Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

jimfeng/Getty Images

Pennsylvania’s Bipartisan Exchange Is Rebuilding Trust in Governance

The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics has nearly 40 years of experience working with legislators from different political parties, and it is building on this history by drawing on lessons from the successful American Congressional Exchange model, begun in 2018 at the Bipartisan Policy Center, and from state exchanges now underway in Minnesota and Michigan. The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics, in collaboration with the Bridge Alliance, has launched the Pennsylvania Legislative Exchange.

This state-based, systematic approach is designed to foster better relationships and build trust across the political aisle with the following guiding principles:

Keep ReadingShow less
An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
Five men sitting on one side of a table, as a panel at an event.

Harvard's Guy-Uriel Charles (left) listens to David Walker, Chair of the Federal Fiscal Sustainability Foundation. Fellow panelists (L-R) are Michael Farris, Convention of States Project; Samuel Fieldman, Wolf Pack; and Jim Rubens, FFSA and American Promise.

Photo by Martha Stewart

Congressional Inaction Raises Constitutional Change Alternative

Voting is the anchor of democracy, as we are reminded every two years. But this anchor rests on unstable ground today, signaling that our political roots need examining too.

In the United States, the Constitution itself becomes the focus when serious problems prompt such foundational civic dives. Our current challenges may not be as severe as the Civil War or the excesses of the Gilded Age, which produced waves of amendments, but today’s erosion of our system of checks and balances requires us to revisit our constitutional underpinnings.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less