Every decade, states redraw their political lines, shaping the constituencies of all 435 members of the House of Representatives in response to new Census data. Sometimes, these districts are logical geographically, following demarcations of cities, counties, rivers or highways. In recent decades, however, these districts have not always followed geography at all and instead have been manipulated to ensure specific political outcomes for either Democrats or Republicans.
In 1812, Massachusetts Gov. Elbridge Gerry approved a district shaped so oddly that critics referred to it as a salamander; the boundaries were clearly drawn to favor Jeffersonian Democrats. Thus, the term gerrymandering was born.
At its core, gerrymandering means that if a party can’t win with votes, they can win by remaking the voting map.
For example, a party might move most of the opposing voters into a single district to “waste their votes” — since only a majority is needed in most elections — or dilute them across several districts so they can’t form a majority. Ultimately, this tactic allows politicians to pick and choose which voters truly matter.
In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled in Rucho v. Common Clause that federal courts cannot hear partisan gerrymandering claims, cementing the regulation of this power to state-level decisions.
The controversial 5-4 decision by the court’s conservative majority meant that, unlike race-based gerrymandering, “districting for some level of partisan advantage is not unconstitutional.” In the years since, the decision has weighed heavily on policy decisions, even more so in today’s closely divided Congress.
Currently, the Republican Party is in control of the judicial, executive and legislative branches of the federal government. However, if the Democratic Party flips just three seats in November 2026, the House of Representatives could tilt in their favor, preventing a Republican trifecta from continuing — in other words, Republicans would lose the ability to advance their policies without significant bipartisan support.
Typically, states wait for the U.S. Decennial Census to redraw congressional maps, as population and demographic shifts are only officially counted then. However, Trump, given razor-thin margins in Congress, has recently pushed Republican lawmakers back to the drawing board rather than waiting for 2030.
In Texas, Republican lawmakers took the first step of mid-decade redistricting, a move unheard of since 1896. In a plan openly backed by President Trump, the redistricting is designed to add five additional Republican seats to the House. Despite a Democratic walkout to prevent a quorum from being reached, Gov. Greg Abbott signed the plan into law on Aug. 29.
Civil rights groups argue such laws weaken the power of minorities and are therefore threatening litigation against the Texas government.
Until Supreme Court rulings in the 2010s, like Shelby County v. Holder in 2013 and Abbott v. Perez, states like Texas were barred from drawing maps that diluted minority representation due to the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Without those protections, civil rights groups argue that new maps have eroded Black and Latino voting power.
Opponents of the policy, like NAACP president Derrick Johnson, claim that despite white voters representing 40% of the population, they control 73% of congressional seats in the state. Large representational discrepancies like these leave a profoundly negative impression of gerrymandering among the general populace.
California’s response to Texan redistricting: an eye for an eye
Unlike Texas, California has an Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission (ICRC) in charge of drawing electoral maps. Created in 2008 as the Citizens Redistricting Commission (CRC), its jurisdiction only covered the State Senate, Assembly and Board of Equalization, before expanding to include Congressional Districts in 2010; the commission exists to isolate redistricting from politicians and make elections fairer. Its solution involves selecting 14 voters — five Republicans, five Democrats and four non-partisan — to redistrict with negligible bias through their diversified political beliefs.
However, after Abbott’s move to redistrict Texas, California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic state legislators fought for a “one-time” temporary workaround to be placed on this November’s special election ballot: Proposition 50, a politically drawn Democrat-favoring map. Newsom has become openly combative on social media, writing “two can play at that game,” referring to Abbott’s earlier move to redraw Texas maps in Republicans’ favor.
The effort, green-lit by top Democrats in Congress — including former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries — aims to add five seats in the House and strengthen areas with tight margins. Afterward, boundaries will return to the discretion of the ICRC in 2030.
