Analysis: Solving the redistricting fight comes down to the basics

WASHINGTON - Republicans and Democrats are locked in a redistricting battle for the ages, and there's bipartisan complaining about different parts of the process. But the two parties are a long way from a truce, and redistricting is looking more like a biennial exercise than a once-a-decade event.

Amid the day-to-day tracking of the redistricting state of play, it's important to remember that this cycle's surge in cartography was caused by the White House. In an effort to secure the House majority for another two years, President Donald Trump and allies pushed Republican-led states to draw more favorable maps mid-decade. Without GOP efforts and new maps in Texas and Missouri, Democrats would not have responded in California and Virginia.

That doesn't mean that Democrats don't gerrymander or that the process isn't political. The point is that Democrats would not have been as aggressive in their redistricting efforts in the middle of the decade were it not for the initial Republican action.

The first step in identifying a solution is agreeing on the problem. But there's no consensus on whether redistricting is good or bad. Republicans and Democrats seem to believe redistricting is only a problem in places they don't control and states where they feel like they aren't being treated fairly.

If, or when, there's bipartisan agreement that the redistricting process is a universal problem, then we can talk about a solution. Fairness is at the core of the issue. And yet too often "fairness" is the rallying cry of the party out of power, even when that party is leveraging political power nearby to discriminate against its counterpart in the minority.

A dictionary definition of fairness is, "fair or impartial treatment: lack of favoritism toward one side or another." That approach feels like a fantasy in electoral politics, particularly when control of Congress is at stake and the margins on Capitol Hill are so close.

But the lack of agreement about what fairness means is at the core of the redistricting problem because there are so many, often competing, definitions.

To some people, fairness means proportionality. Republicans were outraged that Democrats pursued a congressional map that favored Democratic candidates in 10 of Virginia's 11 districts (91% of the seats) when Donald Trump received 46% of the vote in 2024. Meanwhile, proportionality isn't a particular concern to Republicans just to the south in North Carolina, where the GOP-drawn map could elect Republicans in 11 of 14 districts this fall (79% of the seats) when Kamala Harris received 48% of the vote.

Even if proportionality was somehow a redistricting requirement, the implementation would still be a fight. How closely would the number of seats have to align with the presidential election? Which presidential election is taken into account - just the most recent one? Do all states redistrict after each presidential race? What about the small states?

There's a popular meme in Republican circles that points to the lack of GOP seats anywhere in the Northeast, including Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire and Vermont, even though the latter only has one seat. There are also no Democratic seats in Idaho, Montana, Oklahoma or Arkansas, for example, even though Harris received at least around a third of the vote in each state. It's also very unclear how proportionality would work in states with only one at-large district.

Fairness can also mean keeping communities of interest together, whether it be large cities, towns, or rural areas. While some people complained about rural Virginia being divided and coupled with Democratic-heavy suburbs in Northern Virginia, Republicans wanted to split Salt Lake City into four districts to dilute Democratic influence in Utah. The two parties also disagree about whether minority communities should remain together or be split apart.

Another definition of fairness could mean more competitive districts where either party has a chance of winning. But even that definition has some potential pitfalls. How do you measure competitiveness? What's the suitable margin? Which races are used to calculate the typical performance of a seat? How many election cycles are used in the formula? These are all important questions, as well as places for potential disagreement.

Obviously, redistricting has become a hotter topic of late, but the rhetoric doesn't need to match the escalation. And it's important to remember that words matter. While redistricting is most often partisan and political, using terms such as "rigged" wrongly conveys a sense of corruption. The parties are trying to maximize their opportunities by drawing lines to favor their candidates. But sowing seeds of distrust in the electoral system doesn't benefit anyone in the long run.

Ultimately, one definition of fairness is not better than another. But all of them can't be attained at the same time. And it's important for both sides to agree on one of them in order to find a solution and harness the intensifying redistricting war.

_____

Copyright 2026 Tribune Content Agency. All Rights Reserved.