Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Gerrymandering dates back to the Founding Fathers

Gerry's Salamander map of Massachusetts districts

Gerry's Salamander, which led to the term "gerrymandering."

Klug served in the House of Representatives from 1991 to 1999. He hosts the political podcast “ Lost in the Middle: America’s Political Orphans.”

Most voters would assume that redistricting abuses are new to American politics.

Nope.

In fact, our Founding Fathers were stacking the deck when George Washington was still kicking. James Madison ran in a district designed for him so that he could be elected to Congress in order to be able to introduce the Bill of Rights.


“His friends were saying, ‘James, you have got to come back and campaign in your district because the district that has been drawn for you, as described by one person as having 1,000 eccentric angles,’” explained Sean O'Brien, executive director of the Center for the Constitution at Madison's home, Montpelier.

In fact, the term gerrymander came from another Founding Father, Elbridge Gerry (pronounced with a hard G), who served as governor of Massachusetts (and vice president under Madison).

“One of the offending districts kind of looked like a salamander, and so a newspaper called it Gerry's Salamander, and that became Gary Mander, then Jerry Mander,” says Harvard political scientist Nick Stephanopolus.

The push for modern redistricting reform began with the League of Women Voter in Iowa in the mid-1950s. Iowa is admired for taking the politics out of the process — today technocrats who work for the Legislature draw the maps. But in many ways Iowa is not really a model. The state is a square; the population is 97 percent white and with only four representatives it doesn’t take much careful crafting to draw fair districts.

Today 21 states have adopted variations of the commission model.

“If you look in aggregate, I'm a little bit less concerned with gerrymandering now than I was a decade ago, " says Stephanopolous. “Because in the current cycle it's balanced out more on a nationwide sort of aggregate basis. So, if you look at the House as a whole right now, I don't think it's significantly skewed in either party's favor by gerrymandering.”

As we discovered in our series on election reforms, however, even the reforms can be scammed. Listen to our podcast’s Episode 11, “Tinkering under the Hood of American politics,” to hear a doozy of a scandal in Washington state.

Tinkering around under the hood of American politics by Scott Klug

Reformers kick around ideas to improve American elections

Read on Substack

Read More

People standing at voting booths.

The proposed SAVE Act and MEGA Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, risking the disenfranchisement of millions of eligible Americans.

Getty Images, EvgeniyShkolenko

The SAVE Act is a Solution in Search of A Problem

The federal government seems to be barreling toward a federal election power grab. Trump's State of the Union address called for the Senate to push through the SAVE Act, which has already passed the House, in the name of so-called "election integrity." And the SAVE Act isn’t the only such bill. Like the SAVE Act, the Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act—introduced in the House—would require voters to provide a document outlined in the Act that allegedly proves their U.S. citizenship. We’ve been down this road before in Texas, and spoiler alert: it was unworkable.

Both the SAVE and MEGA Acts would disenfranchise millions of eligible U.S. citizens without making our federal elections more secure. They seek to roll out a faulty federal voter registration system, despite the existing separate registration and voting process for state and local elections. And these Acts target a minuscule “problem”—but would unleash mass voter purges and confusion.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less
Postal Service Changes Mean Texas Voters Shouldn’t Wait To Mail Voter Registrations and Ballots

A voter registration drive in Corpus Christi, Texas, on Oct. 5, 2024. The deadline to register to vote for Texas' March 3 primary election is Feb. 2, 2026. Changes to USPS policies may affect whether a voter registration application is processed on time if it's not postmarked by the deadline.

Gabriel Cárdenas for Votebeat

Postal Service Changes Mean Texas Voters Shouldn’t Wait To Mail Voter Registrations and Ballots

Texans seeking to register to vote or cast a ballot by mail may not want to wait until the last minute, thanks to new guidance from the U.S. Postal Service.

The USPS last month advised that it may not postmark a piece of mail on the same day that it takes possession of it. Postmarks are applied once mail reaches a processing facility, it said, which may not be the same day it’s dropped in a mailbox, for example.

Keep ReadingShow less
Post office trucks parked in a lot.

Changes to USPS postmarking, ranked choice voting fights, costly runoffs, and gerrymandering reveal growing cracks in U.S. election systems.

Photo by Sam LaRussa on Unsplash.

2026 Will See an Increase in Rejected Mail-In Ballots - Here's Why

While the media has kept people’s focus on the Epstein files, Venezuela, or a potential invasion of Greenland, the United States Postal Service adopted a new rule that will have a broad impact on Americans – especially in an election year in which millions of people will vote by mail.

The rule went into effect on Christmas Eve and has largely flown under the radar, with the exception of some local coverage, a report from PBS News, and Independent Voter News. It states that items mailed through USPS will no longer be postmarked on the day it is received.

Keep ReadingShow less