Gerrymandering is the practice of manipulating electoral district boundaries to favor one political party or group over another. It allows politicians to choose their voters instead of voters choosing their representatives.
Understanding gerrymandering matters more than ever as we approach the 2026 midterm elections. Redistricting that occurred after the 2020 census has reshaped congressional maps across the country. Many voters are now asking why their districts look like abstract art and whether their votes truly count.
This guide breaks down everything you need to know about gerrymandering. We will cover how it works, why it happens, who it affects, and what can be done to stop it.
Table of Contents
Key Aspects of Gerrymandering
Here are the essential facts about gerrymandering at a glance:
- Definition: Manipulating voting district boundaries for political advantage
- Origin: Named after Elbridge Gerry in 1812 Massachusetts
- Main Techniques: Cracking (spreading opposition votes) and Packing (concentrating opposition votes)
- Types: Partisan gerrymandering and Racial gerrymandering
- Impact: Reduces competitive elections and distorts representation
- Legality: Partisan gerrymandering is legal; racial gerrymandering violates the Constitution
What Is Gerrymandering?
Gerrymandering occurs when those in power draw electoral district lines to benefit their own political party at the expense of the other party. The practice subverts the fundamental democratic principle that voters should choose their representatives.
Redistricting happens every ten years after the census. States must redraw congressional and state legislative districts to reflect population changes. This process is necessary and legitimate. The problem arises when politicians use redistricting as an opportunity to rig maps.
The manipulation can happen in two directions. One party might draw lines to maximize its own seats. Alternatively, a party might try to minimize the other party’s representation even when that party has more voters statewide.
The Fundamental Problem
Gerrymandering flips democracy on its head. In a healthy democracy, voters select their leaders. With gerrymandering, leaders select their voters.
This creates districts where the outcome is predetermined. Incumbents know they will win reelection regardless of their performance. Voters in these districts feel their votes do not matter.
Why Is It Called Gerrymandering?
The term originated in 1812 in Massachusetts. Governor Elbridge Gerry approved a redistricting plan that helped his Democratic-Republican Party maintain power over the Federalist Party.
One district in Essex County was so oddly shaped that it resembled a salamander. A political cartoonist combined “Gerry” with “salamander” to create “gerrymander.” The Boston Gazette published the famous cartoon depicting the district as a monstrous creature.
Ironically, Elbridge Gerry was not initially a supporter of the redistricting plan. He signed it under pressure from his party. The term stuck and became part of American political vocabulary.
Evolution Over Time
Gerrymandering has existed since the early days of American democracy. The first recorded instance occurred in the late 1780s when Patrick Henry drew districts to prevent James Madison from winning a congressional seat.
The practice became more sophisticated over time. In the 20th century, politicians began using census data and demographic information to create more precise gerrymanders. The 21st century brought computer algorithms that allow for surgical precision in drawing districts.
How Does Gerrymandering Work?
Gerrymandering works through two primary techniques: cracking and packing. Both methods waste opposition votes to dilute their electoral power.
Cracking: Spreading Opposition Voters
Cracking splits opposition voters across multiple districts. By spreading them thin, the gerrymandering party ensures the opposition never achieves a majority in any single district.
Imagine a state with 100 voters. Fifty support Party A and fifty support Party B. Without gerrymandering, the districts might split evenly. With cracking, Party A draws five districts containing ten of their voters and ten of the opposition’s voters distributed unevenly. They create districts with seven Party A voters and three Party B voters. Party A wins all five seats despite equal statewide support.
Packing: Concentrating Opposition Voters
Packing concentrates opposition voters into a few districts. The gerrymandering party draws boundaries to cram as many opposition voters as possible into one or two districts.
Using the same example of 100 voters split evenly, packing would create one district with eight Party B voters and two Party A voters. The remaining Party B voters would be distributed among other districts where Party A has majorities. Party B wins one seat with overwhelming margins while Party A wins the other four seats comfortably.
Both techniques waste opposition votes. Cracking wastes them by spreading them into losing districts. Packing wastes them by creating districts where the opposition wins by larger margins than necessary.
Modern Technology and Precision
Today’s gerrymandering relies on sophisticated computer algorithms. Mapmakers can analyze voting patterns down to the neighborhood level. They use demographic data, past election results, and survey information to predict how specific blocks will vote.
This precision allows gerrymanders to survive even wave elections. A well-designed gerrymander can withstand shifts of ten percentage points or more in statewide vote share without losing control.
