Congressional redistricting runs wild

Gordon L. Weil

Gerrymandering is running wild, threatening the popular government created by the Constitution.

With the House of Representatives almost evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, the scramble for control after the 2026 elections is collapsing into a redistricting rush designed to steer more seats to one party or the other.  Gerrymandering is nothing new, but this year there’s a major new twist.

The Republicans, believing that their majority control could be lost as demographics change, use a nationwide push to redistrict, seeking to engineer their long-term control.  Gerrymandering could weaken the influence of Democratic voters and serve as part of the GOP effort to suppress minority voting.

The Supreme Court has ruled that each district within a state must have the same population, ensuring that each voter counts equally.   This usually forces the 44 multi-district states to redraw their lines after each national census, conducted every ten years.

While some states use systems designed to produce non-partisan redistricting, in many others partisan state legislatures tailor the districts to their advantage.  That can mean stuffing as many of the minority party’s voters into as few districts as possible or splitting them to dilute the minority party’s impact everywhere.  That’s gerrymandering.

Now, the once-every-ten-years process is turning into redistricting before each congressional election.  The individual voter is a political pawn, moved to a new district by the party that, for the time being, controls the state legislature.  Elections aren’t an exercise in democracy; they are a game.   The Democrats are now playing the same GOP game.

Gerrymandering (named after a politician who first created a district resembling a salamander) can depress voter turnout.  If a voter is shifted into a district where their party’s candidate is sure to lose, why bother voting?  In gerrymandered Texas, candidates in eight of the 38 districts run unopposed, because opposition would be futile. 

When voters stay home, their absence can affect other races.  A larger turnout of discouraged Democratic voters in Wisconsin, one of the two most gerrymandered states, might have helped the U.S. Senate election of Republican Ron Johnson, who won narrowly.  GOP strategists believe lower turnout helps their candidates.

With constant redistricting, the partisan divide in the U.S. electorate is likely to become locked in.  Control of the House may come to depend on the outcome of a few elections influenced by massive outside spending. 

Before 1967, states could choose how they elected their House members.  Historically, some used statewide voting.  Hawaii, the last state with statewide voting, was forced to abandon it in 1970.  The 1967 law requires all states to use single-member districts.  

If that law were repealed, electing members of Congress statewide could eliminate or reduce gerrymandering.  Candidates might run focusing more on national policy and not merely on their ability to bring home federal dollars. As the Framers intended, they could better reflect the short-term evolution of the popular will on national issues.

This reform is not partisan and would leave the election method to each state.  Both parties could benefit.  Wisconsin, the most gerrymandered GOP state, would likely go from six Republicans and two Democrats to an even 4-4 split.  Maryland, the most gerrymandered Democratic state, would probably go from seven Democrats and one Republican to a 4-4 split.

In some states, like California (more Republican members) or Texas (more Democrats), the changes in House delegations could be substantial.  The potential offsetting advantages across the entire country could reduce the partisan implications of repealing the 1967 law.

States could elect some House members at-large and the remainder by districts.  Maine and Nebraska choose presidential electors this way.  With fewer, larger districts, gerrymandering could be reduced. 

Voters could vote for as many candidates as the number of the at-large House seats in a state, though they could “bullet vote” for as little as one candidate.  This could parallel ranked-choice voting.  Candidates might take moderate positions to broaden their appeal, reducing divisiveness.

Candidates could be listed with their party affiliations.  Voters could choose to vote for all candidates of a single party.  Wider choice could allow non-aligned candidates a better chance of election.   The top candidates equal to the number of a state’s at-large slots, regardless of their affiliation, would be the winners. 

The House election would be separate from statewide voting for president, senators, governor and other state officials.  These are distinct offices, and separate ballots could permit a state’s voters to balance their choices.

If the law were changed and even one large state successfully chose statewide House elections, its move could set an example for other states.  Or elections might stay as they are.

To conform with the Framers’ original intent, restoring this long-standing state right can happen without amending the Constitution.   Ending deepening national division makes it time to think outside the partisan box about reforms like this.