by Emma Cosca ‘27

American Elections have never been fair. From gerrymandering to poll taxes and racial exclusion, those in power have always sought to tilt the rules. The Constitution assigns the responsibility of redistricting to state legislatures, with Congress and the courts intervening only to enforce civil rights or preserve the integrity of elections.

By pressuring Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Republican lawmakers to “find five seats” in Texas, President Donald Trump has turned redistricting, a state-based task usually done once a decade, into a national campaign to manufacture a Republican congressional majority before a single ballot is cast.

On July 9, Abbott called for a special session to draw a map more favorable to the Republican party. Texas Rep. Todd Hunter declared on the Texas House floor that “the underlying goal of this plan is straightforward: improve Republican political performance.” On August 29, as he was signing the new Texas congressional map into law, Abbott celebrated that the state is “now more red in the U.S. Congress.”

Their candor might seem reckless. In another era, politicians might have cloaked their motives in neutral language, fearful of lawsuits. But in the 5-4 ruling in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), the Supreme Court decided that federal courts could not intervene to stop partisan gerrymandering. This has created a new strategy: by loudly emphasizing that their maps are drawn for partisan advantage, politicians insulate themselves against lawsuits claiming racial discrimination.

The effects are stark. Vince Perez, Rep. for House District 77 in El Paso, said that with the new map, “it would take roughly 445,000 white residents to secure one member of Congress, but about 1.4 million Latino residents and 2 million Black residents to secure the same.” Politicians can argue that even though a map seemingly disenfranchises people of color, it is mere political coincidence.

Texas is hardly alone. At President Trump’s insistence, Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe called lawmakers into a special session. Republicans in Indiana, Missouri, and Florida have discussed reworking their maps ahead of the 2026 midterms. Democrats have responded, with California Gov. Gavin Newsom leading the charge by proposing a statewide ballot to allow mid-decade redistricting. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has proposed exploring options to redraw state lines, and Maryland and Illinois have suggested similar moves.

When one party makes an unprecedented move to manipulate the makeup of the U.S. House of Representatives, the opposition party has little choice but to retaliate. Yet, this is no real fight. It is a race to the bottom, where the weapons are district maps and the casualties are voters.

Gerrymandering is nothing new, but federalizing it is. When a president treats congressional seats as bargaining chips, the public is correct to feel their voices are slipping away. A democracy that allows its leaders to choose their voters is a democracy in name only. If presidents can engineer congressional maps through pressure campaigns on governors and statehouses, then no district lines are secure, no rules are stable, and no election is fair.

Legality should be the floor, not the ceiling, in elections. Almost all these redistricting moves are technically legal, but legality alone is far from ethical. If Americans want better, it will not come from courts or legislatures. It must come from voters, across party lines, who demand a system where elections reflect the will of the people, not the power plays of politicians.