Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The Worst Gerrymandered Districts: March 2025 Update

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

Meet the Faces of Democracy: Dave Bjerke

Dave Bjerke spends much of his (limited) free time with his family, as a combination swim team-soccer-marching band dad.

Issue One

Meet the Faces of Democracy: Dave Bjerke

More than 10,000 officials across the country run U.S. elections. This interview is part of a series highlighting the election heroes who are the faces of democracy.

Dave Bjerke, the nonpartisan Director of Elections and General Registrar of Voters in the City of Falls Church, VA, has been working in elections in Northern Virginia, just miles from the nation’s capital, for nearly 20 years.

Keep ReadingShow less
Gerrymandering, California, and a Fight the Democrats Can Only Lose

California Governor 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.

Getty Images, Mario Tama

Gerrymandering, California, and a Fight the Democrats Can Only Lose

California Democrats are getting ready for a fight they can’t win. And taxpayers will foot the bill for the privilege.

Governor Gavin Newsom, backed by national party operatives, appears poised to put a statewide gerrymander on the ballot under the banner of “fighting Trump.” The plan? Overturn California’s Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission, redraw congressional maps, and lock in party control well into the next decade.

Keep ReadingShow less
A close-up of a microphone during a session of government.
Rev. Laurie Manning shares her insights on speaking with political leaders about specific advocacy efforts. "Your senators' offices are waiting to hear from you," writes Manning.
Getty Images, Semen Salivanchuk

How To Rewire a Nation From a Single Seat

In politics, attention is drawn to spectacle. Cable news runs endless loops of red-faced lawmakers clashing in hearings, while pundits dissect every gaffe and polling shift. Every election season becomes a staged drama, parties locked in opposition, candidates maneuvering for advantage. The players may change, but the script stays the same. Those in power know that as long as the public watches the visible fracas, the hidden machinery of control runs quietly, unexamined and untouched.

We are told the drama hinges on which party controls which chamber, which map shapes the advantage, and which scandal sidelines a rising star. These are presented as the key moves in the political game, shifting the balance of power. Every election is declared the most consequential of our time. But these claims are, in reality, crude distractions—very much part of the performance—while the real levers of power turn behind the scenes, where laws and policies shift with the choices of a few hundred individuals, each capable of tipping the balance with a single vote.

Keep ReadingShow less
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

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

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.

Keep ReadingShow less