Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The voting rights bill isn't the solution to gerrymandering

Opinion

Gov. Larry Hogan speaks out against gerrymandering

Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan speaks at an anti-gerrymandering rally in 2019.

Howard Gorrell

Gorrell is an advocate for the deaf, a former Republican Party election statistician, and a longtime congressional aide. He has been advocating against partisan gerrymandering for four decades.

The For the People Act “would help end voter suppression in states, get dark money out of politics, give voice to people, create fair district maps and end partisan political gerrymandering,” President Biden said at the historic National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, the birthplace of American democracy, in July 2021.

Six months later, Biden spoke about that bill’s successor, the Freedom to Vote Act, on the grounds at Morehouse College and Clark Atlanta University: “It would get dark money out of politics, create fairer district maps, and ending partisan gerrymandering.”

Last Thursday, the House combined the Freedom to Vote Act and the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act into a 735-page megabill. The Senate is beginning debate on the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act this week.

If this bill passes, its supporters claim, it will end partisan gerrymandering for congressional districts by setting a national standard for determining if a map is gerrymandered to favor one party.

Nevertheless, that's just not true.


While the bill would give the Justice Department, private citizens and political parties, among others, the ability to bring lawsuits challenging congressional maps, they would only be able to do so in one court, which is located in heavily Democratic Washington, D.C.

Currently, the venue for partisan redistricting cases is not addressed explicitly in federal law. A three-judge panel hears cases, and appeals bypass circuit courts and go directly to the Supreme Court.

However, in a 2019 decision on the North Carolina redistricting case, Rucho v. Common Cause, the Supreme Court decided that partisan gerrymandering was not an issue for federal courts. Chief Justice John Roberts laid the responsibility for judging a gerrymandered map at the feet of state courts. Since then, Democrats and Republicans have filed lawsuits in at least nine state courts in the last several months, challenging congressional or legislative district lines.

Language in the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act states that all partisan gerrymandering claims would have to be brought in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (not your local federal district court) — creating a sort of specialty court that can serve as a rapid-response traffic cop on congressional maps. A decision would be reviewable on appeal, but only by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the most liberal circuit in the country). Then a decision by the Court of Appeals could be reviewed by the Supreme Court.

The D.C. Circuit judges have swayed over time between a Republican- and Democratic-appointed majority. The court currently consists of a chief judge and three others appointed by former Barack Obama, one George H. W. Bush, two by Bill Clinton, three by Donald Trump and two appointed by Biden. As of now, the final count is eight Democratic-appointed judges and four Republican-appointed judges.

A three-judge panel would hear partisan gerrymandering cases. It could be “Democratic partisan gerrymandering” only when two or three Democratic-appointed judges sit. However, it could be “Republican partisan gerrymandering” when Republicans secure a hypothetical GOP trifecta in 2024.

Wait! What about the creation of an independent redistricting commission? The For the People Act would have required states to establish a bipartisan independent commission to redraw their congressional districts every 10 years. However, the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act would not require nonpartisan redistricting commissions (just that states adhere to nonpartisan mapping criteria).

The solution? If the bill fails, as expected, the best alternative to end the 210-year-long partisan gerrymandering problem could be a bill previously offered by California Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren. She should reintroduce her redistricting reform bill, for a ninth time, as a stand-alone measure. In 2021, Lofgren essentially folded her bill into the doomed For The People Act. During the eight previous Congresses, it died in committee and gained relatively few cosponsors until after Trump’s election in 2016.

It is time for Rep. Lofgren to release her unorthodox weapon, one we need to defend democracy.

======

Writer: Gorrell is an advocate for the Deaf, a former Republican Party election statistician, and a longtime congressional aide. He has been advocating against partisan gerrymandering for four decades.

Maryland Governor Larry Hogan at a rally for Fair Maps in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in 2019. Photo by Howard Gorrell.

Former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger at a rally for Fair Maps in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in 2019. Photo by Howard Gorrell.


Read More

multiethnic American voters participating in the US election, showcasing the concept of choice in a democracy

Presidents who lost the popular vote often faced economic turmoil. See the pattern from Harrison to Trump and how a 50-state strategy could change it.

Alan Mazzocco/Getty Images

Path Forward from Economic Consequences of Non-Popular Vote Presidents

While losing the popular vote does not inherently cause economic ruin, the structural political weakness of entering office without a democratic majority mandate often compounded the economic challenges their administrations faced. These terms were marked by distinct economic hardships, structural imbalances, or severe financial crises.

Destabilizing Partisan Protectionism

Keep ReadingShow less
people filling out their ballots at voting booths and submitting their vote.

Independent voters may hand Democrats control of Congress this fall — but as history shows, they'll get nothing in return. Here's how to change that.

Pressmaster/Getty Images

Swinging Outcomes Is Not Enough

The midterms are six weeks away, and polls predict that independent voters, who broke for Donald Trump in 2024, are planning on voting for Democrats by wide margins. Among Latinos, the numbers are staggering, to the point that the Republican gerrymanders in Florida and Texas may actually result in Democratic victories.

If the Democrats take control of Congress, it will be because of independents. And what do independents get in return?

Keep ReadingShow less
Diverse People At Voting Booth. Vote Here Elections Sign

A political scientist examines how automatic voter registration is quietly turning non-affiliation into America's largest voting bloc.

AndreyPopov/Getty Images

When Neither Party Is the Default: Rethinking Representation As America’s Electorate Changes

For most of my career as a political scientist, representation was the central theme of my teaching and research. Early on, I studied how legislators understood their responsibilities to constituents — whether they saw themselves as delegates carrying out constituent mandates, trustees exercising independent judgment, or politicos combining both. That work asked a question that still matters: What does it mean to represent the public in a changing democracy?

Today I find myself asking a related question: What happens when the electorate changes but the institutions built to represent it do not?

Keep ReadingShow less
A person looks out at the North Tower pool at the 9/11 Memorial and Museum ahead of the 25th anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center on September 7, 2026, in New York City.

A person looks out at the North Tower pool at the 9/11 Memorial and Museum ahead of the 25th anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center on September 7, 2026, in New York City.

Gary Hershorn/Getty Images

How 9/11’s Memory Continues to Shape American Citizenship

Twenty‑five years after September 11th, the burden of that day continues to affect us in ways that are difficult to express. It was a moment of profound loss, but also one that revealed both the vulnerability and resilience of our national fabric. The memories remain vivid for many of us: where we were, what we felt, and how the world appeared to change in an instant. Even now, a quarter century later, the impact of that morning continues to shape how we understand our country, our responsibilities, and our relationships with one another.

To help us all reflect on that day, I invited four contributors to the Fulcrum to share reflections not to revisit the tragedy, but to commemorate the ways it has persisted in our consciousness twenty-five years later.

Keep ReadingShow less