Both parties' shameless redistricting ploys may poison midterms | Opinion

Gerrymandering is dominating political debate right now, and for good reason. The outcome of the 2026 midterms could hinge on which party is able to redraw congressional districts most aggressively in key states.

Gerrymandering, the practice of manipulating electoral boundaries to advantage one political party, has long been a fixture of American politics. But today’s fight is not simply about partisan mapmaking. It is about the growing willingness of both parties to abandon the norms that once constrained it.

Both Republicans and Democrats would prefer that voters believe the other side started this escalation. Each presents its own actions as justified retaliation. In reality, neither party can credibly claim the moral high ground.

The current battle is happening not because one side suddenly opposes gerrymandering on principle, but because the traditional boundaries governing redistricting are breaking down.

Gerrymandering isn't new, but partisans are becoming more shameless about it

President Donald Trump and his allies have taken a wrecking ball to the norms surrounding redistricting by successfully pushing for a new congressional map in Texas ahead of November's midterm elections.

That decision was highly unusual. Congressional districts are generally redrawn once every 10 years following the Census, not mid-decade for overt partisan gain. By aggressively pursuing a new map outside that traditional process, Republicans shattered long-standing expectations surrounding when and how redistricting should occur.

The response from Democrats was equally extraordinary, with several Democratic-controlled states scrambling to redraw their own boundaries before November in retaliation.

Gerrymandering itself is nothing new. Partisan maps have existed for decades in states across the country, often with little national outrage. What is changing is not the existence of gerrymandering, but the increasing shamelessness with which both parties pursue it.

For years, mutual deterrence and institutional norms imposed at least some restraint. Politicians preferred to obscure their role in partisan mapmaking rather than openly celebrate it. Trump’s explicit push for a mid-decade redraw in Texas, aimed at preserving Republican majorities in Congress, marks a significant escalation in that erosion.

The reason gerrymandering is commanding so much attention now is that the norms surrounding it are being openly violated.

By norms, I mean the informal institutional restraints that govern how political power is typically exercised, even when more aggressive actions may be legally permissible. As voters in both parties become increasingly anti-establishment, their tolerance for abandoning those restraints has grown.

Republicans have shown that willingness through their embrace of Trump-backed schemes like mid-decade redistricting in Texas. Democrats have demonstrated it through escalating calls to pack the Supreme Court.

Gerrymandering has long persisted, but political norms and mutual deterrence historically imposed at least some limits. If either party pushed too aggressively or too far outside accepted boundaries, retaliation from the other side served as a powerful check.

Until now, that deterrent effect helped prevent the kind of overt escalation we are increasingly seeing.

Gerrymandering has long been a dirty word, and politicians typically pretend they have no hand in it.

That dynamic is changing. Republicans have grown more willing to openly pursue aggressive redistricting in the name of electoral success, while Democrats increasingly justify similar actions as necessary responses.

Gerrymandering is destructive, even when it attracts less attention

The Democratic response has been extreme and unapologetic. In Virginia, voters approved a referendum supporting mid-decade redistricting before the state’s supreme court intervened. Meanwhile, the governors of California and Illinois threatened to gerrymander their own maps, with California successfully implementing their new map. 

These responses underscore an uncomfortable reality: Democrats may condemn Republican escalation, but they cannot credibly claim moral superiority on the issue.

California and Illinois were already home to some of the nation’s most aggressive partisan maps. Their outrage over Texas’ mid-decade maneuver is less a principled stand against gerrymandering than opposition to a tactic now being used more aggressively by their political opponents.

In the country’s most progressive states, Democratic voters have long shown greater tolerance for aggressive gerrymanders when framed as necessary political resistance. But those maps are no less destructive to democratic legitimacy than the newer Republican examples now drawing national outrage.

Both parties use gerrymandering when it serves them. The reason this debate is intensifying now is not because either side holds the moral high ground, but because the political landscape has changed.

Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.