I’ve spent nearly two decades covering redistricting battles across America, and one truth remains constant—gerrymandering frustrates voters regardless of political affiliation. The latest polling data confirms what many of us in the political trenches have long observed: Americans overwhelmingly reject partisan map manipulation.
A comprehensive national survey released yesterday by the Campaign Legal Center reveals that 73% of Americans oppose gerrymandering—with remarkable consistency across party lines. Among respondents, 71% of Republicans, 74% of Democrats, and 75% of independents expressed disapproval of the practice.
“These numbers reflect a genuine cross-partisan consensus that’s increasingly rare in American politics,” explains Dr. Michael Latner, political science professor at California Polytechnic State University. “While voters disagree on many issues, the fundamental concept of fair representation resonates regardless of ideology.”
The timing couldn’t be more significant. With the 2030 census approaching, states will soon redraw congressional and legislative districts nationwide. The survey found that 68% of Americans believe independent commissions—rather than state legislatures—should control this process.
I spoke with Sarah Walker, Director of Elections and Democracy at the Brennan Center for Justice, who wasn’t surprised by these findings. “Citizens intuitively understand that politicians shouldn’t choose their voters,” Walker told me. “When elected officials draw their own districts, they prioritize partisan advantage over community cohesion.”
The practical impact of gerrymandering becomes evident when examining recent electoral outcomes. In North Carolina’s 2022 congressional elections, Republicans won 71% of seats despite receiving only 48.7% of the statewide vote, according to data from the Princeton Gerrymandering Project. Meanwhile, in Illinois, Democrats secured 76% of seats with 56% of votes.
Former Republican Congressman David Jolly, who now chairs the Serve America Movement, offered a candid assessment. “Both parties are guilty when given the opportunity,” he acknowledged during our phone interview. “The difference today is the precision with which maps can be drawn using modern technology, making gerrymanders more effective and durable.”
The poll also revealed that 64% of Americans believe gerrymandering increases political polarization—a connection supported by political science research. When districts are drawn as partisan strongholds, representatives face pressure primarily from their party’s base rather than general election voters.
Last month, I visited Wisconsin’s newly competitive 3rd Congressional District, which was redrawn following court intervention. Local voters expressed refreshing enthusiasm about having meaningful choice. “For the first time in years, candidates actually campaign here,” Madison County resident Jennifer Hoffman told me. “They know they need to listen to everyone, not just their base.”
Legal challenges to partisan gerrymandering have yielded mixed results. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that federal courts cannot intervene in partisan gerrymandering cases, though racial gerrymandering remains unconstitutional. State courts, however, have increasingly struck down extreme partisan maps under state constitutional provisions.
The Department of Justice recently filed lawsuits against several states alleging racial gerrymandering violations under the Voting Rights Act. Attorney General Merrick Garland emphasized that “protecting voting rights remains a core mission of the Justice Department” during a press conference announcing the litigation.
Reform advocates point to successful implementation of independent redistricting commissions in states like Michigan, Colorado, and Arizona as models for potential national standards. These commissions typically include equal numbers of Republicans, Democrats, and unaffiliated citizens, with transparency requirements and explicit criteria prohibiting partisan advantage.
“The public clearly desires change,” notes Professor Justin Levitt of Loyola Law School, who served as White House Senior Policy Advisor for Democracy and Voting Rights. “The question is whether elected officials will listen to their constituents or continue protecting a system that benefits incumbents.”
Economic analysis suggests gerrymandering carries costs beyond democratic principles. A 2023 study published in the American Economic Journal found districts with extreme partisan skews receive fewer competitive federal grants and experience less responsive representation on constituent services.
Some states have adopted novel approaches to combat gerrymandering. Alaska implemented ranked-choice voting, while Virginia created a hybrid commission of citizens and legislators. Meanwhile, grassroots organizations continue pushing ballot initiatives in states where voters can directly enact reforms.
After covering three redistricting cycles, I’ve witnessed the human impact of manipulated maps. Communities divided between multiple districts lose collective influence. Competitive elections become rarities. Voter cynicism grows when outcomes seem predetermined.
The poll’s most encouraging finding may be that 81% of Americans believe citizens should have meaningful input in the redistricting process—a perspective that transcends our current partisan divide. As we approach another redistricting cycle, that shared value offers a foundation for potential reforms.
Fair maps won’t solve all our political problems. But as this polling indicates, Americans across the spectrum recognize that electoral integrity starts with districts that represent communities rather than partisan interests.
