Op-Eds

Readers of editorial pages by now know the arguments. To recap, extreme gerrymandering:

• Makes the primary of the dominant party the election, depriving about seven of eight registered voters a role in the election process, as they don’t vote in that primary;
• Reduces competition and voter turnout, increasing cynicism toward Congress, which is already at a low ebb;
• Treats voters as pawns in the game, moved around by computer remapping to ensure reelection for incumbents, and political control by the party in the majority;
• Drives polarization; primary nomination winners can ignore voters outside their very narrow support base, in both elections and governing;
• Diverts quality candidates, who refuse to play the game, and join voters on the sidelines.

Prior to 1962, many states had not redrawn their congressional and state legislative districts in generations. As a result, for example, one state senator in California represented 5,000 people whereas another, in Los Angeles County, represented 5 million. In Baker v. Carr (1962) and subsequent decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court dictated that all districts have equal populations, drawing upon the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

My back of the envelope reckoning shows that at present, with more partisan changes likely, Republicans across the Old South from Texas to South Carolina and Florida are projected to capture 83 congressional seats to 22 for Democrats. To counter, Democrats in major Blue states of California, Illinois and New York are set to win 84 seats versus 11 for Republicans. Regional polarization, you say?

In my state of Illinois, the majority Democrats are publicly talking about creating a congressional map that could result in 17 Dems and zero GOPers! This, in a state in which statewide elections in recent years have tended to be about 54-46 percent D over R. And they would call this representation?

Further, state legislative leaders in Illinois have floated a state constitutional amendment on redistricting that, in a literal reading, would not require that districts be contiguous (within unbroken boundary lines). Think of unconnected nodes of voters in the same district. Don’t put anything beyond mapmakers in the present, perfervid environment.

For readers who skipped history in college, be admonished that democracy is a rather fragile construct. Just ask descendants of our Grand Army of the Republic, or our friends in otherwise civilized Germany, Italy, France and central Europe.

Furthering short-term, hyper-partisan goals over representativeness risks destabilizing our system of government.

The U.S. high court has stated firmly it won’t intervene in partisan redistricting. So, members of Congress must stand back from the mayhem and provide the states (which do the redistricting) with reasonable guidelines that would result in fair, not perfect, districts. Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution provides Congress the authority to do this.

My insider friends say Congress will never act. Never is a long time. In the 19th Century, they said women would never get the vote.

Indeed, nothing will happen in the present environment. However, the path to the 2030 Census and 2031 redistricting will be paved with change. Trump has been the agitator for extreme gerrymandering, and will be gone after 2028. The 2030 Census will also focus public attention on the 2031 redistricting process. Further, voters don’t like being played for fools.

A poll taken in 2025 by Fair Maps Illinois found that 76 percent of voters in the state were repelled by gerrymandering; 73 percent of Dems, and 82 percent of Rs. Advocates for fair mapping will continue telling voters that elected officials who pull us apart, rather than draw us together, are not to be trusted.

Members of Congress interested in public service over personal and strictly partisan goals should create an informal study group now to look at fair-mapping guidelines to be used by the states.

In addition to equal population per district, these provisos might include compactness, the following of governmental boundaries wherever possible, and a prohibition on the use of partisan voting history in drawing districts.

The circular firing squad must stand down. Congress has to put its own house in order.

Nowlan is a former Illinois state legislator, statewide candidate, senior aide to three unindicted Illinois governors, campaign manager for U.S. Senate and presidential candidates, chair of the Illinois Executive Ethics Commission, and professor of politics at the University of Illinois. He is author of Politics: The Primer, How to Succeed in Politics and Government (2023).

From the sidelines, gerrymandering appears a rather harmless game, one party picking its voters by drawing absurd-looking districts to gain advantage over the other party. Nothing new here. No, gerrymandering evils run deeper than partisanship run amok, indeed to the foundation of our representative democracy.

Extreme gerrymandering corrupts our democracy by sharply diminishing the role of voters in elections; reducing competition; polarizing elections, and electing representatives to office who often turn a blind eye to voter concerns.

The basic reason for these pernicious consequences is that gerrymandering shifts voter decision making from the general election to the primary of the dominant party in the district, in which relatively few voters participate. This allows partisan mapmakers to determine, in effect, the election outcomes before the general election is held. This protects incumbents and maximizes majorities for the partisans in charge of the process. The outcome “represents” only the small fraction who participate in a partisan primary.

