Gerrymandering: How Political Maps Shape the Battle for Congress

Gerrymandering’s Shadow Over the 2026 Congressional Fight

It’s a word that surfaces every election cycle—gerrymandering. But in 2026, its meaning may be more consequential than ever. The lines drawn on political maps, often out of sight of the public, could ultimately determine who holds power in the U.S. House of Representatives. In the backrooms of statehouses and the halls of Congress, both parties maneuver, but recent history reveals that Republicans have wielded the redistricting pen with greater effect.

The Redistricting Playbook: Texas and Ohio Lead the Way

As the midterm elections approach, the stakes are high. President Donald Trump, never one to leave his fate to chance, has made clear his intentions: win the House through any means available. The strategy is straightforward—redraw districts to favor Republican candidates. In Texas, Trump’s public remarks made headlines: “A very simple redrawing, we pick up five seats. And there could be some other states. We’re gonna get another three or four or five in addition. Texas would be the biggest one.” (The Bulwark)

Meanwhile, Ohio is mired in its own gerrymandering saga. The so-called “Great Ohio Gerrymandering Farce” has become a familiar political theater, where Republican lawmakers, controlling supermajorities in both state chambers, have repeatedly drawn maps that defy court rulings and public opinion. Despite only receiving 56% of the statewide vote, Republicans control a disproportionate number of seats: 66% of Ohio’s Congressional delegation, 67% of the state House, and a staggering 79% of the Senate. This imbalance is no accident—it is the product of deliberate mapmaking, where the outcome is decided long before voters enter the booth (Ohio Capital Journal).

The Mechanics: From Map Drawing to Ballot Counting

Gerrymandering is not just about creative cartography. It’s about power. The process typically begins with the legislature, where the majority party draws district boundaries to maximize its chances of winning more seats than its share of the vote would suggest. If lawmakers fail to reach bipartisan agreement in Ohio, for example, the process shifts to a commission dominated by Republican officials. Should that fail, the maps revert to the legislature, where a simple majority is enough to pass new boundaries—often ensuring the ruling party’s grip on power.

This strategy is mirrored elsewhere. In Iowa, Colorado, Nebraska, and Pennsylvania, districts are so finely calibrated that mere percentage points separate winners from losers. In 2024, six House races in these states were decided by less than 2%. For Democrats, the path to victory is steep; picking up a handful of seats could flip the House, but even that may not guarantee control, as procedural tactics loom in the background.

Contesting the Count: The Federal Contested Elections Act

Redistricting is only part of the equation. When margins are razor-thin, another set of rules comes into play. The U.S. Constitution empowers each chamber of Congress to be the “Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members.” The Federal Contested Elections Act, passed in 1969, formalized this process. In practice, it means that the House itself can overrule state certifications and decide which candidate to seat.

History is filled with examples. In 1985, Indiana certified a Republican winner by 34 votes, but Democrats in the House ordered a recount and ultimately seated their own candidate. The fallout was dramatic—Republicans walked out. In 1961 and 1936, similar reversals played out, with the House disregarding state results and installing its preferred candidate. While rare—only 128 races overturned out of about 35,000 since 1789—the precedent is clear: when control of Congress hangs in the balance, the machinery is in place for contested outcomes.

Election Denialism and the Road Ahead

The specter of election denialism has grown since 2020. Speaker Mike Johnson, now a central figure, led efforts to challenge electoral votes in swing states after the last presidential election. Despite dozens of lawsuits and appeals, no court found evidence to overturn the results. Still, Johnson remains a steadfast believer, insisting that the Constitution was violated and keeping alive the possibility of challenging future elections.

Republican candidates in key states—Pennsylvania, Colorado, Iowa—have signaled readiness to dispute results, potentially giving Johnson the political cover needed to invoke congressional authority. Asserting fraud without evidence has become commonplace, not only for presidential races but also for Congressional contests. The courts, for their part, have largely deferred to Congress, ruling that the House is the final arbiter of its own elections.

The Human Cost: Voters’ Voices Diluted

For ordinary Americans, the consequences are tangible. In Ohio, despite bipartisan majorities on the state Supreme Court rejecting Republican-drawn maps as unconstitutional, the status quo prevails. The process is convoluted, shifting between lawmakers and commissions, but the result is predictable: districts engineered to keep most races uncompetitive. In 2026, Ohio voters will likely see only two out of fifteen House races with any real competition. The rest are practically foregone conclusions.

When politicians control the redistricting process, accountability suffers. Special interests thrive, campaign coffers swell, and elected officials rarely face serious challenges. As Ohio Republican Party Chair Alex Triantifilou openly admitted, confusing voters helped defeat an anti-gerrymandering amendment. “Confusion means we don’t know, so we did our job.” It’s a candid acknowledgment of a strategy designed to preserve power at the expense of transparency and fairness.

Democracy in the Balance: What Comes Next?

Looking forward, the battle over gerrymandering is not just a technical dispute—it’s a fundamental contest over the nature of representation. Democrats have threatened their own redistricting efforts, but face structural disadvantages in many states. Even if they win seats, the risk remains that narrow victories could be contested, recounts demanded, and outcomes reversed through congressional procedure.

The lesson of recent years is clear: whatever is not firmly protected by law or practice is vulnerable to exploitation. Gerrymandering, once seen as a quirky artifact of American politics, now sits at the heart of the struggle for congressional control. The interplay of mapmaking and procedural challenges means that the true outcome of the 2026 midterms may not be settled on election night, but in the weeks—and possibly months—that follow.

The enduring power of gerrymandering lies not only in its ability to skew election results, but in its capacity to undermine public faith in democracy itself. When voters see their choices diluted and their voices muffled by unseen hands, the legitimacy of the process is called into question. As America approaches another pivotal election, the fight over political maps is more than a battle for seats—it is a test of the nation’s commitment to fair and representative government.