Gerrymandering gives Republicans a 16-seat head start in the House.

([link removed])

Gerrymandering is as old as the republic. In the very first congressional election, Patrick Henry drew a map to try to keep James Madison from being elected to Congress. (That was before the word “gerrymandering” was even coined.) Today, both parties do it with gusto when they can.

And now gerrymandering may decide control of the House of Representatives.

Once, gerrymandering was an art. Phillip Burton, the legendary Democratic House member from San Francisco who served from the 1960s to the 1980s, used to draw the state’s maps on a tablecloth at a Sacramento restaurant. He proudly called one misshapen district “my contribution to modern art.” Now, however, it’s a science. Digital technology has reshaped the drawing of maps. Partisans can craft districts to quash competition in a way that lasts throughout a decade.

Once, there was hope the courts would step in. In 2019, however, the Supreme Court ruled that federal judges were barred from policing partisan gerrymandering. And while it is still illegal to draw district lines to discriminate based on race, judges have often winked and allowed politicians to racially gerrymander so long as they shrug and say, “It’s not about race. It’s just politics.”

Rampant district rigging has blocked fair representation in many states, especially in the South. Nearly all the population growth in the United States over the past decade took place in the South and Southwest, and most of that came from communities of color — the very voters who should be represented and who are being shut out of power.

Now, we know that there are direct partisan consequences too. All the map drawing, all the lawsuits, are done for 2024. The dust has settled. And the Brennan Center’s experts have analyzed the effects of gerrymandering. Attorney Michael Li and political scientist Peter Miller have checked and rechecked the data.

Here’s what they found: gerrymandering in 2024 will give Republicans approximately 16 additional seats in the House of Representatives compared to fairly drawn maps. That is well more than the margin of control in this Congress or in the one before it. There can be no question that this was done deliberately and with scientific precision — and comes especially at the expense of communities of color. In most of the gerrymandered states, there were hundreds or thousands of fair maps that could have been drawn.

What can be done about it?

One answer comes from Ohio. Seven times, the state supreme court there struck down unfair maps drawn by the Republicans. (The Brennan Center represented a broad coalition of Ohio voters.) Each time, partisan map drawers simply ignored the court. Then the state’s esteemed Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor, a prominent Republican, retired due to term limits. Now she leads a statewide drive for a ballot measure to create a strong, independent, citizen-led redistricting commission. This conservative stalwart teamed up with the progressive grassroots Ohio Organizing Collaborative. It’s a buddy movie for the ages.

Republicans tried to change the number of votes needed to pass a measure like this, but citizens rejected that sneaky move. Then state officials rewrote the language to say that the initiative was designed to support gerrymandering. No matter. Polls look strong, and there is a good chance that in Ohio, voters will untilt the legislature and congressional maps. Ohio would join Arizona, California, Colorado, and Michigan with their independent commissions. It is a prime exhibit of why voters should be able to overrule politicians.

There’s a national solution too. The Freedom to Vote Act would ban partisan gerrymandering in congressional redistricting. The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act would strengthen that vital law against racially discriminatory rules. Both bills came achingly close to passing in the last Congress.

Sen. Charles Schumer, at a Brennan Center event with Democracy SENTRY in Chicago this summer, announced that Democrats would make these voting rights bills the first order of business — and that they would change the filibuster rules so they could pass. The next night, Vice President Kamala Harris pledged to sign them (the only bills mentioned by name in her convention speech).

Gerrymandering may be as old as the republic, but so is the fight for fair maps. At the constitutional convention in Philadelphia in 1787, James Madison insisted on the provision used to give Congress the power to override local politicians. It used “words of great latitude,” he explained, because “it was impossible to foresee all the abuses” that might come. “Whenever the State Legislatures had a favorite measure to carry, they would take care so to mould their regulations as to favor the candidates they wished to succeed.”

Meanwhile, voters will go to the polls to choose their representatives — but too often, the representatives will choose the voters. And the Congress that would consider reform will be one disfigured by biased rules and manipulative maps.





