Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

A Lasting Solution to the Gerrymandering War

Opinion

A Lasting Solution to the Gerrymandering War
A view of the capitol building from across the street
Photo by Joel Volz on Unsplash

Perhaps the late Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee knew what was coming. As an early proponent of a federal bill banning mid-decade gerrymandering, she now appears to have been ahead of her time. Indeed, today, no fewer than seven bills in Congress bear her legacy of concern for fair representation in redistricting. That’s more than any other time in modern congressional history.

The story of the current gerrymandering war flows through her home state of Texas. The legal fight over congressional maps after the 2010 census was complicated; the U.S. Supreme Court struck down several sets of maps as racial gerrymanders.


As a Black member of Congress from Houston, Jackson Lee understood the importance of sponsoring legislation to counteract partisan and racial gerrymanders more than a decade ago. Not long after the U.S. Supreme Court ended preclearance protections in 2013’s Shelby County v. Holder decision, Rep. Jackson Lee introduced the Coretta Scott King Mid-Decade Redistricting Prohibition Act of 2013. The act would have banned states from engaging in congressional redistricting mid-decade, rather than the traditional timeline of redistricting only when new census data is available at the start of each decade.

With that bill, Rep. Jackson Lee sought to prevent the vote dilution of Black and Latino voters who, before the Shelby County decision, had been protected by Sections 4 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Those provisions required many jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to obtain federal approval before their new district maps would take effect.

The Jackson Lee bill surely drew inspiration from the Fairness and Independence in Redistricting Act of 2005, introduced by Rep. John Tanner of Tennessee. Unfortunately, the legal playing field regarding redistricting would only get worse: In the 2019 case Rucho v. Common Cause, the Supreme Court removed the federal judiciary from striking down political gerrymanders.

Jackson Lee reintroduced her bill each Congress until she passed away in office last year. A mere 13 months after her death, however, the Texas Legislature passed a new congressional map in the middle of the decade with the explicit intent to engage in racial gerrymandering. This set off a domino effect across the country: Nearly half a dozen states have either passed or taken official steps toward mid-decade redistricting in response.

Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress have taken note of this spiraling mess: To date, at least Rep. Marc Veasey, Rep. Kevin Kiley, Rep. Steve Cohen, Rep. Zoe Lofgren, Rep. Donald Davis, Rep. Vicente Gonzalez, and Rep. Deborah Ross have introduced bills in reaction to, and aiming to control, this year’s unprecedented mid-decade gerrymandering war.

While all these efforts deserve to be commended and supported, they cannot get past the reality that gerrymandering – whether racial or partisan – will continue to blight our democracy so long as we use single-member districts to elect members of Congress. The efforts may constrain or temporarily pause the gerrymandering war, but they won’t solve it.

In contrast, Rep. Don Beyer’s Fair Representation Act – which would enact ranked choice voting with multi-member districts for the U.S. House – would be a lasting solution to our historic spiral of partisan dysfunction. In addition to delivering a more proportional House that would be nearly impossible to gerrymander, the Fair Representation Act includes a ban on mid-decade redistricting.

As we get closer to the 2026 midterm elections, there is no clear end to the gerrymandering wars; rather, they have spilled back into the courts. Texas’s opening move has been ruled a racial gerrymander by a federal district court, in violation of the Voting Rights Act. The Department of Justice has sued California over its proposed new map, alleging that it is a racial gerrymander. The Supreme Court will soon adjudicate these cases in some fashion.

And while no one can predict how the Court will rule, it is hard to see a resolution that delivers fairer and better representation for We the People. As Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee knew, along with those following in her footsteps on both sides of the aisle, It doesn’t have to be this way.

Ryan J. Suto is the Senior Policy Advisor at FairVote, a nonpartisan organization seeking better elections for all.


Read More

How Trump turned a January 6 death into the politics of ‘protecting women’

A memorial for Ashli Babbitt sits near the US Capitol during a Day of Remembrance and Action on the one year anniversary of the January 6, 2021 insurrection.

(John Lamparski/NurPhoto/AP)

How Trump turned a January 6 death into the politics of ‘protecting women’

In the wake of the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, President Donald Trump quickly took up the cause of a 35-year-old veteran named Ashli Babbitt.

