Can courts end partisan gerrymandering?

Hear how gerrymandering is like 'Moneyball applied to politics'

In a 2016 interview, journalist David Daley explained how Republicans used data-driven targeting after the 2010 census to lock in durable advantages, comparing modern gerrymandering strategies to the analytics revolution in baseball.

Independent redistricting commissions aim to take politics out of the map-drawing process

In several states, citizen or bipartisan panels draw congressional and legislative districts based on neutral criteria like population and geography. Learn more about how these commissions increase competitiveness in elections.

This American Life explored Ohio's gerrymandering battle

In 2022, Ohio lawmakers repeatedly drew congressional districts that the state Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional. This defiance violated a voter-approved reform intended to prohibit partisan gerrymandering.

Test your gerrymandering skills with this interactive game

This simulation demonstrates how packing and cracking alter election outcomes. See how shifting district lines can change representation—regardless of the overall makeup of the electorate.

Researchers found that 2020 redistricting tactics created safer districts and reduced competition

Studies of the 2020 redistricting cycle show that map-drawing strategies locked in predictable outcomes. The result was fewer competitive races, more incumbents shielded from challengers, and representatives less responsive to broader voter preferences.

See the most oddly gerrymandered districts in the US

Based on input from redistricting experts and political scientists, this resource identifies and ranks the most extreme congressional gerrymanders of the 2020s, examining how map design, cracking, and packing reduce competition and distort representation across states.

How algorithmic redistricting works

Computational methods are convincing a number of judges that some state district maps are drawn illegally. Here's a simple overview of how it works.

Track the unusual push for mid-decade redistricting across the US

The National Conference of State Legislatures maintains a live tracker showing where mid-decade congressional redistricting is underway, detailing which states are pursuing new maps, the legislative and constitutional methods being used, and how courts are responding as the 2026 elections approach.

In 2025, Democratic-led states moved to counter with their own redistricting plans

In response to Republican mid-decade redistricting efforts, Democratic leaders in California, New York, Illinois, and Maryland signaled plans to revisit their own congressional maps.

A 2013 Supreme Court case weakened federal oversight of redistricting

In Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court struck down the Voting Rights Act's preclearance formula, reducing federal oversight of voting laws—including redistricting—and allowing changes to take effect without prior approval.

Gerrymandering works through two techniques: cracking opposing voters across districts to dilute their power, and packing them into a few to waste their votes in lopsided majorities.

Cracking and packing are gerrymandering techniques. Cracking splits opposing voters across districts, diluting their power. Packing concentrates their votes into a few districts, wasting them in overwhelming majorities for one party.

Republicans launched a mid-decade redistricting push in 2025

Beginning in Texas, Republican-controlled legislatures in Missouri, Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina moved to redraw maps before 2030—an uncommon mid-decade effort aimed at securing additional congressional seats.

Experts predict Republicans will gain seats from mid-decade redistricting in 2026

Analysts expect GOP-led states to net seats through mid-decade redistricting, while Democratic states face greater hurdles due to commissions and legal limits—tilting the likely outcome toward Republican gains in 2026.

Redistricting reshapes political boundaries, usually once a decade after the census

Every 10 years, states redraw congressional and legislative districts based on census data to ensure equal population. Legislatures usually control the process, though some states use independent commissions to curb partisan influence.

Listen to scholars debate abolishing the Electoral College

In this 2016 podcast episode, Harvard's Alex Keyssar and UVA's James Ceaser debate why the Electoral College was created, how parties reshaped it, and what reforms—national popular vote, runoffs, district allocation—could replace it.

The term 'gerrymander' dates back to a 1812 Boston dinner party

The term "gerrymandering" arose when Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry approved a state senate map with a district so contorted it resembled a salamander. Critics dubbed it the "Gerry-mander," cementing the term for partisan map manipulation.

Mid-decade redistricting is historically rare in modern US history

States have generally redrawn districts only once per decade following the census, with mid-decade redistricting occurring infrequently and usually prompted by court orders or unusual political circumstances.

Watch scholars debate Supreme Court term limits

In a debate from 2017, legal scholars from across the political spectrum spar over whether justices should serve fixed terms. The discussion highlights bipartisan concerns about judicial independence, accountability, and the risks of lifetime tenure.

