Redistricting, Ethics, and the Fight for Democratic Legitimacy

Newsweek

3 days ago

Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the interpretation of facts and data.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
In the United States, we've increasingly come to accept congressional district boundaries as fixed, even natural. But they are not. They are human decisions—shaped by ideology, partisanship, and, all too often, exclusion. These lines don't just organize votes; they determine whose voices matter and whose are diminished.
When I was a teenager growing up in a small Texas town, I experienced how those lines play out in practice. My mother and I entered a building marked as a voting center, only to encounter cold reception and vague signage. The atmosphere conveyed what the maps didn't: we didn't belong. After being redirected—wrong party, wrong place—it took nearly 90 minutes and a detour to a small church across town before we could finally cast our votes.
The lesson was clear: maps are choices, and behind those choices are values. Those values cut to the heart of government ethics: Are we fellow Americans with differing opinions, or adversaries to obstruct at all costs?
The Founding Fathers envisioned a voting system based on fair representation, but it was Ida B. Wells who captured the essence of democratic reform: "The way to right wrongs is to turn the light of truth upon them." This principle reflects a core tenet of democratic ethics: legitimate government requires not just the promise of fair representation, but the courage to expose and correct systems that deny it.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965—designed to protect communities of color from voter suppression and ensure meaningful political participation—represented a crucial step toward realizing this promise. It established that electoral systems must not just appear neutral—they must produce fair outcomes.
Today's redistricting process often violates these foundational principles. Political scientist Thomas E. Mann has observed that "partisan gerrymandering...undermines the responsiveness of democratic institutions." Rather than ensuring democratic representation, it frequently serves partisan advantage. Recent analysis from the Brennan Center suggests gerrymandering produced an estimated 16-seat shift toward Republicans in 2024. This represents a fundamental ethical failure: those in power choosing their voters, rather than voters choosing their leaders.
The current system creates perverse incentives in numerous ways. Winner-take-all districts maximize partisan gain. Legislative control over map-drawing, weak legal safeguards, and non-standard redistricting between censuses all enable strategic manipulation.
Recent events in Texas and California illustrate how redistricting has become a national arms race, and government ethics have been the first casualty. Texas' ongoing mid-decade redistricting push—despite previous court rulings and a Justice Department declaring multiple of its redistricting proposals unconstitutional—represents an unprecedented escalation. In response, California Governor Gavin Newsom has threatened to take back authority from the state's independent commission, framing it as fighting fire with fire: if Texas abandons ethical norms to grab power, California will do the same to defend its interests.
This "eye for an eye" logic is understandable—why should one party unilaterally disarm while the other weaponizes redistricting? Newsom's threat represents a rational response to asymmetric warfare, where ethical behavior becomes a strategic disadvantage. Yet this escalation reveals how quickly democratic norms can unravel when institutional safeguards fail to constrain bad actors. The pressure has intensified as the Trump administration publicly demanded that Texas lawmakers pursue this mid-decade strategy to gain five additional seats.
KERRVILLE, TEXAS - JULY 11: President Donald Trump and Texas Governor Greg Abbott hold hands during a round table event at the Hill Country Youth Event Center to discuss last week's flash flooding on July...
KERRVILLE, TEXAS - JULY 11: President Donald Trump and Texas Governor Greg Abbott hold hands during a round table event at the Hill Country Youth Event Center to discuss last week's flash flooding on July 11, 2025 in Kerrville, Texas. MoreThis escalation raises fundamental questions about government ethics. Should redistricting follow established processes for the sake of procedural fairness, or does partisan advantage justify breaking norms? How do we maintain public trust and democratic legitimacy when the rules change mid-game? And what happens when ethical guardrails are abandoned in the pursuit of political power?
European democracies often avoid these ethical dilemmas through institutional design. Many feature multi-member districts with proportional representation that remove incentives to gerrymander, independent commissions that remove direct political control from map-drawing, and legal frameworks that prioritize representational fairness over partisan advantage.
Some U.S. states have begun imitating these models. California and Michigan, for instance, have adopted independent redistricting commissions that remove direct legislative control, while states like Texas maintain legislative authority backed by partisan boards.
Recent research demonstrates that redistricting reforms—particularly those reducing partisan influence—can significantly improve electoral competitiveness and reduce representational bias, supporting democratic legitimacy.
As political theorist Iris Marion Young emphasizes, democratic inclusion is a fundamental ethical requirement in governance. When redistricting decisions exclude or dilute representation from certain populations, democratic legitimacy itself is compromised.
That day in Texas, my mother and I just wanted to vote—to be seen, heard, and counted. That's what most Americans want. But if we are serious about democracy, we must be serious about how we draw the lines that shape it.
The current redistricting crisis isn't just about Texas or California. It's about whether American democracy will be ethical, inclusive, and representative. The choices we make about redistricting reflect deeper choices about our democratic values: Do we believe in fair representation, or do we accept that power justifies manipulation of the system?
Ethics in government isn't just about avoiding scandal—it's about creating institutions that serve all people, not just the powerful few. The lines we draw today will determine whether future generations inherit a democracy worthy of the name.
Davina Hurt is the director of government ethics with Santa Clara University's Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. She previously served the City of Belmont, CA, in multiple leadership roles including mayor, vice mayor, city councilmember, and commissioner. She currently serves as a Commissioner on the California Water Commission, shaping water policy for a climate-resilient future.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.