Sep 24, 2024 Story by: Editor
In the upcoming November election, Americans will face a tight race for the House of Representatives, where a slim majority is possible for either party, according to recent polls. However, Republicans appear to have an advantage due to state-level gerrymandering practices.
In 2022, Congress nearly approved the Freedom to Vote Act, a substantial democracy reform bill aimed at eliminating partisan gerrymandering in congressional districts. Although it passed in the House and had Senate support, the act failed to move forward due to the Senate’s reluctance to alter filibuster rules by a narrow margin of two votes.
As it stands, without this reform, states have varying approaches to drawing district maps, creating inconsistencies. While both parties have engaged in gerrymandering post-2020 census, the Brennan Center estimates that Republican-led gerrymandering in the South and Midwest grants Republicans an approximate 16-seat advantage in the 2024 House race, compared to what fairer maps would provide.
Despite this advantage, the GOP’s gains aren’t unbeatable. Fairer maps in other regions and a competitive political climate offer Democrats some chance to regain their majority, particularly in GOP-held districts that are rated as toss-ups. Still, this opportunity is narrower than it would be under universally fair district maps as outlined in the Freedom to Vote Act.
Republican influence over districting persists. This year, Republicans controlled redistricting in 191 districts (44% of the total), whereas Democrats only held control over 75. Courts in states with Republican-led maps, particularly where judges are elected through partisan means, have shown limited intervention in partisan gerrymandering. In contrast, large Democratic-favored maps were adjusted through judicial review, while Republican-leaning maps largely stayed unchanged.
The Brennan Center assessed the impact of gerrymandering this year by comparing current maps with alternatives that would align with the anti-gerrymandering standards in the Freedom to Vote Act. Their analysis highlighted that only 17 states have stringent partisan fairness requirements in place, leaving significant room for potential bias.
Had the Freedom to Vote Act been passed, it would have restricted districts from favoring one party over another. Voters could challenge gerrymandered maps through a two-part court process, using a series of recent election results as a benchmark for partisan bias. If bias was identified, the state would have to defend its map or face legal consequences.
The Brennan Center’s analysis showed that fairer maps are possible. For instance, in Texas, while Democrats hold only 13 of 38 seats, a fair map under the Freedom to Vote Act would provide 18 Democratic seats, better reflecting statewide voting trends. Similarly, Florida’s GOP-drawn map heavily favors Republicans, turning a 16–11 edge into a 20–8 advantage over Democrats, a stark contrast to the 13 Democratic seats that would exist under a compliant map.
Some progress toward fairer maps has been achieved, especially in states like Michigan and Virginia where reforms have helped mitigate gerrymandering. However, partisan control over the process remains prevalent, particularly in the South, where North Carolina’s latest map could result in a severely Republican-leaning delegation, despite the state’s nearly even partisan split.
In conclusion, the analysis emphasizes that without federal standards like those in the Freedom to Vote Act, partisan gerrymandering remains a powerful tool for political advantage. Source: Brennan Center
