How does gerrymandering impact voting rights in the US?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Gerrymandering alters who controls elections by reshaping district lines to concentrate or dilute voters’ power; states this year have passed—and courts have blocked—maps that judges found to be racial gerrymanders and partisan redraws are intensifying ahead of the 2026 midterms [1] [2]. The legal landscape matters: the Supreme Court’s recent posture on partisan claims (Rucho) and the pending Callais/Calais litigation over Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act could sharply constrain federal remedies for maps that dilute minority voting power [3] [4] [5].
1. How gerrymandering works: the mechanics that change votes into seats
Gerrymanders operate by “packing” opposition voters into a few districts and “cracking” them across many others so their ballots win few seats even when they make up a large share of the electorate; mapmakers exploit population equality, geographic contiguity and demographic data to produce predictable outcomes that favor one party [3] [6]. The practical effect is that a party can turn a modest edge in votes into a much larger edge in seats—or neutralize a regional demographic shift—by drawing district lines to squeeze competitive districts into safe ones [4] [7].
2. Racial vs. partisan gerrymandering: different legal rules, different consequences
Federal courts still treat racial gerrymanders differently from partisan ones. Racially drawn maps that dilute minority voting strength violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and have produced court-ordered remedies; by contrast, the Supreme Court in Rucho took partisan gerrymandering claims largely off the federal docket, meaning many partisan complaints now fall to state courts and state laws [3] [6] [8]. That split matters: litigation to block maps is feasible for racial claims but far harder on pure partisan fairness grounds at the federal level [3] [6].
3. The stakes in 2025–26: litigation, mid-decade redraws and political brinkmanship
States have engaged in mid-decade redistricting fights that can lock in advantages before voters cast ballots; Texas, Missouri and other states passed new maps this cycle, and courts have both blocked and stayed those rulings—illustrating how maps are now litigated and re-litigated in real time before the 2026 filing deadlines [2] [1] [9]. Observers warn that a Supreme Court decision weakening Section 2 in the Callais case could invite more redraws that reduce majority-minority districts and make it harder to win racial-discrimination challenges [5] [4] [7].
4. Who gains and who loses: measurable effects on representation
Concrete examples show consequences: a panel of federal judges found Texas’ 2025 map an unconstitutional racial gerrymander and ordered a return to earlier maps—an action that would change the partisan composition of some delegations; California voters, meanwhile, approved a measure allowing the legislature to redraw maps in a bid to counter Republican gains [1] [2]. Data trackers now compare seat shares to presidential vote share to quantify how much a map departs from expected proportionality—evidence activists use to argue that seats have been rigged [7].
5. Remedies and reform: what the sources document as practical responses
Sources show three main avenues: federal litigation under the Voting Rights Act for racial claims, state constitutional and court challenges for partisan complaints, and political fixes like independent commissions or ballot measures—each with limits. State courts have struck down maps when voters’ initiatives were overridden (Utah), while ballot measures in California temporarily shifted mapmaking authority to partisan actors [9] [2] [10]. If the Supreme Court narrows Section 2, the federal backstop for minority-protection claims could weaken, increasing reliance on state-level protections [5] [4] [7].
6. Competing perspectives and implicit agendas in the coverage
Conservative legal commentators emphasize that there is “no constitutional bar” to mid-decade redistricting and that federal courts should avoid policing partisan mapmaking—an argument that aligns with the Rucho position and with many state-law claims favoring legislative control [11] [3]. Civil-rights advocates warn that rolling back Section 2 or allowing aggressive mid-decade redraws will “dilute” minority voters and hollow out federal protections, portraying reforms like independent commissions as bulwarks against partisan manipulation [12] [4] [7]. Both sides are fighting for maps because control of district lines determines which party wins chamber majorities before a single ballot is cast [4] [1].
7. Limitations and what the sources do not show
Available sources document court fights, commissions, ballot measures and legal doctrine through late 2025, but they do not provide a definitive, quantitative national estimate in this packet of exactly how many seats are still at risk or the full statistical magnitude of vote-seat distortions nationwide—readers should consult ongoing trackers and state filings for up-to-the-minute seat projections [7] [9]. The sources also do not settle how the Supreme Court will rule in Callais; they report the possibility that a decision could materially alter Section 2 enforcement [5] [4].
Bottom line: gerrymandering converts geography and demographics into durable political advantage; courts, state reforms and the Supreme Court’s pending decisions will determine whether legal constraints can check that process or whether mapmakers will gain more power to shape American democracy before voters do [1] [5] [7].