Quick Read
- Mid-decade gerrymandering has surged in both Republican and Democratic states, breaking the norm of once-a-decade redistricting.
- Recent Supreme Court decisions have weakened federal protections against partisan and racial gerrymandering.
- The future of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is in jeopardy, which could end requirements for majority-minority districts.
- Grassroots opposition is growing, as seen in Indiana, where citizens and even some Republican leaders oppose mid-decade map changes.
- California faces its own redistricting debates, with calls to strengthen state-level protections.
What Is Gerrymandering and Why Is It Back in the Spotlight?
Gerrymandering—the practice of manipulating electoral district boundaries for political advantage—has surged back to national attention in the United States. While the term dates to the early 19th century, the current wave is breaking norms that have held for decades, unleashing a contentious battle over the very rules of representation.
In the past, redistricting was a once-a-decade affair, tied to the census and the slow churn of demographic change. But as Ed Kilgore details in Intelligencer, recent events signal a return to the wild, unpredictable politics of the Gilded Age, when states would redraw maps repeatedly, sometimes several times in a single decade, whenever control shifted between parties. The stability that once anchored congressional delegations is now threatened by a new era of mid-decade redistricting, propelled by partisan strategies and high-stakes legal battles.
Trump-Era Moves and the Return of Aggressive Mapmaking
The current surge in gerrymandering can be traced directly to former President Donald Trump’s call for Texas Republicans to secure five more congressional districts ahead of the 2026 midterms. This move set off a domino effect, with Republican-led states such as Missouri, North Carolina, Indiana, Kansas, and Florida scrambling to redraw maps, while Democratic strongholds like California, Illinois, New York, Maryland, and Virginia responded in kind.
What’s changed? The answer lies in the weakening of federal safeguards. For much of the 20th century, reforms like the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and Supreme Court rulings such as Wesberry v. Sanders (1964) ensured that districts would be drawn fairly, with equal populations and protections against racial discrimination. These measures placed real limits on the worst abuses of partisan mapmaking. But in the last decade, conservative majorities on the Supreme Court have chipped away at these protections. In 2013, the Court gutted Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, removing the requirement for federal approval of new maps in jurisdictions with histories of discrimination. Then, in 2019, the Court declared that federal courts would no longer regulate partisan gerrymandering, leaving only Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act as a meaningful check.
Race, Representation, and the Supreme Court’s Crossroads
The stakes have never been higher. As Bernadette Reyes and Sonni Waknin of the UCLA Voting Rights Project explain in CalMatters, the Supreme Court is now considering whether even the remaining federal restrictions on racial gerrymandering should survive. At issue is Louisiana v. Callais, a case that asks whether it is constitutional to consider race when drawing districts to remedy violations of the Voting Rights Act. The outcome could determine whether states are allowed—or even required—to create majority-minority districts that empower Black, Latino, and other communities of color.
Without these protections, the door would be open to a return of Jim Crow-era tactics, where minority voters are packed into a handful of districts or diluted across many, effectively silencing their voices. The history is clear: after the Supreme Court weakened Section 5 in 2013, states saw a resurgence of discriminatory practices. Now, with Section 2 on the line, the potential for abuse is even greater.
Recent redistricting in Texas highlights how these changes play out on the ground. In response to pressure from the U.S. Department of Justice, Texas redrew districts in ways that packed and cracked Black and Latino voters, reducing their influence. The resulting maps, argue Reyes and Waknin, show both intent and effect: minority representation is diminished, and partisan gains are cemented.
Grassroots Resistance and the Battle in Indiana
Yet, not everyone is resigned to these changes. In Indiana, the Republican-led legislature has announced plans to convene in December to consider mid-decade gerrymandering—despite overwhelming opposition from voters. As reported by the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, Hoosiers have protested at the statehouse, the governor’s mansion, and public rallies, making clear that the push to redraw maps is driven by national politics, not local demand.
Even prominent Indiana Republicans have voiced opposition. Former Governor Mitch Daniels and former Lt. Governor Sue Ellspermann have urged legislators to respect the will of the people, not the wishes of Washington. The message from Indiana’s voters is unambiguous: redistricting should serve citizens, not political parties.
The Road Ahead: Pandora’s Box or a New Chapter?
With the Supreme Court poised to rule on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the future of federal voting rights hangs in the balance. If the Court strikes down these protections, the consequences could be dramatic. States could redraw maps with little regard for racial or partisan fairness, potentially leading to one-party dominance in entire states—imagine a 38-0 Republican delegation from Texas, or a 52-0 Democratic sweep in California.
Some argue that mutual assured destruction will keep parties in check, but the reality is more complicated. Republicans currently hold trifecta control in more states, giving them a structural advantage. Meanwhile, Democratic states often have their own constitutional limits on gerrymandering, which may prove less flexible.
California, for example, faces its own crossroads. Proposition 50 and ongoing debates about redistricting mean voters will have a say, but state leaders are being urged to codify protections into state law, strengthen voting infrastructure, and defend inclusive democracy. As the rest of the nation grapples with these changes, California could emerge as a model for reform—or a casualty of the broader trend.
Ultimately, the question is not just who wins or loses at the polls, but whether the system itself remains responsive, fair, and representative. Gerrymandering is more than a technical issue—it is a test of America’s commitment to democracy and equal representation.
Assessment: The rapid escalation of mid-decade gerrymandering, fueled by eroding federal oversight and partisan ambition, threatens to undermine the foundational promise of American democracy: that every vote should matter and every community should have a voice. Whether the Supreme Court upholds or dismantles existing protections, the choices made now will echo for decades, shaping not only who governs but how the governed are heard.
Image Credits to washingtonpost.com