Gerrymander All You Want. Democrats Will Still Lose.

Democrats can't win a gerrymandering war. Fight back everywhere, gerrymander every map they control as aggressively as Republicans do, and they still lose by 18 to 24 House seats.

The Supreme Court heard arguments last week in Louisiana v. Callais, a case expected to eliminate the last federal constraint on partisan redistricting. Most Democrats have responded by demanding aggressive counter-gerrymandering. California Governor Gavin Newsom proposed Proposition 50, the "Election Rigging Response Act," which California voters will decide on November 4, 2025. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries urged Illinois to draw more partisan maps. Their logic is reasonable: if Republicans can gerrymander without limits, Democrats should too.

Republicans are pursuing unprecedented mid-decade redistricting in 2025. Texas passed new maps in September 2025 targeting five additional Republican seats in Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio. Missouri enacted maps shifting the delegation from 6-2 to 7-1 Republican. Ohio must redraw by November 2025 and discussions suggest a shift from the current 10-5 to potentially 12-3 or 13-2. Indiana Republicans are exploring similar changes. Across GOP-controlled states, Republicans could gain 9 to 15 additional seats through this mid-decade push.

Democrats could gain 7 seats total if everything breaks their way. California's Proposition 50 would target 5 additional Democratic seats by temporarily suspending the state's independent redistricting commission. Illinois might squeeze out one more. Maryland could push harder on its current 7-1 map. But California requires voter approval to overturn a constitutional amendment that 61% of Californians supported in 2010.

American Oligarch Charles Munger Jr., who spent more than $12 million to create California's independent commission, has pledged to spend heavily to defend it. New York's constitution explicitly prohibits partisan gerrymandering. Colorado and Michigan have independent commissions. Even in the best case scenario where California voters approve partisan maps, Democrats face constraints Republicans simply don't.

It's also critical to note that Courts strike down Democratic gerrymanders while letting Republican ones stand. New York's aggressive 2022 map was thrown out by state courts. Maryland's 2022 congressional map was struck down by a state judge who ordered the legislature to redraw it within a week.

Meanwhile, Texas and Florida successfully defended equally aggressive Republican maps after years of litigation, with Florida's map upheld by the state Supreme Court in July 2025. Ohio presents the starkest example: the state Supreme Court struck down Republican maps twice in 2022 as unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders, yet the maps were used anyway as temporary four-year maps "due to time constraints."

The difference isn't legal principle, it's that the current system has Democrats playing by rules that Republicans simply ignore.

Republican-controlled state courts protect Republican gerrymanders, while Democrats face more independent judiciaries and stricter state constitutional provisions. When the refs work for one team, calling for fair play just means you lose with better manners.

California created its independent citizens commission through Proposition 11 in 2008 and Proposition 20 in 2010. Colorado adopted a similar system through ballot measures in 2018. Michigan voters approved an independent commission in 2018. These reforms were Democratic priorities, sold as good government measures to end gerrymandering. They worked. They also unilaterally disarmed Democrats in three large states totaling 73 House seats. Now California Democrats are asking voters to rightfully abandon those principles, and even if voters agree, it only partially closes a gap that shouldn't exist in the first place.

The evidence suggests that the federal government of the United States is intentionally and fully tilted to grant substantial advantage to the Republican party.

This is demonstrated when we observe that Republicans grant no such voting constraints. In states they control, legislatures draw maps with total partisan control. When courts intervene, Republican legislatures simply redraw slightly different maps that accomplish the same goals, or ignore them entirely. Republicans are playing to win.

The cycle repeats until courts give up or Republicans get maps close enough to their targets. Democrats thought they were establishing fair principles. Republicans understood they were playing a different game.

Even in a world with zero gerrymandering, Democrats start down 8 seats according to peer-reviewed research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Democratic voters cluster in urban areas, producing 30-40 point victories in city districts. Republican voters spread more evenly across suburban and rural areas, producing 10-15 point victories across more districts.

In 2012, Obama won more than 70 percent of the vote in 61 House districts. Romney hit that threshold in only 19 districts. Democrats hold 87 of the 100 most densely populated districts. Republicans hold 73 of the 100 most geographically sprawling districts. This concentration pattern reflects where people choose to live. Single-member districts amplify its effects.

You can gerrymander to make this worse or better, but you can't eliminate the underlying geographic reality: Democratic votes pile up inefficiently in urban cores while Republican votes distribute more advantageously across space.

