Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Worst Gerrymandered States Face Showdown as Indiana Republicans Defy Trump’s Redistricting Plan

From Indiana to Texas, redistricting fights intensify as gerrymandering threatens voter trust and determines congressional power ahead of the 2026 elections.


Opinion

Anti-gerrymandering protest
Anti-gerrymandering protest
Sarah L. Voisin/Getty Images

In July of 2025, I wrote a column in the Fulcrum entitled Worst Gerrymandered States Face Redistricting Showdown As Trump Pressures Texas. At the time, President Donald Trump was actively urging Texas lawmakers to redraw congressional districts, escalating what has become a national showdown over electoral fairness.

Texas already ranked among the worst offenders in the country, as The Fulcrum reported in December 2024, with two of its congressional maps serving as textbook examples of manipulated representation.


Today, with the 2026 midterm elections less than a year away, we revisit this critically important battle—one that may determine who controls Congress for the final two years of Trump’s presidency.

Our review highlights six states currently at the center of redistricting fights:

Indiana

  • December 11th brought a dramatic turn in Indiana, where Senate Republicans rejected President Trump’s push for mid‑decade redistricting. The GOP‑controlled chamber voted 31–19 against a Trump‑backed map that would have dismantled the state’s two Democratic districts and added two safe Republican seats.
  • The defeat marks the first major rebuke of Trump’s national redistricting campaign by his own party. Despite weeks of intense lobbying from Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and House Speaker Mike Johnson, Indiana Republicans broke ranks. Several lawmakers cited conservative principles against mid‑cycle gerrymandering, warning that such moves erode public trust and invite federal overreach.
  • The vote followed weeks of turmoil: at least a dozen Indiana Republicans reported violent threats, swatting attempts, and bomb scares tied to the redistricting debate. Trump responded by vowing to back primary challengers against dissenters, singling out Senate President Pro Tempore Rodric Bray.
  • This rejection not only halts GOP hopes of gaining two additional seats in Indiana but also underscores fractures within the party over Trump’s aggressive redistricting strategy.

Ohio

  • Ohio continues to operate under maps repeatedly ruled unconstitutional by the state Supreme Court in 2021–22.
  • More than 535,000 signatures were submitted this summer to place Issue 1 on the November ballot, which would replace the politician-controlled redistricting commission with a citizens’ commission.
  • In October, the Ohio Redistricting Commission began debating new maps, but partisan gridlock persists. Republicans may seek to expand their current 10–5 advantage in U.S. House seats, though details remain uncertain.

Florida

  • In December, the Florida House opened hearings to redraw congressional maps, despite Gov. Ron DeSantis suggesting a delay until spring 2026.
  • The Florida Supreme Court upheld the current GOP-favored map (20–8 split) this past summer, weakening voter-approved anti-gerrymandering protections.
  • Republicans hope to gain 3–5 additional seats before the midterms, but Florida’s constitutional ban on partisan gerrymandering casts doubt on the outcome.

Utah

  • In August, a judge reinstated Proposition 4, the voter-approved anti-gerrymandering initiative, and imposed a new map that could create a Democratic-leaning district in Salt Lake County.
  • The ruling sparked significant legislative backlash. In December, GOP lawmakers delayed candidate filing deadlines, condemned the judiciary, and prepared appeals to the Utah Supreme Court.
  • Grassroots petition drives to repeal Prop 4 have fueled controversy, with reports of out-of-state petitioners stranded and unpaid.

Wisconsin

  • In late 2025, the liberal-majority Wisconsin Supreme Court appointed three-judge panels to hear lawsuits challenging the current congressional map.
  • Republicans currently hold a 6–2 advantage in U.S. House seats, but this balance could shift dramatically depending on the court’s rulings.
  • GOP lawmakers are fighting to dismiss the lawsuits, arguing the maps are constitutional, while Democrats hope for new maps before the 2026 elections.

