Gerrymandering: The One Thing Democrats and Republicans Agree On

Gerrymandering is once again in the news. I first wrote about it in 2019, but since then what was once an occasional tactic has turned into a high-stakes battleground in the fight for power. In this post, I suggest one way to control the worst gerrymanders — by empowering federal courts to strike down maps that are grossly disproportionate.

In Texas, Republicans redrew maps to improve their chances in 2026, prompting Democrats to denounce the move as an attack on democracy. Meanwhile, in California, Governor Gavin Newsom aims to expand a heavily Democratic-leaning delegation, where a 22.3% distortion favoring Democrats, combined with the state’s 52-seat delegation, creates one of the most significant imbalances in the nation.

Gerrymandering has been a feature of American politics since the founding of the Republic and has long been a staple of the country's political landscape. In recent decades, however, the practice has become more advanced, more coordinated nationwide, and more central to partisan conflicts. Additionally, technology enables precise manipulation, and national leaders are now investing directly in state-level races.

A turning point occurred after 2010, when Republicans, through their REDMAP project, gained control of state legislatures and redrew district maps to their advantage. Democrats, badly hurt, promised never to let it happen again. They created the National Democratic Redistricting Committee (NDRC). Led by former Attorney General Eric Holder and supported by Democratic leaders such as Barack Obama, the NDRC has worked on flipping Republican-controlled legislatures and challenging GOP-drawn maps. However, critics argue that it overlooks Democratic gerrymanders in states like Illinois and California. The NDRC has achieved significant success in this endeavor. Republicans in Texas and elsewhere now openly defend their own actions as a response to this Democratic push.

The U.S. Constitution sets the number of House seats at 435, distributed among the states according to population after each census. This process determines how many seats each state gets, but not how district lines are drawn within states. That responsibility falls to the states themselves, usually through their legislatures. Some states use commissions, but in most cases, political majorities draw the districts to protect their own interests.

Nationally, seat totals roughly align with the 2024 partisan vote. However, this masks severe distortions at the state level, where millions of voters are denied fair representation. Within states, the distortions can be extreme, sometimes preventing large groups of voters from gaining meaningful representation.

The Supreme Court has long recognized the dangers of gerrymandering but has been hesitant to get involved in the political process. In Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), Chief Justice Roberts said that claims of partisan gerrymandering are nonjusticiable in federal courts because there is “no judicially discernible and manageable standard” for deciding when political considerations in map drawing cross the line. The Court left the issue to the states and Congress to address.

However, the Court has not entirely avoided the issue of redistricting. Under the Voting Rights Act, it continues to strike down maps that weaken the voting power of racial minorities. In those cases, Congress provided the Court with a clear standard to follow. The justices have essentially said: We will not create fairness rules for partisan advantage, but if Congress provides a straightforward test, we will enforce it.

That opens the door.

A Modest Legislative Fix: The 20% Distortion Rule

Congress could create a simple, clear rule for gross partisan disproportionality. Using the logic of the Voting Rights Act and the “one person, one vote” cases, the standard could be:

If a state’s seat share deviates from its statewide vote share by more than 20 percentage points, the map is presumptively unlawful.

The rule applies only to states with three or more House seats.

Courts do not draw maps. They declare the map invalid and order the legislature to try again.

 This provides the courts with what they saw as lacking in Rucho: a practical judicial standard. It does not require perfection. It allows minor imbalances, acknowledging that geography and clustering can produce skewed results. However, it limits the most serious abuses.

Enforcing a 20% rule would not suddenly fix Congress or determine who wins elections. It is not intended to decide outcomes beforehand. Instead, it would create a more level playing field by forcing states to draw maps that better reflect their overall partisan balance. After that, elections would still be influenced by the usual factors: incumbency, fundraising, local issues, candidate quality, and changing voter attitudes.

The rule makes sure that districts are drawn to allow for competitive chances. Instead of one party gaining artificial dominance through manipulated maps, voters would have a real opportunity to hold politicians accountable at the ballot box.

The table below shows the 18 states where distortions exceed 20% — nine favor Democrats, nine favor Republicans. The last columns show how many seats would shift toward competition if the 20% rule applied.  

By establishing a universal standard, the rule would restore balance across all states, from the largest to the smallest, and give voters in every state a fairer chance to choose their representatives. Democracy does not demand perfect math. It demands limits. Congress can set tolerances for partisan distortion.

Critics argue that in states like Massachusetts, which has a 9-0 Democratic congressional map, voter geography rather than intentional gerrymandering is to blame; Republican support is too spread out to form competitive districts without breaking compactness rules. However, my analysis, which aligns with recent reporting in The New York Times, indicates that two relatively contiguous, competitive Republican-leaning districts could be created by carefully grouping municipalities. By clustering towns in southeastern Massachusetts and the Merrimack Valley, districts with Trump vote shares of 51.7% and 50.1% could be formed. If courts ordered Massachusetts to address its 37% skew under a 20% standard, these districts could offer fairer representation without extensive map manipulation, using nonpartisan criteria such as municipal boundaries.

Fair districting is essential for a healthy democracy because it encourages participation from both sides' voters. When districts create single-party monopolies, minority voices are effectively silenced, leading to lower voter turnout. In Massachusetts, Democrats hold all nine House seats despite Republicans receiving 37% of the 2024 presidential vote. In Arkansas, Republicans control all four seats with 66% of the vote, leaving Democrats without representation. In both cases, voters who feel excluded become disengaged, participation drops, and politics become echo chambers. By setting boundaries to reduce extreme distortions, such as a 20% rule, Congress could restore competition, keep more citizens engaged, and strengthen the legitimacy of representation nationwide.

Gerrymandering has always existed and will continue to do so. However, we don't have to accept its most extreme forms. By establishing a clear 20% rule, Congress could provide courts with the necessary tools to strike down only the most unfair maps, without pretending that politics can ever be completely removed from the redistricting process.

Politics will always shape districts. But politics should never be allowed to warp representation beyond recognition. A 20% rule draws the line.

--------

In 2019, I wrote two posts about apportionment and gerrymandering. They are available at the links below for anyone who might be interested:

Census Controversyand Gerrymandering before the Supreme Court - Part 1: Apportionment

Census Controversyand Gerrymandering before the Supreme Court - Part 2: Gerrymandering

****

SHARING: Please consider sharing these blog posts via social media or email if you find them interesting by providing a link to either https://www.libertytakeseffort.com or https://libertytakeseffort.substack.com
DISTRIBUTION: Liberty Takes Effort shifted its distribution from social media to email delivery via Substack as a Newsletter. If you would like to receive distribution, please email me at libertytakeseffort@gmail.com To see archived blog posts since 2014 visit www.libertytakeseffort.com.
DISCLAIMER: The entire content of this website and newsletter are based solely upon the opinions and thoughts of the author unless otherwise noted. It is not considered advice for action by readers in any realm of human activity. Its purpose is to stimulate discussion on topics of interest to readers to further inform the public square. Use of any information on this site is at the sole choice and risk of the reader.