Types of Gerrymandering
Gerrymandering takes two primary forms based on the target of discrimination. Understanding the distinction matters for legal and political analysis.
Partisan Gerrymandering
Partisan gerrymandering draws district lines to advantage one political party over another. It discriminates based on party affiliation rather than race or other protected characteristics.
Both major political parties have engaged in partisan gerrymandering when they controlled the redistricting process. It is not exclusively a Republican or Democratic practice. The party in power typically draws maps to protect its majority.
Racial Gerrymandering
Racial gerrymandering draws district lines to dilute the voting power of specific racial or ethnic groups. It discriminates based on race, which violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
This can take two forms. A map might crack minority voters across districts to prevent them from electing candidates of their choice. Alternatively, a map might pack minority voters into one district when they could elect candidates in two or more districts.
The distinction between partisan and racial gerrymandering is not always clear. Race and party affiliation correlate closely in many states. A map drawn to pack Democrats may effectively pack Black voters. Courts struggle to determine whether the true target is party or race.
Real-World Examples of Gerrymandering
Several states provide clear examples of gerrymandering in action. These cases illustrate how the techniques work in practice.
North Carolina
North Carolina has become the poster child for partisan gerrymandering. In 2016, Republicans drew congressional maps that gave them ten of thirteen seats despite roughly equal statewide vote shares.
The maps were so precise that a Republican legislator boasted he could guarantee ten Republican seats even if Democrats won a majority of votes. Courts have repeatedly struck down North Carolina’s maps, yet new gerrymanders continue to emerge.
Illinois
Illinois demonstrates that Democrats also gerrymander when given the opportunity. The state’s congressional map packs Republicans into a few districts while spreading Democratic voters to maximize their representation.
Chicago-area districts snake through suburbs in bizarre shapes designed to connect Democratic-leaning neighborhoods while excluding Republican-leaning areas.
Texas
Texas has faced multiple legal challenges over racial gerrymandering. The state drew districts that diluted Latino voting strength despite significant population growth among Hispanic communities.
Courts found that Texas intentionally discriminated against minority voters in several redistricting cycles. The state has been required to modify maps under Voting Rights Act enforcement.
Maryland
Maryland provides a Democratic gerrymandering example. The state packed Republicans into one congressional district to ensure Democratic control of the remaining seven seats.
The Third District was so convoluted that a federal judge described it as resembling a “broken-winged pterodactyl.”
Why Gerrymandering Is a Problem
Gerrymandering undermines democracy in several significant ways. The consequences extend beyond any single election.
Reduced Electoral Competition
Gerrymandered districts create safe seats where the general election outcome is predetermined. The real contest becomes the primary election, which typically draws more extreme voters. This pushes elected officials toward ideological extremes.
When politicians do not fear general election challengers, they have little incentive to compromise or respond to constituent concerns. They worry more about primary challenges from their own party’s base.
Voter Disenfranchisement
Voters in gerrymandered districts often feel their votes do not matter. When districts are drawn to ensure one party always wins, casting a ballot for the other party feels futile.
This perception of meaninglessness depresses turnout. Why vote when the outcome is already decided? Gerrymandering contributes to voter apathy and cynicism about democracy.
Political Polarization
By creating safe districts, gerrymandering incentivizes extreme positions. Moderate politicians who might appeal to swing voters face primary challenges from ideological purists.
The result is more polarized legislatures. Representatives from gerrymandered districts have little reason to seek bipartisan compromise. They are rewarded for ideological purity rather than pragmatic governance.
Impact on Communities of Color
Communities of color have historically faced the worst gerrymandering. Racial gerrymandering specifically targets minority voting power to maintain white political control.
Even supposedly “neutral” partisan gerrymandering often disproportionately affects minority communities. When maps crack or pack based on party affiliation, they frequently crack or pack Black and Latino voters as well.
Distorted Policy Outcomes
Gerrymandered legislatures pass different policies than fairly elected ones would. When one party controls a legislature despite receiving fewer votes, it can enact unpopular policies.
Issues like gun control, abortion access, healthcare expansion, and environmental regulation see different outcomes in gerrymandered states. The will of the majority is thwarted by manipulated district lines.
Is Gerrymandering Legal?
The legality of gerrymandering depends on the type. Courts have drawn a distinction between partisan and racial gerrymandering.