The 2025-26 Supreme Court docket is poised to reshape presidential power

As the Supreme Court begins a new term, several major cases could define the scope of presidential authority. The court may rule on President Trump's efforts to control state National Guard units, fire independent officials, impose tariffs, and cut congressionally mandated federal spending.

The Supreme Court limited federal judges' power to issue nationwide injunctions in 2025

In a 2025 decision arising from litigation over a presidential order on birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court held that individual federal judges may not nationwide block executive policies—curbing the use of sweeping injunctions and reshaping how constitutional challenges proceed through the courts.

States are constitutionally mandated to draw their own congressional districts

Under Article I, Section 4 of the US Constitution, state legislatures possess the authority to determine how congressional districts are drawn. However, Congress retains the power to alter these rules if it chooses to.

Take a deep dive into the constitutional foundations of judicial review

In this episode of "This Constitution," the hosts take a law-focused approach to judicial review—examining its roots in Article III and the supremacy clause, its development through Marbury v. Madison, and the ongoing constitutional debates about whether the court's power strengthens or strains American democracy.

Marshall used deft political maneuvering to increase the court's power in Marbury v. Madison

This podcast explores how Chief Justice John Marshall avoided a direct clash with President Jefferson by denying William Marbury his commission—while simultaneously declaring that courts can strike down unconstitutional laws—cementing judicial review, and expanding the Supreme Court's authority.

There were fewer competitive districts in 2022 than at any point since 1970

Analysts reported that the 2022 midterms featured the lowest share of competitive congressional districts since 1970, reflecting how modern redistricting has increasingly produced safe seats and reduced voter choice.

An adultery and poisoning case examined whether federal treaty power supersedes state law

This Radiolab podcast unpacks Bond v. United States, where a local love-triangle assault became a federal case under an international treaty—forcing the Supreme Court to confront a founding question: How far can federal power reach into crimes traditionally handled by the states?

True crime content can influence the justice system

The 2014 podcast "Serial" inspired national doubt about the outcome and quality of a 1999 Baltimore murder case, resulting in overturned convictions (that were then reinstated). The series "In the Dark," whose second season pored over the murder trials of a Black Mississippi man, revealed crucial testimony was recanted, provided evidence of racial discrimination in jury selection, and was cited in case filings.

Hear leading experts on constitutional law discuss the legacy and impact of Marshall

In this podcast, constitutional scholars Michael Gerhardt (University of North Carolina) and Kevin Walsh (University of Richmond) analyze Marshall's 34-year tenure, assessing his role in establishing judicial review, expanding federal power, and shaping the court's institutional authority.

Debating the Constitution today

The Constitution continues to shape our political and social life today. If you want to understand how today’s political debates connect to the Constitution, check out this podcast from the National Constitution Center. The weekly program features experts from diverse perspectives and explores how constitutional principles shape modern issues.

A 1986 Supreme Court ruling prohibited race-based jury strikes, but racial imbalance in jury selection persists

Batson v. Kentucky banned prosecutors from excluding jurors on the basis of race, but critics say it backfired. Prosecutors often use race-neutral pretexts to remove potential jurors that judges rarely reject, and some courts have never found a violation of the ruling.

Explore jury nullification, the little-known power that lets jurors ignore the law and acquit anyway

When jurors disagree with a law, they can simply vote to acquit regardless of the evidence; however, this practice is rare, and the legal system actively discourages it. This podcast traces its history from a Quaker prayer meeting in London to the LA riots.

Thousands of state voting changes have been federally blocked since the Voting Rights Act

Since 1965, federal oversight has blocked thousands of state-level voting changes—including redistricting plans—by requiring approval for measures that could affect minority representation, a process scaled back by the Supreme Court in 2013.

Court-packing is the attempt to change the number of Supreme Court justices to shift the balance

Because the Constitution leaves the court's size to Congress, presidents have periodically sought to expand or reshape it. This explainer examines past efforts—including Franklin D. Roosevelt's failed 1937 plan—and why court-packing remains so controversial.

How partisan is your district?

The highly-respected Cook Political Report rates how partisan--and therefore, how safe--every district in the US is. Hover over your home district to see the score.

