Gerrymandering and the Corruption of the People’s House
Virginia voters recently approved a redistricting measure that will allow the state’s Democrats to redraw the congressional maps that lean substantially in their favor. If the ballot measure survives litigation, it will likely move four more seats to the Democrats in the House of Representatives in this November’s election. This comes on the back of a similar vote in California and marks the latest escalation in an ongoing redistricting arms race that began when President Donald Trump called on Texas Republicans to squeeze out additional seats in their own irregular mid-decade redistricting process.
That effort has now metastasized into a bipartisan contest to see which party can most effectively tilt the election outcomes through nakedly unfair and partisan map drawing. While gerrymandering is not new, these recent moves are not simply an unsavory political practice; they are an affront to the very purpose of the House of Representatives and a shameful disservice to voters of all parties.
The purpose and nature of the U.S. House of Representatives have a deep history. From the 14th to the 17th centuries, England developed what is often called a system of “mixed government.” Democracy, at the time, was widely viewed as unstable, violent, and prone to mob rule. Mixed government offered a solution: it allowed for popular participation while tempering it through institutions removed from direct public pressure. This structure ultimately produced Parliament’s division between the House of Lords and the House of Commons, the latter representing the common people, within a system designed to blunt popular excesses.
When the Founders drafted the Constitution, this model heavily influenced them. They expressly designated that the House of Representatives be chosen “by the People of the several States,” while the Senate would be selected “by the Legislature thereof,” to act as a stabilizing counterweight. This mirrored the British model but without formalizing nobility. Over time, the U.S. system democratized further. The 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913, mandated the selection of senators via direct popular election.
Today we are witnessing a perverse role reversal of the two institutions. While senators now compete in straightforward statewide contests, many House races are effectively decided by legislative map-drawing. This practice, known as “gerrymandering,” is not new. The name comes from the line-drawing done by Massachusetts Gov. Elbridge Gerry, dating back to 1812. But this latest fight constitutes a significant increase in both the severity and frequency of this practice. The current situation now stands in direct tension with the constitutional purpose of the lower chamber.
In Federalist No. 57, the House of Representatives was envisioned to ensure “an habitual recollection of their dependence on the people.” Members would constantly anticipate “the moment when their power is to cease… and when they must descend to the level from which they were raised.” In other words, representatives should remain accountable and intimately connected with the popular will of their constituents.
Gerrymandering severs that connection. At its most basic level, gerrymandering ensures that large portions of the electorate become politically irrelevant. Minority party voters are “packed” into districts to minimize their impact statewide or “cracked” across districts to dilute their vote share. The practice has been upheld as legal—assuming the map drawer’s intent is political benefit rather than racial discrimination. Minority party votes are cast and counted just like majority party voters, but they do not meaningfully influence outcomes.
Ironically, even the majority party voters can be harmed by gerrymandering. When electoral outcomes are predetermined, accountability weakens. Representatives in safe seats face little incentive to respond to constituent concerns, even from within their own party. The real contest shifts away from the general election and into low-turnout primaries, or disappears altogether. Furthermore, constantly shifting maps and districts carries the possibility of confusing voters and further weakening the link between constituents and their representatives. Finally, the majority party in one area is the minority party in another, and gerrymandering always bites back.
Now, in some cases, overaggressive gerrymandering can backfire and actually create unexpectedly competitive districts. For example, if one political party holds a 52-48 advantage statewide, a creative map drawer might evenly spread the minority party voters across all of the districts, ensuring the majority wins each district in the state. But if the political winds shift, the entire effort can collapse like a house of cards. Some analysts argue that such a collapse could happen this cycle.
Regardless, our current mid-decade redistricting battle reveals the absurdity and untenable nature of our modern politics. Political leaders from President Trump to California Governor Gavin Newsom have justified aggressive gerrymandering as necessary to secure victory in a pivotal moment and to thwart the unfair tactics of the other side.
California’s recent referendum, for example, even includes a provision to return redistricting authority to the independent commission in 2030, presumably when the crisis has passed. But this logic is deeply flawed and does not account for the nature of politics and politicians. It has become a political cliche: each election will be framed as the most important. Opponents will continue to be cast as an existential threat. Politicians will always find justifications for bending the rules in their favor. And as long as the status quo persists, there will be a push for gerrymanders.
Politicians are unlikely to change this system on their own. Gerrymandering offers clear advantages: safer seats, larger majority delegations, and reduced campaign costs. It is, in many ways, a system of the politicians, by the politicians, and for the politicians.
The result is an ever-accelerating downward spiral where the House of Representatives is disconnected from the general public and where already sparse competitive elections become rarer and rarer.
Meaningful reform will require structural change and sustained pressure from voters. Like out-of-control children destroying a cake while arguing over the size of their pieces, politicians have proven that they cannot behave responsibly and thus should have their powers restricted.
There are several paths forward.
A handful of states have already shifted map drawing to independent or bipartisan commissions or staff, removing direct control from legislators with a vested interest in the outcome. This strategy has witnessed a mix of outcomes—largely dependent on how involved political actors remain in the process—but states like Iowa prove it can be done well. Another option is to codify restraints on gerrymandering, such as limiting how far lines can deviate from existing county or municipal boundaries, or using mathematical standards to detect and prevent extreme partisan bias. Congress could also prohibit multiple rounds of redistricting.
A more ambitious option is proportional representation. Under such a system, parties win seats in proportion to the percentage of votes they receive. If a party earns 40 percent of the vote, it receives roughly 40 percent of the seats. In a proportional representation system, districts would be larger and elect multiple representatives rather than just one. As a result, it becomes far more difficult to manipulate outcomes through line drawing, and it becomes nearly impossible to swing an entire state in one party’s favor, as in Massachusetts, where Democrats hold all nine congressional seats despite Republicans making up one-third of the voters. Wyoming lawmakers recently considered such a proposal for their state legislature, though it was not ultimately adopted.
None of these reforms is perfect alone, but each would move the system closer to its intended purpose: ensuring that the House of Representatives remains accountable to voters, not to map “artists” in the legislature. Unfortunately, none of these ideas will happen without sustained public engagement. These issues tend to receive attention only in the months surrounding elections, when the consequences are most visible. If the House of Representatives is to regain its title as the “people’s house,” voters must demand a system that reflects their will, not accept the dictates of politicians or fall for the temptations of short-term partisan gains.