The Gerrymandering Arms Race Is Breaking Democracy—and Congress Knows It

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Members of Congress have spent much of the last year watching states redraw congressional maps and have taken little action to intervene. Now, the Problem Solvers Caucus in the US House is saying "enough."

The caucus unveiled a new Gerrymandering Reform Framework on July 1 that calls for nationwide standards, limits on mid-decade redistricting, reduced partisan control over the process, and a clearer federal system for resolving disputes. 

The proposals have not been turned into legislation yet. But it is a notable admission from at least some members of Congress that the current redistricting free-for-all is digging a deeper grave for democracy in the US.

“Representative government works best when voters choose their elected officials—not the other way around,” said US Rep. Jeff Hurd (CO-3), co-lead of the Problem Solvers Caucus Gerrymandering Working Group.

“Fairly drawn districts help keep members accountable to the people they represent, strengthen our institutions, and encourage the kind of practical, results-oriented leadership Americans expect.”

Polls regularly show most Americans want to see an end to partisan gerrymandering. It has created a political environment in which 94% of House seats are safe for one of the two major parties, according to Cook Political Report. 

But even independent maps have been sacrificed during the current conflict and some members of the Problem Solvers Caucus represent states where the party in power is considering escalation, like Colorado and New York.

So, the question is: How effective will this reform framework be?

Because the idea that voters should pick their representatives, not the other way around, shouldn’t be controversial. And yet, in modern America—it somehow is because the parties have made it controversial.

The Redistricting Arms Race Has Left the Station

Congressional districts are traditionally redrawn once every 10 years after the Census, reflecting population shifts and keeping districts roughly equal in size. At least, that is how redistricting is supposed to work, but it rarely is the priority in places where politicians draw the maps

The 2025-26 election cycle has become the most aggressive period of mid-decade redistricting in modern history. The National Conference of State Legislatures reports that 10 states have changed congressional maps since summer 2025: 

Alabama, California, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah (the new map was ordered by a judge).

Other states have considered, attempted, or litigated similar moves, like in Virginia where the legislature put a referendum on the November 2025 ballot, but state courts struck it down on procedural grounds after the election.

The result is a race in which neither major party can credibly claim innocence. 

Republicans redraw maps where they have the power. Democrats look for opportunities to counter-redraw maps where they control the process (like Proposition 50 in California).

Each side calls the other party’s map rigging while treating its own map as self-defense.

As John Oliver noted on his HBO show this week, the knee-jerk reaction to retaliate and escalate may seem satisfying for party members in the short-term, but voters demanding it now may not like how the fight ends.

The Problem Solvers Caucus describes the trend as a “race to the bottom”—and that is something few would dispute. 

What the Problem Solvers Caucus Is Proposing

The framework outlines four broad reforms.

1. It restricts congressional redistricting to once every 10 years after the decennial Census. 
2. It calls for nationwide standards that reject partisan advantage and incumbent protection as legitimate goals in drawing congressional districts. 
3. It supports reducing partisan influence through reforms like independent redistricting or process changes like algorithmic mapping. 
4. It calls for a consistent federal process to resolve congressional redistricting disputes.

The Problem Solvers Caucus is not demanding that every state adopt one identical redistricting model. Instead, it is signaling that Congress should create rules that make it harder for partisan officeholders to manipulate maps behind closed doors.

The exact legal language and metrics that will define these universal standards and goals has not been fully written out or decided. However, the framework calls for stability, transparency, consistent standards, respect for communities, and fewer incentives for partisan manipulation.

“Two hundred and fifty years after our nation’s founding, we are reminded that American self-government rests on one enduring principle: the people are sovereign,” said Problem Solvers Caucus Co-Chair Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-1).

“That principle is diminished when congressional lines are drawn to protect politicians, predetermine outcomes, or reward the extremes at the expense of the broad center of the country. Redistricting reform demands a single standard, applied fairly to both parties, because both parties have been drawn into the same race to the bottom.”

Many States Have Gone All In on Gerrymandering—Will Congress Act?

The Supreme Court’s 2019 decision in Rucho v. Common Cause closed the federal courthouse door to most partisan-gerrymandering claims. It ruled that partisan gerrymandering claims present a political question beyond the reach of the courts.

But Rucho did not say Congress is powerless. In fact, the court specifically noted that the Constitution gives Congress authority to regulate certain aspects of congressional elections. 

Article I, Section 4 gives states the initial power to determine the “Times, Places and Manner” of congressional elections, but it also gives Congress authority to “make or alter” those regulations to a certain degree.

To what degree is a matter for the courts to interpret. However, this is the opening the Problem Solvers Caucus is trying to use. Congress has already adopted certain uniform standards as it pertains to elections (e.g. a recognized Election Day and registration requirements).

The question is whether enough members of Congress are willing to support rules that could make their own elections less predictable.

The Problem Solvers Caucus is essentially calling on incumbents to support proposals that would make their stations less guaranteed, since most only need to get through a low-turnout primary to secure election.

The framework does not yet specify what “objective criteria” means in practice. Would Congress require compactness? County preservation? Competitive districts? Limits on partisan asymmetry? 

Protections for communities of interest? How would it handle states with unusual geography or rapidly changing populations? Who decides when a state has crossed the line? And how do they make that decision?

A new federal court process could bring consistency. It could also simply create a new venue for partisan litigation unless Congress defines clear rules and strict timelines.

Even then, litigation is still likely. 

And while independent commissions are frequently presented as the solution, not all commissions are created equal. Some truly remove politicians from the process. Others simply relocate partisan bargaining into a different room.

Research has found that reforms can reduce partisan bias and improve competitiveness when they actually constrain partisan actors, but commissions that leave party leaders with significant control can be far less effective.

This is why the details will matter more than the rhetoric.

The Problem Solvers Caucus is finally saying openly what too many politicians avoid: Both parties have abused redistricting power, and neither party can be trusted to restrain itself when control of Congress is on the line.

That is the correct diagnosis. The harder part is turning it into law.

The caucus says it will spend the coming months developing legislation and building support among election experts, legal scholars, and stakeholders across the political spectrum.

But will the bill it produces simply tell states to be fair and hope for the best?

Or, will it produce enforceable national standards, transparent mapping requirements, meaningful public participation, clear judicial review, and protections against partisan opportunism?

America has seen many bipartisan statements declaring that gerrymandering is bad—including from people who have poured gasoline on the current fire. It needs a Congress that will actually act.