Racial Gerrymandering and the Law
Racial gerrymandering violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has consistently held that drawing districts based on race is unconstitutional.
However, the Voting Rights Act requires states to create majority-minority districts in some circumstances. This creates tension. States must avoid racial gerrymandering while potentially needing to consider race to comply with the VRA.
Partisan Gerrymandering and the Law
Partisan gerrymandering is currently legal at the federal level. In 2019, the Supreme Court decided Rucho v. Common Cause, ruling that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of federal courts.
The Court held that there is no manageable standard for determining how much partisan influence is too much. Without a clear standard, courts cannot intervene.
However, this does not mean partisan gerrymandering is constitutional. The Court simply said federal courts cannot address it. State courts and legislatures remain free to prohibit the practice.
Key Supreme Court Cases
Several Supreme Court decisions have shaped the legal landscape of gerrymandering:
Shaw v. Reno (1993): The Court held that race cannot be the predominant factor in drawing district lines unless necessary to comply with the Voting Rights Act.
Miller v. Johnson (1995): The Court struck down Georgia’s eleventh district, finding it was drawn primarily for racial reasons.
Davis v. Bandemer (1986): The Court first recognized partisan gerrymandering claims could be justiciable but set a very high bar for proving them.
Vieth v. Jubelirer (2004): The Court deadlocked on whether workable standards exist for partisan gerrymandering claims.
Rucho v. Common Cause (2019): The Court definitively held that partisan gerrymandering claims are nonjusticiable political questions.
Solutions and Reform Efforts
While federal courts will not stop partisan gerrymandering, other avenues for reform exist. States and citizens have pursued several approaches.
Independent Redistricting Commissions
Many states have shifted redistricting authority from legislatures to independent commissions. These commissions include citizens rather than politicians.
Arizona, California, Colorado, Michigan, and other states now use some form of independent commission. Research suggests these commissions produce fairer, more competitive districts than legislative-drawn maps.
The commissions vary in composition and authority. Some include partisan balance requirements. Others use random selection or multi-step nomination processes.
Mathematical Standards
Reformers have proposed mathematical tests for gerrymandering. The “efficiency gap” measures the difference between parties’ wasted votes. Proponents argue maps exceeding certain efficiency gap thresholds should be presumptively invalid.
Other proposals include compactness requirements, contiguity rules, and proportionality standards. These mathematical approaches provide objective criteria for courts to evaluate maps.
State Court Challenges
Since federal courts will not hear partisan gerrymandering claims, plaintiffs have turned to state courts. Many state constitutions contain provisions that could prohibit gerrymandering.
Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court struck down the state’s congressional map in 2018, finding it violated the state constitution’s free and equal elections clause. North Carolina courts have similarly intervened based on state constitutional provisions.
Federal Legislation
The Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act include provisions to curb gerrymandering. These bills would establish standards for congressional redistricting and restore federal oversight of state changes.
Whether such legislation passes depends on congressional politics. Supporters continue to push for federal standards to replace the patchwork of state approaches.
What Citizens Can Do
Individual citizens are not powerless against gerrymandering. Several actions can make a difference:
Learn your district: Use online tools like the Princeton Gerrymandering Project or Dave’s Redistricting to see if your district is gerrymandered.
Support reform efforts: Many states allow ballot initiatives to create independent commissions. Campaigns in Florida, Ohio, and other states have succeeded through citizen action.
Engage in the process: Public comment periods during redistricting allow citizen input. Showing up to hearings and submitting maps can influence outcomes.
Vote in primaries: In gerrymandered districts, primaries are often the only competitive elections. Voting in these races increases your influence.
Support litigation: Organizations like the Brennan Center and Common Cause challenge gerrymandered maps in court. Supporting their work helps fund legal challenges.
How to Identify Gerrymandering in Your State
Determining whether your district is gerrymandered requires examining several factors. Look for these warning signs:
Strange shapes: Districts that wander across counties, jump over water, or connect distant communities may be gerrymandered. While shape alone does not prove manipulation, odd shapes warrant investigation.
Non-competitive elections: If your district always elects candidates from one party by large margins, it may be packed. Compare your district’s competitiveness to statewide vote shares.
Split communities: Districts that divide cities, counties, or neighborhoods to separate like-minded voters often indicate cracking.
Efficiency gap analysis: Online calculators can estimate the efficiency gap for your state’s maps. Large gaps suggest gerrymandering.
