Why Longtime Foes of Gerrymandering Are Having Second Thoughts in 2025
In a surprising twist amid America’s ongoing battle over electoral maps, some of the most vocal critics of gerrymandering—the practice of redrawing district lines to favor one political party—are now weighing the merits of using it as a defensive tool. Sparked by aggressive pushes from President Donald Trump for favorable redistricting in key states, advocacy groups that once decried partisan map manipulation are quietly rethinking their absolutist opposition. This shift raises profound questions about the future of fair representation in U.S. democracy.
At the heart of this debate are high-stakes redistricting battles in Texas, California, and Missouri. Following the 2022 midterm elections, where Republicans held onto a slim majority in the U.S. House, Trump has publicly urged GOP-led legislatures to redraw congressional districts to secure at least five additional seats in Texas alone. This move, critics argue, could entrench Republican dominance for the next decade, regardless of voter sentiment. In retaliation, California Governor Gavin Newsom has championed a November 2021 ballot initiative to enable a Democratic-leaning gerrymander, potentially flipping five House seats to the blue column. “They fired the first shot—Texas,” Newsom declared, pointing to Trump’s influence as the catalyst. “We wouldn’t be here had Texas not done what they just did, Donald Trump didn’t do what he just did.”
These developments aren’t isolated. In Missouri, new maps are slated for approval imminently, with similar efforts underway in Ohio and Indiana. Verified by recent reports, these proposals could reshape the balance of power in Congress by amplifying partisan advantages, building on the chaos of the post-2020 census cycle. The Supreme Court’s landmark 2019 decision in Rucho v. Common Cause further fueled the fire, ruling that federal courts cannot intervene in cases of excessive partisan gerrymandering, leaving the issue to state legislatures and voters. During the Biden era, Republican opposition in Congress thwarted a national ban on the practice, leaving advocates scrambling for alternatives.
To understand this evolution, it’s essential to revisit the roots of gerrymandering. Named after Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry’s salamander-shaped district in 1812, the tactic has long been criticized for distorting democracy by packing opponents into few districts or spreading them thin to dilute their influence. For decades, organizations like Common Cause and the League of Women Voters led the charge against it, filing lawsuits and lobbying for independent redistricting commissions. Common Cause even took the fight to the Supreme Court in 2019, only to face the aforementioned setback.
Yet, in 2025, the political landscape has shifted dramatically. With Trump back in the White House and issuing bold calls for map changes—framed as countermeasures to perceived Democratic overreach—some anti-gerrymandering stalwarts are adapting. Omar Noureldin, senior vice president of policy at Common Cause, explained the pivot: “We had to pivot our position to meet this current moment because we are not in normal times.” He elaborated on the broader threats, including proposals to end birthright citizenship, erode judicial independence, and spread election disinformation. “This redistricting fight fits right in. It’s about locking in control of government, no matter what voters want.”
Celina Stewart, CEO of the League of Women Voters, echoed this pragmatism, lamenting missed opportunities for reform. “Had this been handled years ago, we wouldn’t have been quite in this place,” she said, while urging states to prioritize protections for racial minorities, young voters, and rural communities in any map revisions. Experts like David Daley of FairVote, a nonpartisan group focused on electoral reform, see this as a symptom of deeper systemic flaws. “I think we ought to be looking towards a House that is much more proportional,” Daley suggested, advocating for multi-member districts where seats reflect overall vote shares. He warned, “Until we look really seriously at these problems and try to imagine the big structural fixes that can get us back on the right track, we are going to spiral towards the bottom and stay there.”
The implications of this reconsideration could ripple through American politics for years. If Republican-led gerrymanders succeed in states like Texas and Missouri, they might solidify a House majority that withstands even strong Democratic showings in 2026 midterms. Conversely, Democratic responses in California could spark a tit-for-tat escalation, further eroding trust in the electoral process. Next steps may include ballot measures in affected states and renewed pushes for state-level independent commissions. FairVote and similar organizations are already campaigning for proportional representation models, which could mitigate extremism by requiring broader coalitions.
In the end, this moment underscores a harsh reality: In the absence of federal safeguards, the fight against gerrymandering has become a game of political survival. As longtime opponents adapt to wield the tool they once abhorred, the takeaway is clear—voters must demand structural reforms to ensure maps reflect the people’s will, not the whims of those in power. Without it, democracy risks becoming just another district on the map, redrawn to suit the rulers.