The redistricting challenges of 2026 call for a permanent solution. While nonpartisan redistricting commissions are popular, they are not enough. The real answer might involve a more radical change.
Due to conflicts over redistricting during the decade and changes to the Voting Rights Act by the Supreme Court, the number of competitive U.S. House districts may drop to around 22, representing less than 5% of all districts. This reduction could worsen political polarization. Most electoral contests will occur in primaries, propelling extreme candidates and discouraging compromise, which contributes to political stalemates.
The Supreme Court’s stance on partisan and racial gerrymandering has diminished checks on these practices, complicating efforts to ensure fair elections and representation for minorities. One approach is mandating that redistricting be handled by nonpartisan commissions. Currently, at least ten states employ these commissions primarily for drafting congressional redistricting plans. Others use them in either an advisory capacity or as a last resort if legislative impasses occur. However, while improvement is noted, the results vary. In some instances, these commissions deliver better than legislature-drawn maps. Still, issues like partisan bias, secrecy, and dysfunction remain, with courts occasionally rejecting their maps as illegal gerrymanders.
The fundamental problem lies in demographic sorting.
Democrats and minorities often cluster in cities, while Republicans cluster elsewhere. Drawing single-member districts of equal population over these areas creates unintended gerrymandering, a problem that disproportionately affects Democrats. Addressing this in districts of equal population is challenging without compromising other redistricting goals, such as competitive districts or minority representation. Balancing these factors is difficult.
A viable solution is limiting or eliminating the drawing of districts and moving to proportional representation. In winner-takes-all elections, a slight majority can capture all the power, leaving minorities unrepresented. Proportional representation ensures that cohesive groups receive representation proportional to their electoral strength.
Proportional representation is common among industrialized democracies and some U.S. cities. Here, ranked choice voting facilitates it, allowing voters to rank candidates by preference. Cities including New York, San Francisco, as well as states like Maine and Alaska, already practice ranked choice voting. Single transferable vote (STV) is another method. Used in cities like Minneapolis, Portland, and Amherst, Massachusetts, STV holds multiple candidates vying for multiple seats in one election.
If no candidate secures enough votes, the weakest is eliminated, and their votes are redistributed based on voter preferences. If a candidate wins enough votes, excess votes are similarly redistributed. This continues until all seats fill, providing more proportional outcomes for racial and ethnic minorities.
The Fair Representation Act, a pending bill in Congress, advocates for STV in the U.S. House. States would run STV elections at-large if they have up to five House seats, eliminating districts and gerrymandering. For states with more seats, a few multimember districts would exist, each electing three to five House members using STV. This would minimize districting and gerrymandering potential.
Proportional representation could assist Democrats in Republican strongholds like Mississippi and Republicans in Democrat strongholds like Massachusetts. It also removes the spoiler issue, as votes can transfer to alternate choices. Furthermore, it opens doors for lesser-known and third-party candidates, increasing competition and voter turnout.
If Democrats regain control of Congress, prioritizing redistricting reform makes strategic sense. The political landscape currently favors Republicans, urging Democrats to consider reforms that secure both party gains and minority representation. Abandoning single-member districts could be in their broad, long-term interest.
Steven Mulroy is the author of “Rethinking U.S. Election Law: Unskewing The System.” He has experience as a voting rights litigator, law professor, and currently serves as district attorney for Memphis and Shelby County, Tennessee.
Leave a Reply