How did we get all this gerrymandering? A short history of the Republican redistricting scheme
Extreme GOP gerrymanders have remade American politics over the last 15 years. They have locked Republicans into office in state legislatures nationwide, even in purple states when Democratic candidates win more votes. They have delivered a reliable and enduring edge to the GOP in the race for Congress.
Perhaps most importantly, they have entrenched hard-right lawmakers and insulated them from the ballot box, allowing them to enact conservative policies on reproductive rights and public education that are rejected by majorities of voters.
Now Texas Republicans, spurred by Donald Trump, have readied a brazen mid-decade power grab that would award them as many as five additional seats in Congress. This would be a dramatic boost heading into the midterms, since the GOP only holds a three-seat majority. California has threatened to retaliate with a mid-decade redraw of its own. Other blue state governors are talking tough as well. But Republicans have more targets. They won't stop in Texas. They will probably redraw Ohio, Missouri, Indiana and Florida as well.
How did we get here? How did gerrymandered lines, rather than voters, gain the power to determine winners and losers?
***
While politicians have gerrymandered since the dawn of the American experiment – even before it got its name from then Massachusetts governor Eldridge Gerry's party crafting state senate districts around Boston that looked like salamanders – the modern story really begins in 2008 with the election of Barack Obama and a blue wave that delivered Democrats trifecta power and even a US Senate supermajority.
On television that election night, even the sharpest Republican analysts spoke of unbreakable emerging coalitions and demographic changes that could provide Democrats with majorities for a generation. It didn't exactly work that way. A handful of savvy Republican strategists recognized that while 2008 may have been historic, 2010 could be much more consequential. It would be a census year. And after every census, the nation redistricts every state legislature and US House seat.
A lightbulb went off at the Republican state leadership committee (RSLC). Executive director Chris Jankowski recognized the opportunity first: target states where the legislature controls redistricting. Pour millions into underfunded state legislative races. Drown Democratic incumbents. Flip as many chambers as possible. Redraw the lines. If Republicans could pull it off, they would go from demographically challenged to the catbird seat for a decade.
'We should do this,' Jankowski remembered, in an interview for my book Ratf**ked. 'I think we can get millions – and you don't have to do anything other than what you were going to do anyway.'
They called this Redmap, short for the Redistricting Majority Project. It transformed the nation.
Karl Rove laid out the plan in a March 2010 Wall Street Journal op-ed that laid out the specific small towns in Indiana, Pennsylvania and Ohio where national Republicans would come gunning for small-town Democrats. His message: control redistricting, control Congress. 'Republican strategists are focused on 107 seats in 16 states. Winning these seats would give them control of drawing district lines for nearly 190 congressional seats.'
Despite Rove's announcement, Democrats never saw it coming. The 2010 Tea Party wave placed all those seats and more in the GOP column. Republicans took over in Pennsylvania, Michigan, North Carolina, Indiana, Alabama, Wisconsin and Ohio, among others, adding them to trifecta control in states like Texas and Florida. The following year, the RSLC paid master GOP mapmaker Thomas Hofeller to draw new lines in crucial states. New computer mapping software and voluminous new voter data turned redistricting into a video game. Republicans won, voters lost.
It all paid off with a high score in 2012. Obama won re-election by a slightly smaller margin than 2008, but Democrats added seats in the US Senate. Republicans, thanks to their new lines, held the House and it wasn't close. They won 234 seats to the Democrats' 201 – even though Democrats won 1.4m more votes nationwide. Or look at the impact this way. Obama carried Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. Republicans drew congressional lines in those states and won 64 of 94 seats.
***
The modern, technologically enhanced gerrymanders held throughout 2014 and 2016. Even when Democratic candidates won more votes, they could not budge the state legislature in Michigan, for example, or an astounding 13-5 edge in Pennsylvania's congressional delegation.
This futility and frustration at the ballot box turned into a national grassroots campaign to end gerrymandering. In 2018, grassroots movements in Ohio, Michigan, Missouri, Utah and Colorado established citizen commissions or other nonpartisan processes to draw lines. Meanwhile, the same technology that allowed partisans to crack and pack voters with such precision also allowed data scientists and courts to see through extreme gerrymanders. Voters and public interest law firms won new maps in states including Florida (ahead of 2016) and Pennsylvania (2018), and won lower-court decisions in Ohio, Michigan, Maryland, North Carolina and Wisconsin that struck down extreme maps. This helped Democrats take back the House in 2018 without actually defeating the gerrymander: almost three-quarters of the seats they won were drawn by commissions or courts, or arose from new maps won via litigation.