“Who killed Ashli Babbitt?” he asked in a one-sentence statement on July 1, 2021.

Keep ReadingShow less
Gerrymandering Test the Boundaries of Fair Representation in 2026

Supreme Court, Allen v. Milligan Illegal Congressional Voting Map

Gerrymandering Test the Boundaries of Fair Representation in 2026

A wave of redistricting battles in early 2026 is reshaping the political map ahead of the midterm elections and intensifying long‑running fights over gerrymandering and democratic representation.

In California, a three‑judge federal panel on January 15 upheld the state’s new congressional districts created under Proposition 50, ruling 2–1 that the map—expected to strengthen Democratic advantages in several competitive seats—could be used in the 2026 elections. The following day, a separate federal court dismissed a Republican lawsuit arguing that the maps were unconstitutional, clearing the way for the state’s redistricting overhaul to stand. In Virginia, Democratic lawmakers have advanced a constitutional amendment that would allow mid‑decade redistricting, a move they describe as a response to aggressive Republican map‑drawing in other states; some legislators have openly discussed the possibility of a congressional map that could yield 10 Democratic‑leaning seats out of 11. In Missouri, the secretary of state has acknowledged in court that ballot language for a referendum on the state’s congressional map could mislead voters, a key development in ongoing litigation over the fairness of the state’s redistricting process. And in Utah, a state judge has ordered a new congressional map that includes one Democratic‑leaning district after years of litigation over the legislature’s earlier plan, prompting strong objections from Republican lawmakers who argue the court exceeded its authority.

Keep ReadingShow less
New Year’s Resolutions for Congress – and the Country

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) (L) and Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX) lead a group of fellow Republicans through Statuary Hall on the way to a news conference on the 28th day of the federal government shutdown at the U.S. Capitol on October 28, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Chip Somodevilla

New Year’s Resolutions for Congress – and the Country

Every January 1st, many Americans face their failings and resolve to do better by making New Year’s Resolutions. Wouldn’t it be delightful if Congress would do the same? According to Gallup, half of all Americans currently have very little confidence in Congress. And while confidence in our government institutions is shrinking across the board, Congress is near rock bottom. With that in mind, here is a list of resolutions Congress could make and keep, which would help to rebuild public trust in Congress and our government institutions. Let’s start with:

1 – Working for the American people. We elect our senators and representatives to work on our behalf – not on their behalf or on behalf of the wealthiest donors, but on our behalf. There are many issues on which a large majority of Americans agree but Congress can’t. Congress should resolve to address those issues.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two groups of glass figures. One red, one blue.

Congressional paralysis is no longer accidental. Polarization has reshaped incentives, hollowed out Congress, and shifted power to the executive.

Getty Images, Andrii Yalanskyi

How Congress Lost Its Capacity to Act and How to Get It Back

In late 2025, Congress fumbled the Affordable Care Act, failing to move a modest stabilization bill through its own procedures and leaving insurers and families facing renewed uncertainty. As the Congressional Budget Office has warned in multiple analyses over the past decade, policy uncertainty increases premiums and reduces insurer participation (see, for example: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61734). I examined this episode in an earlier Fulcrum article, “Governing by Breakdown: The Cost of Congressional Paralysis,” as a case study in congressional paralysis and leadership failure. The deeper problem, however, runs beyond any single deadline or decision and into the incentives and procedures that now structure congressional authority. Polarization has become so embedded in America’s governing institutions themselves that it shapes how power is exercised and why even routine governance now breaks down.

From Episode to System

The ACA episode wasn’t an anomaly but a symptom. Recent scholarship suggests it reflects a broader structural shift in how Congress operates. In a 2025 academic article available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN), political scientist Dmitrii Lebedev reaches a stark conclusion about the current Congress, noting that the 118th Congress enacted fewer major laws than any in the modern era despite facing multiple time-sensitive policy deadlines (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5346916). Drawing on legislative data, he finds that dysfunction is no longer best understood as partisan gridlock alone. Instead, Congress increasingly exhibits a breakdown of institutional capacity within the governing majority itself. Leadership avoidance, procedural delay, and the erosion of governing norms have become routine features of legislative life rather than temporary responses to crisis.

Keep ReadingShow less