The ongoing political battle over congressional map redistricting has intensified, with Republicans strategically leveraging their power in red states to expand their slim House majority, leaving Democrats to reconsider their traditional approach to fair line-drawing.

This critical, decennial process of adjusting congressional and legislative districts, crucial for ensuring equal population representation, has long been exploited by the party in power to create districts virtually guaranteeing their lawmakers’ reelection. Historically, many Democratic-controlled states have favored independent commissions to handle this task, aiming to limit partisan manipulation and foster more competitive electoral landscapes.

However, this embrace of a non-partisan model by Democrats now presents a significant challenge. Unlike Republicans, who are actively urged by prominent figures to carve out favorable districts for their party, Democrats find themselves with fewer avenues to counteract these aggressive redistricting efforts, potentially jeopardizing their chances of regaining the House majority in the upcoming midterm elections.

Amidst this predicament, a growing sentiment among Democrats advocates for retaliation. During a recent gathering, several Democratic governors expressed their desire to counter Republican moves, emphasizing the high stakes involved. Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers, a proponent of non-partisan commissions, stressed the urgency for Democrats to employ “whatever means” necessary to combat Republican congressional map redrawing.

Yet, the path to retaliation is complex, even in states where Democrats hold power. California Governor Gavin Newsom, for instance, faces the challenge of potentially repealing or defying a 2008 ballot measure that established an independent redistricting commission, a model he once supported. Similarly, New York’s commission model constitutionally bars another map this decade, with changes not possible until 2027 at the earliest, and only then with voter approval.

The divide within the Democratic party is evident. While some leaders, like former Attorney General Eric Holder, who previously championed non-partisanship, now seem to tacitly approve of efforts to overrule commissions, others like Senator Richard Blumenthal argue against stooping to “their tactics,” advocating for maintaining fair representation principles. This internal conflict highlights the ideological tension between adhering to ideals and engaging in political pragmatism.

Evidence suggests that when unconstrained by commissions, Democrats have engaged in equally aggressive redistricting. States like Illinois and New Mexico have seen maps drawn to heavily favor Democrats, demonstrating that partisan self-interest can transcend ideological commitment when unchecked. This reality complicates the narrative of one party being inherently more “fair” than the other in the redistricting process.

Advocates for non-partisan redistricting express alarm at the Democrats’ potential shift. They warn that both major parties, if left unchecked, would ruthlessly manipulate maps, effectively pre-selecting winners and diminishing voter influence. This scenario, described as a “jagged rock” rather than a safe “port,” underscores the broader threat to democratic principles posed by partisan gerrymandering. The political environment, increasingly polarized, has seen leaders openly discuss these strategic maneuvers, further blurring the lines between fair play and political advantage.