After the official release of the 2020 census data, Max Carver for RepresentUs explains why it's critical that we understand how partisan gerrymandering disempowers voters — and more importantly, how we can end it before it's too late.
The special election for California Prop 50 wraps up November 4 and recent polling shows the odds strongly favor its passage. The measure suspends the state’s independent congressional map for a legislative gerrymander that Princeton grades as one of the worst in the nation.
The Princeton Gerrymandering Project developed a “Redistricting Report Card” that takes metrics of partisan and racial performance data in all 50 states and converts it into a grade for partisan fairness, competitiveness, and geographic features.
The current congressional map in California, drawn by the voter-approved Citizens Redistricting Commission, has an overall “B” grade. The map offered under Prop 50 drops the state to an “F” as 92% of the state’s congressional districts will lean Democrat.
“It’s been called by Princeton University’s gerrymander project one of the two worst gerrymanders in the last 50 years,” said U.S. Rep. Kevin Kiley, whose district is among the 5 currently held by Republicans that will be dramatically changed under Prop 50.
Right now, Kiley’s district is competitive with a score of R+3.8% based on 2024 election results. However, according to data compiled by Ballotpedia, it will change to D+10.2% based on how voters within the new boundaries cast their ballots in the last presidential election.
“Governor Newsom is saying, ‘well, Texas did this and that is a bad gerrymander, but California doing it in response – that’s a good gerrymander,’” Kiley said.
The problem is now we have North Carolina and Missouri that are looking at redistricting to help Republicans. Is that a good gerrymander or bad gerrymander? Then you also have states like Illinois or Maryland or Virginia that are going to redistrict to help Democrats. Is that a good gerrymander or a bad gerrymander?”
He added that “the consequence of this contorted logic is [a] race to the bottom.”
Kiley introduced a bill in August that bans any congressional redistricting until after the 2030 census following actions in Texas and California to push through aggressively partisan gerrymanders. The bill hasn’t moved since its introduction.
To clarify, Texas – which already had an ‘F’ grade from the Princeton Gerrymandering Project – received another ‘F’ for its new map.
Texas acted on demands from President Donald Trump to deliver 5 more seats to Republicans in Congress. Newsom immediately responded with a plan to nullify these gains by circumventing the California Constitution’s ban on legislative and partisan gerrymandering.
Newsom and his allies say they are “fighting fire with fire” and are doing this to defend democracy against what they call Trump’s attempt to rig elections. Newsom recently posted an ad on X featuring prominent Democratic figures, saying Californians can “restore democracy.”
Prop 50 opponents, like Kiley, say “when you fight fire with fire, the whole world burns.”
It is now up to California voters to pass or reject a constitutional amendment that allows a congressional gerrymander to go into effect until the Citizens Redistricting Commission draws new maps in 2031.
Recent polling shows that 62% of California voters support Prop 50 – pointing to the strong likelihood of its passage on November 4 even if the poll isn't perfectly accurate. Prop 50 is the fourth most expensive ballot measure race in California history.
It is the most expensive out of any proposed in an odd-numbered year.
Shawn Griffiths is an election reform expert and National Editor of IVN.us. He studied history and philosophy at the University of North Texas. He joined the IVN team in 2012.
Princeton Gerrymandering Project Gives California Prop 50 an ‘F’ was originally published by Independent Voter News and is republished with permission.
America’s political system is broken — but ranked choice voting and proportional representation could fix it.
Politics isn’t working for most Americans. Our government can’t keep the lights on. The cost of living continues to rise. Our nation is reeling from recent acts of political violence.
79% of voters say the U.S. is in a political crisis, and 64% say our political system is too divided to solve the nation’s problems.
There’s no silver bullet that will simply put us back on the path of a productive, representative democracy – but what if part of the solution lies in how we elect our leaders?
Reforming our elections can give voters more choice, lower the temperature of our politics, and give lawmakers incentives to work together for all of us. Specifically, ranked choice voting and proportional representation would make politicians reach across the aisle and deliver for their constituents in order to win and keep their seats.
With ranked choice voting, voters can rank candidates in order of preference: first, second, third, and so on. If your first choice doesn’t have a chance to win, your ballot counts for your next choice.
This simple change moves elections away from today’s “us vs. them” mud-slinging, and instead rewards candidates who run positive, issue-based campaigns that appeal to more voters.
That’s because candidates need to earn a majority of voter support to win an RCV election – giving them reason to talk to voters outside their base. Candidates also have incentives to find common ground with their opponents – since they may need to earn second- or third-choice support from voters ranking their opponent first.
