Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Gerrymandering reform, if passed, is still a decade away

Opinion

Anti-gerrymandering protest at the Supreme Court

Most legislative efforts to fix gerrymandering won't take effect until 2030.

Olivier Douliery/Getty Photos

Gorrell is an advocate for the deaf, a former Republican Party election statistician, and a longtime congressional aide. He has been advocating against partisan gerrymandering for four decades.


"It's always encouraging to see great people like Eric Holder fighting to end Republican gerrymandering." — Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez, Aug. 2, 2019.

For the past year, Holder's National Democratic Redistricting Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the Democratic Governors Association, the National Democratic Redistricting PAC, EMILY's List, America Votes and All On The Line have persuaded their supporters to write thousands of email messages, letters to the editor and opinion pieces claiming the creation of independent redistricting commissions in their states could end Republican gerrymandering by the end of 2022.

But that's just not true.

As Bryan H. Wildenthal wrote for the legal news site Jurist: "A fact shockingly ignored in most news coverage is that some key provisions on gerrymandering would not even take effect until a decade from now — after the 2030 census!"

And, as New York Times columnist Ezra Klein explained, "It would also ban partisan redistricting and force states to use independent commissions to draw congressional lines (although this would not, sadly, take effect until after the 2030 census)."

CNN's Chris Cillizza echoed that analysis when he wrote: "And, even if the legislation did make it through the Senate — and Biden signed it — the redistricting reforms wouldn't kick in until the 2030 Census. Which is a very good thing for Republicans."

Let us check the effective date in the Senate's version of the For the People Act. It states, "This subtitle and the amendments made by this subtitle shall apply with respect to redistricting carried out pursuant to the decennial census conducted during 2030 or any succeeding decennial census."

In an email to me, Wildenthal wrote, "The result will be that Republicans will gerrymander to their heart's content in Texas, Florida, North Carolina, and Georgia (where they have far more seats to play with), and leave Democrats in the dust. They will lock in control of the House for the next decade even though Democrats may well win the House popular vote (as they did in 2012)."

Interestingly, Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgreen of California has not yet reintroduced her redistricting reform bill in the current Congress session (for her ninth attempt since 2005). Each time it has been submitted, it has died in committee because it has lacked adequate support among leadership to advance. The public might not know that her last bill, the Redistricting Reform Act of 2019, is identical to the redistricting provisions of the House version of the For the People Act. The exception is the change of the effective date, replacing 2020 with 2030.

These Democratic-related organizations have not informed their supporters about the new change of the effective date.

Should all 50 states adopt independent redistricting commissions by the time of the 2022 elections? Definitely yes. Look at the Maryland example.

Maryland has two dueling redistricting commissions. In his executive order, Republican Gov. Larry Hogan established the Governor's Citizen Redistricting Commission. Meanwhile, the top Democratic leaders in the General Assembly launched the Legislative Redistricting Advisory Commission to draw new congressional and legislative district maps.

In his Duckpin blog, Brian Griffiths wrote, "While the Governor's Redistricting Advisory Commission is designed to help the people, the Legislative Redistricting Advisory Commission is designed to help politicians. The difference could not be more clear." He showed the credibility difference between the two:

  • The governor's commission has three Democrats, three Republicans and three independents. None of the nine members are elected officials.
  • The legislative commission has five Democrats and two Republicans. Six of the seven members are elected officials.

Notably, President Biden did not mention redistricting reform while delivering a major speech on voting rights in Philadelphia on Tuesday, but he must know about the effective date.

Oddly, President Barack Obama did not push the Lofgren bill during his first two years in the White House, when fellow Democrats controlled the House and Senate. At the time, it seemed his party would do well enough in the 2010 midterms to dominate redistricting for the decade now coming to an end.

It turned out the opposite way. A Republican wave that year (fueled partly by fundraising for the Republican State Leadership Committee's Redistricting Majority Project) resulted in all GOP state governments getting to draw almost half the 435 congressional districts the next year while all Democratic governments drew about 50. This action is one of Obama's most embarrassing moments.

Wildenthal wrote, "I could not agree more strongly that it was a tragically missed historic opportunity for Obama and the Democrats to enact lasting reform to ban gerrymandering in 2009-10. I suppose they stupidly assumed they would have the upper hand after the 2010 election. We know how that worked out."

I believe his one-page legislative proposal, the "Defend Elections and National Democracy (DEFEND) Act," could be an excellent solution. It would:

  • Block all state restrictions on voting rights or other state laws affecting federal elections, enacted after Jan. 6, 2021, unless such laws were passed with bipartisan support.
  • Invalidate all partisan and abusive state legislation (whether Republican-sponsored or Democratic-sponsored) attacking voting rights or threatening election integrity.
  • Block any state map seeking to gerrymander districts for the U.S. House of Representatives on a partisan basis, and encourage other states to adopt independent or bipartisan commissions.

