The 2026 redistricting challenge highlights the urgent need for a comprehensive reform solution. While nonpartisan redistricting commissions are often proposed as a necessary fix, they alone cannot fully address the problem. The root of the issue is exemplified by recent mid-decade redistricting battles and the Supreme Court’s weakening of the Voting Rights Act. This has led to a projected reduction in competitive U.S. House districts to about 22, fewer than 5 percent, contributing further to political division.
Currently, most electoral competition happens within party primaries, encouraging extreme positions and reducing compromise. The Supreme Court’s stance on partisan and racial gerrymandering limits options for restoring fair elections, especially for minority groups. Nonpartisan redistricting commissions are in use in at least 10 states, serving as the primary creators of congressional redistricting maps. However, the success of these commissions has been inconsistent, as they can still produce partisan outcomes and face legal challenges for gerrymandering.
A fundamental problem in redistricting is demographic sorting, where Democrats and minorities tend to cluster in urban areas, while Republicans cluster elsewhere. This clustering can lead to ‘unintentional gerrymandering’ when creating single-member districts with equal populations, a situation detrimental to Democrats.
To tackle such issues, an alternative solution is to minimize or eliminate the drawing of single-member districts and adopt proportional representation. In a winner-takes-all system, a slim majority can claim all the power, leaving minorities unrepresented. By contrast, proportional representation offers a fairer distribution of power, allowing a group with a certain percentage of votes to receive a corresponding share of representation.
Proportional representation is used in many industrialized democracies and some U.S. cities. In the U.S., it is often implemented through ranked choice voting, where voters rank their preferred candidates. This method, used in places like New York City and San Francisco, can prevent vote splitting and encourage diverse candidate participation.
Another system, the single transferable vote, is employed in cities like Minneapolis and Portland. It enhances proportional outcomes, particularly for racial and ethnic minorities, by allowing votes to be redistributed when candidates are eliminated or seated.
The Fair Representation Act, pending in Congress, suggests a pathway toward using single transferable vote in U.S. House elections. For states with five or fewer House seats, elections would be at-large without districting, removing gerrymandering risks. States with more seats would use multimember districts, each electing several members, further limiting gerrymandering.
Proportional representation offers benefits across political landscapes, helping both Democrats in Republican-dominated states and Republicans in Democrat-dominated states. It also encourages voter turnout and allows lesser-known candidates to participate effectively, reducing the impact of the ‘spoiler’ effect.
If Democrats regain control in Congress, prioritizing redistricting reform could be in their long-term interest, as the current demographic sort tends to favor Republicans. Moving beyond single-member districts could benefit all parties and promote a fairer electoral process.
Steven Mulroy, author of “Rethinking U.S. Election Law: Unskewing The System,” shares his insights based on his experiences as a former DOJ voting section litigator and law professor specializing in voting rights and election law. He currently serves as district attorney for Memphis and Shelby County, Tennessee.