The Redistricting Double Standard
David Washabaugh VI, Contributor
Today in politics, there are more and more divisive topics, but one has gotten far worse… gerrymandering. It is one of the most difficult and frustrating issues to discuss. Depending on who you ask, it is either the reason their party loses or wins elections, or evidence that the political system is broken, and has been since the days of our founders, where gerrymandering got its start. While most Americans hear accusations directed at Republicans from the media, the reality is a lot more complex. Gerrymandering is not a Republican problem or a Democratic problem. It is an American problem, and both parties have contributed to it. It is unfair to target or point at a certain party… as the tactic of gerrymandering predates them both.
Gerrymandering, at its core, is the practice of drawing legislative districts in a way that benefits a candidate, party, or group in politics. Instead of voters choosing their politicians, the argument is that politicians are choosing their voters. In other words, the decision is made before the votes are cast through a gamed process, one in which people seek to protect their own seats and the seats of their allies. This typically results in districts that don’t make logical sense once they are drawn, which does nothing but deepen the political divide.
I would be foolish if I didn’t acknowledge the role each of the parties play these days in gerrymandering. Republicans have had their share of partisan gerrymandering. States like North Carolina and Texas have been hit with a number of legal issues over congressional and legislative maps, which are drawn by Republican-controlled legislatures. At the same time, Democrats have been no strangers to gerrymandering. Maryland’s congressional maps have been criticized for favoring Democrats. Illinois has become one of the worst cases of Democratic gerrymandering and is often cited as a primary reason for the Republican response. In New York, Democratic lawmakers attempted to put congressional maps into place that would have heavily benefited their party before they were rejected. Truthfully, both parties often condemn gerrymandering when they are out of power and defend it when they control the gerrymandering process.
Legally speaking, one of many debates surrounding gerrymandering found its way to the Supreme Court in 2019 with Rucho v. Common Cause. The case started with congressional districts in North Carolina and Maryland, maps drawn by Republicans in one state and Democrats in the other. By a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that partisan gerrymandering creates political issues and questions that federal courts cannot legally resolve. While it was noted that too much partisan gerrymandering may be inconsistent with electoral principles, it found that there was no standard for judges to decide how much partisan influence is too much. This effectively left the issue of partisan gerrymandering to state governments, state courts, independent commissions, and voters (as opposed to federal courts).
However, the Court made a very important distinction between partisan and racial gerrymandering. While federal courts can not intervene in most disputes involving partisanship alone, they continue to review cases where race is used unfairly and improperly in the redistricting process. This separation and important distinction is clear in the landmark 2023 case Allen v. Milligan.
In Allen v. Milligan, the Supreme Court considered whether Alabama’s congressional map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, harming and watering down the voting strength of Black residents. The Court eventually ruled 5-4 that Alabama’s map likely did violate federal law and ordered the state to create an additional district in which Black voters had a fair and equal opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice. The decision reaffirmed that while states may consider politics when drawing districts, they cannot do so in a way that unlawfully diminishes the voting power of racial minorities.
The Court, most recently, revisited many of these same questions in Louisiana v. Callais. Following the Allen decision, Louisiana created a new congressional map that created a majority-Black district in an effort to comply with the Voting Rights Act. Opponents challenged the map, arguing that race had become the primary and deciding factor in drawing the district. In 2026, the Supreme Court agreed and struck down the map as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Although the balance while redistricting is hard to find, states must still find a way to comply with the Voting Rights Act and protect minority voting rights, while also not making race the primary factor in drawing district lines (unless there is sufficient constitutional justification).
Rucho, Allen, and Callais provide a clearer picture of where the law currently stands. In Rucho, the Supreme Court found that claims of partisan gerrymandering generally fall outside the reach of federal courts. In Allen, the Court reaffirmed that states cannot draw maps that unlawfully dilute minority voting strength under the Voting Rights Act. In Callais, the Court made it clear that states also cannot rely too heavily on race when attempting to comply with those same requirements. These three create a framework where political aspects are permitted, and racial discrimination is prohibited. Not every controversial district is illegal, but districts that harm minority voting power or make race the primary factor in redistricting will continue to face legal challenges. States are ultimately left to navigate this complex field of laws while ensuring fairness in the process.
Politicians and political activists condemn gerrymandering only when it benefits the opposing party, while remaining silent when it serves their own interests. Decades of case law inform the decisions many of these states make, and it is important that when there is a headline, research should be done. Read the majority and read the dissent because it may be surprising how prevalent this issue has been for decades.
Republicans point to states like Illinois, Maryland, and New York, while Democrats do the same thing to states like Texas and North Carolina. In most cases of gerrymandering, both are correct. If Americans truly want a fairer and more just system, we must be willing to acknowledge that partisan manipulation is not a one-party issue. Meaningful change begins with honesty about the parties we align ourselves with. Recognizing the role that both Republicans and Democrats have played in shaping redistricting battles is not a sign of weakness or party disloyalty; it is the first step toward bringing back public trust in our electoral process while ensuring that voters, rather than politicians, have the strongest voice.