
What is political gerrymandering and is it legal?
Coined over two centuries ago, the term "gerrymander" emerged in the US as a pejorative descriptor for the political manipulation inherent in legislative map-making.
Its continued relevance is a testament to the fiercely competitive nature of American politics, where such tactics remain prevalent.
Who is responsible for gerrymandering?
In many states, like Texas, the state legislature is responsible for drawing congressional districts, subject to the approval or veto of the governor. District maps must be redrawn every 10 years, after each census, to balance the population in districts.
But in some states, nothing prevents legislatures from conducting redistricting more often.
In an effort to limit gerrymandering, some states have entrusted redistricting to special commissions composed of citizens or bipartisan panels of politicians. Democratic officials in some states with commissions are now talking of trying to sidestep them to counter Republican redistricting in Texas.
How does a gerrymander work?
If a political party controls both the legislature and governor's office — or has such a large legislative majority that it can override vetoes — it can effectively draw districts to its advantage.
One common method of gerrymandering is for a majority party to draw maps that pack voters who support the opposing party into a few districts, thus allowing the majority party to win a greater number of surrounding districts.
Another common method is for the majority party to dilute the power of an opposing party's voters by spreading them among multiple districts.
Why is it called gerrymandering?
The term dates to 1812, when Massachusetts Gov. Elbridge Gerry signed a bill redrawing state Senate districts to benefit the Democratic-Republican Party. Some thought an oddly shaped district looked like a salamander. A newspaper illustration dubbed it 'The Gerry-mander' — a term that later came to describe any district drawn for political advantage. Gerry lost re-election as governor in 1812 but won election that same year as vice president with President James Madison.
Is political gerrymandering illegal?
Not under the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court, in a 2019 case originating from North Carolina, ruled that federal courts have no authority to decide whether partisan gerrymandering goes too far. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: 'The Constitution supplies no objective measure for assessing whether a districting map treats a political party fairly.'
The Supreme Court noted that partisan gerrymandering claims could continue to be decided in state courts under their own constitutions and laws. But some state courts, including North Carolina's highest court, have ruled that they also have no authority to decide partisan gerrymandering claims.
Are there any limits on redistricting?
Yes. Though it's difficult to challenge legislative districts on political grounds, the Supreme Court has upheld challenges on racial grounds. In a 2023 case from Alabama, the high court said the congressional districts drawn by the state's Republican-led Legislature likely violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the voting strength of Black residents. The court let a similar claim proceed in Louisiana. Both states subsequently redrew their districts.
What does data show about gerrymandering?
Statisticians and political scientists have developed a variety of ways to try to quantify the partisan advantage that may be attributable to gerrymandering.
Republicans, who control redistricting in more states than Democrats, used the 2010 census data to create a strong gerrymander. An Associated Press analysis of that decade's redistricting found that Republicans enjoyed a greater political advantage in more states than either party had in the past 50 years.
