Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

When Politicians Draw Their Own Victories: Why and How To End Gerrymandering

Opinion

When Politicians Draw Their Own Victories: Why and How To End Gerrymandering

Alyssa West from Austin holds up a sign during the Fight the Trump Takeover rally at the Texas Capitol on Saturday, August. 16, 2025.

(Aaron E. Martinez/Austin American-Statesman via Getty Images)

From MAGA Republicans to progressive Democrats to those of us in the middle, Americans want real change – and they’re tired of politics as usual. They’re craving authenticity, real reform, and an end to the status quo. More and more, voters seem to be embracing disruption over the empty promises of establishment politicians, who too often live by the creed that “one bad idea deserves a bigger one.” Just look at how both parties are handling gerrymandering in Texas and California, and it’s difficult to see it as anything other than both parties trying to rig elections in their favor.

Instead of fixing the system, politicians are fueling a turbocharged redistricting arms race ahead of high-stakes midterm 2026 elections that will determine control of the U.S. Congress. In Texas, Republicans just redrew congressional lines, likely guaranteeing five new Republican seats, which has sparked Democratic strongholds like California and New York to threaten their own gerrymandered counterattacks.


This isn’t democracy. This destroys democracy. It’s a corrupt game where politicians choose their voters — not the voters selecting their representatives, as enumerated in our U.S. Constitution.

We represent different parties, but we have both seen the severe damage gerrymandering has done to American democracy. At this point, less than 12 percent of House races are expected to be competitive in 2026. That means in nearly 9 out of 10 House districts, voters may not have a genuine choice of candidates or be able to vote in an election that politicians do not already fix. That translates into 385 of the 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives will be pre-determined. The result? Increased hyper-partisanship, little to no incentives for bipartisan compromise in Congress, and, most importantly, a vast majority of moderate middle voters (Democrats, Independents, and Republicans) like us whose voices and proposals are lost.

Fixing gerrymandering would put voters back in the driver's seat, ensuring their choices determine election outcomes and that elected officials are truly accountable to the people they serve. For the sake of our democracy, we need bold and bipartisan actions that put power back where it belongs: with the voters.

First, in the immediate term, all voters should make their voices heard. We should not settle for the status quo or mutually assured destruction by supporting either party's position to gerrymander. Attend a town meeting and contact your representatives to demand that they oppose all efforts to gerrymander by both parties. In recent days, a few political leaders, including Republican Governor of New Hampshire Kelly Ayotte and Democratic Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers, have said ‘no’ to this mid-decade redistricting.

Second, Congress should pass redistricting reforms that prohibit partisan gerrymandering. These reforms should establish minimum standards for drawing congressional maps, which would require districts to be drawn using neutral, transparent criteria, such as equal population, geographic contiguity and compactness, and consideration of communities of interest and existing political boundaries.

Third, all states should adopt independent, nonpartisan state redistricting commissions, which would remove legislators from the process. Eleven states that already use independent or bipartisan redistricting commissions, and evidence shows these commissions tend to create fairer maps, increase electoral competitiveness, and boost voter trust in the process. Polls have shown strong voter support across the political spectrum for independent commissions.

Better yet, to make sure this reform takes hold nationwide and to prevent future gerrymandering battles from escalating, Congress should require all states to set up independent redistricting commissions. This latest escalation shows that it only takes one “bad apple state” to spark a multi-state gerrymandering battle. That is why Congress must act now.

There have been bipartisan reform efforts in recent years, including the Fairness and Independence in Redistricting Act and the Redistricting Transparency and Accountability Act. But in each case, Congress has failed to do what is best for voters, instead acting on its own cynical partisan interests. Passing and abiding by redistricting reforms requires compromise, cross-partisan collaboration, and courage – values that have been eroded by the effects of decades of gerrymandering. But this latest escalation of gerrymandering threats shows why Congress cannot wait any longer.

