Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Congressional gerrymandering has been a boon for GOP, report finds

Kevin McCarthy

Over the last decade, Republicans have gained 27 seats in the House due to gerrymandering.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Partisan gerrymandering has given Republicans an edge in congressional elections over the last two decades, resulting in outsized GOP representation in the House, a recent study found.

Since 2000, nearly 40 House seats have shifted to favor Republicans as a result of gerrymandering, researchers at the University of Maryland concluded in their paper published last month. Democrats, on the other hand, have not seen any significant seat gains in the last five decades of redistricting.


The study analyzed how congressional districts have been redrawn over the past half-century. While neither party's redistricting strategies had significant impacts on House seats before the new millennium, Republican gerrymanders increased GOP representation by 9 percentage points in the last two decades. Mostly recently, Republicans gained 27 seats in the House due to gerrymandering in 2011.

Democratic gerrymanders, however, had little sway over House election outcomes, except in more populous states. In blue states with more than five congressional seats, gerrymandering decreased GOP representation by 9 percentage points. This impact goes up another 4 percentage points in states with more than 10 House members.

"It may not be surprising that parties manipulate vote aggregation to benefit themselves," the researchers conclude — although they noted that such power does not always lead to such actions.

Partisans may refrain from this manipulative behavior due to a moral sense of fairness in political competition, the researchers wrote. Those in non-competitive districts may not feel the need to gerrymander. Parties may also be concerned about future retribution or court involvement.

Following completion of the 2020 census, states will begin the redistricting process next year. Fourteen will use independent redistricting commissions to determine legislative districts, and eight will do the same for congressional maps. While a majority of state maps will be determined by politicians or in the courts, momentum has been in favor of states giving mapmaking authority over to nonpartisan commissions. Future studies will determine how effective these commissions have been.

This fall, Virginians will decide whether to adopt a redistricting commission, while Missourians will vote on whether to undo a redistricting reform initiative they approved two years ago. Anti-gerrymandering campaigns are ongoing in Oregon, Nevada and Arkansas, but the coronavirus pandemic has made such efforts more difficult to execute.


Read More

With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less
Postal Service Changes Mean Texas Voters Shouldn’t Wait To Mail Voter Registrations and Ballots

A voter registration drive in Corpus Christi, Texas, on Oct. 5, 2024. The deadline to register to vote for Texas' March 3 primary election is Feb. 2, 2026. Changes to USPS policies may affect whether a voter registration application is processed on time if it's not postmarked by the deadline.

Gabriel Cárdenas for Votebeat

Postal Service Changes Mean Texas Voters Shouldn’t Wait To Mail Voter Registrations and Ballots

Texans seeking to register to vote or cast a ballot by mail may not want to wait until the last minute, thanks to new guidance from the U.S. Postal Service.

The USPS last month advised that it may not postmark a piece of mail on the same day that it takes possession of it. Postmarks are applied once mail reaches a processing facility, it said, which may not be the same day it’s dropped in a mailbox, for example.

Keep ReadingShow less
Post office trucks parked in a lot.

Changes to USPS postmarking, ranked choice voting fights, costly runoffs, and gerrymandering reveal growing cracks in U.S. election systems.

Photo by Sam LaRussa on Unsplash.

2026 Will See an Increase in Rejected Mail-In Ballots - Here's Why

While the media has kept people’s focus on the Epstein files, Venezuela, or a potential invasion of Greenland, the United States Postal Service adopted a new rule that will have a broad impact on Americans – especially in an election year in which millions of people will vote by mail.

The rule went into effect on Christmas Eve and has largely flown under the radar, with the exception of some local coverage, a report from PBS News, and Independent Voter News. It states that items mailed through USPS will no longer be postmarked on the day it is received.

Keep ReadingShow less
People voting at voting booths.

A little-known interstate compact could change how the U.S. elects presidents by 2028, replacing the Electoral College with the national popular vote.

Getty Images, VIEW press

The Quiet Campaign That Could Rewrite the 2028 Election

Most Americans are unaware, but a quiet campaign in states across the country is moving toward one of the biggest changes in presidential elections since the nation was founded.

A movement called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is happening mostly out of public view and could soon change how the United States picks its president, possibly as early as 2028.

Keep ReadingShow less