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

Political Violence Escalates: Charlie Kirk’s Assassination and the Fragility of Democracy

The appalling assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk while speaking at Utah Valley University marks another escalation in the dangerous normalization of political violence in the U.S. The murder of such a high-profile political figure underscores the fragility of democracy when disagreement is expressed not through debate or ballots but through the barrel of a gun. The tragedy must be understood as part of a broader pattern of radicalization, identity threat, and inadequate safeguards for candidates and elected officials.

After the assassination of a state legislator in Minnesota, we published an analysis on the psychological roots of political violence. That piece examined how violence is often driven more by deep psychological insecurity than by ideology, which political psychologists refer to as “defensive extremism.” Individuals who feel excluded, humiliated, or stripped of control can come to see violence as the only way to regain significance. This is especially true in contexts of rapid change, social isolation, or echo chambers that amplify grievances. As research indicates, the majority of violent acts are expressive rather than strategic eruptions of anger and fear, which are framed as moral or political necessities.

Keep ReadingShow less
For Whom the Bell Tolls: What Political Violence Reveals About Us

The bell tower from Mission Concepcion in San Antonio, Texas.

Getty Images, Gabriel Perez

For Whom the Bell Tolls: What Political Violence Reveals About Us

“Ask not for whom the bell tolls, the bell tolls for thee.”

The English poet, John Donne, wrote those words in the early 17th century, when it was customary for villagers to announce their fellow inhabitants’ deaths by the tolling of a single church bell.

Keep ReadingShow less
People looking at a TV screen, live broadcasting China's Victory Day military parade from Beijing on September 3, 2025 in Chongqing, China.

Elderly residents gather at a local civil affairs service center to watch the live broadcast of China's Victory Day military parade from Beijing on September 3, 2025 in Chongqing, China. The parade, commemorating the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II, featured Chinese President Xi Jinping addressing the nation and reviewing troops and military equipment at Tiananmen Square

Getty Images, Cheng Xin

A New World Order Isn’t Coming, It’s Already Here − and This Is What It Looks Like

On Sept. 3, 2025, China celebrated the 80th anniversary of its victory over Japan by staging a carefully choreographed event in which 26 world leaders were offered a podium view of Beijing’s impressive military might.

The show of strength was deliberate and reignited a debate in Western mediaover whether we are on the cusp of a China-centric “new world order” to replace the U.S.-dominated international “rules-based order.”

Keep ReadingShow less
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