We find in Illinois the following consequences flow from our state’s extreme gerrymandering by the Democratic majority (similar consequences obtain in states that Republicans control):

• Only one in eight registered voters typically votes in the primary of the dominant party in a district. This shuts more than seven of every eight voters, the opposition party’s voters, independents, and those who don’t vote in primaries, out of the process of electing their representatives.
• In 2024, half the 118 Illinois state House districts were uncontested in the general election, so no reason to vote! Interest in democracy dries up when there is no competition.
• Statewide over recent elections, GOP candidates in Illinois generated about 46 percent of the state vote, and there was an elected Republican governor less than a decade ago, yet only 3 of 17 of our congressional delegation are Republican. Representative?
• When elections are decided in primaries, candidates appeal to the fringe of their party, often the most aroused, ignoring the rest of us voters.
• In office, candidates elected in primaries can ignore moderates and the opposition party, as they are irrelevant to their re-election.

Congress has the authority to provide the states with guidelines to be met in decennial redistricting. Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.”

The national government already directs the states in congressional redistricting, requiring equal population per district and that racial minorities be provided paths to winning seats.

The equal population requirement, standing alone, actually induces gerrymanderers to draw districts that fractures communities into numerous, often incomprehensible, districts.

We propose that straightforward criteria, already in place in a number of states, be added: That districts be compact and follow governmental lines where possible, and that use of partisan voter data be prohibited.

A balanced committee of the U.S. House would certify that a state’s congressional redistricting meets these standards. If not, Congress would draw the map for that state, according to the criteria.

There are other possibilities, such as an amendment to the U.S. Constitution or a national redistricting commission. We think the amendment process would be too lengthy and daunting, while the commission too cumbersome. But Congress should determine how to proceed.

There is reason for hope that we might end the gerrymandering wars. According to the Princeton University Redistricting Report Card Project, 22 states have “good” districting processes. Officials in these states must insist on fair play nationally, or continue being played the fools for not exploiting partisan advantage.

Congress should put its own House in order, to prevent the pillar of representative democracy from crumbling.

Nowlan is a former Illinois state legislator, gubernatorial aide, campaign manager for U.S. Senate and presidential candidates, and professor of political science at the University of Illinois. Sunderland was director of education for the Bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution, served as U.S. Supreme Court Fellow for Chief Justice William Rehnquist and is professor emeritus of constitutional law at Knox College.

The consequences are, we contend, as anti-democratic as the reviled White Only primaries in the Old South.

Readers know the drill. In the many states where allowed by law, the majority party maximizes the impact of its voters while it “wastes” (packs or fracks) the votes of the opposition party. Mapmakers draw absurd lines, snaking down back alleys to grab small clumps of partisans. The district outlines in our Illinois resemble, literally, dangling earrings and beer can openers.

The software “knows” the primary voting history of every voter in each household. At the click of a button, the software can run thousands of different configurations of statewide district maps, to find the one that maximizes the number of districts the majority party will likely win.

Illinois offers arguably the worst illustration in the nation of this anti-democratic procedure. Over the past four gubernatorial elections in our state, 46 percent of Illinois voters cast Republican ballots on average for governor. Yet only 3 of our 17 congressional districts elected Republicans in the past two, post-redistricting election cycles.

Another illustration: In 2022, Illinois citizens cast more votes statewide for Republican candidates for the state House than for Democrats, yet the latter, the mapmaking party, won two-thirds of all the seats.

How do such shenanigans deny voters their participation? First, since the computer draws most districts to strongly favor one party or the other, the primary nomination in effect becomes the election. This denies both independents, who generally don’t vote in primaries, as well as the opposition party the chance to participate in the real election decision.

Second, polarization is accentuated. Freed from appealing broadly, candidates focus on the Left or Right wings of the dominant party in a district. And once elected, the legislators from the wings can ignore independents and moderates, who will not be a factor in the next primary election. They can take more extreme positions to play to their base with little fear of future retribution.

Third, competition evaporates in the face of elections that are largely foregone conclusions. Quality candidates say, “Why run?” and many don’t. People say, “Why vote?” and many don’t.

In legislative bodies, the overrepresented majority runs roughshod over the underrepresented citizenry.

Illinois House Republicans recently initiated an effort in state court to change the situation. They had to. The GOP is irrelevant, and will be until at least 2040, on the premise that the veto-proof Dem majority will continue into 2031, when they will again gerrymander the districts, absent reform.

The Illinois Constitution prohibits extreme gerrymandering, by declaring that state legislative districts shall be “compact,” and not squiggly, worm-shaped concoctions.