I ask advocates of redistricting reform to spread the word on the correct effective date and to consider the DEFEND Act.


Read More

Woman holding out an empty wallet at a table.

Many Americans wrongly associate poverty primarily with Black and Hispanic communities. Explore how this misconception influences public opinion, politics, and anti-poverty policy.

skaman306 / Getty Images

More Whites Live in Poverty than Either Blacks or Hispanics - Correcting the Perception of Poverty

From observing people and politicians over the years—I can find no data on this—I have the impression that liberals as well as conservatives think that the typical person living in poverty is Black or Hispanic. The image most Whites have of people of color is someone who is poor—except for celebrities—with little education; they are not aware of many people of color who are middle class. On the other hand, they are not aware of many Whites who are poor and so they think their number is low.

Why is the perception of poverty important? The perception of who is poor has significant impact on the support for government programs that aid the poor. Given the extent of racism in this country, whether subtle or violent, (see my post, “Whether the Issue is Gun Violence or Inequality, It Always Comes Back to Race/Racism”), it’s not surprising that support for anti-poverty programs is non-existent among MAGA Republicans and for that matter has always been weak among Republicans; 45% of Republicans would even cut food stamp support. Their attitude is "it's your fault;" so government has no responsibility to help. They feel the causes of poverty are personal: bad life choices, drugs, lack of work ethic, and the breakdown of families—all negative perceptions of Black culture.

Keep ReadingShow less
The All-America City of San Antonio Collaborates to Address Teen Pregnancy and Other Issues
person in green pants sitting on white textile
Photo by Vanessa on Unsplash

The All-America City of San Antonio Collaborates to Address Teen Pregnancy and Other Issues

San Antonio, TX, has been working to reduce teen pregnancy for over two decades, making considerable progress through collaborations among the city, county, nonprofit organizations, and the University of Texas. A nine-time All-America City, one of San Antonio’s key community collaborations, SA 2020, harnessed civic muscle to create and achieve dozens of measurable goals, including a significant reduction in teen pregnancy.

The San Antonio Teen Pregnancy Collaborative (SATPPC) was formed in 2010 in response to news that Bexar County had one of the highest rates of teen births in the United States. The SATPPC brought together an impressive list of cross-sector organizations, including public entities, community-based organizations, and faith-based and secular institutions. The group’s overall goal was to reduce the Bexar County teen birth rate among females ages 15 to 19 by 15% by 2020, and it exceeded this goal even before that date.

Keep ReadingShow less
Anti-gerrymandering sign

Anti-gerrymandering sign

Bill Clark/Getty Images

Don't Hold Your Breath Waiting for Politicians or Their Consultants to Fix Gerrymandering

2018, a nonprofit worker in Michigan named Katie Fahey posted a message online asking if anyone else was tired of politicians drawing their own districts. She had no campaign experience and no political base.

Within two years, the ballot initiative she built, called Voters Not Politicians, had written an independent redistricting commission into the Michigan constitution. Hollywood eventually made a documentary about it, Slay the Dragon, which is a fairly accurate description of what she had actually done.

Keep ReadingShow less
Red rock formations in the "Valley of the Gods."

Red rock formations in the "Valley of the Gods" on April 22, 2026 in Bears Ears National Monument, Utah. Bears Ears has been a controversial Monument since it's creation in December of 2016.

George Frey / Getty Images

When Public Lands Become Real Estate

Last week, in his latest attempted liquidation of our shared heritage, President Trump signed two executive orders eviscerating protections for close to three million acres of our national monuments: Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante. From the Oval Office, a president who has never even seen these sacred sites reduced them by roughly 90%, dwarfing his 2017 attempt at a similar land grab by about a million acres, leaving only 300,000 acres of protected land. These cuts will directly threaten critical wildlife habitats, put nearly 100,000 irreplaceable archaeological sites at risk of destruction, and fracture an interconnected indigenous homeland that has been stewarded by Native tribes since time immemorial. To Trump, it’s just another real estate deal.

The Trump regime has tried to portray this set-up to sell off as an effort to restore public access. During the Oval Office photo op where the president signed the proclamations, he said of the monuments: “You can’t go hunting. You can’t go fishing. You can’t do anything. You can virtually not even walk on it.” That is, to put it mildly, a malicious lie. All your favorite forms of outdoor recreation—from hiking and camping to fishing and hunting—are allowed there, which Trump might know if he had ever visited the land he decided is not worth preserving. In fact, the Antiquities Act doesn’t limit ordinary public use but rather the extent to which an area can be subject to mining and drilling. So much for the land of the free. Trump wants to make it a whole lot easier for extractive industries and private development interests to privatize and pillage these sacred lands for financial gain. Home of the brave? Not an ounce of courage to refuse the fuel lobby when it comes to our public lands. At least the law is on our side. As the President of the National Parks Conservation Association put it, this is both “a betrayal to the American people and illegal.”

Keep ReadingShow less