In states such as Wisconsin, the gerrymanders held strong: in 2018, Democrats swept the US Senate, governor's offices in every statewide race and 53% of the state assembly vote. Republicans won 64% of the seats with just 45% of the vote.
Polls showed that huge majorities of voters across party lines despised gerrymandering. Reform efforts won in red states and in blue states with big majorities. And in federal courts, judges appointed by presidents of both parties believed that they had all the tools they needed to strike down maps that decimated true political competition, and took aim at the radical outliers drawn by both parties. Reformers and voters had real momentum.
***
Enter John Roberts.
In 2019, the chief justice – whose antipathy to voting rights has been central to his life's work ever since he arrived in Washington in 1982 as a young aide in Reagan's Department of Justice – destroyed hopes that the federal courts would help defend voters and create a national standard.
In a case from North Carolina called Rucho v Common Cause, a 5-4 majority ruled that partisan gerrymandering was a nonjusticiable political issue. The decision, written by Roberts, closed the federal courts to future claims at the precise moment that they'd become the most important part of the solution. After all, politicians have long proven unwilling to reform the very process that elected them and helped entrench them in office. Roberts, however, said the federal courts could no longer be involved, because there was no clear and manageable standard. Multiple federal judges, of course, pointed to multiple clear standards. And even if Roberts didn't find a standard to his liking, nothing required him to leap to making the issue nonjusticiable.
The decision signed the death warrant for reform. Without the threat of a national, court-enforced standard, states had no reason to behave themselves. In 2021, Democrats – now fully awakened to the problem – claimed seats in Illinois (14 of 17) and Maryland (seven of eight) and took extra seats in Oregon, Nevada and New Mexico. Republicans, already enjoying an edge, claimed four in Florida then worked the margins in Texas, Tennessee, Indiana, Oklahoma, Georgia and Utah. According to the nonpartisan Brennan Center, the GOP had a 16-seat advantage this decade thanks to gerrymandering. While some suggested that the national congressional map had become much more balanced, this is misleading: any balance in the national map arrived because many more state maps had been gerrymandered, harming more voters, everywhere.
Both parties knew increasingly partisan state courts were unlikely to block partisan power plays. In New York, a Democratic court allowed Democrats to remake the map before 2024. In North Carolina, the state supreme court upended a fair map and reversed a year-old decision banning partisan gerrymandering as soon as they took partisan control. Given free rein, the GOP drew themselves three extra seats and a 10-3 advantage. Those three seats, by the way, match the margin of the GOP House majority. That's the power of one state map.
The absence of any federal deterrence also encouraged state lawmakers to defy courts, commissions and state constitutions. In Ohio, lawmakers stiff-armed the state supreme court when it attempted to enforce anti-gerrymandering provisions enacted decisively by 75% of voters in a 2018 initiative. In Arizona, Republicans gamed the independent commission by stacking the commission that selects the supposedly nonpartisan chair who controls the tie-breaking vote. Utah simply ignored the 2018 vote establishing a nonpartisan commission. They all got away with it.
default
***
Which brings us to the current moment. Trump kickstarted this new redistricting arms race when he demanded that Texas flip Democratic seats to the GOP. California and New York have talked tough about suspending their commissions and retaliating with gerrymanders of their own. That's a long and complicated road, however: California voters would need to agree this fall. New York's constitution couldn't be amended before the 2028 cycle. Meanwhile, Democrats have few other likely targets, and Republicans look likely to continue their push into Ohio, Missouri, Indiana and Florida – and even Kansas, Kentucky and New Hampshire, if they choose.