How does this work in practice? In New York City’s RCV primary this summer, mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani “cross-endorsed” with rival Brad Lander – meaning Mamdani and Lander encouraged voters to rank them both. The pair released joint ads, held joint campaign events, and made TV appearances together. In Alaska, Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski and Democratic Congresswoman Mary Peltola endorsed each other.
As conservative political theorist Yuval Levin recently shared, “The skill you need to win in a ranked choice election…. That’s the kind of personality you want in politics.”
The collaboration and coalition-building of RCV reverberate beyond Election Day. Following the latest RCV elections in Alaska, bipartisan majority coalitions formed in both houses of the state legislature – with Republicans, Democrats, and Independents working together to deliver practical solutions on education, public safety, business opportunities, and a balanced budget.
Proportional representation could have an even greater impact. Already used in most democracies around the world, proportional representation is just what it sounds like.
Instead of having just one representative, a district elects several members in line with their share of the vote. For example, if about 60% of votes go to conservatives and 40% go to liberals, then about 60% of seats go to conservatives and 40% to liberals. In a five-member district, conservatives would win three seats and liberals two.
Compare that to our current elections, where one group of voters elects its favorite candidate and everyone else gets nothing. Rural Democrats and urban Republicans might make up 40% of the population in their districts. They should have a voice, but their preferred candidates are nearly always defeated.
This lack of representation fuels polarization and everyday Americans’ frustration with our political system.
When most districts are “safe” for one party, elected officials win by appealing to smaller, more partisan primary electorates. They have little incentive to engage with anyone outside their party base. Meanwhile, voters who live in a safe district feel like their vote doesn’t really matter – especially if their district is safe for the party they oppose.
If Congress were elected with proportional representation, every district would become a swing district. All our votes would matter, and our voices would be heard. There would be Democrats, Republicans, and perhaps even independents representing each district. Leaders from different parties would have new incentives to work together to deliver for voters.
This moment is perilous for our democracy, but it is also time for change. Voters across the political spectrum have been growing more frustrated with our divisive politics for decades. Simply changing the party in power has not worked; now is the time for ambitious, structural reforms that empower voters and improve governance.
Ranked choice voting and proportional representation would put voters back in the driver’s seat and encourage lawmakers to reach across the aisle to get things done. They offer a path away from America’s poisoned politics and toward a productive democracy that is again working in the public’s interest.
Meredith Sumpter is the president and CEO of FairVote, a nonpartisan organization seeking better elections.
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.
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.
Then, the Supreme Court case of Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) ruled that claims of partisan gerrymandering are "nonjusticiable political questions." This means there are no issues that the federal courts can or should address. The Rucho case, which involved a challenge to North Carolina's congressional map, opens the door to mid-decade gerrymandering because federal courts cannot intervene; state legislatures, which control the redistricting process, are now less constrained in drawing or redrawing maps mid-decade.
The effort to redraw Texas's congressional districts in the middle of the decade was not initiated by Governor Greg Abbott, as commonly believed. Instead, it was the Republican Party, with President Donald Trump's administration playing a significant role, who pushed for the redrawing of Texas's districts during that time.
Abbot’s signature on the redistricting bill caused the first domino in a growing national redistricting battle to fall.
Given the current judicial landscape, there is little hope that the Supreme Court will intervene to stop states like Texas, California, Missouri, Utah, Ohio, and others from implementing their redistricting laws.
Contrary to popular belief, the practice of gerrymandering, often seen as a partisan tool, has a surprisingly bipartisan history. Both the Democratic and Republican political parties have employed it for many years, dating back to 1812.
Since the 93rd Congress (1973–75), there has been a concerning lack of action on redistricting bills. Despite numerous bills being referred to the appropriate committee or subcommittee, none have taken any substantive action.
The last political party to control the presidency, the House, and the Senate with a supermajority (60-40) was the Democratic Party during the 111th Congress (2009-10). There were only two periods during this Congress when the Democrats held a 60-seat supermajority in the Senate: from July 7, 2009, to August 25, 2009, and from September 25, 2009, to February 4, 2010. Democratic Barack Obama held the presidency during this Congress.
On June 9, 2021, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) posted on X with the message, “During the Obama administration, folks thought we’d have a 60 Dem majority for a while. It lasted 4 months.”
Does Ocasio-Cortez know that, during the 181 days of the filibuster-proof period, there was no discussion of any election reform bills, such as ending gerrymandering, abolishing the Electoral College, or strengthening voting rights?