But Democrats responded to match Republican gerrymandering after the 2020 census. The adoption of redistricting commissions also limited gerrymandering in some states. An AP analysis of the 2022 elections — the first under new maps — found that Republicans won just one more U.S. House seat than would have been expected based on the average share of the vote they received nationwide. That was one of the most politically balanced outcomes in years.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
5 minutes ago
- The Independent
Married immigrants trying to get green cards could be deported, new Trump-era guidance says
Immigrants who are married to U.S. citizens have long expected that they won't be deported from the country while going through the process of obtaining a green card. But new guidance from Donald Trump's administration explicitly states that immigrants seeking lawful residence through marriage can be deported, a policy that also applies to immigrants with pending requests. Immigration authorities can begin removal proceedings for immigrants who lack legal status and applied to become a lawful permanent resident through a citizen spouse, according to guidance from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services issued this month. The policy also applies to immigrants with pending green cards through other citizen family members. People who entered the country illegally aren't the only ones impacted. Under new guidance, immigrants trying to get lawful status through a spouse or family member are at risk of being deported if their visas expired, or if they are among the roughly 1 million immigrants whose temporary protected status was stripped from them under the Trump administration. Immigrants and their spouses or family members who sponsor them 'should be aware that a family-based petition accords no immigration status nor does it bar removal,' the policy states. The changes were designed to 'enhance benefit integrity and identify vetting and fraud concerns' and weed out what the agency calls 'fraudulent, frivolous, or non-meritorious' applications, according to USCIS. 'This guidance will improve USCIS' capacity to vet qualifying marriages and family relationships to ensure they are genuine, verifiable, and compliant with all applicable laws,' the agency said in a statement. Those changes, which were filed on August 1, are 'effective immediately,' according to the agency. Within the first six months of 2025, immigrants and their family members filed more than 500,000 I-130 petitions, which are the first steps in the process of obtaining legal residency through a spouse or family member. There are more than 2.4 million pending I-130 petitions, according to USCIS data. Nearly 2 million of those petitions have been pending for more than six months. It is unclear whether those petitions involve immigrants who either lost their legal status or did not have one at the time they filed their documents. Previously, USCIS would notify applicants about missing documents or issue a denial notice serving as a warning that their case could be rejected — with opportunities for redress. Now, USCIS is signaling that applicants can be immediately denied and ordered to immigrant courts instead. Outside of being born in the country, family-based immigration remains the largest and most viable path to permanent residency, accounting for nearly half of all new green card holders each year, according to USCIS data. 'This is one of the most important avenues that people have to adjust to lawful permanent status in the United States,' Elora Mukherjee, director of the Immigrants' Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School, told NBC News. Under long-established USCIS policies, 'no one expected' to be hauled into immigration court while seeking lawful status after a marriage, Mukherjee said. Now, deportation proceedings can begin 'at any point in the process' under the broad scope of the rule changes, which could 'instill fear in immigrant families, even those who are doing everything right,' according to Mukherjee. Obtaining a green card The high-profile arrest and threat of removing Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil put intense scrutiny on whether the administration lawfully targeted a lawful permanent resident for his constitutionally protected speech. And last month, Customs and Border Protection put green card holders on notice, warning that the government 'has the authority to revoke your green card if our laws are broken and abused.' 'In addition to immigration removal proceedings, lawful permanent residents presenting at a U.S. port of entry with previous criminal convictions may be subject to mandatory detention,' the agency said. Another recent USCIS memo outlines the administration's plans to revoke citizenship from children whose parents lack permanent lawful status as well as parents who are legally in the country, including visa holders, DACA recipients and people seeking asylum. The policy appears to preempt court rulings surrounding the constitutionality of the president's executive order that unilaterally redefines who gets to be a citizen in the country at birth. That memo, from the agency's Office of the Chief Counsel, acknowledges that federal court injunctions have blocked the government from taking away birthright citizenship. But the agency 'is preparing to implement' Trump's executive order 'in the event that it is permitted to go into effect,' according to July's memo. Children of immigrants who are 'unlawfully present' will 'no longer be U.S. citizens at birth,' the agency declared. Trump's order states that children whose parents are legally present in the country on student, work and tourist visas are not eligible for citizenship USCIS, however, goes even further, outlining more than a dozen categories of immigrants whose children could lose citizenship at birth despite their parents living in the country with legal permission. That list includes immigrants who are protected against deportation for humanitarian reasons and immigrants from countries with Temporary Protected Status, among others. The 14th Amendment plainly states that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.' The Supreme Court has upheld that definition to apply to all children born within the United States for more than a century. But under the terms of Trump's order, children can be denied citizenship if a mother is undocumented or is temporarily legally in the country on a visa, and if the father isn't a citizen or a lawful permanent resident. More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship every year under Trump's order, according to plaintiffs challenging the president's order. A challenge over Trump's birthright citizenship order at the Supreme Court did not resolve the critical 14th Amendment questions at stake. On Wednesday, government lawyers confirmed plans to 'expeditiously' ask the Supreme Court 'to settle the lawfulness' of his birthright citizenship order later this year.


