The upcoming Supreme Court case Louisiana v. Callais has reignited the debate over whether race can — or should — play a role in how electoral districts are drawn. For decades, the Voting Rights Act has been interpreted to require race-conscious districting in certain circumstances, while the Constitution demands that government treat all citizens equally, without regard to race. Those two doctrines are now on a collision course.
But the cleanest and most principled answer is straightforward: all gerrymandering — racial, partisan, or otherwise — should be illegal. Districts should be drawn using objective, mathematical criteria: equal population, contiguity, compactness, and simple geometric boundaries. Representation should flow from geography and population, not political engineering or demographic manipulation.
In that ideal system, there would be no need for race-based districts because no one would be manipulating maps to entrench advantage or suppress representation. The same mathematical principles that prevent partisan gerrymandering would also prevent racial gerrymandering, removing human bias from the process altogether.
But America does not live in that world.
Both major parties have perfected the art of gerrymandering to protect incumbents and maintain power — from Illinois to North Carolina, from Texas to Maryland. The result is a patchwork of distorted representation, created so politicians can pick their voters, instead of voters picking their politicians. Within this context, singling out the Voting Rights Act’s limited use of race as the primary problem misrepresents the issue. The VRA’s race-conscious provisions were meant to counter a history of racial exclusion, not to create partisan advantage.
Still, the ultimate goal should be a system where no one — not legislators, judges, nor advocacy groups — draws lines based on who they believe will win. Once all gerrymandering is eliminated and replaced with transparent, mathematically generated maps, race-based districting will naturally become unnecessary. Equality would no longer depend on who holds the pen but on the neutral application of arithmetic and geography.
Until that day arrives, it is disingenuous to argue for “color-blind” districting while tolerating the most flagrant partisan gerrymanders in the country. True neutrality must be universal. The right answer is not to weaken the Voting Rights Act; it is to abolish gerrymandering altogether. Only then can we restore public confidence that elected officials represent their communities, not the mapmakers who protect them.
The path Forward: How Reform Can Actually Happen
Saying “end gerrymandering” is easy. Making it happen is not. The most comprehensive solution would be for Congress to enact a national anti-gerrymandering law, explicitly prohibiting the use of political or demographic data when drawing congressional and legislative maps. Such a law would create uniform fairness across all 50 states and ensure that every voter’s voice carries equal weight.
However, given today’s political gridlock, a federal solution is unlikely. That does not mean the principles of fairness and neutrality should be abandoned. The same standards — objective, mathematical, and transparent — can and should be applied state by state, through legislation or citizen-led initiatives that ensure maps are based on population and geography, not party interests.
Districts should also, when feasible, respect existing county and municipal boundaries. Breaking up local communities should be avoided whenever possible — but not at the expense of fairness or accuracy. Compact, contiguous, and population-balanced districts that reflect natural and civic geography should be the standard, minimizing distortion while ensuring equal representation.
To further build trust, states may also consider the use of an independent redistricting counsel or commission as an additional safeguard. While not necessary, this approach allows neutral experts and citizen representatives to review and validate the process, helping to prevent manipulation behind closed doors. Whether or not states choose this route, the process should be fully transparent — open data, public map submissions, and visible scoring systems based on fairness metrics.
That is why incremental, state-based cooperation may provide the most-practical path forward. In a recent RealClearPolitics article titled “How to Broker a Gerrymandering Ceasefire,” Andy Jackson, director of the John Locke Foundation’s Civitas Center for Public Integrity, proposes a creative mechanism: the use of reciprocal or “trigger” laws between states with opposing partisan control. Under this model, a state like North Carolina could pass an anti-gerrymandering statute that only takes effect when another state — such as Illinois or California — does the same.
This “trigger” mechanism eliminates the fear of unilateral disarmament. No state would be surrendering its partisan advantage alone. Instead, both sides would agree to step back simultaneously, creating a mutual ceasefire. The idea borrows from arms control: one side doesn’t destroy its stockpile unless the other agrees to do the same.
Such a system could start small — with just a few willing states — and gradually expand. As citizens see that neutral maps produce more competitive and representative elections, public pressure would grow for broader adoption. Over time, transparency and fairness could spread from the states upward, rather than waiting for Washington to lead.
Why Both Sides Should Care
Gerrymandering is not a Republican issue or a Democratic issue — it is an incumbent-protection racket. Today’s winners use it to lock in power; tomorrow’s losers will do the same when the balance shifts. The real casualty is democracy itself.
When legislators choose their voters instead of voters choosing their legislators, trust in the system erodes. It breeds polarization, cynicism, and extremism. Safe districts produce safe candidates — those who fear only a primary challenge, not the judgment of the general electorate. The result is a Congress and state legislature full of loyal partisans, not independent problem-solvers.
A Call for Courage
Ending gerrymandering is not just about better maps — it’s about political courage. It requires leaders willing to put country over party, fairness over control, and democracy over convenience.
Legislators, reformers, and citizens of all stripes should support efforts that move us toward that goal — whether through statewide reforms, reciprocal trigger laws, or optional independent commissions that ensure accountability.
The path forward is clear. The only honest way to achieve equality and accountability in our democracy is to end gerrymandering entirely.
