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

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War
Toy soldiers in a battle formation
Photo by Saifee Art on Unsplash

The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War

In the Rumble in the Jungle, George Foreman came in expecting to end the fight early.

At first, it looked that way. He was stronger, faster, and landing clean punches. I watched the 1974 championship on simulcast fifty-two years ago and remember how dominant he was in the opening rounds.

Keep ReadingShow less
Calling Wealthy Benefactors!
A rusty house figure stands over a city.
Photo by Katja Ano on Unsplash

Calling Wealthy Benefactors!

My housing has been conditional on circumstances beyond my control, and the time is up; the owner is selling.

Securing affordable housing is a stressor for much of the working class. According to recent data, nearly 50% of renters are cost-burdened, meaning they spend over 30% of their take-home income on housing costs. Rental prices in California are especially high, 35% higher than the national average. Renting is routinely insecure. The lords of land need to renovate, their kids need to move in. They need to sell.

Keep ReadingShow less
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed upon entering the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building on June 6, 2023 in New York City. New York City has provided sanctuary to over 46,000 asylum seekers since 2013, when the city passed a law prohibiting city agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement agencies unless there is a warrant for the person's arrest.(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed.
(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

The Power of the Purse and Executive Discretion: ICE Expansion Under the Trump Administration

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

  • Core Constitutional Debate: Expanded ICE enforcement under the Trump Administration raises a core constitutional question: Does Article II executive power override Article I’s congressional power of the purse?
  • Executive Justification: The primary constitutional justification for expanded ICE enforcement is The Unitary Executive Theory.
  • Separation of Powers: Critics argue that the Unitary Executive Theory undermines Congress’s power of the purse.
  • Moral Conflict: Expanded ICE enforcement has sparked a moral debate, as concerns over due process and civil liberties clash with claims of increased public safety and national security.

Where is ICE Funding Coming From?

Since the beginning of the current Trump Administration, immigration enforcement has undergone transformative change and become one of the most contested issues in the federal government. On his first day in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, which directs executive agencies to implement stricter immigration enforcement practices. In order to implement these practices, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a budget reconciliation package that paired state and local tax cuts with immigration funding. This allocated $170.7 billion in immigration-related funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to spend by 2029.

Keep ReadingShow less