Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

Opinion

How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

Demonstrators gather outside of The United States Supreme Court during an oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford to call for an end to partisan gerrymandering on October 3, 2017 in Washington, DC

Getty Images, Olivier Douliery
The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Col. Edward Carrington, Paris, 27 May 1788

The Problem We Face

The U.S. House of Representatives was designed as the chamber of Congress most directly tethered to the people. Article I of the Constitution mandates that seats be apportioned among the states according to population and that members face election every two years—design features meant to keep representatives responsive to shifting public sentiment. Unlike the Senate, which prioritizes state sovereignty and representation, the House translates raw population counts into political voice: each House district is to contain roughly the same number of residents, ensuring that every citizen’s vote carries comparable weight. In principle, then, the House serves as the nation’s demographic mirror, channeling the diverse preferences of the electorate into lawmaking and acting as a safeguard against unresponsive or oligarchic governance.

Nationally, the mismatch between the overall popular vote and the partisan split in House seats is small, with less than a 1% tilt. But state-level results tell a different story. Take Connecticut: Democrats hold all five seats despite Republicans winning over 40% of the statewide vote. In Oklahoma, the inverse occurs—Republicans control every seat even though Democrats consistently earn around 40% of the vote.


Texas has now officially redrawn its maps in a way that shifts it from one of the fairest states to one of the most distorted, giving Republicans nearly 80% of the seats while earning only about 59% of the vote. If California and other states follow suit, the result will be an escalating cycle of disenfranchisement, with each party trying to outdo the other in a political arms race. This arms race is not between us and a foreign power. It is against us, the American people. And it is American citizens' disenfranchisement as voters that will be collateral damage, impacting the entire legitimacy and accountability of the government to serve its citizens.

This is not about helping Democrats or Republicans. It is about ensuring that the voters should get the congressional voice they cast ballots for. When the rules are even, we can disagree passionately on policy and still trust the playing field to be fair.

Why the Courts Won’t Save Us

The Supreme Court’s Rucho decision (2019) said federal judges have no “clear, manageable standard” to stop partisan gerrymanders. Translation: if we want a standard, we have to write it ourselves.

Independent commissions, like those in Colorado and Michigan, work well when adopted. But most states still let politicians draw their own maps. A broader solution requires a national backstop that guarantees structural fairness.

Meanwhile, public trust is in crisis. Only 10% of Americans say they have confidence in Congress. And 67% view gerrymandering as a major problem. That collapse of legitimacy is corrosive to democracy itself.

So, what could states do to right the ship?

A Simple, Non-Partisan Fix

Here’s the proposal: a proportionality backstop for states with three or more congressional seats.

  • Each party’s share of seats should roughly match its share of the statewide vote.
  • A deviation greater than ±10 percentage points would be presumptively invalid unless needed to comply with the Voting Rights Act or respect communities of interest.
  • For example, if a party wins 60% of the statewide two-party vote, it should expect between 55% and 65% of that state’s House seats.

That’s it. Simple, transparent, enforceable.

If a proposed map strays beyond that threshold, map-drawers must justify why no alternative could do better. Otherwise, the courts step in and order a redraw.

This rule would not eliminate partisan competition. It would ensure that competition happens on a level field where voters, not politicians, determine outcomes.

Using 2022 Federal Elections Commission data and election results, the map below gives a sense of how this proportionality rule might play out in different states.



There are two paths that can yield these results:

Path One: Federal Action. Congress should immediately pass a proportionality law. There has been recent discussion in Congress of doing something to end partisan gerrymandering. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has discussed this issue with Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Calif.). Rep Kiley could lose his seat if California moves forward with its own redistricting.

Path Two: State Action. States can adopt proportionality rules on their own, with provisions that take effect only once enough other states join in. This approach removes the “unilateral disarmament” fear—no state would risk disadvantaging itself alone. It would instead create a path toward mutual fairness.

The key is political courage. Someone must go first. Until then, we are stuck in a dangerous cycle where each side justifies its abuses as retaliation for the other’s.

Why This Matters

At its core, this is about equal representation—the foundation of American democracy. Every community deserves its own authentic voice in Congress, not one distorted by cartographic gamesmanship. Americans agree; an August YouGov study on gerrymandering confirmed previous findings that large majorities of them believe partisan gerrymandering is a problem—in this study, 94%.

Adopting a fair-share rule would restore trust, reduce polarization, and remind citizens that their votes matter equally. In a time of deep division, we cannot afford to let redistricting drive us further apart.

Congress and state legislatures alike have the power and responsibility to act. Passing a proportionality rule will not solve every problem in our democracy, but it will remove one of the most corrosive: the sense that the game is rigged before the first ballot is cast.

Fair rules make for fair fights. Let’s put an end to the gerrymandering arms race and recommit to a simple promise: that the people’s House should reflect the people.


Jacob Bornstein is President of Mediators’ Foundation and a co-founder and Executive Director of Better Together America.

Kristina Becvar is Executive Director of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund and Co-Publisher of The Fulcrum.

Read More

U.S. President Barack Obama speaking on the phone in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Barack Obama talks President Barack Obama talks with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan during a phone call from the Oval Office on November 2, 2009 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, The White House

‘Obama, You're 15 Years Too Late!’

The mid-decade redistricting fight continues, while the word “hypocrisy” has become increasingly common in the media.

The origin of mid-decade redistricting dates back to the early history of the United States. However, its resurgence and legal acceptance primarily stem from the Texas redistricting effort in 2003, a controversial move by the Republican Party to redraw the state's congressional districts, and the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. This decision, which confirmed that mid-decade redistricting is not prohibited by federal law, was a significant turning point in the acceptance of this practice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand of a person casting a ballot at a polling station during voting.

Gerrymandering silences communities and distorts elections. Proportional representation offers a proven path to fairer maps and real democracy.

Getty Images, bizoo_n

Gerrymandering Today, Gerrymandering Tomorrow, Gerrymandering Forever

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.

Keep ReadingShow less
An oversized ballot box surrounded by people.

Young people worldwide form new parties to reshape politics—yet America’s two-party system blocks them.

Getty Images, J Studios

No Country for Young Politicians—and How To Fix That

In democracies around the world, young people have started new political parties whenever the establishment has sidelined their views or excluded them from policymaking. These parties have sometimes reinvigorated political competition, compelled established parties to take previously neglected issues seriously, or encouraged incumbent leaders to find better ways to include and reach out to young voters.

In Europe, a trio in their twenties started Volt in 2017 as a pan-European response to Brexit, and the party has managed to win seats in the European Parliament and in some national legislatures. In Germany, young people concerned about climate change created Klimaliste, a party committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as per the Paris Agreement. Although the party hasn’t won seats at the federal level, they have managed to win some municipal elections. In Chile, leaders of the 2011 student protests, who then won seats as independent candidates, created political parties like Revolución Democrática and Convergencia Social to institutionalize their movements. In 2022, one of these former student leaders, Gabriel Boric, became the president of Chile at 36 years old.

Keep ReadingShow less
"Vote Here" sign
Voters head to the polls in Minneapolis, one of five Minnesota cities that used ranked-choice voting on Tuesday.
Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

Trump Targets Voting Rights and Suppresses Voting

This essay is part of a series by Lawyers Defending American Democracy where we demonstrate the link between the administration’s sweeping executive actions and their roots in the authoritarian blueprint Project 2025, and show how these actions harm individuals and families throughout the country.

Two months into his second term, President Trump began attacking the most important pillar of our democracy: free and fair elections.

Keep ReadingShow less