Elias: Court's Partisan Voting Rights Decision Means Democrats Must Gerrymander to Save Democracy
In an era of maximum political warfare, unilateral disarmament and half measures will not succeed in the face of the right-wing push to end representation of minority communities across the nation.
By Marc Elias /Democracy Docket
For years, we have been watching a slow chipping away of voting rights in our country.
This is not only because of a conservative Supreme Court. It is part of a well-funded plan by Republicans to change voting rules to ensure they can win and hold power even as they grow more unpopular.
Extreme gerrymandering and mid-cycle redistricting were not Trump’s first tactic to rig the midterms, and it won’t be his last. It is, however, likely to set off a cascade of more extreme measures.
That is because redistricting is, in nearly every respect, a zero-sum game. When you remove a guardrail, the consequences are immediate and trigger others. A state can change a voting law that disproportionately affects one party or the other. But with redistricting, the effects are immediate and run entirely in one party’s favor.
The only way to stop it is through effective deterrence or reform.
“An era of maximum warfare.” Last July, shortly after Donald Trump first pressured Texas to redraw its congressional map to add five more Republican seats, I advocated for the former.
Democrats, I argued publicly, should respond by gerrymandering 15 to 20 seats in states they controlled. I later increased that number to 30.
Republicans made clear they would not be deterred by Democrats simply matching them seat for seat. The only way to stop them was to make clear that Democrats will go further than they will — and mean it.
In recent months, Democrats have done exactly that. The decision to redraw the Virginia map to flip four seats from red to blue was a game changer. For the first time, it put Republicans in the position of playing catch-up. As Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries put it, “we are in an era of maximum warfare, everywhere, all the time.”
It has been working. Pundits started writing that Democrats might benefit from the back and forth. A handful of Republicans began discussing a national ban on gerrymandering.
Then, last week came the Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais. In an instant, everything changed.
Looking to the future. One of my favorite sayings about politics is borrowed from economist Rüdiger Dornbusch: “Things take longer to happen than you think they will, and then they happen faster than you thought they could.”
We are clearly now in the “faster than you thought” phase. The race to gerrymander is accelerating at a dizzying pace.
Just in the last few days, more than a half-dozen states have indicated an intention to redraw their congressional lines to disempower minority voters in order to gain Republican seats. This number is sure to grow.
I have already announced that my law firm will sue any state that tries to use this decision to trample on the legal or constitutional rights of its citizens. Indeed, we have already filed lawsuits and new legal briefs in existing cases to do just that.
But here is the truth: while we will do everything possible to stave this off for 2026, that will become increasingly difficult for 2028 and 2030. By the time states are required to redraw maps after the 2030 census, I fear the entire redistricting process will be near collapse.
Unconstrained by any requirement to ensure minority voting rights, high-powered computers will generate maps optimized for partisan outcomes. With mid-cycle redistricting the new normal, lines will be adjusted every two years to ensure that population shifts do not undo the gerrymander.
Republican-controlled states will split cities into multiple pieces to prevent them from wielding any electoral power.
Minority communities will be dispersed and disempowered simply on the grounds that they are more likely to vote for Democrats. Millions of voters will be silenced by GOP operatives wielding a computer and an algorithm.
Democrats cannot afford to combat this with half measures. When California redistricted to match Texas, it sought only five seats. Crucially, it only lifted the ban on gerrymandering until the next census redraw.
To prevent Republican authoritarianism, California and other blue states will need to completely dismantle state obstacles to partisan map drawing — and they must be willing to follow Virginia Democrats’ example of going all in.
Unilateral disarmament won’t work. I do not relish what comes next. But I will not hide from it either. Democrats support a nationwide ban on partisan and mid-cycle redistricting. If Republicans feel threatened enough to come to the table, then perhaps we can achieve it.
But we are not there yet. Until we are, we cannot unilaterally disarm. We cannot abide by norms that Trump and his party gleefully trample upon. We must use every tool available to fight for every seat, in every state, in every cycle.
Put simply: right now, Democrats must gerrymander to save democracy.
Celebrated voting rights attorney Marc Elias if the founder of Democracy Docket. Subscribe here.
Can a resident of Virginia sue the Virginia Supreme Court for its recent decision to disenfranchise the majority of Virginians who voted for Redistricting? Using a contorted definition of election to challenge the timing of the referendum seems like something we should fight.
Wrong: “Democrats must gerrymander to save democracy.” Gerrymandering is manipulative. Rather, to save our representative Republic, — we’re not a democracy — Democrats must become better informed regarding how corrupt and wasteful government is, start thinking and acting independently rather than continue to seek personal security and belonging as part of a group controlled by self-serving career politicians and bureaucrats. Independent thinking requires research, work and self-confidence.