Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The Worst Gerrymandered Districts: March 2025 Update

News

The Worst Gerrymandered Districts: March 2025 Update

An oversized ballot box surrounded by people.

Getty Images, J Studios

The Fulcrum has been covering gerrymandering and its effects for over five years, beginning with a popular piece by David Meyers, which identified the 12 worst examples of gerrymandering in the House of Representatives, following the Supreme Court ruling of the same year. In that ruling, the court ruled that claims of partisan gerrymandering present political questions beyond the reach of federal courts. Essentially, the ruling stated that while partisan gerrymandering might be "incompatible with democratic principles," it is not within the jurisdiction of federal courts to address such claims.

This landmark case sparked considerable debate about the role of the judiciary in addressing political issues by leaving the responsibility of addressing gerrymandering to state courts and legislatures, as well as Congress.


What is Gerrymandering?

When electoral districts are manipulated to favor one party or group, the resulting electoral map does not reflect the true political will of the voters. The results are harmful because they undermine the principles of fair representation and equal political power.

Some of the specific ways that this distortion of congressional districts harms our democracy are:

  • Distorted Representation: Gerrymandering can lead to situations where the distribution of seats in a legislature does not match the overall vote share of political parties. For example, a party receiving fewer total votes could still win a majority of seats, which misrepresents the electorate's preferences.
  • Undermines Voter Choice: By drawing districts to heavily favor one party, gerrymandering reduces competition in elections. Many districts become "safe" for one party, leaving voters with fewer meaningful choices and discouraging voter turnout.
  • Marginalizes Communities: Certain types of gerrymandering—like racial gerrymandering—can dilute the political power of specific racial or ethnic groups, making it harder for them to elect representatives who reflect their interests.
  • Polarization: When districts are drawn to favor extremes, representatives may cater more to partisan bases rather than seek a middle ground, contributing to greater political polarization.
  • Erosion of Trust: Over time, gerrymandering can weaken public confidence in the democratic process. If people feel their votes don’t count or the system is rigged, they may disengage from participating altogether.

Stated simply, gerrymandering places partisan or personal interests above the public good, which is the antithesis of a healthy democracy. It’s a clear reminder of why transparency and fairness in electoral processes are so crucial to the functioning of our democratic republic.

In the Fulcrum report of five years ago, we asked several redistricting experts to identify the worst examples of gerrymandering. Today, gerrymandered districts are still a serious problem.

Some of the most gerrymandered districts in the U.S. today are infamous for their irregular shapes and partisan bias. Here are a few examples:

1. Maryland's 3rd Congressional District: Often referred to as the "praying mantis," this district is notorious for its convoluted boundaries, which have been criticized for favoring one political party.

2. North Carolina's 12th Congressional District: This district has been described as a "snake-like" stretch, connecting urban areas while bypassing rural ones, creating a highly partisan map.

3. Pennsylvania's 7th Congressional District: Nicknamed "Goofy kicking Donald Duck," this district's bizarre shape has made it a poster child for gerrymandering.

4. Texas's 35th Congressional District: This district stretches narrowly between Austin and San Antonio, connecting two Democratic strongholds while excluding surrounding Republican areas.

These districts highlight the extreme measures sometimes taken to secure political advantage.

The Brennan Center reports that there are currently many ongoing developments in state legislation and court cases related to gerrymandering. For example, several lawsuits challenging partisan gerrymandering are currently pending in state courts across the U.S., including major cases in Florida, Utah, and Wisconsin. Additionally, state courts have been influential in addressing gerrymandering issues, with rulings in states like New Mexico and Kentucky declaring partisan gerrymandering subject to trial in a court of law.

Some notable updates on gerrymandering cases and legislation across the U.S.:

  • Wisconsin: The state Supreme Court is reviewing a lawsuit, challenging its legislative maps, which have been criticized for favoring one party.
  • New Mexico and Kentucky: Both states' Supreme Courts have ruled that partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable, meaning they can be addressed in court. However, they did not strike down their respective maps.
  • Florida and Utah: Major cases are pending before the state high courts, where challenges to partisan gerrymandering are being closely watched.
  • North Carolina: The state Supreme Court ruled that partisan gerrymandering claims are not justiciable under its state constitution.

