Lines in the Sand

 The image shows the current contours of Pennsylvania’s 7th Congressional District, the electoral division in which I vote. Below is the district as it appeared for several years in the mid-2010s,1 when it was strategically drawn around specific populations of voters — that is, unlawfully “gerrymandered” — so the state’s ruling party could win as many districts as possible.2

“2024 Congressional Republican Primary Election in Pennsylvania's 7th Congressional District, results by county." Illustration by Coolxsearcher1414. Licensed for public use with Creative Commons.3

“2012 Pennsylvania's 7th congressional district election results by county." Illustration by Ohaiyoan124. Licensed for public use with Creative Commons.4

WHYY deemed the 7th District “one of the nation’s most gerrymandered” districts,5 while The New York Times referred to it as “comically drawn.”6 Per Business Insider, “Voters … nicknamed the shape … ‘Goofy kicking Donald Duck.’”7Pennsylvania’s pro-Republican gerrymanders were eventually defeated in court,8 but officials from both parties continue their blatant exploitation of electoral districts in numerous states.9

Humorous though these gerrymandered districts may appear, their effects on democratic representation are inimical to ideals of American fairness and equality. Gerrymandering sways elections by compounding the “inherent” imperfections of our district-based voting system,10 elevating the influence of some voters over others.11 It is a violation of individual rights,12 that frequently targets minority communities. Even though racial gerrymandering has been outlawed nationwide, lawmarkers continue to find ways to bend the rules.13

The Supreme Court has issued a number of voting-related verdicts in recent years, though none have proved as controversial as 2013’s Shelby County v. Holder and 2019’s Rucho v. Common Cause.14 In Shelby County v. Holder, SCOTUS implicitly terminated federal supervision of electoral processes in historically discriminatory states.15 In Rucho v. Common Cause, the Court ruled it had no authority over non-racial partisan gerrymandering.16 “Rucho was a signal to state legislators that they can continue to gerrymander,” wrote Deven Kirschenbaum in the New York University Law Review. “It is clear that democracy is ‘malfunctioning,’ and elected officials are incapable of solving the problem on their own.”17

Prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, gerrymandering had reached new heights — or perhaps more accurately, new lows — of partisan manipulation. “The process of redistricting occurs every ten years after the Census, and this presents opportunities for political maneuvering…” says author Mark Dziak. “For instance, in the 2010 midterm elections, Republicans gained control of many state legislatures, which experts noted led to heavy pro-Republican gerrymandering.”18 This gerrymandering was “heavy” enough to be deemed historically “unprecedented,”19 something analysts attributed to new digital redistricting technology and intensifying partisan animosity.20

The birth of the Shelby County case centered on Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.21 “Section 5 required jurisdictions that had a history of voting discrimination to obtain approval from the Attorney General or a federal court before implementing changes in election procedures.”22 When Alabama’s Shelby County challenged Section 5’s constitutionality, the case cycled through lower courts before reaching the Supreme Court, which found the classification method for discriminatory states to be outdated.23 As a result of the Supreme Court’s 2013 verdict in Shelby County, Section 5 “was rendered effectively inoperative, freeing states and localities to enact voting laws without federal oversight,”24 thereby “gutt[ing]” the Voting Rights Act of 1965.25

Rucho v. Common Cause originated a few years later with an ostensibly cut and dry case of partisan gerrymandering. In 2016, North Carolina’s Republican-controlled state legislature was tasked with producing a “remedial congressional map”26 to address racial biases present in their first draft.27 During the process, a Republican Representative of the North Carolina legislature was quoted as saying “the [remedial] maps would be drawn in order to guarantee that 10 congressional districts would continue to be held by Republicans, and 3 by Democrats,”28 despite Democratic representatives winning nearly 44% of the popular vote in the 2014 midterms.29 Multiple organizations sued after the partisan redistricting map became law under the North Carolina General Assembly.30 When the case made it to the Supreme Court in 2019, the Court sidestepped the issue, ruling “that partisan-gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the jurisdiction of the federal courts.”31.The impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in Rucho v. Common Cause has been a bit more nuanced.42 Though arguably a missed opportunity, the decision has not led to more overall gerrymandering— instead, state-level battles over gerrymandering have escalated,43 resulting in some “notable improvement.

