Video by Washington Post. Gerrymandering: Controversial Political Redistricting Explained
Every 10 years, following the U.S. Census, states redraw their congressional maps to reflect population shifts. This process, known as Redistricting, is meant to ensure equal representation—each district with roughly the same number of people so every vote carries similar weight. While the principle is simple, the practice is highly political.
🌀 Redistricting vs. Gerrymandering
Done impartially, redistricting protects the idea of “one person, one vote.” But when parties in power control the process, they often engage in Gerrymandering—manipulating boundaries to favor themselves. The term dates back to 1812, when Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry approved a district shaped so oddly it resembled a salamander.
🎯 Packing and ✂️ Cracking
Two common gerrymandering tactics dominate. Packing concentrates opposition voters into a few districts, giving them overwhelming wins but reducing their influence elsewhere. Cracking (Fracking) spreads opposition voters across multiple districts so their numbers are too thin to form a majority anywhere.
Video by ACoM. Rep. Gene Wu, Democratic leader in the Texas House of Representatives, explains the redistricting tactics Republicans are using to dismantle voting power in communities of color. Also see ACoM’s report from the Aug. 22 Redistricting News Briefing.
🌍 Race and Ethnicity in the Mix
Redistricting also determines the political power of racial and ethnic communities. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 bans racial discrimination, but maps are often drawn in ways that affect whether minority voters can elect candidates of their choice.
- Racial packing corrals Black, Latino, Asian American, or Native voters into a few districts, limiting their reach.
- Racial cracking splits those same communities apart, diluting their strength.
Court fights in Alabama, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Texas show how lines can either empower or silence voters of color.
🗺️ From Rare to Routine
For most of U.S. history, redistricting happened once a decade, tied strictly to the Census. Today, that rhythm has broken. Maps are being redrawn multiple times within the same decade—sometimes by court order, sometimes by partisan choice.
North Carolina has seen maps rewritten again and again since 2011 after courts ruled them unconstitutional. In Texas 2003, Republicans redrew lines just two years after the Census to flip six seats. What was once rare is now routine: district boundaries shifting from one election to the next, creating instability for voters and an almost permanent fight over maps.
🔥 Texas 2025: A Live Battle
Video by ACoM. Thomas Saenz, President and General Counsel, MALDEF, discusses Texas’ redistricting efforts and how they will impact Latino voting power. From ACoM’s Aug. 22 Redistricting News Briefing.
In August 2025, Governor Greg Abbott signed a new congressional map expected to shift five U.S. House seats from Democrats to Republicans.
- Democrats staged a two-week walkout but failed to block the plan.
- Civil rights groups including the NAACP and LULAC sued, arguing the maps dismantle majority-minority districts.
Texas again shows how redistricting has become a continuous fight, not a once-a-decade event.
🌋 California’s Countermove, Missouri’s Maneuver
In response, California placed Proposition 50 on the November 4 ballot. The measure would suspend the state’s independent citizens redistricting commission and allow the legislature to draw a new, Democrat-leaning congressional map for 2026–2030. Analysts say Democrats could flip up to five seats if it passes. Governor Gavin Newsom argues it’s needed to counter Texas’ power grab, while critics warn it sacrifices transparency for partisanship.
Meanwhile in Missouri, Governor Mike Kehoe called a special legislative session to redraw districts in hopes of securing another Republican seat.
⚖️ What’s at Stake
Together, the moves in Texas, California, and Missouri highlight a new era: redistricting wars that no longer wait for the Census. With the U.S. House so closely divided, even a handful of seats can tip control.
Video by ACoM. Sara Rohani, Assistant Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, discusses fair voting maps and how they impact voter sentiment and turnout. From ACoM’s Aug. 22 Redistricting News Briefing.
Beyond the partisan chess match lies a practical question: is redistricting still meant to reflect population changes fairly, or has it become a recurring tool for whichever party holds power? The outcome will influence not only the next election cycle, but also how stable and representative the congressional map remains.