The harmful effects of gerrymandering are not a partisan issue. For decades, both Democrat and Republican Presidents have voiced their concerns about the impact of gerrymandering on our democracy. In the 1980s, then-President Ronald Reagan stated:

"Gerrymandering has become a national scandal. It’s time to put an end to this practice that undermines the will of the people."

And over 40 years later, President Barack Obama voiced his concerns:

"We have to end the practice of drawing our congressional districts so that politicians can pick their voters, and not the other way around."

Yet, the problem still exists today. The Fulcrum will continue to provide regularly updated coverage on the worst gerrymandered districts in the United States with the hope that voters will demand an end to this unfair and undemocratic political tool.

David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

Read More

Protestors holding signs at a rally in Chicago against ICE.

Demonstrators protest the agenda of the Trump administration with a march through downtown on September 30, 2025 in Chicago, Illinois.

Getty Image, Scott Olson

Stop the War Declared on U.S. Informal Workers

“Operation Midway Blitz,” the Chicago area efforts by Immigration Control and Enforcement (ICE), intentionally and actively terrorizing Chicagoans, is targeting informal workers, including street vendors and day laborers.

It is a scenario played out across the country, including cities in New York, Oregon, Colorado, Iowa, and Texas.

Keep ReadingShow less
A portrait of John Adams.

John Adams warned that without virtue, republics collapse. Today, billionaire spending and unchecked wealth test whether America can place the common good above private gain.

John Adams Warned Us: A Republic Without Virtue Cannot Survive

John Adams understood a truth that feels even sharper today: a republic cannot endure without virtue. Writing to Mercy Otis Warren in April 1776, he warned that public Virtue cannot exist in a Nation without [private virtue], and public Virtue is the only Foundation of Republics.” For Adams, liberty would not be preserved by clever constitutions alone. It depended on citizens who could restrain their selfish impulses for the sake of the common good.

That insight has lost none of its force. Some people do restrain themselves. They accumulate enough to live well and then turn to service, family, or community. Others never stop. Given the chance, they gather wealth and power without limit. Left unchecked, selfishness concentrates material and social resources in the hands of a few, leaving many behind and eroding the sense of shared citizenship on which democracy depends.

Keep ReadingShow less
Protest sign, We the people.
Protests have been sparked across the country over the last few weeks.
Gene Gallin on Unsplash

Why Constitution Day Should Spark a Movement for a New Convention in 2037

Sept. 17 marked Constitution Day, grounded in a federal law commemorating the signing of the U.S. Constitution on Sept. 17, 1787. As explained by the courts of Maryland, “By law, all educational institutions receiving federal funding must observe Constitution Day. It is an opportunity to celebrate and discuss our Constitution and system of government.”

This week also marked the release of an important new book by the historian Jill Lepore: “We the People: A History of the U.S. Constitution” (as reviewed in the New York Times in a public link). Here’s an overview of her conclusions from the publisher:

Keep ReadingShow less
America’s Long History of Political Violence—and Why We Can’t Ignore It Now

Political violence has deep roots in American history. From 1968 to today, Jeanne Sheehan Zaino explore why violence remains a force for change in U.S. society.

Getty Images, B.S.P.I.

America’s Long History of Political Violence—and Why We Can’t Ignore It Now

In 1968, amid riots and assassinations, a magazine asked leading intellectuals why America was so violent. Among the responses was one that stood out—H. Rap Brown’s now-infamous line: “Violence is as American as cherry pie.”

Anthropologist Clifford Geertz dismissed the phrase as a cliché. But sociologist St. Clair Drake took it seriously. “However repulsive and shocking,” Drake wrote, Brown was “telling it like it is.” Americans, he said, must face the fact that their society is, by global standards, a very violent one.

Keep ReadingShow less