The contentious practice of gerrymandering, the manipulation of electoral district boundaries for political advantage, continues to fuel a cyclical debate in American politics, often culminating in a stalemate over comprehensive reform. This ongoing struggle highlights the deep-seated challenges in achieving non-partisan redistricting, despite widespread calls for change.
The recurring nature of this debate is encapsulated in a recent social media post by Matthew Yglesias, who observed, > "Every gerrymandering debate: 'This Republican gerrymandering push is bad.' 'But Democrats do it, too, look at this one state!' 'Okay, let's ban it everywhere!' 'No.'" This exchange underscores the bipartisan engagement in the practice and the significant political resistance to a universal prohibition.
Experts note that both major political parties utilize gerrymandering, often leading to a national equilibrium in terms of partisan advantage but significantly disempowering voters at the district level. The Brennan Center for Justice highlights that gerrymandering can result in oddly shaped districts, or even regular ones that heavily skew in favor of one party, diminishing electoral competition and contributing to political polarization.
Various reform efforts have emerged, including the establishment of independent redistricting commissions at the state level and proposed federal legislation like the Freedom to Vote Act, which aims to ban partisan gerrymandering in congressional redistricting. While some states, such as Michigan and Virginia, have seen improvements through state-level reforms, comprehensive national solutions face considerable hurdles.
A significant challenge to federal intervention stems from the Supreme Court's 2019 ruling in Rucho v. Common Cause, which declared partisan gerrymandering cases non-justiciable in federal courts, effectively returning the issue to states and Congress. This ruling, coupled with the inherent political self-interest of parties benefiting from the current system, often leads to the "No" that consistently ends the debate, as highlighted by Yglesias, making a universal ban an elusive goal.