The Larger Danger

The dangers of gerrymandering remain profound. This is not merely a turf war between parties—it is an erosion of public trust. When only 10–15% of congressional districts are competitive, as in the 119th Congress, the result is a landscape where 370 to 390 seats are virtual locks for one party. That’s roughly 85–90% of the House.

In noncompetitive districts, general elections become perfunctory. Real contests occur in primaries, often shaped by low turnout and ideological extremism. Voters outside the dominant party feel powerless, their ballots reduced to symbolic gestures.

At its core, gerrymandering is about control. When both parties manipulate district lines to preserve power, voters lose their voice. If our democracy is to endure, we must confront the consequences of a system where representation is predetermined and competition is the exception.

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


Read More

Elks, Rotarians, and Both Party’s Lust for Control
A pole with a sign that says polling station
Photo by Phil Hearing on Unsplash

Elks, Rotarians, and Both Party’s Lust for Control

When it comes to the issue of open primaries, DSA true believers like Brad Lander in New York and MAGA mouthpieces like Governor Abbott in Texas sing from the same hymnal: open primaries invites mischief and party raiding. If we let independents vote we’d get pandemonium. Democracy needs guardrails, and political parties need integrity. You wouldn’t want Elks voting in Rotarians’ elections would you?

There is a certain logic to it. Except Abbott, Lander and all their fellow partisan warriors have it completely backwards.

Keep ReadingShow less
If the GOP Closes Its Primary, Taxpayers Should Close Their Wallets

wallet with dollar bills, on top of an American flag

hartcreations/Getty Images

If the GOP Closes Its Primary, Taxpayers Should Close Their Wallets

A recent court ruling allowing the Colorado Republican Party to decide how and whether to close its primary elections comes at a pivotal moment for the state’s election system. For nearly a decade, Colorado has had an open primary; one designed to reflect the state’s growing share of independent voters. The decision now raises a fundamental question: should taxpayers continue to fund an election that restricts large numbers of the public?

Colorado’s primary elections are not private affairs. They are administered by the state, financed by taxpayers, and conducted through public infrastructure. Ballots are printed and mailed by government offices. Election workers are trained and compensated with public funds. In every functional sense, primaries are public elections.

Keep ReadingShow less
Nevada pro-democracy groups condemn SAVE Act

Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., speaks at a press event about free and fair elections. A recent study from MIT ranked Nevada second in the nation for quality of election administration, based on measures of accessibility and security.

(Battle Born Progress)

Nevada pro-democracy groups condemn SAVE Act

President Donald Trump has made passing the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act a top priority before the midterms but supporters of safe and fair elections in the Silver State said it would be a disaster for democracy.

The bill, which purports to combat noncitizen voting, would make it much harder to register to vote. It passed the U.S. House but is stalled in the Senate.

Keep ReadingShow less
How A 2022 Law Changed Election Certification: Assessing the Electoral Count Reform Act

A sign that reads: Voting

E4C

How A 2022 Law Changed Election Certification: Assessing the Electoral Count Reform Act

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

  • The Electoral Count Reform (ECRA) of 2022 modernizes the 1887 Electoral Count Act, which governed how Congress counts Electoral College votes. The original Act has been widely criticized as vague and susceptible to exploitation.
  • The ECRA clarifies that the Vice President’s role is ceremonial, raises the objection threshold to 20 percent of both chambers, and designates governors as responsible for submitting elector certificates.
  • Supporters argue that the bipartisan reform prevents future election disputes and protects democratic stability, while critics contend that it was rushed, doesn’t address deeper election integrity issues, and raises concerns about federalism.
  • The Act reflects bipartisan cooperation but continues debates about federalism and the balance of power between states and Congress.

The Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act (ECRA) was introduced by Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) in July 2022 and signed into law by President Joe Biden in December 2022. It is a reform to the Electoral Count Act of 1887 (ECA), a law that governs how Congress counts the Electoral College votes for president every four years. The Act is also a response to President Donald Trump’s efforts to dispute the 2020 presidential election results, which revealed several gaps in the law that could be exploited by a presidential candidate.

Keep ReadingShow less