Benedict Arnold, Joseph McCarthy, and Elbridge Gerry (from whom we derive the term “gerrymander”) are all names that are vilified in American history. While gerrymandering has been around for centuries, it is long past time to retire this wretched and corrupt practice. It is a direct threat to representative government, democratic ideals, and American values. Beginning in Texas, we must unite and oppose all efforts by states to manipulate the outcome of our elections. Now is the time for We the People to demand that Members of Congress declare publicly whether they support reform or choose the corrupt old ways.

Charles Boustany (R-LA), a former U.S. representative serving Louisiana’s 3rd and 7th congressional districts, and Amb.

Tim Roemer (D-IN), a former ambassador to India and U.S. representative serving Indiana’s 3rd congressional district, is a part of Issue One’s ReFormers Caucus, a group of nearly 200 former members of Congress united to fix our broken political system.



Read More

Latino Voter Landscape Shifts as Economic Pressures Reshape Support for Both Parties

Your Vote Counts postid

Latino Voter Landscape Shifts as Economic Pressures Reshape Support for Both Parties

New polling and expert analysis reveal a shifting and increasingly complex political landscape among Hispanic and Latino voters in the United States. While recent surveys show that economic pressures continue to dominate voter concerns, they also highlight a broader fragmentation of political identity that is reshaping long‑standing assumptions about Latino electoral behavior. A Pew Research Center poll indicates that President Donald Trump has lost support among Hispanic voters, with 70% disapproving of his performance, even though 42% of Latinos voted for him in 2024, a ten‑point increase from 2020. Among those who supported him, approval remains relatively high at 81%, though this marks a decline from earlier polling.

At the same time, Democrats are confronting their own challenges. Data comparing the 2024 American Electorate Voter Poll with the 2020 American Election Eve Poll show that Democratic margins dropped by 23 points among Latino men, raising concerns among party strategists about weakening support heading into the 2026 midterms. Analysts argue that despite these declines, sustained investment in Latino voter engagement remains essential, particularly as turnout efforts have historically influenced electoral outcomes.

Keep ReadingShow less
Compassion and Common Sense Must Coexist in Immigration Policy
Changing Conversations Around Immigration
Leif Christoph Gottwald on Unsplash

Compassion and Common Sense Must Coexist in Immigration Policy

I am writing this not as a Democrat or a Republican, but as an American who believes that compassion and common sense must coexist. I understand why many people feel sympathy for those who come to the United States seeking safety or opportunity. That compassion is part of who we are as a nation. But compassion alone cannot guide national policy, especially when the consequences affect every citizen, every community, and every generation that follows.

For more than two centuries, people from around the world have entered this country through a legal process—sometimes long, sometimes difficult, but always rooted in the idea that a nation has the right and responsibility to know who is entering its borders. That principle is not new, and it is not partisan. It is simply how a functioning country protects its people and maintains order.

Keep ReadingShow less
SCOTUS Tariffs Case: Representative Government vs Authoritarianism.
scotus rulings voting rights, disclosure
scotus rulings voting rights, disclosure

SCOTUS Tariffs Case: Representative Government vs Authoritarianism.

The Supreme Court Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (Tariffs) and consolidated related cases relate to the following issues:

(1) Whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) authorizes the tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump; and

Keep ReadingShow less
Immigration Was the Loudest Silence in Trump’s State of the Union

U.S. President Donald Trump delivers the State of the Union address during a joint session of Congress in the House Chamber at the Capitol on February 24, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Immigration Was the Loudest Silence in Trump’s State of the Union

President Donald Trump spoke for 108 minutes during the 2026 State of the Union — the longest address in American history. He covered the economy, foreign policy, manufacturing, and national pride. But for all the words, one of the most consequential issues facing the country was reduced to a single statistic and then set aside.

Immigration — one of the administration’s signature issues — was nearly invisible in the address. A Medill News Service analysis shows the president devoted less than 10% of his remarks to the topic, amounting to roughly ten minutes in total.

Keep ReadingShow less