Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

Two people at separate voting booths, filling out a ballot.

Voters cast their ballots in Colorado's primary election at the Central Library on June 30, 2026 in Denver, Colorado. Voters are deciding on candidates for Colorado Governor, US Senate and other races.

Michael Ciaglo/Getty Images

Closed Primaries Let 7% of Voters Choose 87% of Congress

Consider this wacky football scenario: What if only fans who declared their team loyalty before the game are allowed to watch the Super Bowl? Yep, unless you pick a team, you can’t get into the stadium. This is similar to how closed primary elections work, in which only registered voters of a specific political party can participate in that party's primary. That’s the brilliant analogy the Unite America Institute uses in a new, short explainer video describing the highly undemocratic system that dominates American primary elections.

“In most elections, the real contest is not the general election but the party primary held months before,” said Beth Hladick, Policy Director at Unite America. The new video is part of a year-long fellowship project: the Democracy and Public Service Initiative, a partnership between the National Academy of Public Administration and the Bridge Alliance.

Keep ReadingShow less
People attend a rally with signs that read, "Abolish ICE," and "Money out of politics."

People hold signs as Democratic Congressional candidate Brad Lander speaks during an election eve rally at Silo on June 22, 2026 in the East Williamsburg neighborhood of the Brooklyn borough in New York City.

Michael M. Santiago / Getty Images

Facts Don’t Win Elections. Stories Do.

As a student, I was taught that politics is a contest of ideas. Experience has shown me otherwise.

In a recent New York Times interview with Ezra Klein, conservative activist Chris Rufo captured this reality succinctly: “While we should have the facts on our side, and while we should use logic, by itself, it’s insufficient. Politics operates on a deeper level, an emotional level. Politics occurs on the field of sentiment and public opinion much more than on the field of abstract argumentation.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A crowd of protestors standing on a sidewalk, many holding protest signs.

Suffragists protest President Woodrow Wilson in Chicago in October 1916, four years before ratification of the 19th Amendment. The history of voting rights has never been a clean march forward; even rights later treated as inevitable were won through pressure, backlash and years of state-by-state organizing.

Universal History Archive

What 250 Years of Voting Rights Battles Tell Us About Today

Happy Fourth of July, on this 250th anniversary of the United States. We’re living through extraordinary times in American democracy, as President Trump presses for greater federal control over elections and redistricting slips loose from its once-a-decade rhythm. As always, Votebeat is focused on an essential part of it: who gets to vote, who makes the rules, and what those votes are worth.

That question has loomed over the nation from the beginning. Voting history is often framed as a steady expansion from white male landowners to everyone else. The truth is messier. States have always experimented with expanding the franchise, retracting it, and expanding it again.

Keep ReadingShow less
Texas Is Cross-Referencing Its List of Potential Noncitizen Voters With Driver’s License Records

Texas Department of Public Safety Region II Headquarters on Oct. 1, 2025 in Houston. The state is using DPS records to cross-check a list of registered voters it flagged as potential noncitizens using a federal database.

Antranik Tavitian for The Texas Tribune

Texas Is Cross-Referencing Its List of Potential Noncitizen Voters With Driver’s License Records

The Texas Secretary of State’s Office is now checking whether 2,724 registered voters it flagged as potential noncitizens may have already provided proof of citizenship to the Texas Department of Public Safety, elections division director Christina Adkins said during a meeting with county election administrators earlier this month. That check comes after county elections officials found the federal database used to generate the list flagged some voters who had already given citizenship documentation to DPS when they registered to vote.

Texas officials in October sent counties the list of potential noncitizens generated by checking the state’s voter roll of more than 18 million registered voters against a federal database used to verify citizenship. Soon after the state released the list, counties began to investigate the flagged registrants and mail notices asking them to provide documented proof of citizenship.

Keep ReadingShow less