In 1812, Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry infamously signed a bill to redraw state senate districts to benefit the Democratic-Republican Party. The partisan redistricting prompted a negative public reaction in which the Boston Gazette coined the term “gerrymander,” inspired by the salamander-esque shape of one district. Over 200 years later, gerrymandering, a practice with bipartisan opposition, not only continues to exist, but also has been launched to the forefront of public political consciousness.
If partisan gerrymandering is widely frowned upon, why has it continued to persist over the centuries? A lack of federal policy combating the practice, combined with limited intervention from the Supreme Court, has enabled gerrymandering to evolve rather than cease altogether. In Baker v. Carr, the Supreme Court employed the Equal Protection Clause to step in on a case about unfair districts where rural voters enjoyed disproportionately more weight than urban ones. The case in effect gave federal courts the power to resolve apportionment disputes involving unequal representation.
Later, Rucho v. Common Cause established that partisan gerrymandering claims in particular were non-justiciable, or unable to be ruled on by courts, at the federal level. While cases such as Baker where individual voters had quantifiably unequal voting power were still on the table, the question of partisan dominance of a map was not. The complex history of redistricting in the Supreme Court has altered how politicians gerrymander, but has also limited the avenues for activists to challenge partisan redistricting. Partisan gerrymandering continues to drive polarization, political apathy, voter disenfranchisement, and limited accountability for elected officials, leaving many searching for a solution. In the absence of court action, state-level policies and activist-backed proposals provide glimpses into how to tackle one of the most pressing issues in U.S. politics.
One of the most prominent examples of anti-gerrymandering policy at the state level is the model of an independent redistricting commission, which the Campaign Legal Center defines as “a body separate from the legislature that is responsible for drawing the districts used in congressional and state legislative elections.” According to Unite America, a nonpartisan election reform organization, in most states, the state legislature has full authority over the redistricting process, leading time and time again to the party in power redrawing districts in their favor. However, 18 states have instead implemented some form of redistricting commission that plays a role in drawing maps. Of these, only six are considered truly independent by Unite America, maintaining primary authority in the redistricting process and precluding membership of incumbent lawmakers, political appointees, or both. In 2021, the Princeton Gerrymandering Project rated 15 out of 18 congressional, state senate, and state house map plans for the six states led by fully independent commissions at an “A” for fairness, with the remaining three maps scoring a “B.”
However, independent redistricting commissions created by state governments do not represent a likely solution to partisan gerrymandering at the national level. In highly partisan states where gerrymandering is already a deeply entrenched problem, it is unlikely to expect the legislature — composed of lawmakers sitting in gerrymandered seats — to cede control over redistricting. Take Utah for example, where the Republican legislature repeatedly opposed attempts to transfer power to a commission. In November 2018, citizens established such a commission via a ballot initiative. By the time the next maps were drawn, lawmakers repealed the initiative and reduced the commission to an advisory role. Even after a years-long court battle that ultimately reinstated the original initiative, Utah Republicans funded an effort to repeal it, which failed in April 2026.
In the case of Utah, it took an arduous fight of over seven years to establish a redistricting commission in just one state. In states with different rules for ballot initiatives than Utah, it may be entirely impossible to wrest power over redistricting away from the legislature. Going state-by-state and expecting governments to surrender their ability to gerrymander, or attempting to force them to, is neither an expedient nor feasible strategy for nationwide fair redistricting.
What about federal legislation, then? Congressional Democrats attempted such a measure in 2021, but failed to get it to the Senate floor. The For the People Act was a sweeping elections bill that sought, among other things, to require the creation of independent redistricting commissions in every state. Polls found the bill to be generally popular, with one poll from Vox and Data for Progress finding that the commission provision in particular had support from 72% of voters overall, with 84% from Democrats, 71% from Independents, and 59% from Republicans. Criticism was not absent, however, as opponents questioned the constitutionality of such federal intervention in electoral processes. The bill, which passed the House 220-210, failed to get the 60 votes necessary in the Senate to open floor debate in a vote that fell along party lines.
Other proposals for federal legislation have focused not on targeting gerrymandering directly, but on disincentivizing the practice by fundamentally changing how U.S. House elections work. One such example is proportional representation, where districts have multiple seats awarded to parties based on vote share. In the winner-take-all system, as little as 50% plus one of the vote earns 100% representation of the district. But in proportional representation, parties with significant minorities still receive seats, severely limiting the potential gains of gerrymandering, if not reducing them to nothing. This additionally gives new viability for third parties.
Another structural solution is expanding the House and reducing the size of districts. A district with fewer constituents in it provides less flexibility in drawing maps, limiting possibilities for communities to be split up and gerrymandered. Adding more seats also causes the party affiliation of elected representatives to more closely resemble statewide vote share. Beyond addressing these core issues of gerrymandering, the solution could also — like proportional representation — introduce new possibilities for third parties to pick up seats.
However, these structural proposals face their own significant barriers to implementation. While independent redistricting commissions were already used in many states prior to the For the People Act’s introduction, there is little precedent for proportional representation in the U.S. Moreover, the House has been capped at 435 seats since the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. And on a political note, both proposals would likely increase the strength of third parties, disincentivizing the major parties from backing these solutions given that they would dilute their power. Broader structural reforms to prevent gerrymandering thus seem to face too high of barriers to be implemented at the federal level.
With each of these solutions striking out, the question must be asked: Is an end to partisan gerrymandering too ambitious a goal to pursue at all? Indeed, it is difficult for proponents of redistricting reform to know where to invest their resources when each path faces resistance. State governments have proven they would not willingly give up their ability to gerrymander. Gridlock in Congress has stifled hopes of federal standards for fair redistricting. Larger reforms are too threatening for either major party to take on.
Of these challenges, by far the most surmountable is congressional gridlock, especially given that most voters are generally aligned in support of reform. Therefore, the best, or only solution, really, is federal legislation requiring independent commissions, standardized criteria for fair maps, and transparency in redistricting. So, then, what will it take for such legislation to succeed where the For the People Act failed? For one, while anti-gerrymandering provisions in the For the People Act saw majority support from Republican voters, the provisions were attached to policies expanding vote-by-mail, returning voting rights to felons, and limiting voter roll purges — all of which Republican voters largely opposed. While removing such provisions would not have necessarily allowed the For the People Act to succeed, it does tell us that future legislation focusing solely, or at least primarily, on fairer redistricting stands a better chance than precedent would have us think.
Advocates for fair redistricting should also make note of the disconnect between Republican senators and Republican voters on the issue, and thus focus their attention on those Senate seats. If activists can spur Republican voters into putting more pressure on their senators, then it becomes increasingly likely that a fair redistricting bill finds the votes it needs to clear the threshold.
Since the For the People Act’s failure in 2021, there has not been an equally significant attempt to take on gerrymandering at the federal level. The likeliest hope for taking a stand for fairer democracy lies in focusing energy, momentum, and resources into one goal — passing federal legislation to end partisan gerrymandering, once and for all.