During the same period, Obama actively collaborated with Congress to pass the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), informally referred to as Obamacare. On December 24, 2009, the Senate approved the PPACA with a 60-39 vote, with one member not voting.
However, Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren (California) reintroduced her redistricting bill, H.R. 5596, on June 24, 2010, four months after the end of the 60-vote majority. This bill aimed to prevent gerrymandering by allowing each state to establish an independent redistricting commission. It was rejected in committee for the third time because it lacked enough support from Democratic leaders to move forward.
Thanks to this trifecta—a term used in American politics to describe a situation where one party controls the presidency, the House, and the Senate—Obama and his Democratic Party would have been right, since it has long been a tradition in American politics that every 10 years, the party controlling state legislatures (in 2009, the Democratic Party held 61 state legislative chambers) could use gerrymandering to redraw districts in its favor for the next congressional election (2012).
The 2010 midterm elections marked a major turning point in U.S. politics. The Democratic Party’s outlook was the worst of that election cycle, as it lost 63 House seats, six Senate seats, and six governorships. This significant loss of power was primarily caused by the strategic use of gerrymandering by the Republican Party, which utilized the $30 million REDistricting Majority Project (REDMAP) to effect these changes, sparking a Republican wave that gave them control of legislative chambers in swing states.
In his 2016 State of the Union address, Obama told Congress, "We have to end the practice of drawing our congressional districts so that politicians can pick their voters, and not the other way around. Let a bipartisan group do it."
Ironically, after stepping down from his presidential duties in 2017, Obama joined his former attorney general, Eric Holder Jr., in leading the National Democratic Redistricting Committee (NDRC), a key player in the redistricting landscape.
While claiming to oppose partisan gerrymandering, the reality is quite different. Its website describes the NDRC as "the centralized hub for executing a comprehensive redistricting strategy that shifts the redistricting power, creating fair districts where Democrats can compete." Its IRS filings state that the organization's purpose is to "build a comprehensive plan to favorably position Democrats for the redistricting process through 2022."
In 2021, Obama publicly supported the "For the People Act," which includes a provision requiring all states to adopt independent redistricting commissions for drawing congressional district maps. A year later, he endorsed the Freedom to Vote Act and the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, both of which contain provisions establishing federal standards to reduce partisan gerrymandering. There is no widely reported information indicating that Obama specifically lobbied Senators Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) to support these bills. As a result, these Democratic senators voted against lowering the Senate’s 60-vote threshold to pass both bills.
Currently, the NDRC opposes the mid-decade redistricting effort in Texas while supporting the California redistricting ballot measure (Proposition 50) during the same period. These actions raise questions about the NDRC’s mission: to create a fairer redistricting system in the United States and to rebuild a democracy where voters choose their politicians, not the other way around.
After watching the video of Obama’s address to Texas Democrats on August 15, I could tell him, "Obama, you’re 15 years too late!"
Howard 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.
Gerrymandering silences communities and distorts elections. Proportional representation offers a proven path to fairer maps and real democracy.
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.
While Democrats have pursued gerrymandering opportunistically, Republicans have made electoral manipulation a central part of their strategy for maintaining power despite changing demographics. Like Wallace's segregation, it represents an assault on the foundational principle that votes determine power.
Gerrymandering has long been used to disenfranchise minorities, but President Trump has systematized it as a national strategy. His directive began in July when he publicly ordered Texas Republicans to redraw their congressional map. The Texas Legislature complied, creating additional GOP-leaning seats that further distort representation beyond the state's political composition.
Within weeks, Missouri's governor called a special session to follow similar directives. Some Democratic leaders announced potential redistricting responses in defense. What Jacob Bornstein and Kristina Becvar warned about in The Fulcrum is materializing: "An escalating cycle of disenfranchisement… against us, the American people."
Consider Lillie Biggins in Fort Worth. Her historic Black neighborhood finally got Rep. Marc Veasey, the first Black congressman from Tarrant County. Now, redistricting will move her community into a district represented by Rep. Roger Williams, who lives an hour away and whose district Trump would have carried by 24 points. This demonstrates electoral manipulation in practice: coherent communities divided, and their collective voice silenced.
Polling shows 76% of Americans recognize gerrymandering as a major problem. The public understands what is happening to them.
The fight against gerrymandering has produced some fixes, but not enough and not everywhere. Independent redistricting commissions in states like California and Michigan have created fairer maps. Courts have struck down the most egregious gerrymanders. Some states require districts to be compact and follow county lines.
