Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

What happened to the worst gerrymandered districts?

Opinion

Ohio's "Snake by the Lake"

Ohio District 11 Gerrymandered Map

Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

Every 10 years, states draw new congressional and legislative district lines. Often, mapmakers engage in gerrymandering – drawing lines in a way that artificially advantages one person, party or group over another. The anti-corruption group RepresentUs explains the ensuing problem: “Instead of voters choosing politicians, it’s the other way around – politicians are choosing their voters. They do it by gerrymandering voting districts to guarantee their own re-election. That’s corruption at the core of our political process.”

The Fulcrum ran a story in November 2019 by David Meyers that identified the 12 worst examples of gerrymandering in the House of Representatives. Meyers pointed out that you know you've seen a gerrymandered district when it looks like a duck or a snake, or even a pair of earmuffs. But he also noted that it’s not always obvious that the mapmakers played games with the contours in order to ensure a particular electoral outcome inside those boundaries.


One clear example cited was Ohio's “snake by the lake” 9th district. Jason Fierman, founder and managing director of The Redistrict Network, noted that the district – which stretches from Toledo to Cleveland – is “so thin and strangely shaped that they actually drove to Lake Erie to monitor sea levels with respect to the contiguity of the district. They are concerned that climate change could make the district non-contiguous and consequently altered in the next round of redistricting.”

This is just one of the many bizarre districts mentioned.

Most Americans oppose partisan gerrymandering, but half do not know whether the practice occurs in their states. As Meyers reported: “Two-thirds of Americans told pollsters for The Economist and YouGov that states drawing legislative districts to favor one party is a ‘major problem’ with just 23 percent saying it’s a ‘minor problem.’ But 50 percent said they do not know whether districts are drawn by the legislature or an independent commission in their own state.”

While the districts certainly may have changed in the latest round of redistricting, the depth of the problem has not. Both Democrats and Republicans continue to design maps to ensure that their party maintains power.

In February 2022, The Fulcrum reported that a poll found a majority of Americans oppose partisan gerrymandering

Fast forward to 2024.

In a survey of leading voices in the democracy reform movement, ending partisan gerrymandering and moving to independent redistricting was the third highest priority for this year (coming in after open primaries and ranked-choice voting).

In December, New York's highest court, ordered the state’s Independent Redistricting Commission to submit a revised congressional redistricting plan to the state Legislature, based on data from the 2020 Census. But on Monday the Legislature rejected the commission’s plan and assumed responsibility for drawing new lines. Democrats hold the majority and are expected to devise a plan that helps their party at the expense of Republicans.

And in Louisiana, the Legislature recently passed a new congressional map, which Republican Gov. Jeff Landry has signed into law. The latest district map was precipitated by a federal court ruling that the district lines drawn in 2022 violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting Black representation. Whether this new map will be taken to the courts again remains to be seen.

And the list goes on and on. In Wisconsin, Democrats have sued over the congressional map. North Carolina and Alabama both have new congressional maps. And in Texas, the congressional map faces several legal challenges.

Undoubtedly the redrawing of congressional lines to satisfy partisan goals will continue – as will the ensuing legal battles. In the coming weeks and months The Fulcrum will continue our coverage on this critical issue and work to identify the worst gerrymandering districts.

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