The Independent
5 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump calls old foe Andrew Cuomo as he considers intervening in NYC mayor's race to thwart Mamdani: report
President Donald Trump took a call with his old foe, Andrew Cuomo, as he considers intervening in New York City 's mayoral race to thwart Democratic front-runner Zohran Mamdani, according to a new report. Trump and the former New York governor, who is running as an independent after losing the Democratic primary to Mamdani, talked about the competitive race in a call made in recent weeks, The New York Times reported Wednesday, citing people briefed on the matter. It's unclear what exactly was discussed in the call or when it exactly happened. Cuomo spokesman Rich Azzopardi told The Independent, 'The Governor and the President have not spoken in some time. As far as I know, they have not discussed the race.' 'There is only one candidate in this race who can effectively defend New York values and take on Donald Trump – the one official who already has: Andrew Cuomo,' Azzopardi said. 'We'll leave the palace intrigue to the gossip mill. In the meantime, Governor Cuomo is out crisscrossing the city, speaking directly to voters about uniting to build a New New York and deliver real change and progress for all.' The Independent has reached out to the White House and Cuomo's campaign for comment. Mamdani, a democratic socialist who has promised rent freezes and free buses if elected, led by 50 percent among likely voters in a new poll. The poll conducted by Public Progress Solutions and Zenith Research last month saw Mandani with 50 percent of the vote and Cuomo with 22 percent of the vote in a five-way race. The incumbent in the race, New York City Mayor Eric Adams, who is running as an independent, trailed in fourth place with 7 percent of the vote. Mamdani polled even stronger in head-to-head race scenarios with Adams, 59 to 32 percent, and Cuomo, 52 to 40 percent. Trump had privately asked a Republican congressman and New York businessmen about who they think has the best chance of beating Mamdani, the NYT reported. He has also been briefed by pollster Mark Penn and his long-time friend, former New York City Council President Andrew Stein, on polling that showed Cuomo as a competitive candidate, according to the publication. While it's unclear if Trump would even interfere in the mayoral race, let alone back Cuomo, a potential alliance between Trump and the former governor would be surprising given their past criticisms of one another. Just this April, Cuomo vowed to stand up to 'bully' Trump in a speech in Harlem, per the New York Post. But Trump has also sparred with Mamdani. Last month, the president threatened to arrest him if he won the election and followed through on his promise to defy Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in New York City. At the time, Mamdani said Trump's 'statements don't just represent an attack on our democracy but an attempt to send a message to every New Yorker who refuses to hide in the shadows: if you speak up, they will come for you. We will not accept this intimidation.' In response to the NYT's reporting, Mamdani told reporters Wednesday: 'Whatever Donald Trump seeks to do to influence the outcome of this election, I have more faith in New Yorkers themselves, who have shown…that they do not want to support our current president's vision of a New York City that is ripping immigrants from their homes, that is detaining New Yorkers on the basis of political expression.' 'What they want is someone who can stand up to an authoritarian administration,' Mamdani added. Cuomo's spokesman suggested Trump would be more interested in Mamdani or the other candidates in the race. 'Regarding his reported interest, it seems clear that President Trump would either prefer Mr. Mamdani, whom he refers to as a 'commie,' because he believes Mamdani would serve as a political boon to Republicans nationwide in the midterms, symbolizing what he sees as the Democratic Party's extremism,' he told The Independent. 'Alternatively, he may favor Eric Adams, who is a wholly owned subsidiary of the President. And there is already a Republican in the race, who is the nominee of President Trump's party.' Curtis Sliwa, founder of the New York City crime prevention group the Guardian Angels, is the Republican nominee for mayor.