But these piecemeal reforms cannot keep up with sophisticated mapmaking technology and determined politicians. Most states still let politicians draw their own districts. Even independent commissions can be influenced by political appointees. Courts are limited in what they can remedy, especially after the Supreme Court ruled in Rucho v. Common Cause that federal judges cannot police partisan gerrymandering.
Proportional representation offers a solution that can fix gerrymandering and preserve the meaning of each vote: seats are allocated based on the share of votes each party receives. Instead of three separate districts designed to dilute communities' voices, imagine one larger district electing three representatives. If Biggins' community represents 35% of voters, they would elect one of those three representatives, no matter how creative the mapmakers get.
The Fair Representation Act offers a legal path forward through multi-member districts with ranked-choice voting, though with Republicans controlling the House, passage is doubtful.
Proportional representation solves the core problem: it makes every vote count. Instead of winner-take-all districts where 49% of voters get zero representation, seats are allocated based on actual vote share. A party winning 35% of votes gets roughly 35% of seats—guaranteed representation that reflects real voter preferences.
This eliminates gerrymandering's power because manipulating district boundaries becomes pointless when representation flows from vote totals, not geographic lines. When districts elect multiple representatives, packing and cracking strategies collapse. Every vote builds toward representation rather than being neutralized by mapmakers. Politicians must build broader coalitions rather than appeal only to their partisan base.
The system works in practice. In 1996, New Zealand voters chose proportional representation to replace their winner-take-all system. The result was coalition governments that negotiate and compromise rather than single-party rule. Cambridge, Massachusetts, has used proportional ranked-choice voting since 1941.
Geography explains why Republicans have made gerrymandering systematic while Democrats use it opportunistically: Democratic voters concentrate in cities, while Republican voters spread across rural and suburban areas. This means Democrats can win the popular vote but Republicans win more districts—or Republicans can manipulate district lines to guarantee control even when losing statewide.
This geographic disadvantage explains why "gerrymandering now, gerrymandering tomorrow, gerrymandering forever" specifically describes Republican strategy. Without systematic gerrymandering, Republicans would lose legislative control in many states. They systematically resist redistricting reforms, restrict ballot initiatives, and coordinate gerrymandering nationally because fair elections threaten their ability to maintain power.
Democrats sometimes gerrymander when they control redistricting—Illinois maps and New York's failed 2022 attempt are examples. But they support redistricting reforms now because current gerrymandering disadvantages them, not likely from principle. Democrats can win fair elections due to their urban concentration; Republicans face greater challenges maintaining legislative control without district manipulation.
However, both parties would resist proportional representation because it threatens their shared duopoly. Proportional representation would empower third parties and drastically reduce the safe seats both parties use to protect incumbents. The current fight is more about who controls the rigged system, not whether to unrig it.
Most concerning is the systematic elimination of ballot initiatives—the primary tool citizens have to bypass resistant legislatures. When states will not pass reforms, voters in 26 states can collect signatures and force ballot measures.
Republicans recognize this threat to their electoral manipulation strategy. Republican-controlled legislatures have restricted ballot initiatives by raising signature requirements and imposing penalties on petition circulators. Alaska's ranked-choice voting narrowly survived a 2024 repeal effort, demonstrating how fragile these reforms remain.
The window for citizen-led reform is closing. Once these restrictions lock in, there is no alternative pathway around resistant legislatures.
The parallel between Wallace's segregation and contemporary gerrymandering runs deeper than rhetoric. Both represent systematic efforts to predetermine political outcomes through legal manipulation of democratic processes. Both claim constitutional legitimacy while subverting constitutional principles.
Wallace's segregation ultimately became politically unsustainable because Americans could see its injustice. Contemporary gerrymandering faces a similar challenge: it depends on public acceptance of predetermined electoral outcomes that increasingly conflict with basic democratic expectations.
Either American democracy adapts, or we risk permanent minority rule through rigged elections. The answer will likely determine whether American democracy can adapt to 21st-century challenges.
Proportional representation offers a path forward, but only if implemented before ballot initiatives are further restricted. Reform advocates must focus on the 26 states that allow citizen-initiated measures, building coalitions despite well-funded opposition. Electing federal representatives who support structural reform could also revive the Fair Representation Act.
The time for such reforms is now—because the opportunity for peaceful democratic change may not endure for long.
Edward Saltzberg is the Executive Director of the Security and Sustainability Forum and writes The Stability Brief.
