In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace declared, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." (Watch the video of his speech.) As a politically aware high school senior, I was shocked by the venom and anger in his voice—the open, defiant embrace of systematic disenfranchisement, so different from the quieter racism I knew growing up outside Boston.
Today, watching politicians openly rig elections, I feel that same disbelief—especially seeing Republican leaders embrace that same systematic approach: gerrymandering now, gerrymandering tomorrow, gerrymandering forever.
While Democrats have pursued gerrymandering opportunistically, Republicans have made electoral manipulation a central part of their strategy for maintaining power despite changing demographics. Like Wallace's segregation, it represents an assault on the foundational principle that votes determine power.
The Escalating Campaign
Gerrymandering has long been used to disenfranchise minorities, but President Trump has systematized it as a national strategy. His directive began in July when he publicly ordered Texas Republicans to redraw their congressional map. The Texas Legislature complied, creating additional GOP-leaning seats that further distort representation beyond the state's political composition.
Within weeks, Missouri's governor called a special session to follow similar directives. Some Democratic leaders announced potential redistricting responses in defense. What Jacob Bornstein and Kristina Becvar warned about in The Fulcrum is materializing: "An escalating cycle of disenfranchisement… against us, the American people."
Consider Lillie Biggins in Fort Worth. Her historic Black neighborhood finally got Rep. Marc Veasey, the first Black congressman from Tarrant County. Now, redistricting will move her community into a district represented by Rep. Roger Williams, who lives an hour away and whose district Trump would have carried by 24 points. This demonstrates electoral manipulation in practice: coherent communities divided, and their collective voice silenced.
Polling shows 76% of Americans recognize gerrymandering as a major problem. The public understands what is happening to them.
Beyond Piecemeal Fixes To Structural Solutions
The fight against gerrymandering has produced some fixes, but not enough and not everywhere. Independent redistricting commissions in states like California and Michigan have created fairer maps. Courts have struck down the most egregious gerrymanders. Some states require districts to be compact and follow county lines.
But these piecemeal reforms cannot keep up with sophisticated mapmaking technology and determined politicians. Most states still let politicians draw their own districts. Even independent commissions can be influenced by political appointees. Courts are limited in what they can remedy, especially after the Supreme Court ruled in Rucho v. Common Cause that federal judges cannot police partisan gerrymandering.
Proportional representation offers a solution that can fix gerrymandering and preserve the meaning of each vote: seats are allocated based on the share of votes each party receives. Instead of three separate districts designed to dilute communities' voices, imagine one larger district electing three representatives. If Biggins' community represents 35% of voters, they would elect one of those three representatives, no matter how creative the mapmakers get.
The Fair Representation Act offers a legal path forward through multi-member districts with ranked-choice voting, though with Republicans controlling the House, passage is doubtful.
A Proven Alternative
Proportional representation solves the core problem: it makes every vote count. Instead of winner-take-all districts where 49% of voters get zero representation, seats are allocated based on actual vote share. A party winning 35% of votes gets roughly 35% of seats—guaranteed representation that reflects real voter preferences.
This eliminates gerrymandering's power because manipulating district boundaries becomes pointless when representation flows from vote totals, not geographic lines. When districts elect multiple representatives, packing and cracking strategies collapse. Every vote builds toward representation rather than being neutralized by mapmakers. Politicians must build broader coalitions rather than appeal only to their partisan base.
The system works in practice. In 1996, New Zealand voters chose proportional representation to replace their winner-take-all system. The result was coalition governments that negotiate and compromise rather than single-party rule. Cambridge, Massachusetts, has used proportional ranked-choice voting since 1941.
Why Both Parties Resist Reform
Geography explains why Republicans have made gerrymandering systematic while Democrats use it opportunistically: Democratic voters concentrate in cities, while Republican voters spread across rural and suburban areas. This means Democrats can win the popular vote but Republicans win more districts—or Republicans can manipulate district lines to guarantee control even when losing statewide.
This geographic disadvantage explains why "gerrymandering now, gerrymandering tomorrow, gerrymandering forever" specifically describes Republican strategy. Without systematic gerrymandering, Republicans would lose legislative control in many states. They systematically resist redistricting reforms, restrict ballot initiatives, and coordinate gerrymandering nationally because fair elections threaten their ability to maintain power.
Democrats sometimes gerrymander when they control redistricting—Illinois maps and New York's failed 2022 attempt are examples. But they support redistricting reforms now because current gerrymandering disadvantages them, not likely from principle. Democrats can win fair elections due to their urban concentration; Republicans face greater challenges maintaining legislative control without district manipulation.
However, both parties would resist proportional representation because it threatens their shared duopoly. Proportional representation would empower third parties and drastically reduce the safe seats both parties use to protect incumbents. The current fight is more about who controls the rigged system, not whether to unrig it.
The Closing Window For Change
Most concerning is the systematic elimination of ballot initiatives—the primary tool citizens have to bypass resistant legislatures. When states will not pass reforms, voters in 26 states can collect signatures and force ballot measures.
Republicans recognize this threat to their electoral manipulation strategy. Republican-controlled legislatures have restricted ballot initiatives by raising signature requirements and imposing penalties on petition circulators. Alaska's ranked-choice voting narrowly survived a 2024 repeal effort, demonstrating how fragile these reforms remain.
The window for citizen-led reform is closing. Once these restrictions lock in, there is no alternative pathway around resistant legislatures.
The Democratic Stakes
The parallel between Wallace's segregation and contemporary gerrymandering runs deeper than rhetoric. Both represent systematic efforts to predetermine political outcomes through legal manipulation of democratic processes. Both claim constitutional legitimacy while subverting constitutional principles.
Wallace's segregation ultimately became politically unsustainable because Americans could see its injustice. Contemporary gerrymandering faces a similar challenge: it depends on public acceptance of predetermined electoral outcomes that increasingly conflict with basic democratic expectations.
Either American democracy adapts, or we risk permanent minority rule through rigged elections. The answer will likely determine whether American democracy can adapt to 21st-century challenges.
Proportional representation offers a path forward, but only if implemented before ballot initiatives are further restricted. Reform advocates must focus on the 26 states that allow citizen-initiated measures, building coalitions despite well-funded opposition. Electing federal representatives who support structural reform could also revive the Fair Representation Act.
The time for such reforms is now—because the opportunity for peaceful democratic change may not endure for long.
Edward Saltzberg is the Executive Director of the Security and Sustainability Forum and writes The Stability Brief.
