Understanding gerrymandering

Dictionary Definition

According to the Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School: "Gerrymandering is the drawing of political or electoral districts for the purpose of making it easier for an incumbent party to remain in power. This practice often results in districts with bizarre shapes."

According to the Smithsonian Institute, while the idea was not new, the term originated in a political cartoon in the Boston Gazette's March 26, 1812 edition. "The cartoon expressed opposition to state election districts newly redrawn by Massachusetts' Jeffersonian Democratic-Republican Party, led by Governor Elbridge Gerry. Fearing that the Federalist Party would gain power in the 1812 election, Gerry consolidated Federalist voting strength in a salamander-shaped voting district. The practice—though not invented by Gerry—became known as a 'gerrymandering.'"

The Problem

Here's what politicians don't want you to realize: gerrymandering doesn't just hurt the "other side" - it hurts all of us.

When districts are rigged to be "safe," representatives don't have to worry about general elections. They only worry about primary elections, where the most extreme voters on their side show up. So instead of appealing to everyone in their district, they appeal to their base - pushing Democrats further left and Republicans further right, resulting in more extreme candidates.

Meanwhile, most voters - who aren't on the extreme ends - feel like nobody represents them. Because nobody does.

What It Really Means

Gerrymandering is when politicians draw voting district lines to guarantee specific election outcomes. Instead of letting voters choose their representatives, politicians choose their voters.

Here's how it works: every ten years, states redraw their district maps based on the new census. In most states, whoever controls the state legislature gets to draw those lines. And they don't draw them to be fair - they draw them to win.

Think of it like this: imagine you're dividing up a pizza between Democrats and Republicans, and the pizza is half pepperoni (Democrats) and half cheese (Republicans). A fair split would give each side their preferred slices. But with gerrymandering, whoever gets to cut the pizza can slice it so they get most of the pepperoni AND most of the cheese, leaving the other side with just crust.

Politicians use two main tricks:

Packing: Stuff as many opposing voters as possible into a few districts. Sure, the other party wins those districts by huge margins - but they "waste" tons of votes winning by 80% instead of winning more districts by smaller margins.

Cracking: Split up areas where opposing voters live, spreading them across multiple districts where they can't win any of them.

The result? Politicians can lose the popular vote but still win most of the seats. In some states, one party gets 60% of the votes but only 40% of the representatives.

REAL Perspective

Project REAL stands for fairness, accountability, and democracy that works for everyone. Gerrymandering is the opposite of that—it's a rigged game that protects power instead of earning trust. When districts are drawn fairly, politicians have to listen to more people, not just their base. Ending gerrymandering is a foundational repair to the "roots" of our democracy—one that strengthens every other issue we care about.

When politicians try to defend gerrymandering, they'll use confusing arguments about "respecting communities" or "protecting minority representation." But here's the test: Does this actually enhance American lives?

Fair districts mean representatives who have to appeal to all their voters, not just their base. That means more problem-solving and less political theater. It means your vote actually matters, whether you live in a big city or rural area.

Most Americans - Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or Independent - want fair maps where voters choose their representatives, not the other way around. The only people who benefit from gerrymandering are politicians who want guaranteed jobs without having to earn them.

Example

Both parties have used gerrymandering to rig elections when they control redistricting.

North Carolina (Republican Gerrymander): After the 2010 census, the Republican-controlled legislature drew district maps that gave them 10 out of 13 congressional seats, even when votes were split nearly 50/50 statewide. In some cases, these gerrymandered maps were ruled illegal but were allowed to stay in place through the election.

Illinois (Democratic Gerrymander): In 2010, Illinois actually elected 11 Republicans and 8 Democrats to Congress - a majority-Republican delegation even in Obama's home state during the Tea Party wave. But after Democrats controlled the 2011 redistricting, they redrew the maps to eliminate competitive districts. Today, the delegation is 14 Democrats and just 3 Republicans, despite the state being much more politically balanced than those numbers suggest.

Both examples show the same problem: politicians choosing their voters instead of voters choosing their politicians. Whether it's Republicans in North Carolina or Democrats in Illinois, gerrymandering undermines fair representation and is a fundamental threat to representative government.