Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Most of America under severe risk of gerrymandering, report finds

Illustrated map of America
enjoynz/Getty Images

As states prepare to redraw their election maps later this year, democracy reform advocates are raising the alarm once more about the severe threat of gerrymandering facing a vast majority of the country.

The Gerrymandering Threat Index, released Monday by RepresentUs, identifies 35 states — with a collective population of more than 188 million people — at extreme or high risk of partisan gerrymandering this cycle. These are red and blue states, ranging in population from Texas to Wyoming.

While some states enacted redistricting reforms over the last decade, politicians still have control over the mapmaking process in most states. Republicans will have the advantage in 21 states, Democrats will lead the redrawing in nine and another nine will have a divided government in charge.


In its 160-page report, RepresentUs assessed the threat of gerrymandering in all 50 states using five key questions:

  1. Can politicians control how election maps are drawn?
  2. Can election map drawing be done in secret?
  3. Can election maps be rigged for partisan gain?
  4. Are the legal standards weak?
  5. Are rigged election maps hard to challenge in court?

Based on the answers to each question, RepresentUs marked whether the state was at a low, moderate or high risk of gerrymandering. If the answer to one or more of these questions was "yes," that indicated the state is at an elevated risk of partisan gerrymandering. These five ratings were then used to calculate a state's overall risk assessment.

RepresentUs found that the threat of gerrymandering was extreme in 27 states, high in eight states, moderate in two states, lower in six states and minimal in seven states. Of the states at extreme risk, 10 received the worst rating for all five questions. Only California was labeled a low-risk state across the board.

Threat of gerrymandering, by state, according to RepresentUsSource: RepresentUs

The country-wide solution to this pervasive problem, the report says, is Congress passing the For the People Act, more commonly known as HR 1. The sweeping reform legislation includes a provision requiring states to use independent redistricting commissions for their congressional maps, if they don't already have one in place.

Under HR 1, the states now considered at extreme risk would move to the low-risk category — all but ending partisan gerrymandering, the report says.

"This report makes it clear that gerrymandering is a national crisis that needs an urgent and bold solution. Politicians are already preparing to pick their voters during this year's redistricting. But with the For the People Act, Congress has a chance to stop them before they get started," said Josh Silver, CEO and co-founder of RepresentUs.

While House Democrats already passed HR 1 in March, the bill's fate in the 50-50 Senate is not as optimistic. With the filibuster still intact, it's unlikely the reform package will receive enough votes to pass.


Read More

A person signing a piece of paper with other people around them.

Javon Jackson, center, was able to register to vote following passage of a 2019 Nevada law that restored voting rights to formerly incarcerated individuals.

The Nation Is Missing Millions of Voters Due to Lack of Rights for Former Felons

If you gathered every American with a prison record into one contiguous territory and admitted it to the union, you would create the 12th-largest state. It would be home to at least 7 million to 8 million people and hold a dozen votes in the Electoral College.

In a close presidential race, this hypothetical state of the formerly incarcerated could decide who wins the White House.

Keep ReadingShow less
People standing at voting booths.

The proposed SAVE Act and MEGA Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, risking the disenfranchisement of millions of eligible Americans.

Getty Images, EvgeniyShkolenko

The SAVE Act is a Solution in Search of A Problem

The federal government seems to be barreling toward a federal election power grab. Trump's State of the Union address called for the Senate to push through the SAVE Act, which has already passed the House, in the name of so-called "election integrity." And the SAVE Act isn’t the only such bill. Like the SAVE Act, the Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act—introduced in the House—would require voters to provide a document outlined in the Act that allegedly proves their U.S. citizenship. We’ve been down this road before in Texas, and spoiler alert: it was unworkable.

Both the SAVE and MEGA Acts would disenfranchise millions of eligible U.S. citizens without making our federal elections more secure. They seek to roll out a faulty federal voter registration system, despite the existing separate registration and voting process for state and local elections. And these Acts target a minuscule “problem”—but would unleash mass voter purges and confusion.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stickers with the words "I Voted Today."

Virginia is on its way to be the 19th jurisdiction to adopt the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, bringing the U.S. closer to electing presidents by the national popular vote.

Getty Images, EyeWolf

Virginia On The Path to Join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

NPVIC is an agreement among U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to the presidential ticket that wins the overall popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It is considered a pragmatic, voluntary state-based initiative because it aims to ensure the winner of the national popular vote wins the presidency without requiring a constitutional amendment, operating instead within the existing Electoral College framework by utilizing states' constitutional authority to appoint electors. If enough states join the NPVIC to reach a total of 270 electoral votes, the United States will effectively shift from a winner-take-all (WTA) regime to a national popular vote system for electing the President.

With Virginia's adoption, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will be adopted by eighteen states and the District of Columbia, collectively holding 222 electoral votes. The compact requires 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 total) to take effect. It currently needs forty-eight more electoral votes to become active.

Keep ReadingShow less
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