We are taught in civics class that it’s our duty to vote, to choose the legislators we want to represent us. With the sole exception of statewide races, that is a myth. We do not choose our legislators. They select us.
Gerrymandering — the drawing of district lines to favor the party drawing the electoral map — has existed for more than a century. Many decades ago, as a young New York State Assembly lawyer, I remember watching legislators fight over a boundary line, trying to move a problematic block of voters into someone else’s district or shift a reliable block of voters into theirs.
Today, with supercomputers, the ability to amass highly detailed and accurate demographic data, and using the proven techniques of “packing” and “cracking,” it’s pretty easy for the party in power to virtually eliminate competitive races.
“Packing” refers to placing as many of the voters of one party into as few districts as possible. The result is that a packed district is won decisively (say 80-20) rather than having multiple districts that are won 55-45.
“Cracking” is the opposite. The mapmaker splits a group of voters with the same political affiliation across many districts, thus diluting their voting strength and making it impossible for them to form a majority in any single district.
How successful is gerrymandering? Look at the U.S. House of Representatives, where President Trump ordered Texas to redraw their House maps to create five more reliably red districts. And look at California, where Gov. Gavin Newsom and California voters responded by drawing new lines that created five more reliably blue districts.
The Cook Political Report analyzes the competitiveness of House races. They currently list 187 seats as solid red (meaning Democrats have virtually no chance of winning) and 179 as solid blue (Republicans have no shot). Another 25 House seats are likely or lean red, and 28 are likely or lean blue.
That means of 435 House seats, only 16 are toss-ups, races where each side has an equal shot at winning. Think about that: Fewer than 4% of House races are truly competitive. The outcome has been all but preordained in the other 96%.
Look at North Carolina, a fairly purple state. They elected a Democrat as governor, and will likely elect a Democrat (former Gov. Roy Cooper) to the Senate in 2026. But their House seats are split 10 red and four blue. An excellent job of gerrymandering! Or look at another purple state, Georgia, with a Republican governor, two Democratic senators, but a House delegation of nine Republicans and five Democrats. Gerrymandered quite efficiently!
Democrats are equally skilled at gerrymandering. In Maryland, for example, there are seven blue House seats and just one red. And there is discussion of redrawing the lines to make it eight to zero!
I often hear well-intentioned people ask why Republicans and Democrats cannot work out a compromise. Why can’t everyone just give a little? Why did our government shut down for 43 days? Why won’t anyone compromise?
Well, the answer is simple. If you are the House member in a safe red seat or in a safe blue seat, you are really not concerned about the general election in November. Your district is reliably red or blue.
What you need to worry about is a primary. And the worst thing you can do is move towards the center, and attract a primary challenger from your right flank (if you’re a Republican incumbent) or from your left flank (if you’re a Democratic incumbent).
Thus, there is zero incentive to compromise. Compromise is politically risky, fraught with political peril!
How did the federal government shutdown finally end? House members never moved an inch. But Senators (where lines cannot be gerrymandered) compromised. Now look at the eight Democrats who voted to end the shutdown: two from Neveda (a purple state), two from New Hampshire (a purple state), one from Maine (purple), one from Virginia (purple), one from Pennsylvania (purple), and one (Durbin, Illinois) who is retiring.
The lesson is crystal clear: Legislators who are more concerned about primaries than general elections have zero incentive to compromise. It makes them look weak and exposes them to the risk of a primary challenger. Legislators who are more concerned with winning a general election understand that they must compromise, must seek the center, appeal to more moderate voters.
The polarization we see in Washington is a direct and predictable result of gerrymandering. And we are now witnessing gerrymandering on steroids, before the midterms, and totally unrelated to normal reapportionment (following new Census data showing population shifts).
If you truly want to see legislators work together across party lines, if you support consensus building, if you want more compromise and less partisan gridlock, the solution is simple. Make more districts competitive. End gerrymandering, and more politicians will move towards the center.
Government works far better if districts are fairly drawn by neutral parties. Unless and until that happens, partisan gridlock is inevitable.
Hopefully Utah’s courts will support an end to gerrymandered lines. We shall see.