Related video: BATTLE FOR INFLUENCE: Understanding the Redistricting Conflicts | CURRENT TOPIC
In a working democracy, citizens, rather than politicians, select their representatives. However, as Republicans in Texas have significantlyredrawn their electoral mapsUnder President Trump’s directive, it is increasingly evident that our democracy is facing a serious threat from within.
We are moving quickly toward a system of autocracy, where, should Trump and his supporters succeed, MAGA Republicans would select their voters and significantly alter the distribution of power in Congress.
That’s why California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) has directly confronted national Republicans by introducing Proposition 50, theElection Rigging Response Act, a legislative measure that would provide the state with “a new, temporary Congressional map, in reaction to the congressional redistricting in Texas, that counters Trump’s attempt to seize power.”
This battle with the Republican Party is not recent. Long before the MAGA movement, the Republican Party pursued a strong and defiant effort to secure political power without majority backing.
In 2011, for example, state lawmakers in Wisconsin createdmaps that were extremely biasedby 2018, “Republicans received 46 percent of the statewide vote but secured 64 percent of the seats in the state assembly.”
This approach is a component of a larger anti-democratic trend, dating back to Jim Crow and intensified byTrump’s lies, which aims to exclude a quickly diversifying electorate from having real influence in our government. This type of authoritarianism is designed so that one party can keep a firm grip on power for a long time, no matter how much support it has among the voters.
If this recent effort to alter the nation’s political environment proves effective, it could enable a small group to enact legislation that is opposed by a significant majority of Americans.
This involves policies that weaken oversight of corporate influence, take away women’s autonomy over their bodies, permit polluters to contaminate our waterways, and hinder the LGBTQ community from living openly and freely.
All of this might be achieved by gerrymandering aimed at further restricting the political representation of Black, Latino, and other historically underrepresented groups.
Therefore, Democrats are faced with a decision. Given this manipulative use of district boundaries to ensure political power for Trump and his supporters, are Democrats ethically and politically required to respond in kind, as Newsom has done?
The response must be yes.
If the Republican Party is open to manipulating the system so that voters cannot select their representatives, then the immediate method to protect democracy, along with the Constitution’s promise of a republican government, is to take similar actions.
If Republicans compel the Democrats to adopt aggressive counter-gerrymandering tactics, the nation faces a greater likelihood of becoming an even more fragmented collection of non-competitive districts.
Primaries might be the only elections that hold significance, with Congress members effectively chosen by a small, occasionally radical portion of the hundreds of thousands of people they are meant to serve.
More voters will sense they are excluded from their government, with their opinions ignored and their votes having no impact, all due to Trump and his supporters. This includes the Roberts-led Supreme Court. We have reached this crucial moment largely because the court failed in its duty.
In its 2019 Rucho v. Common CauseIn the decision, the court had a prime chance to rule partisan gerrymandering as unconstitutional, similar to how it had addressed racial gerrymandering. However, the conservative majority instead stated that the matter was “nonjusticiable,” claiming that federal courts should not intervene in what they considered an inherently political process.
The green light encouraged state legislatures to implement some of the most severe gerrymanders in recent history, unfairly affecting Black voters.
In Louisiana in 2021, for example, where approximately33 percentof the voting-age population is Black and 58 percent is white, the state Republican officialscreated a maponly one Black-majority district among six.
Due to the state’s highly divided voting patterns, Black voters’ political impact is largely limited to about 17 percent of available positions, with white voters determining the remaining 83 percent.
Justice Elena Kagan’s dissentIn Rucho, it was a forewarning. The court, she stated, had failed in its duty to protect the “foundation” of our democracy and had allowed a practice that would “threaten our system of government.”
She foresaw that the decision would increase division and solidify a system in which power would concentrate among a small group of people. Her forecast has turned out to be extremely correct.
The best approach would be to establish nonpartisan, independent commissions responsible for drawing district boundaries in a fair manner, removing the authority from self-serving politicians. However, this objective seems extremely remote given today’s political environment.
House Democrats have advanced three billsIn recent years, efforts for nonpartisan redistricting have been made, only to fade away quietly due to Senate Republicans.
As Republicans aggressively manipulate district boundaries to secure their influence and mute the voices of significant portions of the electorate, the sole immediate strategy for safeguarding American democracy is for Democrats to engage in counter-gerrymandering. Initiating this perilous competition is a morally necessary act of defense for democracy itself.
The effort to establish minority dominance under the MAGA agenda poses a critical danger to our democratic system. It is now up to our political leaders to halt this move towards authoritarianism immediately.
Our democratic system is based on the principle that citizens choose their leaders — not the reverse.
Norman Eisen serves as the executive chair ofDemocracy Defenders Fund and the publisher of The ContrarianGabe Lezra serves as the policy and advocacy director for the Democracy Defenders Fund, while Diamond Brown holds the position of senior counsel.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This content cannot be published, aired, altered, or shared again.
