Voters are supposed to choose their leaders. But in many cases, it works the other way around: leaders choose their voters.
That’s the power of gerrymandering — the manipulation of political district boundaries to give one party or group an advantage. It’s not new, but its impact today is as strong as ever.
What Is Gerrymandering?
At its simplest, gerrymandering is about drawing maps in ways that dilute some votes and amplify others.
- Packing: Concentrating voters of one group into a single district so they win fewer seats overall.
- Cracking: Splitting voters of one group across multiple districts so their influence is weakened everywhere.
- Partisan Gerrymandering: Drawing districts to benefit one political party.
- Racial Gerrymandering: Drawing districts to reduce the power of racial minorities — a practice challenged repeatedly in courts.
The name comes from 1812, when Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry approved a district shaped like a salamander. The “Gerry-mander” was born.
How It Worked in Practice
- Post-Reconstruction: Southern states redrew districts to limit the influence of newly enfranchised Black voters.
- Civil Rights Era: Federal oversight tried to curb racial gerrymanders, but creative mapmaking continued.
- Modern Era: Both major parties gerrymander where they control state legislatures, using increasingly sophisticated data tools to lock in power.
Today, gerrymandering shapes not just who wins, but who even has a chance.
Why It Still Matters
- Representation Distorted: Districts can be drawn so that one party wins a majority of seats even with fewer overall votes.
- Communities Split: Neighborhoods are divided to weaken shared interests — a practice especially harmful to communities of color.
- Trust Eroded: When voters feel the maps are rigged, faith in democracy declines.
- Policy Impact: Gerrymandering can lock in partisan control for a decade, shaping laws on everything from healthcare to education.
Wider Impacts
- Black and Latino Voters: Historically “packed” or “cracked” to reduce influence, despite protections under the Voting Rights Act.
- Rural vs. Urban Divide: Gerrymandering often favors rural areas over densely populated urban centers.
- All Voters: Even those in the majority party lose when competitive elections vanish — accountability weakens without real choice.
Stories of Resilience
Communities and activists have fought back against gerrymandering:
- Court cases like Shaw v. Reno (1993) established limits on racial gerrymanders.
- States like California and Michigan have created independent redistricting commissions to draw fairer maps.
- Grassroots movements continue to demand transparency and community-centered maps.
These efforts show that while gerrymandering is powerful, it isn’t inevitable.
Beyond Blame: Building With Each Other
Gerrymandering isn’t confined to one side of the political spectrum. Both parties have used it when they had the chance.
But facing it together reminds us: democracy works best when voters decide who represents them — not the other way around.
Dig Deeper
- Mapping Resource: Princeton Gerrymandering Project — tools, data, and reform efforts.
- Recent Case: Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) — Supreme Court ruled federal courts can’t decide partisan gerrymandering claims.
- Related ECC Articles (future links):
- Poll Taxes and Literacy Tests: The First Barriers to the Ballot
- The Voting Rights Act: A Hard-Won Victory
- Modern Voter Suppression: New Barriers, Old Tactics
Closing Invitation
Gerrymandering is proof that democracy isn’t just about the right to vote — it’s also about whether those votes count fairly.
Every Chapter Counts is about uncovering practices like this not to divide us, but to understand how the rules of the game have been shaped — and how we can shape them back toward fairness and belonging.
Because when every vote counts equally, every voice truly matters.
