Gerrymandering
When politicians choose their voters — instead of the other way around.
The short version
- Every 10 years, the party in power redraws district maps — usually in their own favor.
- Two techniques — cracking opponents across safe districts and packing them into a few wasted ones — can flip a majority of seats even when a party loses the popular vote.
- A gerrymandered map locks in that advantage for a full decade.
- The Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that federal courts cannot intervene, leaving few checks on the practice.
What it is
Gerrymandering is the manipulation of electoral district boundaries to give one party a structural advantage over another. The term dates to 1812, when Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry signed off on a redrawn state senate district so contorted it resembled a salamander. The Boston Gazette named it the 'Gerrymander.' The practice predates the word, and it has never stopped.
Every ten years, following the U.S. Census, state legislatures redraw congressional and state legislative district maps. In most states, the party that controls the legislature controls the redrawing process — creating a conflict of interest with no federal remedy. Incumbents literally draw the lines that determine who runs against them and what electorate they face.
The two main techniques are 'cracking' and 'packing.' Cracking splits concentrations of opposing voters across multiple districts so they remain a minority everywhere. Packing stuffs as many opposing voters as possible into a single district, ensuring they win that seat overwhelmingly but waste votes on a useless supermajority. A skilled gerrymander does both — cramming urban opposition into a few packed seats while cracking suburban opposition across safe districts.
Why it matters
Gerrymandering can invert the relationship between votes and representation at scale. In North Carolina's 2012 congressional election, Democratic candidates received 51% of the total votes statewide but won only 4 of 13 congressional seats. The party that won a majority of votes won less than a third of the seats. This isn't a rounding error — it's the intended effect of a well-drawn gerrymander.
The distortion is durable. A gerrymandered map, once drawn, shapes electoral outcomes for an entire decade until the next census. A party that controls redistricting after a census can effectively lock in legislative advantages regardless of how public opinion shifts in the years that follow. It insulates incumbents from accountability.
Beyond raw seat counts, gerrymandering reshapes political incentives for every elected official who serves under it. When a district is drawn to be a safe seat, the only competitive election is the party primary — which rewards candidates who appeal to the partisan base rather than the general electorate. This structural pressure accelerates polarization, making cross-aisle compromise harder across the entire legislature.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2019 in Rucho v. Common Cause that federal courts cannot intervene in partisan gerrymandering, calling it a 'political question' beyond judicial reach. State courts and independent redistricting commissions offer some remedy, but access to these varies dramatically by state. Without a federal check, the incentive to gerrymander aggressively when in power is nearly irresistible.