1. Home
2. World
3. The Art of Redistricting: How Gerrymandering Influences US Elections

Five additional seats in Texas, two in Ohio and one in Missouri – across the United States, Donald Trump is encouraging his allies to embrace gerrymandering, a political tactic designed to tilt congressional representation in favor of Republicans.

“I won Texas,” he declared in a CNBC interview, insisting that Republicans “deserve five more seats” in the 2026 midterm elections.

For his supporters, gerrymandering is not cheating but a savvy use of a legal, long-established feature of American democracy.

What Exactly Is Gerrymandering?

Gerrymandering refers to the strategic redrawing of electoral district boundaries to benefit one political party over another. In the US, state legislatures are responsible for redistricting and have broad authority to reshape districts after each decennial census.

The term dates back to 1812, when Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry approved a district map including one oddly shaped district resembling a salamander. A satirical newspaper coined the term “Gerry-mander,” blending Gerry’s name with the creature’s form.

Two primary tactics are commonly used in gerrymandering. The first is packing, which involves concentrating opposition voters into a small number of districts to minimize their influence elsewhere. The second is cracking, which disperses those voters thinly across many districts to dilute their voting power.

The conservative Heritage Foundation argues that gerrymandering is not only legal but inevitable in a federal system like the United States. It cites the 2019 Supreme Court ruling in Rucho v. Common Cause, which declared partisan gerrymandering a political question beyond the reach of federal courts.

“You can’t take politics out of redistricting,” asserts the Heritage Foundation. Any attempt to remove partisan influence misunderstands the inherently political nature of America’s electoral system.

Gerrymandering as a Political Tradition

To the Heritage Foundation, gerrymandering is neither a democratic flaw nor a recent anomaly. It is a fundamental part of American politics, dating back to the republic itself. The Founding Fathers deliberately gave redistricting powers to state legislatures, fully aware that political interests would play a role. The Heritage Foundation argues that far from undermining democracy, this blend of politics and procedure reflects the system’s original design.

The organization also questions the effectiveness of independent redistricting commissions formed in several Democratic-leaning states. These bodies, it contends, do not eliminate political bias but simply move it behind closed doors. Since members are appointed by elected officials, they inevitably remain subject – whether overtly or subtly – to partisan influence.

The Myth of a Lasting Republican Advantage

The Brookings Institution, a centrist think tank, challenges the idea that gerrymandering guarantees Republicans a permanent advantage. Brookings argues that the effects of these district maps are often far less lasting than assumed. Demographic shifts, voter mobility and political realignments can swiftly undo the artificial advantages gained through partisan redistricting.

The think tank emphasizes that over multiple election cycles, district boundaries alone do not determine electoral outcomes. Local political dynamics, voter turnout and national events have a greater impact than the precise drawing of district lines.

Therefore, portraying Republican gerrymandering as a systemic threat to democracy is an exaggeration. Its impact is real but ultimately time-bound. Within this context, Republicans openly embrace their strategy.

Meeting Fire with Fire

For Donald Trump and his allies, gerrymandering is a way to level the playing field in a political landscape where Democrats have long used similar tactics in their strongholds.

States like California and Illinois exemplify historic Democratic overrepresentation – clear examples of gerrymandering favoring the “blue” party, according to Daron Shaw of the University of Texas, cited by AFP.

Republicans argue they are simply competing “on equal terms” in a system where neither side is without fault.

Their argument goes further: Republican maps aim to correct an urban bias that naturally benefits Democrats.

Large, predominantly progressive cities concentrate voters whose numbers, without redistricting, would lead to the underrepresentation of conservative rural areas. For Republican strategists, gerrymandering is not about stealing seats, but about reflecting the institutional framework envisioned by the Constitution.

Critics sometimes accuse gerrymandering of diluting minority votes, particularly in Texas’s Harris County (Houston) and Dallas. The Supreme Court has ruled that redistricting becomes legally suspect when race predominates over traditional criteria such as compactness or district continuity.

In such cases, redistricting is subject to strict scrutiny, and the state must demonstrate a compelling interest and a narrowly tailored plan to prevent minority vote dilution.

For Trump and his supporters, drawing favorable districts is simply playing by the rules and wielding a tool Democrats have used for decades.

Beyond the controversies, gerrymandering remains a core feature of American electoral politics, a strategic game of boundaries where every line drawn can shift the balance of power in Washington.