A court designed to be the least powerful branch of government became one of the most influential institutions in America.

Thomas Hofeller was the GOP strategist known as the 'master of gerrymandering'

Republican consultant Thomas Hofeller quietly shaped US politics for decades by engineering partisan maps nationwide. His files, released after his death, revealed strategies to maximize GOP advantage and diminish Democratic influence.

Hear an oral history of the Electoral College and why it still exists

This podcast episode traces how the Electoral College emerged from rushed compromises, slavery-era power politics, and party maneuvering—showing why the system looks the way it does today and why efforts to change it have repeatedly stalled.

Hear about the individuals who have reshaped the Constitution throughout American history

This multi-episode podcast series from The Washington Post explores how debates, court decisions, and influential individuals have shaped the Constitution as Americans pushed the nation to live up to its founding ideals.

Marbury v. Madison also has implications for presidential power and transitions

This podcast episode explores how Marbury v. Madison extends beyond judicial review, examining its implications for presidential authority, administrative control, and the tensions that arise during transitions of power between outgoing and incoming administrations.

Courts referee federalism disputes between Congress and the states

Modern federalism is primarily worked out through litigation. The Supreme Court decides disputes in written opinions that explain when federal law preempts state authority, how far Congress's powers extend, and when states may resist.

In recent decades, Supreme Court nominations have grown increasingly contentious and partisan

This video examines the historical shift from bipartisan, civil confirmation hearings to the deeply divisive process seen today. It focuses on the 1987 nomination of Robert Bork, the most recent nominee to be rejected, as an important moment in this transformation.

Red and blue election maps are a modern media invention

The red–blue color scheme used on election night maps emerged in the 20th century as television networks adopted color graphics to make results easier to follow. The association of red with Republicans and blue with Democrats later became standardized.

A 2020 Supreme Court ruling affirmed that nearly half of Oklahoma remains tribal land

In McGirt v. Oklahoma, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Muscogee Nation's reservation was never legally dissolved, thereby stripping Oklahoma of authority to prosecute tribal members for crimes committed on that land. Season One of the "This Land" podcast further explores how reservation court systems operate.

Limited courts is a source of tension between pickleball and tennis players

Municipalities have rushed to accommodate the explosion of pickleball games, but sometimes they can't keep up. That's frustrated tennis players, whose courts are now often filled with people playing the sport.

Explore how free speech and justice coexist and sometimes clash

From the abolition of slavery to South African apartheid, this podcast explores how censorship has historically been used to suppress racial justice movements—and to promote them—and asks whether free speech is a foundation for, or a threat to, equality.

Critics say that the Electoral College is outdated and favors small states

This article argues that the Electoral College no longer reflects modern democratic norms, disproportionately advantages smaller states, and warrants broader reform and national debate. (Some readers may experience a paywall.)

A 1960s effort came close to abolishing the Electoral College

This podcast episode examines the closest attempts in US history to eliminate the Electoral College, focusing on a major 1960s reform push—and why, despite broad support, it ultimately failed.

Cases during John Marshall's tenure defined the principles of federal Indian law

During Marshall's tenure, three landmark rulings—Johnson v. M'Intosh, Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, and Worcester v. Georgia—established foundational doctrines of federal Indian law, defining tribal sovereignty, limiting state authority, and placing primary responsibility for Native affairs in the federal government.

In the US, any court can rule on constitutionality—unlike in most other countries

In the American system, known as diffuse judicial review, federal and state courts at every level may assess whether laws comply with the Constitution, and their decisions are ultimately reviewable by the Supreme Court. Many other democracies, by contrast, reserve constitutional review to specialized constitutional courts.

Listen to 'We the People,' a weekly podcast from the National Constitution Center

Hosted by Jeffrey Rosen, this weekly podcast from the National Constitution Center brings leading legal scholars together to debate major constitutional questions, presenting competing arguments in a balanced, nonpartisan format.

The Supreme Court curbed the EPA's power to regulate carbon emissions in 2022

In West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the EPA exceeded its authority by requiring industrywide carbon cuts. Chief Justice Roberts' opinion invoked the "major questions" doctrine, which limits the ability of federal agencies to act without explicit congressional approval.