Gerrymandering and the 2026 Elections
The 2026 midterm elections will be the first held under new maps drawn after the 2020 census. These maps will shape congressional and state legislative races for the next decade.
States completed their redistricting in 2021 and 2022. Some drew fair maps. Others created aggressive gerrymanders. The results will play out in November 2026.
Court challenges continue in several states. Maps in Ohio, Florida, and other states face ongoing litigation. Some may change before the 2026 elections.
Voters should check whether their districts changed since 2022. Many people now live in different congressional districts than they did before redistricting. Verify your district at vote.gov or your state’s election website.
Frequently Asked Questions About Gerrymandering
What is gerrymandering?
Gerrymandering is the practice of manipulating electoral district boundaries to favor one political party or group over another. It allows politicians to choose their voters instead of voters choosing their representatives. The term comes from Elbridge Gerry, a Massachusetts governor who approved a manipulated district map in 1812.
How does gerrymandering work?
Gerrymandering works through two main techniques: cracking and packing. Cracking spreads opposition voters across multiple districts to prevent them from achieving majority status anywhere. Packing concentrates opposition voters into a few districts to limit their influence elsewhere. Both methods waste opposition votes to dilute their electoral power.
Why is gerrymandering a problem?
Gerrymandering undermines democracy by reducing electoral competition, disenfranchising voters, increasing political polarization, and distorting policy outcomes. It creates safe seats where incumbents face no real challenge, reducing accountability. Communities of color often face the worst impacts from racial gerrymandering.
Is gerrymandering legal?
Racial gerrymandering is illegal under the Equal Protection Clause. Partisan gerrymandering is currently legal at the federal level after the Supreme Court’s 2019 Rucho v. Common Cause decision. However, state courts can still strike down partisan gerrymanders under state constitutions, and states can pass laws to prohibit the practice.
What is the purpose of gerrymandering?
The purpose of gerrymandering is to maximize one party’s representation while minimizing the other party’s seats. Politicians draw district lines to create safe seats for their party and waste opposition votes. This allows parties to maintain power even when they receive fewer votes statewide.
Why is it called gerrymandering?
The term originated in 1812 when Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry approved a district map that benefited his Democratic-Republican Party. One district in Essex County was shaped like a salamander. A political cartoonist combined Gerry’s name with salamander to create gerrymander.
What are examples of gerrymandering?
Notable examples include North Carolina’s congressional maps that gave Republicans ten of thirteen seats despite equal vote shares, Illinois districts that snake through Chicago suburbs to pack Republicans, Texas maps that diluted Latino voting power, and Maryland’s Democratic gerrymander that packed Republicans into one district.
What is racial gerrymandering?
Racial gerrymandering draws district lines to dilute the voting power of specific racial or ethnic groups. It violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Racial gerrymandering can involve cracking minority voters across districts or packing them into one district when they could elect candidates in multiple districts.
How can we stop gerrymandering?
Solutions include independent redistricting commissions that remove politicians from the process, mathematical standards like the efficiency gap to measure manipulation, state court challenges under state constitutions, federal legislation like the Freedom to Vote Act, and citizen ballot initiatives to reform redistricting in states that allow them.
What is the difference between partisan and racial gerrymandering?
Partisan gerrymandering targets political parties to give one party an advantage. Racial gerrymandering targets racial or ethnic groups to dilute their voting power. Partisan gerrymandering is currently legal at the federal level. Racial gerrymandering violates the Constitution. The distinction can blur because race and party affiliation often correlate.
Conclusion: What Is Gerrymandering Explained
Gerrymandering represents a fundamental threat to representative democracy. By allowing politicians to choose their voters, the practice undermines the core principle that voters should choose their representatives.
We have covered what gerrymandering is, how it works through cracking and packing, its historical origins, and why it matters for democracy. We have examined real-world examples from North Carolina to Maryland and explored solutions from independent commissions to citizen activism.
As we head into the 2026 midterm elections, understanding gerrymandering is more important than ever. The maps drawn after the 2020 census will shape American politics for the next decade. Some states have fair maps. Others remain heavily gerrymandered.
The fight against gerrymandering continues in state courts, legislatures, and communities across the country. While federal courts have stepped back, citizens have stepped forward. Ballot initiatives, grassroots organizing, and legal challenges offer hope for reform.
Your voice matters in this fight. Learn about your district. Support reform efforts in your state. Vote in primaries where the real decisions are made. And remember that democracy works best when all votes count equally.