Wait, Don't We Only Do this After the Census?

Every 10 years, after the census, states redraw their political maps. Done well, it's like slicing a pizza evenly so everyone gets a fair share. Poorly done, it's like one person grabbing all the best slices while everyone else wonders what happened to the pepperoni! That's the difference between redistricting and gerrymandering — and right now, America is caught in a food fight.

Redistricting is the ordinary process of adjusting maps to reflect population shifts. Gerrymandering is the distortion of that process to favor one party, dilute the influence of certain groups, or lock in incumbents. Both major parties have done it. But the latest round — sparked by a mid-decade power grab in Texas, followed by countermeasures in California — threatens to turn political line-drawing into a national arms race.
In Texas, lawmakers recently approved a map designed to add five Republican-leaning seats, at the request of President Trump. Democrats in California quickly responded with their own plan, temporarily setting aside the state's independent redistricting commission to push through maps expected to help their party flip seats. Courts in Alabama and Wisconsin have already ordered maps redrawn. In contrast, Louisiana's maps are headed back to the U.S. Supreme Court in a case that could reshape the Voting Rights Act itself. What used to be a once-a-decade exercise is becoming a rolling battlefield.
This escalation is more than partisan squabbling; it strikes at the foundation of representative democracy. When maps are engineered to guarantee outcomes, voters lose the ability to hold politicians accountable. Elections become less competitive, primary voters gain outsized influence, and compromise in Congress becomes even more difficult. And the public is noticing.

Public Opinion
Americans dislike gerrymandering, regardless of which party is responsible. A recent Reuters/Ipsos survey found that 55% of Americans oppose mid-decade redistricting, and 57% believe it poses a risk to democracy itself. A YouGov poll showed that few support Texas's new map. Reform groups like RepresentUs report broad bipartisan opposition to partisan line-drawing. In a UC Riverside study, Americans ranked gerrymandering alongside bribery as the most damaging to democracy. At a gut level, voters want elections decided by citizens, not cartographers with political agendas.

Race to the Bottom
Editorial voices across the spectrum warn that both parties are now openly admitting their partisan motives. What used to be wrapped in the language of "protecting democracy" is now acknowledged as raw power politics — Republicans redrawing maps in legislatures, Democrats pushing courts and commissions. That honesty may be bracing, but it underscores the danger. If both sides escalate, the race to the bottom will leave voters with less trust in fair representation.

The Legal Context
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 has long stood as a safeguard against racial gerrymandering. Section 2 prohibits drawing lines that dilute the voting power of racial or language minorities. For decades, Section 5 required certain states to get "preclearance" before changing maps. However, recent Supreme Court rulings have chipped away at these protections. In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the Court ended the preclearance requirement. In Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), the Court ruled that partisan gerrymandering claims were beyond the reach of federal courts. That left voters with uneven protection — racial gerrymanders can still be challenged, but purely partisan ones cannot.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 in Today's Light
The VRA once stood as the nation's backstop against unfair maps. But since Shelby County v. Holder (2013) ended federal preclearance, and Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) removed partisan gerrymandering from federal review, the legal guardrails have weakened. Now, with a new case out of Louisiana (Callais) questioning whether Section 2 can even survive, the rules that once kept redistricting tethered to fairness may soon vanish altogether.

Census vs. Mid-Decade Redistricting
By law, House seats are reapportioned every 10 years after the census, and states usually redraw their maps then to balance population. That's the normal redistricting cycle. What's happening today is different. Texas, California, and other states are reopening their maps in the middle of the decade, not because of new population data, but to gain a partisan advantage. The Constitution doesn't forbid this, and federal law doesn't regulate it. So, unless state constitutions say otherwise, mid-decade redistricting is legal.
Take Virginia, for example. In late October 2025, the Democratic majority in the General Assembly called a special session to begin the process of redrawing U.S. House maps — not after the next census, but ahead of the 2026 midterms — a move that could add two or three seats for the party. That makes Virginia the second state, after California, where a blue-state push is joining the growing red-state map war. The rules the public assumed governed redistricting just don't seem to apply anymore.
Missouri followed suit on September 28, 2025, when Gov. Mike Kehoe signed a new congressional map that splits Kansas City into several GOP-leaning districts in an attempt to add a Republican seat. Opponents have already filed state lawsuits and are pursuing a veto referendum that could put the map to a vote — and pause it in the meantime. The point isn't which party benefits; it's that mid-decade redraws are spreading, untethered from the census and driven by short-term political calculation.

The Math Solution

There are ways to move beyond this cycle. As economist Roland Fryer has argued, mathematics offers a neutral path. He and colleagues developed the "Relative Proximity Index," a measure of how compact a district is compared to the most compact version possible. Think of it as a speed limit for redistricting: the higher the score, the more mapmakers have stretched the lines. Compactness isn't a cure-all — maps must still respect communities and comply with the Voting Rights Act — but it gives citizens and courts a clear, transparent yardstick.

The Leadership Example
Finally, there's leadership. In California, former governor Arnold Schwarzenegger made independent redistricting commissions a signature reform. His message was simple: voters should choose politicians, not the other way around. Today, as his successor seeks to suspend that commission in the name of partisan necessity, Schwarzenegger is back on the front lines, vowing to defend his legacy. The "Gerrymandering Terminator" may ride again, reminding us that fair maps are a promise to voters that should not be broken.

Closing Thoughts
Redistricting will never be free of politics. But it doesn't have to be poisoned by partisanship. A fair system can begin with clear definitions, progress toward measurable standards, and be reinforced by leaders who are willing to prioritize principles over short-term gains.
The solutions aren't mysterious. We know how to measure compactness. We know commissions can work. And we know voters want a system they can trust. We need the courage to draw the line fairly — and keep it straight.