It was my general understanding growing up that the process of redistricting to choose representatives for state and national congressional seats was always done every ten years after the new census was produced. I knew that seats had often been drawn in the past to exclude representation for racial minorities, which was one of the motives for passing the Voting Rights Act in the 1960s but generally I assumed that these disparities were being addressed, however sporadically, and that the country was actually moving toward non-partisan redistricting in order to create fair, democratic representative districts that reflect the various characteristics and interests of a given state as accurately as possible.
I realized that was absurdly naive when it became clear that we were embarking on a period of electoral warfare back in 2003, Texas called a special session to enact a new districting plan just three years into the new decade. Under the leadership of the powerful Republican House whip Tom “The Hammer” Delay and GOP Gov. Rick Perry, the Texas GOP decided they would redraw the House maps after growing their majority in the 2002 mid-term elections. As Michael Li of the Brennan Center explains in this Q&A at Bolts. com, it was a shocking partisan power grab that gained national attention for its chutzpah, but it was at least somewhat justifiable due to the fact that through a series of legal and legislative flukes their maps were the same ones that had been drawn up in 1990, favoring what was then a Democratic Party majority which had since moved decisively Republican. Still, voluntarily redistricting within two years was pretty much unheard of and it signaled that the Republican party was changing the rules.
But that was child’s play compared to what they are doing now. And they’re using the Trump Justice Department’s favorite fatuous anti-DEI rationale — that white people’s civil rights are being violated by any policy that allows race to be a consideration. In this case, they say that the minority-majority districts that provide for Texans of color to have representation is a racist policy. (That’s a particularly rich contention considering that the state repeatedly insisted during its last redistricting in 2021, and the legal fights that followed, that its map was “race blind.” )
Consistency is not required in Republican legal battles so this will undoubtedly be swept aside as Texas will now likely create five more very red districts for the 2026 midterms, likely eliminating at least four seats that currently are held by racial minorities. As Li explains:
Under the current Texas congressional map, Republicans already win 25 of 38 congressional districts—two-thirds of seats. That’s a sizable advantage in a state where Republicans don’t get nearly that share of the vote—Ted Cruz running for re-election in 2025 got just barely 53 percent of the vote. And none of the GOP seats were competitive in 2024.
They will have 30 out of 38 seats — 80% of the Texas delegation.
However grotesque this current GOP attempt to hold on to power by any means necessary might be, partisan gerrymandering isn’t a new thing. As New America.org helpfully explains, it’s been part of the American system from the beginning. The very first Virginia congressional maps in 1788 were drawn to make the Federalist candidate James Madison have to face the anti-Federalist James Monroe so Madison would be denied a seat in the Congress. It didn’t work. Madison won.
In 1812 the term gerrymander was coined when the Democratic-Republican Party drew a salamander shaped state Senate district to benefit Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry. The Boston Gazette published an iconic cartoon called the “The Gerry-mander” and the rest is history.
So, there’s no point in pretending that this undemocratic practice wasn’t one many undemocratic design flaws by our vaunted founders. (In their defense, the whole concept of “districts” was brand new at the time and some states actually elected their representatives at large.) By the post-civil war reconstruction period from 1878 to 1896, states were electing their Representatives through single member districts and as New America points out, the Democrats and Republicans were polarized and partisan loyalties were strong making gerrymandering more effective and essential.
Does that sound familiar at all? Today, with the help of technology, these districts can be drawn with maximum efficiency, down to the last detail and the map that was produced for approval this week by the Texas Republicans is apparently a masterful example of how to do that without endangering their incumbents.
So yes, America has been dealing with these flagrantly political shenanigans from our very first election. But you’d think we could have found a way to make this system truly democratic and fair by now without such partisan maneuvering.
Some states have taken serious steps to do that, enacting laws that require commissions to redraw the lines after the decennial census or using computer models. Unfortunately, most of those states are run by Democrats leaving them at a disadvantage with Republicans using such hardball tactics. Also many Democratic states have some split legislatures which end up requiring courts or be involved and that cannot produce a partisan advantage like what the Texans are producing.
Nonetheless, the big blue states of California, New York, Illinois, Michigan and a few others are all talking about changing their systems in order to fight fire with fire. It’s not their choice necessarily but we are dealing with a crisis of democracy.
And it’s always possible that the Democrats can pull out a big enough win in the popular vote in these states that the GOP’s plans will be foiled. Data journalist G. Elliott Morris analyzed the polling and reports that Democrats currently lead in the generic ballot and would win 230 House seats today, taking the majority. The Texas gerrymander would reduce that to 225, but they would still win. It’s not impossible by any means.
And keep in mind that it’s very early days yet. Democratic voters are not yet done licking their wounds from 2024 and are just starting to come around. Morris points out that history shows even though voters may hate a party’s brand it doesn’t mean they won’t vote for it. After all, you always have to look at the alternative and the current GOP is appallingly extreme and cowardly at the same time, hardly a winning combination. If Democrats get their act together they can win despite these Republican gerrymanders.
Salon