The state high court will be hard pressed to reject the effort, as in 1981 the same court, with a Democratic majority then as now, declared a House district unconstitutionally noncompact (Schrage v. State Board of Elections). The district was, ironically, more compact than 52 of the 118 districts in the present state House map, according to a University of Michigan academic expert! In its decision, the court stated that compactness has traditionally been an effective anti-gerrymandering tool.

Our old friend Barack Obama has declared that, “We’ve got to end the practice of drawing our congressional districts so that politicians can pick their voters, and not the other way around.”

LaHood, of Peoria, was a Republican member of Congress from 1995–2008 and, from 2009–13, US Secretary of Transportation. Nowlan is a former Illinois state legislator and professor of political science at the University of Illinois. Both live in central Illinois.

In Illinois, the pols draw the districts to keep themselves in office, shamelessly disregarding our state constitution, which requires that districts be compact (as close to a circle or box as possible). To illustrate, see just a sample of the politicians’ recent handiwork in 2021. Compact? Whaddaya think?

Illinois has arguably the worst gerrymandered districts in the nation. For example, our state has 17 U.S. congressional districts. Only three are held by Republicans, even though Republicans cast 46.3 percent of all votes by the two parties for governor over the last four elections for that office.

In the Illinois legislature, Republicans cast more ballots statewide for House candidates in 2022 than did Democrats, yet the Party of the Donkey drew the House districts and, surprise, holds two-thirds of the seats. Coincidence?

This is an abuse of democracy, because one group of voters is vastly underrepresented. Further, independents and those who prefer not to vote in primary elections are shut out because most elections are in effect decided in the primaries of the dominant party in a district. This increases polarization, which causes fissures in our society.

Gerrymandering is an insult to voters that we can correct. A case has been filed recently by House Republicans with the Illinois Supreme Court to reject the types of districts shown here.

The abuse is longstanding. In 2016, at the last minute, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled 4 Ds to 3 Rs that the question of holding a popular vote on fair maps, proposed by 600,000 petition signers, could not go on the ballot for voters to decide. The same court blocked the issue from the ballot in 2010 as well, to protect their political godfathers.

Michael Kasper was the lawyer arguing before the justices in 2016 for the Democratic plaintiffs. He was also the longtime treasurer of the Democratic Party of Illinois! The DPI had contributed millions to elect those same Democratic Illinois justices. The lawyer/party treasurer probably signed their contribution checks. Only in Illinois.

Democrats might say the maps had to be contorted to ensure minority representation. Balderdash. Maps can easily be drawn that are reasonably compact and also protect minorities.

I wonder if this same lawyer will try the case being brought at present? If he does, several of the Democratic judges on the present high court should obviously recuse themselves, out of blatant conflict of interest.

Congressional redistricting is not covered by our state constitution, but fair mapping could be required by state statute. However, so long as Democrats are vastly overrepresented in the legislature, unfair mapping will continue until at least 2042, on the premise that after the next census in 2030, gerrymandered Democrats will once again draw districts that insult you, me and democracy.

A former member of the Illinois House and retired professor of politics at the University of Illinois, Nowlan is also co-author, with Melissa Mouritsen and Kent Redfield, of Illinois Politics: A Citizen’s Guide to Power, Politics and Government (University of Illinois Press, 2024).

Background: The 1970 Illinois Constitution explicitly provides that its Legislative Article may be amended by petition and a subsequent vote of the people. In 2016, more than half a million voters signed petitions to put the independent mapping question on the ballot. I was a volunteer in that effort.

But, after certification of the question onto the ballot by the Illinois State Board of Elections, the four Democrats on the Illinois Supreme Court threw the question off the ballot, in the most cockamamie opinion since the Dred Scott decision, which precipitated the Civil War!

All close observers of Illinois politics agree that the tortured, illogical opinion by Judge Tom Kilbride was written solely to protect his political benefactor, recently deposed Speaker of the Illinois House Mike Madigan. Powerful House leader for three decades, Madigan hated the idea that power over redistricting would be taken away from him.

The opinion gave free rein to continued partisan gerrymandering. So, this year the Democrats, who control the Illinois General Assembly in large part because of past gerrymandering, drew an incredibly distorted set of state legislative and congressional districts. The maps ensure Democratic representation far greater than the proportion of Democrat to Republican voters statewide.

The Illinois Constitution explicitly requires that districts be “compact” in shape. Yet, many of the new districts are shaped like slithering worms, which connect distant nodes of Democrat voters. You doubt me? See the interactive district shapes on our homepage. Now, tell me if those districts are compact!

But that’s unconstitutional, right? Not in Illinois. