Though the words are often used interchangeably, gerrymandering is different from redistricting. Gerrymandering describes the process of redrawing electoral districts strategically to benefit one political party, group, or incumbent unfairly, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center.
Redistricting is the process of redrawing electoral districts to ensure that districts have roughly equal populations. It occurs as a legal requirement every 10 years following the US Census.
The term “gerry-mander” was coined in 1812 when Massachusetts districts were redrawn under Gov. Elbridge Gerry. The shapes of remapped districts were said to resemble a salamander, and thus, the term was coined.
So, while redistricting is a legally-required process to ensure accurate representation, gerrymandering is often described as politicians picking their voters, rather than voters picking their politicians. Gerrymandering has historically been tied to political party affiliation, race, and income brackets, through techniques colloquially known as “packing” and “cracking.”
“Packing,” on the other hand, is a technique that groups “unfriendly” voters into one district, creating fewer undesirable voters in the surrounding counties.
In July 2025, President Trump urged Texas Republicans to redraw the state congressional map to create more House seats for Republicans. This triggered a domino effect of other redistricting processes across the US.
...California, Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas and Utah have new congressional maps ahead of this year’s midterm elections. Georgia and Louisiana both have maps that are subject to change due to litigation, and Virginia’s new map was blocked from certification by a court order. Ohio was the only state required to change its maps before 2026 elections by law.
Texas: On April 27, the Supreme Court upheld Texas’ updated congressional map, effectively ending a series of lawsuits claiming the new map was racially discriminatory. The move could help Republicans win five new House seats. However, Brookings Institute (Center) suggested Republicans may have overestimated their support from Latino voters in these districts, which may swing back left this fall.
California: In response to Texas’ redistricting efforts, California called its own special election in November to redraw its congressional maps. The map is intended to give Democrats an additional five seats in the House, and was upheld by the Supreme Court in February.
Virginia: Virginia passed a constitutional amendment on April 21 allowing the state legislature to conduct mid-decade redistricting. The new map projects a partisan district split of 10-1 with Democrats potentially winning an additional four House seats. It currently faces several court challenges before it is implemented. As of now, Virginia has six Democratic and five Republican seats.
Florida: Florida currently has 20 Republican and eight Democratic House seats. Its new congressional map, signed into law on May 4, could flip between three and five Democratic seats, creating a 24-4 advantage for Republicans.
In the South: On April 29, the Supreme Court ruled against the addition of a second majority-black district in Louisiana under Section Two of the Voting Rights Act, alleging race played a part in the redistricting process. Following the decision, Tennessee and Alabama both moved to draw new congressional districts, which could provide Republicans an advantage in those states this fall.
Does gerrymandering tend to favor one party?
Both political parties engage in gerrymandering when they have the opportunity to do so. Some data suggests Republicans have historically benefited more from gerrymandering, specifically in southern and midwestern states.
According to the Brennan Center, Republicans disproportionately controlled the redistricting process in 2020, drawing 191 (44%) of the districts that were used in 2022 and 2024.
Democrats fully controlled the drawing of 75 districts during this same time, and the rest were drawn by commissions, courts or divided governments. This gave Republicans a roughly 16-seat advantage in the 2024 House races compared to what “fair maps” would’ve produced (11 seats, according to the Brennan Center). Prior to 2020, Republicans’ dominance of state-level redistricting was part of a strategy called Project REDMAP, which was launched ahead of the 2010 census.
Brookings senior fellow William Galston challenged the idea of Republican advantage in 2023, with research showing each party’s actual seat totals in 2018, 2020 and 2022 were within just two seats of what a strictly proportional allocation of seats would’ve predicted.
While Galston contended Republicans had an advantage between 2010 and 2016, he credited part of their success to Democrats failing to win competitive districts outside of large cities, which have historically trended left. He argued Democrats were more prepared for the redistricting fight after 2020, ultimately leading to a balance that was determined by popular vote rather than gerrymandering or geographic advantage.
With recent redistricting efforts across multiple states, some analysts suggest Democrats could gain about 2.7 seats in the 2026 midterms. However, the recent Louisiana v Callais Supreme Court ruling could change that; some argue it removed a long-standing Democrat strategy of leveraging race through the Voting Rights Act to get votes. Many voices on the left argued the decision minimizes representation for minority-voters, while many on the right argued it incentivizes Democrats to now earn the minority vote instead of relying on those manufactured districts.
How can you tell an “unfair” map from a “neutral” one?
Often, the difference between an “unfair” and a “neutral” map is obvious.
