In the intricate realm of American democracy, the drawing of electoral district boundaries—known as redistricting—remains a highly technical yet profoundly consequential process. Following the decennial census mandated by the U.S. Constitution, state legislatures and redistricting bodies redraw Congressional maps to reflect population shifts. However, this essential step frequently becomes entangled in political manipulation, better known as gerrymandering, a phenomenon that distorts fair representation and challenges the foundational principles of electoral justice. Two political scientists from Binghamton University, Daniel B. Magleby and Michael D. McDonald, delve deeply into this complex subject in their recent scholarly work, “Assessing Gerrymandering after the 2020 Census,” shedding new light on diagnostic methodologies and the nuanced values underpinning fair elections.
Gerrymandering, a practice dating back over two centuries to Governor Elbridge Gerry’s infamous 1812 district designs, has evolved dramatically. While once characterized by overtly bizarre geographic shapes designed to advantage one party, modern gerrymandering leverages advanced statistical and computational tools, allowing map drawers to shape districts with subtlety and precision. This sophistication makes detection far more challenging yet ever more critical. Magleby and McDonald argue that understanding these diagnostic methodologies as tools akin to medical diagnostics is essential. Just as a doctor must accurately identify the nature of an illness before prescribing treatment, so must political scientists identify the precise ways in which a district map may be “sick”—or unfair—before recommending reform.
The researchers emphasize that the terminology and conceptual underpinnings central to detecting gerrymandering must move beyond vague appeals to “fairness.” Instead, assessments require clearly defined values, specifically regarding political representation. Their work suggests that the two cardinal values to preserve in electoral districting are the protection of minority voices and the principle of majority rule. These values, while seemingly straightforward, often exist in tension. District lines that empower a majority may simultaneously undermine minority representation, and vice versa, thereby complicating judicial and legislative efforts to define illegal gerrymandering.
In their investigative study, Magleby and McDonald applied five prominent diagnostic techniques to the post-2020 census congressional maps across 37 states with at least three districts. These techniques were drawn from leading academic scholarship and included measures such as the efficiency gap, mean-median difference, and partisan bias metrics, each designed to detect different dimensions of partisan manipulation. Their comprehensive analysis revealed a patchwork of outcomes: clear partisan gerrymandering in four states, no evidence in twelve, and ambiguous or mixed signals across the remaining twenty-one, highlighting the diagnostic challenges present in real-world data.
A critical insight arising from their analysis is the recognition that no single diagnostic approach can definitively identify all forms of gerrymandering. Each method targets specific “types” of manipulation, from packing and cracking of voters to bias in vote-to-seat conversion. Therefore, applying a diagnostic designed to detect a violation of majority rule to a district primarily designed to marginalize minority representation risks both misclassification and ineffective remedies. This differentiation underscores the importance of precise value identification before deploying technical tools.
The complexity is amplified by the political realities of state legislatures, many of which are dominated by a single party with vested interests. While nonpartisan or bipartisan redistricting commissions have emerged as institutional solutions aimed at curbing map manipulation, research reveals that such commissions are not immune to producing skewed districts. This nuanced finding disrupts simplistic assumptions that structural reform by itself guarantees fairness, pointing instead toward multifaceted assessments encompassing legal, political, and statistical dimensions.
Magleby and McDonald also contextualize gerrymandering within demographic realities, exemplified by urban states like New York and Illinois where Democratic voters cluster densely. When districting is conducted purely on geographic contiguity, these majorities may find their representation diluted—a phenomenon sometimes unavoidable but analytically distinct from partisan gerrymandering. The challenge lies in distinguishing the necessary adjustment of maps to preserve legitimate political values, such as minority representation and majority governance, from unlawful manipulation driven solely by partisan advantage.
This nuanced perspective is imperative, especially given the evolving legal landscape. A 2019 U.S. Supreme Court ruling effectively removed federal courts from policing political gerrymandering, shifting responsibility toward state courts and legislatures. Reform efforts at the federal level face partisan hurdles, as McDonald observes, with legislation aimed at preventing gerrymandering currently blocked in political arenas. Nonetheless, the persistence of academic scrutiny and empirical methodologies provides a critical avenue for ongoing accountability.
Underlying the research is an understanding that sophisticated social science can and must play a central role in designing “diagnostic” tools that can reliably signal when district maps violate agreed-upon democratic values. Magleby and McDonald envision a future where a consensus on core electoral values enables the deployment of tailored metrics to monitor and challenge suspect redistricting plans effectively, analogous to a healthcare system’s ability to diagnose and treat illness with precision.
Their contribution is vital in an era where the stakes of electoral manipulation have never been higher. The arms race between map drawers and watchdogs leverages statistical advances on both sides, demanding continual refinement of diagnostic tools and scholarly collaboration. As Magleby poignantly notes, misuse or misapplication of diagnostic tools—akin to prescribing treatment based on a misdiagnosis—risks exacerbating mistrust and failing to protect the integrity of electoral democracy.
Ultimately, this research serves not only as a technical examination but as a call to redefine how electoral fairness is conceptualized and operationalized. By anchoring reforms and diagnostics in clearly articulated and measurable values—first ensuring minorities have meaningful voices and second upholding majority rule—social scientists and policymakers can better address the twin threats of voter disenfranchisement and political distortion inherent in gerrymandering.
The path forward demands rigorous scholarship, cross-disciplinary innovation, and political will to align technical capabilities with principled objectives. With the right tools and a value-driven framework, there is cautious optimism that gerrymandering’s corrosive effects can be mitigated, preserving the promise of fair representation enshrined within the American electoral system.
Subject of Research: People
Article Title: Assessing Gerrymandering after the 2020 Census
News Publication Date: 11-Mar-2025
Web References:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/elj.2024.0004
Image Credits: “Vote here, vote aqui” by whiteafrican is licensed under CC BY 2.0
Keywords: Elections, Government, Political science
