Editor's Note: This commentary first appeared on the Substack Channel The Guardrail and was republished on IVN by request of and with permission from co-author Kevin Johnson, Executive Director of Election Reformers Network. The piece was also authored by Joe Cerrone.
Gerrymandering has long eroded the competitiveness, representativeness, and accountability of our democracy. But in recent years, the problem has entered a dangerous phase — one in which both parties see no option but to fight with every weapon they can find.
That’s why California’s Proposition 50, which won big yesterday, deserves both understanding and caution. The measure suspends California’s Citizens Redistricting Commission — long a national model of independence — and hands control of the maps back to political insiders. Supporters argue the move is a necessary counterpunch in both the gerrymandering wars and the broader fight against authoritarianism.
That goal is understandable. But the means are still concerning: even justified retaliation risks pulling us further away from the ultimate goal of fair districts for everyone, in every state.
The “Yes, and” challenge
In the short term, the political context behind Prop 50 is undeniable. President Donald Trump has pushed Republican states to pursue mid-decade redistricting to maximize partisan control of Congress. In that climate, Democrats see unilateral restraint as self-sabotage.
Yet, the more profound truth remains: gerrymandering is not the long-term solution to gerrymandering.
When nearly 90 percent of congressional seats are uncompetitive between parties, and when extreme candidates thrive in safely drawn districts, the issue isn’t who controls more seats — it’s that voters no longer have genuine choices. Gerrymandering entrenches one-party control, shields insiders from accountability, and fuels the extremism tearing the country apart. A few more seats for one side in 2026 won’t save democracy if the system itself remains rigged.
Partisan gerrymandering is not just a political tactic — it’s a democratic failure.
Rethinking “unilateral disarmament”
Some reformers question whether independent redistricting commissions (IRCs) make sense when only blue or purple states adopt them. Why disarm, the thinking goes, when the other side won’t?
That view overlooks the fact that voters across the spectrum actually want reform. Polling from YouGov shows that 75 percent of Americans — including strong majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and independents — see partisan gerrymandering as a major problem.
And efforts to expand IRCs have found support even in red states, until partisan officials intervened.
In Arkansas, a 2020 anti-gerrymandering ballot measure was blocked by the Secretary of State on dubious signature claims.
In Missouri, voters passed redistricting reform in 2018, only for the legislature to reverse it via another measure two years later.
In Ohio, a 2024 initiative was narrowly defeated after the Secretary of State approved misleading ballot language claiming it would “require gerrymandering.”
In Utah, lawmakers gutted a voter-approved reform — although recent court rulings have overturned the legislature’s actions.
The problem isn’t that voters in red states reject fair maps. It’s that their voices are being silenced through procedural manipulation. The “unilateral disarmament” argument collapses when we realize both parties’ voters want fairness — they just aren’t always allowed to express it.
Yet, the more profound truth remains: gerrymandering is not the long-term solution to gerrymandering.
A path forward
Reformers must defend, improve, and expand the power of citizen initiatives that enable independent redistricting. Missouri and Arkansas may see 2026 ballot measures to protect the initiative process itself — a key precondition for reviving redistricting reform in 2028 and 2030.
California’s leaders can help by reaffirming that Prop 50’s suspension of the state’s redistricting commission will definitely be temporary, and by lending support to the broader reform movement. Californians should insist their leaders keep those commitments.
The federal imperative
Still, a state-by-state approach will only go so far. Ultimately, securing fair districts for all Americans requires federal guidelines.
Legislation to ensure fair redistricting in every state has been proposed in Congress over the past several years, followed this year by a bill to prohibit mid-decade redistricting. Had either policy been in place, our nation might have avoided the Texas-California gerrymandering wars — and the need for measures like Prop 50. Both should be top congressional priorities, worthy of being stand-alone legislation and not bundled with other objectives.
The odds in Congress are daunting of course, but success is a long-term necessity, and willingness to compromise can help.
An alternative solution is a transition to election districts with several members, with representatives selected through a proportional voting system. This approach greatly reduces the scope for partisan manipulation in map drawing, and also significantly broadens representation.
Recent experience makes one thing clear: gerrymandering reform is critical to other changes we desperately need — from restoring bipartisan compromise to rebuilding trust in institutions.
Without fair maps, even the most well-intentioned reform agenda risks collapsing under partisan gridlock.
California can play a pivotal role in advancing that national conversation. Next year, California Democratic candidates will vie to win the new seats created by Proposition 50. Citizens should urge those candidates, and all state representatives, to pay it forward by publicly pledging to support federal fairness standards in Congress and the revival of the state’s redistricting commission in 2030.
Eyes on the prize
The gerrymandering wars will continue to dominate headlines through the next round of elections. Amid the battles, we must not lose sight of the larger goal: fair, competitive, and accountable representation for all Americans.
Partisan gerrymandering is not just a political tactic — it’s a democratic failure. And if we genuinely care about saving democracy, we must end it across America.
We need to keep our eyes on the prize.