When does redistricting turn into “gerrymandering?”

Gerrymandering is the practice of drawing or arranging the boundaries of electoral districts in a way that gives one political party or group an unfair advantage in elections. The term dates back to 1812, when Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry approved a redistricting plan whose odd-shaped district was likened to a salamander—hence “Gerry-mander.” In the United States, redistricting occurs every ten years following the census. Gerrymandering occurs when redrawing is used not just to reflect population shifts but to embed partisan advantage.

Gerrymandering comes in several different forms: partisan (favoring one party), racial (diluting minority voting power), and incumbency-protection (designed to protect sitting legislators). The consequences include reduced electoral competition, manipulated representation, and diminished public trust in democratic fairness.

What are recent Supreme Court rulings regarding gerrymandering?

Two recent landmark legal developments are critical.

• Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) — The U.S. Supreme Court held that federal courts lack jurisdiction to adjudicate claims of partisan gerrymandering, calling them “political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts.” Although the Court recognized partisan gerrymandering may be “incompatible with democratic principles,” it declined to set a national judicial standard to strike it down.
• Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (2024) — The Court further narrowed protections under the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965 by allowing a map in South Carolina challenged for racial gerrymandering to go forward, effectively limiting the reach of VRA-based challenges tied to redistricting.

As a result of these and related rulings, the legal avenues to challenge partisan-drawn maps are significantly constrained at the federal level, with much of the focus now shifted to state constitutions and laws.

Why are states redistricting mid-decade?

This year, a series of states responded to a public push by President Trump to redraw U.S. House district maps mid-decade, ahead of the 2026 elections, to secure additional Republican seats. In Texas, for example, Trump publicly asserted that Republicans were “entitled to five more seats” via a map redraw. The strategy is to leverage the legal permission (or absence of prohibition) created by earlier court rulings to carry out partisan gerrymanders. The move has been described as a “redistricting arms race,” with states led by Democrats considering counter-moves. On November 4, 2025, California voters approved a ballot measure to redistrict in favor of Democrats.

How are voting districts decided in New Hampshire?

In the Granite State, district lines for both congressional and state legislative seats are drawn by the Legislature via the regular bill process and are subject to the governor’s veto. In December 2023, the New Hampshire Supreme Court held that claims of partisan gerrymandering under the state constitution are non-justiciable political questions and thus cannot be reviewed by the courts. In other words, political gerrymandering is legal in New Hampshire unless the Legislature votes to change state law or amend the Constitution.

Some have called for mid-decade redistricting in New Hampshire, but Gov. Ayotte has said she opposes this idea.