So what do you do when the math, the institutions, and the geography all stack against you?

One example of effective response is the U.S. Climate Alliance, which coordinates 24 governors representing 60 percent of the American economy. Another example is Hawaii, Washington, California, and Oregon’s healthcare alliance to coordinate policy and purchasing power across state lines.

States are even discussing further interstate compacts joined with compulsory requirements that businesses divert federal tax withholdings to state escrow accounts to ensure funds are only released when the federal government complies with measures to ensure they are not committing fraud, waste, abuse, or misappropriation of funds. These policies are the foundation of "soft secession."

So yes, vote for Proposition 50 in California. Gerrymander in Illinois and Maryland. Push the maps as hard as the law allows. Extract those 7 additional Democratic seats if California voters approve. But recognize this effort for what it is if it's unaccompanied: losing a rigged game. You're still down 18 to 24 seats after maximizing every advantage. You're still fighting in a system where geography, institutions, and sheer numbers favor Republicans.

The real solution isn't winning their game. When the Supreme Court makes fair representation impossible and the axiomatic facts of the U.S. Senate and redistricting stack against real representation, the answer isn't trying harder at a game you can't win.

Federal dysfunction stops mattering when states provide healthcare, economic security, and infrastructure independently. Republican obstruction becomes noise when blue state compacts create their own governing structures. Democrats should gerrymander everywhere they legally can. They should also recognize that gerrymandering won't save them, and keep building the parallel systems that will.

If you found this article helpful then you may find more useful information in my latest book “Conservatism: America's Personality Disorder”

https://a.co/d/bEtgrjs

References

Astudillo, C. (2025, August 18). Texas redistricting map: How the GOP could increase its stronghold. The Texas Tribune. https://www.texastribune.org/2025/08/18/texas-redistricting-maps-charts-analysis/

Boston.com. (2024, November 8). Healey says Mass. won't cooperate with mass deportations. https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2024/11/08/massachusetts-governor-maura-healey-state-wont-cooperate-mass-deportations/

Brennan Center for Justice. (2022, June). What went wrong with New York's redistricting. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/what-went-wrong-new-yorks-redistricting

Brennan Center for Justice. (2025). Redistricting litigation roundup. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/redistricting-litigation-roundup-0

California Department of Finance. (2025, January). Governor's Budget 2025-26. https://ebudget.ca.gov/FullBudgetSummary.pdf

CalMatters. (2025, August 21). 5 things to know about Newsom's California redistricting. https://calmatters.org/politics/2025/08/california-redistricting-things-to-know/

CNN. (2022, March 25). Maryland court strikes down Democratic-drawn congressional map. https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/25/politics/maryland-congressional-map-redistricting/

CNN. (2025, September 9). Missouri House enacts new US House maps that seek to erase a Democratic seat. https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/09/politics/missouri-redistricting

The Conversation. (2025, February). From opposing robber barons to the New Deal to desegregation to DOGE, state attorneys general have long taken on Washington. https://theconversation.com/from-opposing-robber-barons-to-the-new-deal-to-desegregation-to-doge-state-attorneys-general-have-long-taken-on-washington-250758

Court News Ohio. (2022, July 19). Court invalidates second congressional map. https://www.courtnewsohio.gov/cases/2022/SCO/0719/220298_220303.asp

Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. (1994). Banking on the government. https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/1994/banking-on-the-government

Indiana Capital Chronicle. (2025, August 18). Indiana's House GOP congressional contingent lines up behind redistricting effort. https://indianacapitalchronicle.com/2025/08/18/indiana-house-republicans-weigh-redistricting-in-closed-door-caucus/

Kenny, C. T., McCartan, C., Simko, T., Kuriwaki, S., & Imai, K. (2023). Widespread partisan gerrymandering mostly cancels nationally, but reduces electoral competition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(25), e2217322120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2217322120

Kondik, K., & Skelley, G. (2013, May 23). Size matters. Sabato's Crystal Ball, University of Virginia Center for Politics. https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/size-matters/

Li, M., & Leaverton, C. (2024). How gerrymandering tilts the 2024 race for the House. Brennan Center for Justice. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-gerrymandering-tilts-2024-race-house

Schultz, L., & Holland, L. (2024). New York's balance of payments with the federal government. Rockefeller Institute of Government. https://rockinst.org/issue-area/new-yorks-balance-of-payments-with-the-federal-government-2024/

U.S. Climate Alliance. (n.d.). Who we are. https://www.usclimatealliance.org/who-we-are