Frustrated Democrats have few appealing options. Such are the ongoing consequences of falling asleep 15 years ago and failing to counter Redmap. It has done precisely what the Republicans said it would do – with greater success and a longer lifespan than they ever could have imagined.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
This Woman Is Going Viral For Hilariously Explaining The Brutal Truth About The US's Student Loan Crisis
I doubt it'll come as a surprise to anyone under 45, but according to nearly "one in six adult Americans" has federal student loan debt, and the New York Times reports that millennials hold the bulk of that debt. Back in May, President Trump resumed collections on previously defaulted student loans, which had been paused since 2020. Combined with the government allowing loan servicers to report late payments to credit bureaus again (which had also been on pause), the New York Times said that millions of people have seen their credit scores drop, and "a record number of borrowers are [now] at risk of defaulting by the end of the year." Student loans have continued to be a point of contention politically as well, with many conservatives arguing against student loan forgiveness, saying it's akin to getting something for free. However, younger people contend that the loans are predatory, unaffordable, and feel impossible to pay off, sometimes even after they've been making regular payments for years. Zoë Tyler, aka thezolyspirit, recently went viral in a video where she jokingly laid out exactly what the student loan crisis looks like in reality. Zoë started out the video satirically, in a perfect mid-Atlantic accent, with a text overlay that says, "What boomers think the student loan crisis is...": "Oh, yes," she said, "Well, I, I know I said I would pay back those student loans, but I... I've decided I don't want to," she said with a smile. "I don't ever want to grow up. I want to stay a child forever." @thezolyspirit / Via Then, she switched immediately back to her normal speaking voice with a text overlay that says "What it actually is..." as she began imitating a one-sided phone call. "Hi, yes, um — so, I have my student loan pulled up here — I've been making the minimum payment on time for 10 years, and I now owe more than I took out. So I just… I was wondering what's that about?" she asked. @thezolyspirit / Via "The interest accrues faster than you can pay it off? Oh, that's…that's you guys are able to do that." "What is the interest, by the way? I can't… It's 13%? Okay. That makes sense, that…that it would be that." Then, Zoë begins a new conversation. "Hi! I just graduated, and I noticed that my student loans are way more than I originally took out. It was accruing interest while I was at school? Uh. Hmm. But it says the principle is more than I took [out]..." @thezolyspirit / Via "When I graduated, you combined the accruing interest into the principle, so now… I took out $55,000, and it's saying that it accrued $20,000 while I was at school. So now, instead of taking the 10% interest off of $55,000, you're taking 10% interest off of $75,000? Wow!" @thezolyspirit / Via The video ended with Zoë signing off the call. "All right, well, uh, thank you. What was your name, sir? One more time? Beelzebub? Okay, thank you." People in the comments were quick to back Zoë up, pointing out that they'd had similar experiences with their own loans. "I borrowed $17k and they want $60k back. They need to be fr lmao," said one person. "My husband, after paying for 13 years, checked his student loan breakdown. Turns out, of the 350$ a month he has been paying on time for 13+ years, only .16 CENTS a month goes toward the principle balance." "atp my student loans are an issue between the government and god." Others pointed out how much costs have changed since the baby boomers were in school. "Tuitions and Fees have gone up 133% since the 80s." U.S. News & World Report confirms this statistic, with the qualifier that it is in regard to in-state tuition and fees at public national universities, and is not adjusted for inflation. "My FIL [father-in-law] paid for his college and his living expenses for the entire year by working an entry level construction job in the summer. No way anyone could do that now-a-days. A summer job wouldn't even cover books and fees." The conversation made its way over to Twitter (X) as well, when the video was shared with the comment, "A TikTok that explains the student-loan crisis better than any politician or journalist can, in 93 seconds." Quoting a response to the original tweet, they also said, "This is not 'basic finance,' these are exploitative non-negotiable terms which makes this a form of predatory lending." "If you get a 7-year car loan and make the minimum payment every month, the loan will be paid off in 7 years... It's literally only student loans that are like this." Unsurprisingly, there were commenters who felt that borrowers were the ones responsible for their debt. "Crying about being responsible for your choices just shows how out of touch that generation is," said one person. "What this tik tok explains really well is that people didn't learn the right things in college." "Do not sign don't understand. Especially don't do that and then try to make it other people's problem." But others pushed back, pointing out that people took these loans out when they were still teenagers, usually with a promise that going to college would help them earn more money later. "Worst part is people will see this and say 'well you as a 17/18 y/o should have realized how predatory it was.'" "Telling 18 year olds that they have to go to college to be successful and not fully explaining to them what loans are like is diabolical." "a lot of us were just shuffled through a line and told to sign a sheet of paper so we could go to school, all with minimal explanation of any of it." And finally, this commenter summed it up best: "But make sure you pay them off whilst also buying a house, paying for a wedding, and having children all whilst earning proportionally less than they ever did because wages are stagnant, ok? You can do it if you just cancel your Netflix." You can see Zoë's full video below: @thezolyspirit / Via And now I have to know: What do you think? Are you still paying off student loans? Do you feel they should be forgiven, or at least reduced after a decade of payments? Let us know in the comments. And if you'd like to remain anonymous, you can use the form below.
