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

Confirmation on Easy Mode: Sen. Mullin’s nomination to lead DHS

U.S. Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) testifies during his confirmation hearing to be the next Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill on March 18, 2026 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Confirmation on Easy Mode: Sen. Mullin’s nomination to lead DHS

Since arriving in Congress in 2013 Sen. Markwayne Mullin has been known for disappearing for a few weeks to Afghanistan in a putative effort to rescue Americans still there after withdrawal and tried to draw the president of the Teamsters into a fight during a hearing. Ironically, or possibly appropriately, Sean O’Brien, that same president of the Teamsters, endorsed Mullin’s nomination. He has written several laws supporting Native American communities and pediatric cancer research. A Trump loyalist, on January 6, 2021 in the hours after the riot at the Capitol, Mullin voted to change the outcome of the 2020 presidential election by omitting Arizona and Pennsylvania’s votes for Joe Biden.

His work experience prior to his political career was primarily in running his family’s plumbing business after his father became ill. He spent four months as a mixed martial arts fighter with a record of three wins. (He’s also gotten a lot richer while in Congress.)

Keep ReadingShow less
Two people signing papers.

A deep dive into the growing uncertainty in the U.S. legal immigration system, exploring policy shifts, backlogs, and how procedural instability is reshaping the promise of lawful immigration.

Getty Images, Halfpoint Images

When Immigration Rules Keep Changing, the System Stops Working

For generations, the United States has framed legal immigration as a kind of social contract. Since 1965, when the Immigration and Nationality Act ended the national-origin quota system, the U.S. has formally opened legal immigration to people from around the world without racial or national-origin preferences. If people from across the globe sought to reunite with family or bring needed skills to the American economy, they were told they would be welcomed. If they sought U.S. citizenship, the country would provide a clear route to reach it.

Follow the procedures, submit the forms, pay the fees, pass the background checks, and your time will come. Legal immigration has never been easy or quick. But the promise has always been that the path exists.

Keep ReadingShow less
A New Norm of DHS Shutdown & Long Airport Lines

Travelers wait in a TSA Pre security line at Miami International Airport on March 17, 2026, in Miami, Florida. Travelers across the country are enduring long airport security lines as a partial federal government shutdown affects the Transportation Security Administration officers working the security lines.

(Joe Raedle/Getty Images/TCA)

A New Norm of DHS Shutdown & Long Airport Lines

If you’ve ever traveled to France, chances are you’ve come up against this all-too-common phenomenon. You get to the train station and, without warning, your train is out of service. Or a restaurant is oddly closed during regular business hours.

“C’est la grève,” you may hear from a local, accompanied by a shrug. It’s the strike.

Keep ReadingShow less
Constitutional Barriers to Nationalizing Elections
US Capitol
US Capitol

Constitutional Barriers to Nationalizing Elections

In the run-up to the midterms, President Trump continues to call for nationalizing congressional elections. He has sought to initiate the process through executive orders, such as one proposing to set “a ballot receipt deadline of Election Day for all methods of voting.” The words and spirit of the United States Constitution—the bedrock textualism and originalism of conservative constitutional interpretation—say he can’t nationalize elections.

Unlike some consequential constitutional questions, it’s not a close call.

Keep ReadingShow less