State-level redistricting reforms in once-gerrymandered states (Michigan and Virginia), the increased willingness of state courts to enforce limits on partisan gerrymandering (Maryland), and electoral victories resulting in divided government (Pennsylvania) all have helped create fairer maps,” according to research by the Brennan Center and others.44 Thankfully, SCOTUS’ decision in 2023’s Moore v. Harper affirmed state courts’ rights to adjudicate gerrymandering claims, preventing gerrymanderers from operating unchecked.45 However, this progress is far from universal, and as experience has shown, not necessarily permanent; North Carolina returned to its gerrymandered districts several years after the Rucho ruling,46 and recent Studies at Harvard and Yale both observed “widespread partisan effects” in districts across the country.47 As one of the Brennan Center’s lawyers expressed, “states are ‘laboratories of democracy’ …. Still …. ‘there has to be some kind of federal remedy.’”48

According to multiple observers, only “Seven states have independent [redistricting] commissions that are designed for partisan balance.”49 If we’re looking for a federal remedy, a mandate for independent redistricting commissions would be a logical place to start; after all, commissions are frequently touted as the silver bullet that slew Canadian gerrymandering in the 1960s,50 and even if that claim is not entirely supported,51 keeping the fox away from the henhouse is never a bad idea. Unfortunately, such a national law may be prohibitively difficult to pass.52

In an article extolling the virtues of independent commissions, the progressive news outlet Vox tempered its enthusiasm, asserting “a national law requiring independent redistricting commissions in each state would go against the US tradition of state independence, and might not even be constitutional.”53 A 2020 article in the Harvard Law Review offered a tempting alternative. In it, the author “argues that Rucho v. Common Cause—which held that partisan gerrymandering cases are nonjusticiable, but at the same time left untouched the Court’s previous determinations that ‘extreme’ partisan gerrymanders violate the Equal Protection Clause—opened a new opportunity for Congress to comprehensively regulate state and local partisan gerrymandering.”54

Previous SCOTUS restrictions on Congress’ ability to address gerrymandering (Shelby County v. Holder) are incompatible with the Court’s newly professed lack of jurisdiction over redistricting (Shelby County v. Holder), and consequently Congress could begin to take a more dominant role.55 Unfortunately, though bills focused on gerrymandering have come up in Congress, none have been passed.56 And considering Congress has, as of 2025, waited at least 13 years to update the clause that would revive Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the delayed response to gerrymandering is hardly unexpected.57

Fortunately, there is yet another possible solution, one that addresses gerrymandering at an even deeper level.58 According to experts, SCOTUS’ claim of lacking “‘discernible and manageable standards’ with which to identify … gerrymanders” is understandable,59 since redistricting is often surrounded by a “contentious”60 haze of bias statistics and “inherent tradeoffs in different dimensions of representation.”61 In fact, experts have long agreed that an absolute absence of bias “is clearly not achievable in the single representative or winner-take-all district voting system of the United States.”62 Proponents of electoral overhaul say that ranked-choice voting, whereby voters rank candidates in terms of preference rather than choosing one, may be able to address the issue.63 “Ranked-choice voting, combined with multi-member legislative districts, promotes fair representation, particularly when it comes to blunting gerrymandering,” a study at Cornell University found.64 “The best option is three-member legislative districts in which voters rank their choices and the candidate with the most first-place votes is the winner; surplus votes are transferred to voters’ next preferences.”65 Authorities credit ranked-choice voting with a variety of benefits, from giving voice to more diverse views to making the redistricting process easier overall.66 Unfortunately, federal ranked-choice voting bills have thus far stalled in Congress,67 and aside from a number of city-level ranked-choice reforms, state-level reforms proved unpopular with voters in the 2024 elections.68

Still, the current state of affairs should not be seen as an invitation to give up. Activists and proponents of democracy should take heart in recent progress and continue to push for reform, whether it comes in the form of independent commissions at the state-level or the idyllic, though potentially unrealistic, dream of ranked-choice voting. Gerrymandering has hobbled our democracy almost from its founding,69 and yet the nation has remained, overall, intact. If we can one day achieve truly fair representation, the U.S. could become a fully realized example of government by the people.