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

Voters lining up to vote.

Voters line up at the Oak Lawn Branch Library voting center on Primary Election Day in Dallas on March 3, 2026. Republicans' decision to hold a split primary from the Democrats and to eliminate countywide voting forced Dallas County voters to cast ballots at assigned neighborhood precincts, leading to confusion. Republicans have now decided to use countywide polling locations for the May 26 runoff election.

Shelby Tauber for The Texas Tribune

Dallas County GOP Will Agree To Use Countywide Voting Sites for May 26 Runoff Election

Dallas County Republicans will agree to allow voters to cast ballots at countywide voting sites for the May 26 runoff election after a switch to precinct-based voting sites caused chaos, the county party chair said Tuesday.

Dallas County Republican Chairman Allen West supported the use of precinct-based sites earlier this month, but said using precincts again for the runoff would expose the county party to “increased risk and voter confusion” because the county is planning to use countywide sites for upcoming municipal elections and early voting.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person signing a piece of paper with other people around them.

Javon Jackson, center, was able to register to vote following passage of a 2019 Nevada law that restored voting rights to formerly incarcerated individuals.

The Nation Is Missing Millions of Voters Due to Lack of Rights for Former Felons

If you gathered every American with a prison record into one contiguous territory and admitted it to the union, you would create the 12th-largest state. It would be home to at least 7 million to 8 million people and hold a dozen votes in the Electoral College.

In a close presidential race, this hypothetical state of the formerly incarcerated could decide who wins the White House.

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

An analysis of Trump’s SAVE Act strategy, the voter ID debate, and how Pew data is being misused—exploring election integrity, voter suppression, and the political fight shaping U.S. democracy.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Stop Fighting Voter ID. Start Defining It.

President Trump doesn't need the SAVE America Act to pass. He only needs the debate to continue. Every minute spent arguing about voter suppression repeats the underlying premise — that noncitizen voting is a real and widespread problem — until it feels like an established fact. The question is whether Democrats will contest Republicans’ definition before the frame hardens.

Trump's claim that 88% of Americans support the bill traces to a Pew Research Center survey — a survey that found 83% support a “government-issued photo ID to vote,” not extreme vetting for proof of citizenship. That support included 95% of Republicans and 71% of Democrats, indicating genuine, broad, bipartisan support for a basic civic principle. That's worth taking seriously.

Keep ReadingShow less
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