Democrats looking to keep up with the GOP’s push to redraw House lines are grappling with how to circumvent the same independent redistricting commissions they once championed.
The movement to set up nonpartisan commissions for redistricting caught steam over the last decade, with Democrats at the forefront of the movement. Many in the party argued the commissions were essential to ensuring fair elections at a time when gerrymandering has led to fewer and fewer competitive contests on the federal level.
But as Republicans barrel forth with their efforts to create friendlier maps in multiple states in the hopes of holding onto their slim House majority next year, many Democrats now see the commissions as a hindrance and argue the party needs to go around them. Doing so, however, could prove challenging.
“Just look at the math. Nationally, if we do tit-for-tat, we’re going to lose,” said California Democratic strategist Steven Maviglio. “Other states will do this, and then we’ll be further in the hole.”
State legislatures and governors had been each state’s arbiters of redistricting throughout most of U.S. history, with partisans ultimately deciding how the lines would be drawn, often favoring their own side.
That started to change in some states, particularly during the 2000s and 2010s, as leaders were interested in the idea of good governance on the issue, emphasizing transparency and fairness. Voters approved referenda to create bipartisan or nonpartisan commissions to create maps that are intended to fully represent different groups’ political power.
But an issue that some expressed concern about when the commissions were being set up will likely come into play as states take a look at redrawing their congressional lines ahead of next year’s midterms, a move that is uncommon but not prohibited.
Most states that have implemented these commissions are Democratic-leaning, while their Republican counterparts mostly kept their state legislatures fully in charge of the process.
The states with independent commissions at least playing a role in redistricting include California and New York, two of the three largest in the country, while the only fully Republican-led ones with them are Montana and Idaho, two of the smallest, according to Ballotpedia.
Other Democratic-led states including Washington and Colorado also have such commissions.
While Democrats said they believe the commissions may be the morally idealistic choice in theory, they acknowledged their existence could be an obstacle to the party keeping up with the GOP.
Maviglio, who was involved in the campaign against the creation of California’s commission when it was up for a vote, said the same idea that was pitched as helping to support democracy could contribute to undermining it.
“In practice as usual, Democrats try to have the upper ground,” he said, but they’re disadvantaged when Republicans aren’t interested in taking the same approach.
The existence of the commissions doesn’t necessarily prevent the states from advancing a redistricting plan that could theoretically go into effect ahead of the midterms. But they add more time to the process and an extra hurdle to overcome that states such as Texas, which is set to vote on a new map during a special legislative session this month, and Florida, which could also revise its lines, don’t have to address.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) raised the idea of putting a new map up for a vote in a special election in November, allowing that map to be in place for the rest of the decade. He said the initiative would go around the commission, but the state could use the commission’s next proposed map after the 2030 census.
Maviglio said the process may be complex, with the time required to get the proposal on the ballot, a “very expensive” campaign likely to oppose it and possible lawsuits to follow if it passes.
“I think it really breaks trust with voters,” he said. “[The commission] was sold as essential for democracy, and now we’re being told, ‘Well, dissolving it is essential for democracy.’”
Newsom said at a press conference last week that Democrats want a “fair playing field” where all play by the same rules, but that President Trump’s call to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) ensured that wouldn’t happen. He said he believes Californians understand “what’s at stake.”
New York Democrats introduced a bill Tuesday to create a new map if another state does mid-decade redistricting first, but it likely wouldn’t go into effect until ahead of the 2028 elections.
Colorado Democratic strategist Alvina Vasquez said she doesn’t believe her state is likely to push for redistricting, and the commissions gave Republicans more voice in Democratic-led states than they otherwise would have had.
She said efforts to push for these commissions are essentially “frozen” for now given the push for redistricting to benefit a party as much as possible. But she said the voters overall are the ones likely to lose the most from what may be to come in the various states.
“It’s 50 [governors] deciding what the direction of the country is, as opposed to the American people deciding, and then it creates more distrust in our government, more distrust in our voting systems, more distrust in how our systems work,” Vasquez said.
She said efforts to implement commissions in the future could be renewed, but it would need to start from the “ground up,” particularly with younger people.
Meanwhile, advocates for these types of commissions defend their position that they are the best method for fair elections, at least in the longer term.
John Bisognano, the president of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, said the group has worked to stop Republicans from “drawing extreme gerrymanders that silence voters” and found success in states like Michigan and Colorado. But he said they recognize the current moment and states taking necessary steps to respond.
“Our ultimate commitment to fairness will not and has never wavered, but we are clear-eyed about the current moment that Donald Trump is forcing on America,” he said in a statement. “Our democracy is under attack, and we will not oppose those doing what may be necessary to defend it and using every tool available to protect voters and the values they believe in.”
Dan Vicuña, the senior policy director for the nonpartisan Common Cause, said the organization is still committed to getting redistricting processes enacted that are based on community feedback, nonpartisan and not controlled by politicians.
“One potential silver lining in a really difficult situation is that this will create a very clear narrative about what has always gone on in redistricting, that it’s not simply Democrats versus Republicans, it’s politicians versus the people,” he said. “You’ve got elected officials of both major parties… who are willing to focus solely on partisan gain.”
Both Bisognano and Vicuña indicated their organizations will be ready to pursue legal action if Texas ultimately passes a new map that they argue would disenfranchise minority voters.
Vicuña acknowledged the difficulty facing reform efforts but pointed to the U.S. House’s 2021 passage of a bill that would have set up independent commissions in all 50 states as progress. The bill failed to advance in the Senate.
Vicuña added that he believes these current efforts will spur more stories from disenfranchised communities that provoke backlash against politician-controlled efforts.
“This is not power that the public can ask politicians to give up nicely,” he said. “It’s a power they have to take from them, and regardless of how this plays out, we will be there to make sure communities are represented, and we will continue to fight for reform across the country, even if it’s a difficult moment to do so.”
