Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Meet the reformer: Sam Wang, a professor of fair redistricting math

Sam Wang, Princeton Gerrymandering Project

Sam Wang is the director of the Princeton Gerrymandering Project.

Princeton Gerrymandering Project

Sam Wang is a professor of neuroscience at Princeton, where he's been on the faculty 14 years and focuses on how the brain processes sensory, cognitive and emotional information. But he's also part of the university's Program in Law and Public Affairs. He created the Princeton Election Consortium in 2008 to come up with statistical models for predicting presidential and Senate results based on polling. And after the last nationwide redistricting, in 2012, he created the Princeton Gerrymandering Project. Today he and his seven-member team run a website that permits voters to use mathematical models to decide if where they live is in an unfairly skewed legislative or congressional district. His answers have been edited for clarity and length.

What's the tweet-length description of your organization?

Combining data, tech and law to help citizens make district lines fairer and eliminate bugs from democracy.


Describe your very first civic engagement.

In 1978, when I was in sixth grade in California, I became very interested in two ballot propositions that would affect school funding. I loved school so these were important to me. The one that would have increased school funding, Proposition 8, failed. The other was Proposition 13, the first of many tax-cutting initiatives passed across the nation. After that, school funding was cut dramatically. So my side lost. But in politics you should never give up.

What was your biggest professional triumph?

In neuroscience it's a tie. First, figuring out how a brain structure, the cerebellum, which is mainly known for processing sensory information to help us move smoothly, could also guide higher function and when it goes off track lead to autism. Also, seeing the success of dozens of great students and scholars who have gone on to do all kinds of amazing things.

In redistricting it's another tie. First, seeing my team shape redistricting fairness in New Jersey by stopping a ballot initiative that would have biased districting, possibly helping with the wording of a fairer initiative and then getting an actual law passed to mandate transparency in precinct voting data so citizens can see what's being done to their district lines. Second, seeing Chief Justice John Roberts quote my words that there are good mathematical tests for identifying partisan gerrymandering

And your most disappointing setback?

Chief Justice Roberts again. He is not a math guy and he was not taking our side. Despite having no quarrel with our math, he wrote the majority opinion last year that wussed out and turfed the question of partisan gerrymandering back to the individual states to deal with. It was in my view an abdication of the Supreme Court's duty to stop a clear constitutional offense in the face of airtight mathematical and geometric approaches. The good news is that all our technical approaches can be used in the states — and we are doing that in North Carolina, Virginia, Michigan and half a dozen others. So we get to stay in business for a while.

How does your identity influence the way you go about your work?

As a former physics guy from a relatively privileged demographic, I started thinking about districting fairness in simple terms for which we could establish a national standard: fairness between the parties and numerical tests for racial bias. After encountering the needs of real communities, I've now learned that the richness of communities across the nation deserve consideration. We're working on ways to present that effectively across many states. This probably fits well with my work as a biologist, part of which involves attending to a lot of details.

What's the best advice you've ever been given?

It's better to ask for forgiveness than permission.

Create a new flavor for Ben & Jerry's.

Honey-dipped locust. (An homage to the cricket I ate live on CNN in 2016 to settle a bet. My statistical analysis of the polls had prompted me to wager I would "eat a bug" if Donald Trump won more than 240 electoral votes.)

What is your favorite TV show or movie about politics?

"Mean Girls."

What's the last thing you do on your phone at night?

I don't understand what the word "last" is doing in that sentence. That implies stopping, right?

What is your deepest, darkest secret?

I once made a pilgrimage to Carhenge.


Read More

Voters lining up to vote.

Voters line up at the Oak Lawn Branch Library voting center on Primary Election Day in Dallas on March 3, 2026. Republicans' decision to hold a split primary from the Democrats and to eliminate countywide voting forced Dallas County voters to cast ballots at assigned neighborhood precincts, leading to confusion. Republicans have now decided to use countywide polling locations for the May 26 runoff election.

Shelby Tauber for The Texas Tribune

Dallas County GOP Will Agree To Use Countywide Voting Sites for May 26 Runoff Election

Dallas County Republicans will agree to allow voters to cast ballots at countywide voting sites for the May 26 runoff election after a switch to precinct-based voting sites caused chaos, the county party chair said Tuesday.

Dallas County Republican Chairman Allen West supported the use of precinct-based sites earlier this month, but said using precincts again for the runoff would expose the county party to “increased risk and voter confusion” because the county is planning to use countywide sites for upcoming municipal elections and early voting.

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

An analysis of Trump’s SAVE Act strategy, the voter ID debate, and how Pew data is being misused—exploring election integrity, voter suppression, and the political fight shaping U.S. democracy.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Stop Fighting Voter ID. Start Defining It.

President Trump doesn't need the SAVE America Act to pass. He only needs the debate to continue. Every minute spent arguing about voter suppression repeats the underlying premise — that noncitizen voting is a real and widespread problem — until it feels like an established fact. The question is whether Democrats will contest Republicans’ definition before the frame hardens.

Trump's claim that 88% of Americans support the bill traces to a Pew Research Center survey — a survey that found 83% support a “government-issued photo ID to vote,” not extreme vetting for proof of citizenship. That support included 95% of Republicans and 71% of Democrats, indicating genuine, broad, bipartisan support for a basic civic principle. That's worth taking seriously.

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