The battle over how America draws its political map has reached a fever pitch, with Texas at the center of a nationwide debate that’s reshaping the rules of representation for both red and blue states. With advanced computer algorithms and shifting legal landscapes, the age-old practice of gerrymandering—manipulating district boundaries to favor one party—has entered a new era of precision and controversy.
It’s not a new story. The term “gerrymander” was coined back in 1812, when Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry signed a bill that redrew congressional maps to benefit his party. But, as Sam Wang, founding director of the Electoral Innovation Lab and creator of the Gerrymandering Project, told ABC News, the last two decades have seen the practice become “partisanship maximized above all of the other things.” The reason? Technology. Sophisticated algorithms now allow lawmakers to slice and dice communities with pinpoint accuracy, creating districts with bizarre, sometimes laughable shapes that all but guarantee partisan outcomes.
Every ten years, states redraw their maps to reflect population changes captured by the census. But, according to Kareem Crayton, vice president at the Brennan Center for Justice, what began as a routine exercise has become a “systemic cycle of gerrymandering, especially in the South.” Florida and Texas, he says, “have the worst examples of gerrymandering.” Yet, he’s quick to point out, “states with Democratic majorities, like Illinois, have responded with their own maps that also skew districts in their favor, leading to an endless cycle.” Crayton likens it to a standoff: “All of these states are looking around at each other like ‘The Good, the Bad and the Ugly’ thinking who’s going to fire first. There is no sheriff in town saying this is not helping everyone.”
The numbers back up the experts’ warnings. Using demographic and geographic data, Wang’s lab has built mathematical models to show what fair, neutral district maps would look like. When compared to the current maps in places like Texas, the contrast is stark. Texas, which boasts a Republican majority in both its legislature and congressional delegation, earned an F grade from the Gerrymandering Project. The analysis shows that the state’s current map is designed to maximize GOP advantage, often by splitting counties like Travis (home to Democratic-leaning Austin) into multiple districts that dilute urban votes in favor of suburban and rural, more conservative ones.
It’s not just Travis County. Dallas County is carved into five congressional districts, with two stretching into neighboring counties. This, Crayton says, “leads to confusion among voters as to what their district is.” And it has real consequences: “If you’re a candidate from an opposing party, you’re going to have an uphill battle trying to run in a district where the majority of the voters are registered to the majority,” he told ABC News. “We’ve seen it happen all of the time where a Democrat or Republican simply won’t put the time and effort to run because the gerrymandered district puts the odds against them.” The upshot? More and more races go uncontested, and voters have fewer real choices at the ballot box.
It’s not just a Southern phenomenon. Illinois, a Democratic stronghold, also received an F grade from the Gerrymandering Project. Its 13th congressional district, for example, sprawls across nearly 2,300 square miles—stretching from near the Missouri border to Springfield and then east to Champaign—carefully corralling Democratic voters and boosting partisan advantage. The result, Wang says, is “non-compact districts, which leads to unequal voter density per area, and more county splits than the average.”
The Supreme Court’s 2019 decision to rule that gerrymandering for party advantage cannot be challenged in federal court has only intensified the problem. While the court’s majority admitted the practice might be “incompatible with democratic principles,” it declared that federal courts had no jurisdiction to intervene. “The lemon has been squeezed dry,” Wang lamented, suggesting that most states have pushed gerrymandering to its limits, making it extremely difficult to revert to fairer boundaries.
Not everyone is content to let the status quo stand. Some states are experimenting with reforms to rein in partisan excess. Virginia, for instance, turned to a court-appointed special master in 2022 to draw up new maps after a legal challenge. The result? Districts that are “fairly compact” with the national average number of county splits, and, according to the Gerrymandering Project, no clear partisan advantage—earning the state an A rating.
Arizona, too, has taken a bold step. After a 2000 ballot initiative, the state established an independent redistricting commission. Despite having a Republican-controlled legislature, Arizona’s districts are now “fairly compact” and show no partisan tilt, according to Wang’s analysis. These reforms, often driven by public ballot initiatives, have gained traction as more voters demand fairer maps and an end to legislative self-dealing.
Yet, as political pundit Karl Rove pointed out during an August 2025 appearance on Fox News’s “America’s Newsroom,” the redistricting fight is far from over—and both parties face challenges. “First of all, let’s admit there are going to be consequences for both parties as a result of what is happening in Texas that neither party will like,” Rove said. While Texas may add five new House seats, he cautioned, “GOP candidates won’t automatically win races.” One of those seats, he noted, would require Republicans to unseat a popular Democratic incumbent—likely referencing Rep. Henry Cuellar—who “ran 6 points ahead of Kamala Harris last fall.”
Elsewhere, Democrats in New York and California are scrambling to counter Republican gains by seeking to amend state constitutions and permit redistricting outside the usual census cycle. But, as Rove explained, these efforts face steep hurdles. In California, Governor Gavin Newsom “would need to first get legislation through his very pliant democratic Legislature, which he can do. But then he would have to go to the voters in November and get them to retroactively remove the provision from the constitution and validate his plan, and that’s a very big uphill climb.” In New York, Governor Kathy Hochul’s plans are stymied by constitutional prohibitions against mid-decade redistricting.
Political tensions have even spilled out of the legislative chambers. Texas Democrats, in a dramatic move, fled the state to block a vote approving additional House seats. Their absence prompted Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) to urge the FBI to ensure lawmakers return under threat of legal recourse. President Trump, for his part, said the FBI “may have to” get involved, claiming GOP officials are “entitled” to more representatives from Texas.
Despite the partisan warfare, Wang and Crayton agree that lasting reform will require Congressional action. Wang told ABC News that “public opinion has consistently shown that constituents seek fair maps regardless of their political affiliations.” He added, “If Congress were to really pursue it, it could be bipartisan and get a lot of support. And we’ve seen it work.”
For now, the fight over America’s political boundaries continues, with each side pushing the limits of what’s possible—and voters left to navigate a landscape where the lines are anything but clear.
