arbitrators the power to make national policy decisions, arbitration could help resolve the much more modest question of whether an appropriations bill could advance to a final vote in the Senate. This process would allow the Senate to make appropriations decisions by a majority vote while still protecting the minority’s interests.

Keep ReadingShow less
People sitting behind a giant American flag.

Over five decades, policy and corporate power hollowed out labor, captured democracy, and widened inequality—leaving America’s middle class in decline.

Matt Mills McKnight/Getty Images

Our America: A Tragedy in Five Acts

America likes to tell itself stories about freedom, democracy, and shared prosperity. But beneath those stories, a quiet tragedy has unfolded over the last fifty years — enacted not with swords or bombs, but with legislation, court rulings, and corporate strategy. It is a tragedy of labor hollowed out, the middle class squeezed, and democracy captured, and it can be read through five acts, each shaped by a destructive force that charts the shredding of our shared social contract.

In the first act, productivity and pay part ways.

Keep ReadingShow less
Protest ​Demonstrators holding up signs.

Demonstrators listen to speeches with other protesters during the "No Kings" protest on Oct. 18, 2025, in Portland, Oregon.

Mathieu Lewis-Rolland/Getty Images/TNS

In Every Banana Republic You Need Enablers

In any so-called banana republic you need enablers. President Donald Trump has Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House, and Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito leading the charge. Johnson is pulling Congress along with the justices who are the most ferocious defenders of Trump on the Supreme Court. It just takes a handful of enablers to allow a king to assume his crown – or to have a banana republic. And these guys are exceptionally good at what they do.

And as jaywalking is only a crime if enforced, Trump is allowed to continue on doing whatever he wants without guardrails or fear of getting a ticket – just like most Americans feel about jaywalking: It’s against the law, but who really cares?

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump 2028—A Test of Constitutional Resolve

Trump 2028—A Test of Constitutional Resolve

When Steve Bannon says Donald Trump should serve a third term, he’s not joking. He’s not even being coy. He’s laying ideological groundwork for a constitutional stress test that could redefine the limits of executive power in the United States.

Bannon was asked how Trump could legally serve a third term. “There’s many different alternatives,” Bannon told The Economist. "Trump is going to be president in '28, and people ought to just get accommodated with that. At the appropriate time, we'll lay out what the plan is."

Keep ReadingShow less