- September 04, 2026
- By John Tucker
- Illustration by Valerie Morgan
STATES’ GERRYMANDERED congressional maps have always looked like they were drawn by a preschooler wielding an Etch A Sketch. This year, it seems the youngster downed a king-size bag of Skittles first.
Texas and California recently redrew their districts in hopes of scooping up five seats for Republicans and Democrats, respectively. Virginia, Louisiana, Florida, Alabama, Tennessee and Maryland are among the other states that have punched and counterpunched in “what’s become a bare-knuckles political brawl,” says James Gimpel, professor of government and politics and an expert on redistricting.
Efforts to tilt the U.S. House of Representatives’ razor-thin GOP advantage this November have torpedoed candidacies, caused intra-party schisms and confused voters.
In a conversation with Terp, Gimpel explains what this means for the electorate now and later, and why he still has hope for democracy.
James Gimpel
How did we get here?
Traditionally, states have redrawn their maps every decade to maintain population balance while politicians have claimed high-mindedness—that redistricting promotes fairness and representation. In truth, there’s always been bias among state legislatures.
What’s changed is that the Supreme Court began rejecting gerrymandering-related lawsuits, sending decisions back to the states. As a result, the mask is off: There’s no longer any doubt that this is about using political power for partisan advantage.
What should we make of the Supreme Court’s decision eliminating race-conscious districting?
The Court argues that things have progressed since the civil rights era—that its decision is a step toward race neutrality and formal equality. But it’s reasonable and historically grounded for people, including those steeped in the history of voting rights, to be upset. Progress has been made in some places much more than in others. In the short term, we will see fewer Black members in Congress and lower-level legislatures.
If state legislatures remain partisan, won’t U.S. districts, too?
There’s truth to that. More continuity in party control means less competitive districts going forward. But even though redistricting can tilt the field, it’s not destiny. Let’s say a Democratic legislature redraws its map to gain a seat, but in doing so, the other blue districts go from a 60% to 55% majority. Suddenly, that 5% edge might not be enough to win, depending on voter turnout and Independents. In the long term, I think we’ll still have seats with a 45-55 split that go back and forth.
Does partisan redistricting hurt democracy?
Yes. Ideally, we’d like to give voters some choice. There are still some reformers who say, “Let’s live out our higher standards.” But right now, most Democrats say, “Dang, we can’t afford to do that. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” The key takeaway, though, is that favored candidates can still lose. The best thing for people to do is get out and vote. If anything can overcome a redistricting bias, it’s an electorate that’s not discouraged.
UMD Centers Civics
The Maryland Democracy Initiative, UMD’s hub for research, teaching and learning about civic engagement, is hot on its own kind of campaign trail this fall. Its projects include:
- Creating voter guides with info on Maryland candidates running for school boards and state and federal offices.
- Surveying Maryland voters on their satisfaction with how elections are conducted.
- Training middle school teachers on how to teach civics.
Find out more at mdi.umd.edu.
Issue
Fall 2026Types
Explorations