The Independent
5 minutes ago
- The Independent
Laura Loomer testified that Bill Maher's joke about her sleeping with Trump torpedoed her chance at White House job
MAGA extremist Laura Loomer recently testified in her $150 million defamation lawsuit against Bill Maher that the HBO star's joke about her sleeping with Donald Trump ended up costing her a position at the White House because of the 'media frenzy' it created. Loomer, the self-annointed Trump 'loyalty' enforcer whose influence with the president has seemingly risen in recent months, sat down for a deposition last week with HBO's attorney. And, as Puck reported, it quickly became 'every bit as unhinged as one might expect.' The lawsuit, which Loomer filed in October of last year, centers on a September 2024 episode of Real Time where the comic suggested that Loomer's sudden ascendance in Trump's orbit was due to the two of them engaging in a sexual liaison. 'I think maybe Laura Loomer's in an arranged relationship to affect the election because she's very close to Trump. She's 31, looks like his type,' Maher quipped. 'We did an editorial here a few years ago… it was basically, who's Trump f***ing? Because I said, you know, it's not nobody. He's been a dog for too long, and it's not Melania. I think we may have our answer this week. I think it might be Laura Loomer.' In her complaint, Loomer alleges that she was subjected to 'unjustified ridicule, embarrassment, loss of reputation and professional opportunity, as well as being damaged financially' by the joke, adding that the comments were 'false, malicious and defamatory.' She also claimed that Maher denied her request for a public apology and an invitation on his show to 'mitigate prior and any further damage.' Maher's joke, meanwhile, came days after Loomer accompanied the then-candidate to a presidential debate and events commemorating the 9/11 attacks, prompting concerns from advisers and allies about her unofficial campaign role. During the final days of the campaign, he would publicly distance himself from her, all while promising his aides that he'd stop regularly inviting her on his flights. During her deposition, which was briefly on the public docket last week before being sealed by Magistrate Judge Philip Lammens, Loomer looked to make the case that she would currently be working in the White House if it weren't for Maher. Throughout the questioning from attorney Kate Bolger, Loomer boasted about her increasing clout with the president, stating that he first became impressed with her adversarial 'reporting' on GOP presidential rival Ron DeSantis in 2023. Loomer noted that she would soon be invited to Mar-a-Lago and that Trump told Susie Wiles, his current White House chief of staff, to immediately hire her. Instead, Loomer stated, that didn't happen because the news was leaked to the New York Times, which reported that her hiring 'would cause a backlash, given her history of inflammatory statements and her embrace of the Republican Party's fringes.' The Times later appended the story to point out its reporting had 'ignited a firestorm' among the MAGA base and resulted in Trump backing off. Still, according to Loomer, she continued to enjoy access in Trumpworld and estimated that she'd visited Mar-a-Lago at least '20,30 times,' flew around with Trump, and submitted a resume for an administration job. She also recalled that on the flight to Trump's debate with Kamala Harris in Philadelphia, she showed him what she said was a police report after he asked if the rumors about Haitian immigrants in Ohio were real, leading to the infamous 'eating dogs' moment. Bolger, meanwhile, pressed Loomer on why she was so certain it was Maher's joke – which came days after the debate – that doomed her job prospects with the president. 'Other than Bill Maher, can you name a single human being on all of Planet Earth that believes what Bill Maher said?' Bolger asked, prompting Loomer to respond: 'It's up for interpretation.' Loomer went on to say that Trump campaign manager Chris LaCivita would later tell her she wasn't welcome back on Trump's plane because of the 'media frenzy' the HBO host's joke had sparked. Elsewhere in the deposition, Bolger brought up the lengthy history of inflammatory commentary from Loomer, a self-described 'proud Islamophobe' who has made numerous accusations about the personal lives of other prominent political figures. This could have potentially been an effort to establish that Maher's one-off line about Loomer wouldn't have done any meaningful reputational damage to the far-right provocateur. That did lead Loomer to bring up her ongoing feud with fellow MAGA firebrand Marjorie Taylor Greene, whom Loomer accused of being 'very jealous of me' and not well-liked by Trump's staff. Naturally, a sitdown with Loomer wouldn't be complete without a nasty swipe, which Bolger received when the plaintiff took aim at her past representation of Disney in the ABC News lawsuit that was settled with Trump. 'I'm not going to be gaslit by a Democratic lawyer who represents fake news media,' Loomer fumed. While Loomer may not have a White House job, and the six-figure salary that comes with it, she has been patting herself on the back lately over the amount of influence she supposedly wields with the president. Claiming to have played an outsized role in the abrupt firings of more than a dozen high-ranking administration officials over what she says is insufficient loyalty to the president, who she has repeatedly declared her 'love' for, Loomer recently joked that one of her friends now calls her 'Trump's Rasputin.'