For instance, Maryland’s 3rd District, called by some “the most gerrymandered in the country,” has gained notoriety by seeming to depict a “broken-winged pterodactyl.”
Maryland State Delegate for District 7A Ryan Nawrocki (R) said, “This is what gerrymandering looks like, and Maryland Democrats want to go even further. This bizarre shape was Maryland’s old 3rd Congressional District, one of the nation's most gerrymandered districts. It stretched from parts of Baltimore City to Annapolis to Howard County in a twisted, illogical design meant to protect political power, not represent real communities.”
Meanwhile, Republicans are responsible for North Carolina’s 12th District, historically described as a “snake-like” stretch that weaves through connecting urban areas and bypasses rural ones in order to create a solid Republican seat.
Other signs of “obvious” gerrymandering besides the bizarre shapes include cutting across natural barriers like mountains and rivers, or when historically racial/ethnic areas are segmented out into different districts. Often, when the representation in a district isn’t representative of the previous presidential election results, that is a warning sign.
How has media bias muddied the waters?
The Supreme Court ruled in Louisiana v Callais that gerrymandering by race to form new voting districts is unconstitutional. This new precedent set by the court has drawn both praise and criticism.
Many outlets on the left, like Vox (Left bias), claimed that the “Supreme Court’s Republican majority effectively repealed a 1982 amendment to the Voting Rights Act that required some states to draw a minimum number of majority-Black or majority-Latino legislative districts.”
An opinion writer for Democracy Now (Left) said the decision “is going to have ramifications on American democracy for a very long time,” comparing the decision to the “Jim Crow era,” stating that “We’re returning to the days of literacy tests and poll taxes – not through those devices, but through specifically trying to eliminate Black office holders.”
Many outlets on the right, like the New York Post (Lean Right), called the Supreme Court decision a “bombshell ruling” that leaves Republicans “potentially poised to flip up to 14 US House seats in their favor.”
The New York Post Editorial Board (Right) also weighed in, saying that the left is having “fainting spells” over the court’s “nixing of race-based gerrymandering.” The board added commentary from Jason L. Riley (Lean Right) saying the reactions were “probably to be expected” considering Democrats “reject color-blind public policies” and “scoff at clear evidence of America’s racial progress.”
Another opinion writer for the Wall Street Journal said that “shaping districts by race was always anathema to the constitution.” The writer suggested that most Americans would agree with Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion, explaining that while “carving up one or two ‘black’ districts and maybe a ‘Hispanic’ one feels eerily separate-but-equal… the ugly fact remains: We’re divvying people up according to the color of their skin.”
Outlets on the left often publish articles citing support and justifications for gerrymandering and redistricting efforts when it favors the Democratic party, while outlets on the right are critical. The position often flips when the Republican party is favored.
Is there room for nonpartisan redistricting?
Yes, and some states have already moved in that direction.
- Michigan and California use commissions made up of Republicans, Democrats, and independents to draw maps.
- Colorado and Arizona have constitutional requirements for independent bodies to draw maps, aiming to protect "communities of interest" rather than political parties.
- Alaska, Idaho, Montana, New York and Washington have also established independent redistricting commissions, usually composed of citizens rather than politicians.
Is gerrymandering just a “game to win,” or a true threat to democracy?
Some scholars view it as corrosive to voter will. Others argue it serves as a functional political safeguard or a tool for stable representation.
Politicians may embrace one side of the argument or the other depending on what’s convenient for them in the moment. But the academic field is also divided.
A 2022 paper from researchers at Yale argued that “unrestrained gerrymandering can severely distort the composition of a legislature, potentially leading half the population to lose all representation of their views,” and “can rig any legislation to pass instead of the median policy, which would otherwise prevail in a referendum against any other choice.”
A 2010 paper from legal scholar Franita Tolson argues the contrary: that gerrymandering has the “potential to be used to protect the states’ regulatory authority, especially in light of recent controversies over the economy and healthcare.”
The "regular voices" of the populace are often lost in this debate. Traditional legal approaches focus on collective representation (how many seats a party gets) rather than the relationship between one individual voter and their specific representative. This highlights how an individual's right to free and fair representation is often the primary casualty when districts are drawn to appease political causes rather than communities.
In closing, please enjoy more images of America’s ridiculous-looking districts, courtesy of our friends at The Fulcrum:
Illinois 13th District
North Carolina 6th District
Ohio 15th District
Texas 35th District
.png)
_1.png){kind=logo}
What is gerrymandering? 
How will it impact this year’s midterms?
.png.webp)