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The former Fox News host kissed up to the president after endorsing Kamala Harris in 2024.
Geraldo Rivera thinks that President Donald Trump deserves the Nobel Peace Prize—even if he doesn't actually deliver any peace. The former talk show host and Fox News personality appeared on Newsmax's Finnerty on Wednesday morning to discuss the U.S. effort to end the war in Ukraine. 'If he does end this war, Geraldo, can they deny him the Nobel Peace Prize?' host Rob Finnerty asked.
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
GE Appliances shifts more production to US as part of a $3 billion investment
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) — GE Appliances plans to shift production of refrigerators, gas ranges and water heaters out of China and Mexico as part of a more than $3 billion investment to expand its U.S. operations in Kentucky, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee and South Carolina. The investment — the second-largest in the Louisville-based company's history — is expected to add more than 1,000 jobs while ramping up domestic production and modernizing plants in the next five years. 'Our long-term strategy is about manufacturing close to our customers,' said CEO Kevin Nolan. 'With lean manufacturing, upskilling our workforce and automation, the math works for manufacturing in the United States.' The majority of GE Appliances' production is already in the U.S. and the shift means only that the company will transfer more work to its domestic plants. GE Appliances will relocate production of gas ranges from Mexico to a plant in Georgia, while six refrigerator models now made in China will be manufactured at its Alabama plant, the company said. In June, the company said it would move production of clothes washers from China to its sprawling manufacturing complex in Louisville. The reshoring announcements come as President Donald Trump tries to lure factories back to the United States by imposing import taxes — tariffs — on foreign goods. GE Appliances said Wednesday that the first phase of its new investment will begin at plants in five Southern states — Kentucky, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee and South Carolina. 'We are defining the future of manufacturing at GE Appliances by investing in our plants, people and communities,' Nolan said. 'No other appliance company over the last decade has invested more in U.S. manufacturing than we have, and our $3 billion, five-year plan shows that our commitment to U.S. manufacturing will continue into the future.' The multiyear plan includes ramping up production of gas ranges that have been made in Mexico but will shift to the company's plant in LaFayette, Georgia, the company said. Production of six refrigerators now made in China will move to its plant in Decatur, Alabama. The GE Appliances plant in Camden, South Carolina, will add production of electric and hybrid heat pump water heaters, doubling the factory's output and employment once the project is complete, the company said. The plant now produces gas water heaters. Production of the company's electric and hybrid water heaters — now made in China — will shift to South Carolina. In Selmer, Tennessee, its plant will produce two new models of air conditioners. The latest investment includes the June announcement that GE Appliances will pump $490 million into its Kentucky complex to produce a combo washer/dryer and a lineup of front load washers that are now made in China. In all, production of more than 15 models of front load washers will shift to the company's Louisville complex — known as Appliance Park, it said. Once its new plan is fully implemented, GE Appliances will have invested $6.5 billion across its 11 U.S. manufacturing plants and nationwide distribution network since 2016, it said. Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear said Wednesday that the investment shows his state's ability to support world-class companies with a skilled workforce and the resources needed to thrive. 'GE Appliances has established Kentucky as America's destination for advanced manufacturing and job creation, and today's news shows this iconic company's unwavering belief in the commonwealth and the role we play in their success,' Beshear said. GE Appliances handles product design and engineering work at its Louisville headquarters but doesn't make all of its products in the U.S. It contracts with other manufacturers, including in China, for some of its production where it doesn't have capacity or needs access to a global supply chain. The company said its core business strategy is to base production in the United States, and investments announced in June and on Wednesday are another step toward achieving that goal. The company said it's partnering with universities, technical schools and high schools to help ensure that its plants and other facilities have a trained workforce. 'Infrastructure and tools matter, but they are not enough,' said Bill Good, vice president of supply chain for GE Appliances. 'America's manufacturing renaissance will be built by people." GE Appliances is a subsidiary of the China-based Haier company. Overall, GE Appliances says it contributes more than $30 billion annually to the U.S. economy and supports more than 113,000 jobs – both directly and indirectly – through its operations, suppliers and distribution network. Bruce Schreiner, The Associated Press