The word “gerrymandering” originates from Elbridge Gerry, a former governor of Massachusetts and signer of the Declaration of Independence. In 1812, he approved a political district shaped so oddly that critics likened it to a salamander. Gerrymandering is a portmanteau of the name Gerry and salamander. The issue became one of the prime examples of politicians manipulating electoral boundaries to protect power. Although Gerry himself opposed partisan manipulation, his decision cemented his name in political vocabulary.
From Elbridge Gerry to Today: Explaining How Gerrymandering Works and Why It Remains Legal in the United States
Difference Between Redistricting and Gerrymandering
Redistricting is the formal process of redrawing electoral maps that occurs every 10 years after the census. States redraw congressional district maps so each district represents roughly the same population. Some let legislatures draw maps. Others use commissions. States can gain or lose seats depending on population shifts. The U.S. Constitution approves this.
The terms “redistricting” and “redrawing” are neutral. Gerrymandering occurs when the redistricting process is manipulated for partisan gain. Lawmakers may intentionally divide or consolidate communities of voters to favor one party. This effectively allows elected officials to choose their voters rather than allowing voters to freely choose their representatives.
In practice, gerrymandering involves two main strategies. The first is called packing. It involves concentrating large groups of opposition voters into one district to limit their influence elsewhere. The second is cracking. This involves splitting voters across different districts to dilute and weaken their voting strength and prevent them from winning additional seats.
Both Democrats and Republicans use gerrymandering when politically advantageous, but analysts note that Republicans have relied more heavily on it in recent decades. For example, the Brennan Center for Justice reported that after the 2010 census, Republicans gained a lasting structural advantage in several battleground states through gerrymandered maps.
Notable Examples of Gerrymandering in U.S. History
One of the most referenced examples comes from North Carolina. Republicans have consistently controlled 10 out of 14 congressional seats despite the state being closely divided in presidential elections. Courts later ruled that the district maps of North Carolina had been manipulated for partisan advantage and to dilute minority voting power.
Texas has also served as a focal point in redistricting controversies. In 2003, state Republicans led a mid-decade redistricting effort engineered by then House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. This unusual move reshaped several districts, ultimately adding more Republican seats and prompting a national debate on partisan manipulation of electoral boundaries.
Note that Democrats have also engaged in the practice. Gerrymandering helped secure Democratic dominance in Illinois in congressional representation. During the 2024 election, former Vice President Kamala Harris earned 54 percent of the statewide vote, yet Democrats won 14 of the 17 congressional seats in the state due to favorable district configurations.
California provides a contrasting example. Voters approved the use of an independent redistricting commission to reduce partisan interference in 2008. The resulting maps created more competitive districts. But this limited Democratic leaders from consolidating power. This illustrates how structural reforms can influence the extent of gerrymandering.
Understanding the Legal Basis of Gerrymandering
The legality of gerrymandering is rooted in Supreme Court decisions. In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled in Rucho v. Common Cause that partisan gerrymandering claims present a political question beyond the reach of federal courts. Chief Justice John Roberts specifically explained that federal judges lacked authority to redistribute political power between parties.
Federal oversight of partisan gerrymandering was effectively removed due to the ruling. The Court did reaffirm that racial gerrymandering remains unlawful under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. States cannot weaken the voting power of racial or ethnic minorities. Note that the enforcement of this standard has been weakened by subsequent Court decisions.
One such weakening came from Shelby County v. Holder in 2013. The ruling invalidated parts of the Voting Rights Act requiring states with histories of discrimination to seek federal approval for redistricting. States gained greater autonomy to redraw maps without preclearance as a result of the decision. This has expanded opportunities for partisan gerrymandering.
Rules are different at the state level. Several states prohibit mid-decade redistricting. Others permit legislatures to redraw maps whenever politically useful. Texas has this level of flexibility. It has used this lenience to push for new maps outside the normal census cycle. One of the most recent examples is occurring at the request of Donald Trump in 2025.
Understanding What Gerrymandering Is in a Nutshell: A Type of Redistricting Intended to Favor a Particular Political Party
Gerrymandering is a type of redistricting or redrawing done with the intent of favoring one political party, group, or incumbent. It is done either through packing or placing opposing voters into one district so they win fewer overall seats, or through cracking or splitting opposing voters across many districts to dilute their voting power and political influence.
The debates over gerrymandering highlight the lack of solid federal standards governing fairness in district design. While some contend that it undermines democratic representation, supporters contend it remains a lawful exercise of state power. Without significant legal reform, gerrymandering will continue to shape the balance of political power in the United States.