Bright Spots in FBI Crime Data

The FBI’s latest annual report shows a promising trend: violent crime continued to drop in 2023, including a record-breaking 11.6 percent decline in murders. This data, which comes from police departments covering nearly the entire country, matches consistent predictions by independent experts and cuts against politicized crimes about a crime wave. “Policymakers should use this year’s FBI statistics to identify what policies have helped to reduce crime and work to expand on those gains in the coming year,” Ames Grawert writes. Read more

([link removed])

What’s New for the 2024 Voting Landscape

This year, millions of voters will face new hurdles to voting, while others will benefit from expanded opportunities to vote. The latest edition of our Voting Laws Roundup examines changes to state-level voting and election laws since our last roundup in May and since the 2020 presidential election. Notably, at least 29 states — including four battleground states — will have new restrictive voting laws in effect this fall, and at least 41 states plus Washington, DC, will have new expansive laws in place. Read more

([link removed])

How to Help Students Vote

More than 8 million young Americans could cast their first presidential votes this fall, and many will do so on college campuses. With students often registering from different states and displaying different voting patterns than the general public, it’s essential for election officials and campus leaders to work together to address potential challenges. “With everyone’s collaboration, students have a greater chance of having a smooth voting experience,” Jiyoon Park and Marina Pino write in Forbes. Read more

([link removed])

Looking to the States for Guidance on SCOTUS Term Limits

Adopting term limits for Supreme Court justices is far from a radical idea. Not only does it have overwhelming public support, but limited terms are already standard practice for state justices in all states but one. Our comprehensive analysis of the rules for state supreme courts

([link removed])

tallies which ones have fixed terms, mandatory retirement ages, and more. The effects are clear: On average, since 1970, state justices have served an average of 13 years, half as long as the average of 26 years on the bench for U.S. Supreme Court justices.

For those concerned that term limits would affect judicial independence, a new essay by former Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Barbara Pariente offers reassurance that they wouldn’t. Her 26 years on the state bench taught her that there are far more effective safeguards for maintaining a fair judicial system than lifetime tenure, such as an enforceable ethics code and financial disclosure requirements. Read more

([link removed])

A Win for Texas Voters

This week, a federal judge struck down a portion of Texas’s comprehensive voter suppression law that criminalized community organizations’ efforts to help people vote by mail. The judge ruled that the provision created a fear of prosecution that interfered with these groups’ ability to assist mail voters, who tend to be older, have disabilities, or lack English proficiency. “While the court has yet to weigh in on the other challenged portions of the law, this ruling marks a significant victory for voters,” Kendall Karson Verhovek writes. Read more

([link removed])

PODCAST: The Experts’ Guide to Free and Fair Elections

Our latest podcast episode is about the reality of election officials' crucial work in the face of the rising misinformation. Panelists share day-to-day challenges and the critical role that they play in protecting democracy. Listen on Spotify

([link removed])

, Apple Podcasts

([link removed])

, or your favorite podcast platform

([link removed])



Coming Up

VIRTUAL EVENT: The Fight Against Originalism Continues

([link removed])

Wednesday, October 2, 1–2 p.m. ET

In its last term, the Supreme Court undermined the federal government’s power to solve problems and the public’s ability to hold their political leaders accountable. Meanwhile, in lower courts around the country, judges are dealing with a deluge of cases under the Court’s new history-based rules about abortion, guns, and affirmative action. Where does the fight against originalism stand now, and what’s in store? Join us for a live virtual event as leading historians and Brennan Center experts delve into some of the Court’s most significant recent rulings, how they will shape upcoming legal debates, and how the Court’s originalist opinions are affecting Americans’ lives. RSVP today

([link removed])

Produced in partnership with the Organization of American Historians

Want to keep up with Brennan Center Live events? Subscribe to the events newsletter.

([link removed])





News

Andrew Garber on how restrictive voting laws affect students // INSIDE HIGHER ED

([link removed])

Ames Grawert on how bail systems harm communities of color // PUBLIC NEWS SERVICE

([link removed])

Elizabeth Howard on spotting election misinformation // AXIOS

([link removed])

Michael Li on the effects of gerrymandering on Texas’s elections // HOUSTON CHRONICLE

([link removed])

Feedback on this newsletter? Email us at [email protected]



([link removed])

Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law

120 Broadway, Suite 1750 New York, NY 10271

646-292-8310

tel:646-292-8310

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Support Brennan Center

([link removed]

View Online

[link removed]

Want to change how you receive these emails or unsubscribe? Click here

[link removed]

to update your preferences.

([link removed])

([link removed])

([link removed])

([link removed])

([link removed])

([link removed])

([link removed])