However, opposition has sprouted from center-right politicians, including former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who led efforts to create the ICRC and has hailed the commission as one of his signature reforms to restore trust in elections and ensure voters picked their politicians.
Students, especially those approaching voting age, are also actively following the situation. Senior Jet Tsang, a member of the school’s debate team — having covered similar political issues throughout his debate career — argues that rather than voters picking politicians, the opposite is currently occurring, and is uniquely harmful for voters.
“[Gerrymandering] is a pretty undemocratic practice. It also exacerbates polarization, as people don’t feel like their voices are represented in government, potentially leading to extremism,” Tsang said. “The best way we [as youth] can act is by staying informed about national and international events in the political world so that when we can vote, we can be informed constituents making logical decisions.”
National impacts and changes in the election outcome
In response to the California-Texas redistricting battle, other states have begun to redraw their maps as well. In Missouri, Gov. Mike Kehoe ordered a Sept. 3 special session to potentially add a Republican seat in the House, a move that could further solidify GOP control if passed.
Additionally, in Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis believes it would be appropriate to redistrict mid-decade due to Florida’s “rising population.” The state’s House of Representatives created a panel — the Select Committee on Congressional Redistricting — to redraw Congressional maps. If approved, the new boundaries could secure one or two additional Republican seats, reinforcing Congressional standing.
For Congress, the actual impact may not be as large as most headlines suggest. If Texas nets five additional Republican seats and California nets the same number of Democratic seats, the effect on the House should cancel out.
However, this limited effect operates under the assumption that California voters approve the one-time map and that the intended party-aligned candidates win their districts. Because the House majority often comes down to fewer than 10 swing seats, even a change in a handful of districts could flip control.
This political battle has significant long-term negative effects. Specifically, the conflict erodes public trust in election integrity. The impacts of this are harder to measure, but the backlash is clear. In Austin and Sacramento, protests have already sparked, concerning signs of how each round of redistricting deepens distrust.
As for the presidency, redistricting doesn’t alter the composition of the Electoral College. Since the winner of the statewide popular vote typically receives all the state electoral votes (with exceptions in Maine and Nebraska), redistricting will not create significant impacts in those states.
Saratoga: district borders and how we vote
Since the 2021 redistricting cycle, Saratoga has sat in California’s 16th Congressional District (CA-16), which covers the area west of Santa Clara County all the way to the Pacific coast. CA-16 is represented by Democrat Sam Liccardo, who defeated Democrat Evan Low in the last election. Previously, Saratoga sat in CA-18, but population shifts split the district into CA-16 and 19 in 2020.
History teacher Mike Davey has observed firsthand how the district’s political leanings have shifted over the decades.
“In the last 20 or 30 years, we’ve gone from limousine liberal Republicans to firmly Democrat,” Davey said.
He notes that the GOP’s changing policies have shifted alignment from the voter base, no longer representing the area as it once did.
In terms of strict partisan breakdown, however, Saratoga is more competitive than most would expect. According to the latest state voter registration data, the city is roughly 34 percent Democratic and 31.5 percent Republican, marking the city as a rare pocket of competition within the mostly-blue Bay Area.
Davey pointed to Saratoga’s relative affluence as a contributing factor.
“Saratoga is wealthier; wealthier people tend to be conservative because they want to conserve their money,” Davey said. “I still think Saratoga is fairly blue; the way you’re registered doesn’t necessarily tell how you’re going to vote.”
Regardless, the impact of California’s one-time redistricting from Proposition 50 on Congressional districts would be nearly negligible. CalMatters estimates that in CA-16, Democrats would gain about one percent of votes, with Republicans losing the same percentage. On paper, that shift doesn’t exactly change the entire district’s position as a blue district. Still, Saratoga still remains a competitive suburb.
For Saratoga, these small voting shifts may not change who represents the city. But voters must decide whether to stand by the state’s legacy of electoral fairness and anti-gerrymandering or embrace the same tactics it once denounced with partisan maps.
