Partisan maps–should we fight fire with fire?
SACRAMENTO asks if politicians should be the ones deciding redistricting in Cali-fornia mid-decade.
Every 10 years, after the census, America redraws its political map. This redistricting process determines who represents us in Congress, and while it may sound like a technical chore, it is one of the most consequential exercises in American politics. The way district lines are drawn can tilt the balance of power in Washington for an entire decade.In Texas, Republicans have embraced what critics call “mid-cycle redistricting,” encouraged by President Donald Trump. Instead of waiting for the census, they are reopening maps midway to entrench partisan advantage. It’s using redistricting as a weapon—aggressive gerrymandering designed not to reflect communities, but to lock in power.
That escalation leaves California at a crossroads. Should we continue playing fair, or should we respond in kind?
Independent commission: choice by the people
California is one of only a few states—including Arizona, Colorado, Michigan, Montana, and Washington—that use independent commissions to draw district lines. Importantly, this wasn’t imposed by lawmakers; it was chosen by voters. In 2008 and 2010, Californians approved ballot measures to take the pen out of politicians’ hands and give it to an independent citizens’ panel.
The result is a 14-member Citizens Redistricting Commission, balanced among Democrats, Republicans, and independents. The commission’s work is widely regarded as among the fairest and most transparent in the country and it stands as a point of civic pride.
But that also makes it politically risky to unwind. If Gov. Gavin Newsom or legislative Democrats were to dismantle the commission in favor of partisan map-drawing, they would be overruling the will of voters. A failed attempt would not just collapse politically—it would leave Newsom and his allies with a very visible black eye.
Texas and the new
redistricting arms race
Texas has taken the opposite path. Through “packing” Democratic voters into a small number of districts and “cracking” others across multiple Republican-leaning ones, the GOP can engineer a congressional delegation that is far redder than the state itself.
This is not just sharp-elbowed politics—it’s structural manipulation. President Trump and his allies argue openly that if Democrats in California and other blue states insist on playing fair, Republicans should exploit every opening to secure lasting dominance.
What the numbers show
The consequences of this asymmetry are stark when we run through the numbers: currently the House (2022 maps) numbers 222 Republicans, and 213 Democrats.
If every state gerrymandered aggressively, GOP-controlled states could carve out 15 to 20 additional Republican seats. Democratic-controlled states might counter with 7 to 10 extra Democratic seats. The net effect: roughly +10 seats to the GOP, enough to flip the House even in years when Democrats win more votes nationally.
If every state used independent commissions, seats would align closely with the national popular vote. In a 50/50 election, the House would likely split about evenly, with only a small tilt either way.
In other words, universal gerrymandering structurally favors Republicans, while universal independent commissions would deliver representation that mirrors the electorate.
Case for staying the course
Supporters of the commission argue that fairness is both morally right and politically wise. Gerrymandering might produce short-term gains, but it corrodes trust, invites endless litigation, and fuels polarization. California’s maps have legitimacy precisely because voters demanded them, and walking away risks looking like a cynical power grab.
Case for fighting
fire with fire
On the other hand, unilateral restraint can be costly. If red states like Texas and Florida keep redrawing maps while California clings to fairness, Democrats will remain at a structural disadvantage. In practice, California’s adherence to principle could amount to permanent minority status for Democrats in Congress, no matter how often they win the national vote.
The bigger picture
For communities like Hancock Park, the issue may feel abstract. Local representation in California is secure and fairly drawn. But the national stakes are anything but abstract. If blue states remain committed to independent commissions while red states escalate gerrymandering, Democrats risk ceding control of the House for a generation.
The road ahead
California’s independent commission embodies both democratic principle and voter choice. Overturning it would be a high-stakes gamble, one that could backfire politically if rejected. But the status quo—where only one side respects restraint—is equally unsustainable.
The central question is this: is the moral high ground a sustainable strength in American democracy, or does it risk becoming a liability in a political arms race?
By Jon Vein
Category: News
