Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Congressional gerrymandering has been a boon for GOP, report finds

Kevin McCarthy

Over the last decade, Republicans have gained 27 seats in the House due to gerrymandering.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Partisan gerrymandering has given Republicans an edge in congressional elections over the last two decades, resulting in outsized GOP representation in the House, a recent study found.

Since 2000, nearly 40 House seats have shifted to favor Republicans as a result of gerrymandering, researchers at the University of Maryland concluded in their paper published last month. Democrats, on the other hand, have not seen any significant seat gains in the last five decades of redistricting.


The study analyzed how congressional districts have been redrawn over the past half-century. While neither party's redistricting strategies had significant impacts on House seats before the new millennium, Republican gerrymanders increased GOP representation by 9 percentage points in the last two decades. Mostly recently, Republicans gained 27 seats in the House due to gerrymandering in 2011.

Democratic gerrymanders, however, had little sway over House election outcomes, except in more populous states. In blue states with more than five congressional seats, gerrymandering decreased GOP representation by 9 percentage points. This impact goes up another 4 percentage points in states with more than 10 House members.

"It may not be surprising that parties manipulate vote aggregation to benefit themselves," the researchers conclude — although they noted that such power does not always lead to such actions.

Partisans may refrain from this manipulative behavior due to a moral sense of fairness in political competition, the researchers wrote. Those in non-competitive districts may not feel the need to gerrymander. Parties may also be concerned about future retribution or court involvement.

Following completion of the 2020 census, states will begin the redistricting process next year. Fourteen will use independent redistricting commissions to determine legislative districts, and eight will do the same for congressional maps. While a majority of state maps will be determined by politicians or in the courts, momentum has been in favor of states giving mapmaking authority over to nonpartisan commissions. Future studies will determine how effective these commissions have been.

This fall, Virginians will decide whether to adopt a redistricting commission, while Missourians will vote on whether to undo a redistricting reform initiative they approved two years ago. Anti-gerrymandering campaigns are ongoing in Oregon, Nevada and Arkansas, but the coronavirus pandemic has made such efforts more difficult to execute.

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
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

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

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.

Keep ReadingShow less