State Gerrymandering Surge Ends Path to Proportional Representation

“We are in an era of maximum warfare, everywhere, all the time. And we are going to keep the pressure on . . .” –Hakeem Jeffries, House Minority Leader, April 22, 2026

Borrowing a slogan from the Trump White House, Jeffries was describing mid-decade gerrymandering in Texas, California, Virginia, and half a dozen other states, with others queued up behind them.

This new escalatory dynamic in American politics closes the door to one path I have long hoped would lead to US proportional representation: state-by-state adoption for use in legislatures.

The state-by-state path to democracy reform is time-honored. It has racked up win after win for automatic voter registration, early voting, vote by mail, same-day voter registration, state voting rights acts, and independent redistricting commissions. The ranked choice voting movement, following an analogous local-up playbook, has won adoption in 39 localities and two states. The overlapping proportional representation movement—for many, the ultimate destination for all election reform—counts six localities using it and has grand ambitions for local and state victories.

Continual gerrymandering ends state-led independent commissions

Tragically, the 2025 advent of mid-decade redistricting has mooted the states-up playbook for some two reforms. Notably, it has killed independent redistricting on a state-by-state basis. This strategy “proved truly disastrous,” in the words of Princeton University’s Paul Starr. He went on: “Democratic states have bound themselves to be fair to Republicans, but Republican states have not reciprocated.” It was unilateral disarmament by blue states, reducing Democrats’ chances of controlling the US House as red states maximize their gerrymanders.

So when Texas broke norms with a naked political power grab by redistricting in 2025, California responded, tit for tat. It suspended its independent redistricting commission and redrew its district lines to counteract Texas. More red states jumped in. Several blue states, regretting their independent redistricting laws, are now seeking ways to emulate California by suspending their independent commissions, and gerrymandering is on the way to becoming a continual process.

Continual gerrymandering also moots state-led proportional representation

Not noted but equally true is that maximum warfare-style redistricting has mooted proportional representation for state legislatures. In both blue and red states, legislative proportional representation would be tantamount to unilateral disarmament for the majority party, which makes it DOA in most states.

Consider Massachusetts. Democrats have won majorities of 62 percent in recent presidential elections, as shown the figure. They have leveraged this electoral majority into control of 81 percent of seats in the state house, 88 percent of seats in the state senate, and 100 percent of the state’s US House delegation. The same pattern of escalating Democratic control is evident in other blue states, such as Illinois. It is mirrored in reverse in red states such as Mississippi and Wyoming. In fact, this pattern of rising party shares from presidential vote to state house to state senate to US House shows up almost everywhere, as I have documented.

Control of elected bodies (multi-year average)UC Santa Barbara, American Presidency Project: Green Papers

In almost every state, proportional representation in the legislature would shrink the majority party’s caucus and increase the minority party’s. The majority would therefore have less power to gerrymander US House seats.

For example, if California’s state legislature were proportional to its 2024 presidential vote, the state would not have been able to counteract Texas’s mid-decade redistricting in late 2025. A proportionally represented California legislature would be 58 percent Democratic, short of the two-thirds supermajority legally required to redistrict the Golden State mid-decade. At present, Sacramento’s two chambers are 75 percent Democratic.

In a future of biennial gerrymandering, proportional representation in state legislatures would kneecap majority parties, so neither majority legislators nor voters would likely support it.

Ways forward: Outlier states, localities, federal, intermediate reforms

A few outliers may emerge. In deep red and deep blue states with small delegations such as Wyoming and Vermont, the majority party has no worries of losing House seats. In a swing state such as Michigan, where the parties and legislators are evenly balanced, a proportional legislature would not obviously advantage either side. But overall, as I’ve detailed, unrelenting partisan warfare precludes winning proportional representation in most state legislatures.

For reformers like me who are devoted to winning proportional representation, the race may not be over, but it’s definitely changed tracks. Focus can move to local wins or to federal proportional representation, in the event of a possible national pro-democracy trifecta in Washington, DC, in 2029. (Two intriguing federal scenarios are here and here.)

Another worthy strategy is to turn toward open state-level doors as intermediate steps. Unified all-candidate primaries, for example, may lower the temperature of partisan conflict without harming either party’s chance for control. De-escalation through such reforms might, in time, clear a path to proportional representation.

But for now—in this time of maximum warfare, everywhere, all the time—reformers would do well to acknowledge that state-by-state campaigns for legislative proportional representation are no longer a winning strategy.

Alan Durning is executive director of Seattle-based Sightline Institute, the independent, nonprofit think tank.