Today's gerrymandering arms race shows the need for a national solution

Congressional Reform for a New Era

In the aftermath of Watergate, Congress enacted sweeping reforms to restore public trust and strengthen accountability, including campaign finance rules, the creation of the Federal Election Commission, the Ethics in Government Act, and the War Powers Resolution--measures that reshaped the balance of power and continue to shape American governance five decades later.

Against that backdrop, the Daily Journal invited constitutional law professors, legal historians, and good-government advocates--experts in constitutional structure and reform from across the ideological spectrum--to answer a timely question: If Congress were to enact a new round of reforms today, meant to endure for the next 50 years, what one reform would you propose, and why? This is the final installment in a six-part series.

The redistricting arms race that began over the summer has put on full display the need for a national solution that removes gerrymandering as a weapon to be wielded on the political battlefield. More than 10 states have either been pressured by the two major political parties to redraw their congressional maps mid-decade or have already done so this year, all with an eye to influencing the outcome of the 2026 midterm elections, which will determine the balance of power in the U.S. House of Representatives.

This, of course, includes California, where voters on Nov. 4 strongly supported Proposition 50, which temporarily suspends the state's independent redistricting process and puts a new congressional map in place that favors Democratic candidates. It is important to note, however, that Californians also endorsed the idea of addressing this issue on a larger scale. Proposition 50 includes support for a constitutional amendment requiring redistricting by "fair, independent, and nonpartisan redistricting commissions nationwide." This sentiment reflects public opinion more broadly, which clearly disfavors partisan gerrymandering.

Fortunately for Californians and democracy-supporting Americans everywhere, a constitutional amendment is not necessary to end partisan gerrymandering. Rather, the U.S. Constitution already empowers Congress to regulate how congressional maps are drawn.

Comprehensive legislation to stop gerrymandering--the Freedom to Vote Act--was first introduced in 2021 and passed the House, but failed to get a vote in the Senate because of a Republican filibuster. The bill would have banned partisan gerrymandering by outlawing redistricting plans drawn with either the intent or the effect of materially favoring or disfavoring a political party. It also would have effectively reversed Rucho v. Common Cause, a disastrous U.S. Supreme Court ruling from 2019 that says federal courts may not review redistricting maps, no matter how egregious the gerrymander. The bill also established mandatory criteria for states to use when drawing congressional maps, among many other provisions.

A more recent piece of legislation--the FAIR MAPS Act--goes further by requiring maps to be drawn by independent redistricting commissions (IRCs), which, in their purest form, are composed of citizens who are far less prone to partisan bias than politicians with a vested interest in maps that favor their reelection. IRCs have worked well in several states where they have been introduced, including California and the state of Michigan. California's IRC did not have any involvement in Proposition 50, and it regains its authority to lead the redistricting process after the next census.

At Campaign Legal Center, we have consistently sounded the alarm about our political system's vulnerability to gerrymandering for years. Gerrymandering has been a factor in American politics since the earliest days of our country. However, its use intensified immensely during the 2010 redistricting cycle, when partisan actors began using new sophisticated computer technology, paired with enormous amounts of personal data, to handpick voters for specific districts based on which party they were likely to vote for, in effect fixing election outcomes.

The main casualty of these actions has been voters' ability to elect lawmakers who best represent their communities and their interests. Gerrymandering divides cohesive communities, increases political polarization, makes government less responsive, and produces a Congress that is less representative of the American people. In a healthy democracy, lawmakers should be incentivized to enact policies favored by their constituents. This natural order of politics is profoundly distorted when a politician knows a district has been drawn to virtually guarantee their reelection.

 Simply put: Elections should be determined by voters, not politicians who manipulate voting maps. The solution to this scourge on our democracy is a federal law that includes an explicit nationwide ban on partisan gerrymandering and mandates independent redistricting in every state. 

Banning partisan gerrymandering and adopting nonpartisan redistricting nationwide would go a long way toward establishing a level playing field and allowing voters to choose their elected representatives instead of the other way around. These reforms would also constrain the impulses of political parties to seek advantage over each other using the redistricting process. Instead, the success or failure of politicians would hinge more concretely on their ability to meet the needs of their constituents, which is as it should be.

This is the path our country--and our lawmakers--must choose if we ever hope to bring the gerrymandering arms race to an end. Without a national solution, this arms race is just a race to the bottom, and the fundamental concept of a representative form of self-government will be forever under threat.

Editor's Note: In the aftermath of Watergate, Congress enacted sweeping reforms to restore public trust and strengthen accountability, including campaign finance rules, the creation of the Federal Election Commission, the Ethics in Government Act, and the War Powers Resolution--measures that reshaped the balance of power and continue to shape American governance five decades later.

Against that backdrop, the Daily Journal invited constitutional law professors, legal historians, and good-government advocates--experts in constitutional structure and reform from across the ideological spectrum--to answer a timely question: If Congress were to enact a new round of reforms today, meant to endure for the next 50 years, what one reform would you propose, and why? This is the final installment in a six-part series.