Some Democrats want to use gerrymandering. That's a bad idea

The Guardian

4 days ago

When Texas Republicans unveiled yet another contorted congressional map last week – one that would all but erase Austin's Latino-led seat and increase the Republican party's federal House tally by up to five seats in total – the outcry from Democrats was immediate and justified. But beyond the Democratic state legislators' brave effort to stymie the proposal by boycotting the vote, a different refrain has also been heard by leading Democrats in other states: if they do it, why can't we?
Governor Gavin Newsom of California has vowed to 'fight fire with fire', advancing a proposal that would redraw California's own congressional map to offset Republican gains in Texas. New York's Kathy Hochul has also embraced the prospect of aggressive gerrymandering in Democratic-controlled states, sidestepping the independent commissions that Democrats themselves had once championed and successfully implemented in both California and New York.
It is an understandable impulse, but it is the wrong one – for both strategic and principled reasons. To begin with, Democrats are destined to lose a gerrymandering arms race. They control fewer state legislatures and the very nature of electoral map engineering currently favors Republican power-grabbing, since most Democratic voters live in densely populated urban areas, which makes it easier to concentrate them in fewer electoral districts.
A simulation conducted through 538's Atlas of Redistricting in which every state is aggressively gerrymandered to maximize the House seats of the party in power at the state level results in a notional House of 262 Republicans and 173 Democrats: a 30-plus seat jump for the Republican party compared with a non-partisan map that maximizes for district compactness. Nor is this a far-fetched scenario. Rather than forcing the other side to back down, retaliation appears more likely to lead to further escalation, in this as in other domains of all-out binary conflict.
When running for governor of Illinois in 2018, JB Pritzker had initially pledged to back an independent districting commission but subsequently signed one of the most brutal Democratic gerrymandering plans in the country, which has yielded just three Republican districts out of 17 in a state where Donald Trump won 43% of the votes in 2024. That precedent is now being pointed to by Texas Republicans to justify their own gerrymandering plan.
But there is also a deeper reason why 'fighting fire with fire' is a bad idea when the goal is to protect democracy from purported challenges to it: the 'fire' in question amounts to a violation of one of democracy's core values – ultimately, the principle of voting equality – and would therefore end up doing the work of democracy's enemies for them.
The metaphor of 'fighting fire with fire' can in fact be traced back to the thought of the German émigré scholar to the United States, Karl Loewenstein, who in the 1930s recommended the use of self-consciously 'anti-democratic means' – such as party bans and restrictions of voting rights – to fight fascism, in the name of what he called 'militant democracy'.
Far from achieving their intended goal, such measures were instrumental in the consolidation of the Nazi regime in Germany, given that Adolf Hitler was first nominated chancellor through an emergency presidential decree intended to forestall the prospect of a socialist takeover (construed as a greater threat for German democracy than nazism itself), and that the ban on other political parties Hitler quickly imposed was justified on the grounds that it was necessary to protect the German constitutional order in the aftermath of the Reichstag fire of 1934.
Similarly perverse uses of the logic of 'militant democracy' have since become a standard component of the authoritarian playbook – from Augusto Pinochet's 1973 coup in Chile to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's 2016 counter-coup in Turkey, both of which undid democracy in their countries under the guise of protecting it against purported enemies.
A fully gerrymandered congressional map in the United States would thus not just be bad for Democrats. It would also be terrible for American democracy since it would effectively disenfranchise local minorities across the country, yielding an overall competition between two mirroring forms of authoritarianism: Democratic or Republican one-party rule at the local level.
If Democrats want to continue to portray themselves as the party of democracy against the Trump administration's thinly veiled authoritarian ambitions, they should begin by practicing on own their turf the same principles of democratic civility and self-restraint they accuse their opponents of violating.
Crucially, this doesn't mean 'doing nothing' in the face of Republican gerrymandering. The point is rather that (big and small 'D') Democrats should use democratic rather than authoritarian means to protect democracy against its enemies – which is to say, win elections by advancing more attractive policy platforms and mobilizing voters more effectively in support of them, rather than by changing the rules to their own benefit.
That the Trump administration's substantive policy decisions – from its inflationary trade wars to the fiscally regressive One Big Beautiful Bill Act – seem destined to do most harm its own electoral constituencies offers plenty of opportunity for fair-and-square political comeback. Ultimately, however, the Democrats' chances of success in upcoming electoral cycles will depend on their capacity to present a more attractive political alternative to the current Republican party's brand of populist authoritarianism.
Instead of mirroring their opponents, Democrats should therefore seek to differentiate themselves from them, which at present can only mean: strict adherence to democratic norms and forthright advocacy of a more progressive policy platform. When a house is on fire, more fire won't help. What is needed is water – which is to say, something different, that is at the same time an antidote against fire's damaging effects.
Carlo Invernizzi-Accetti is an associate professor of political science at the City University of New York, City College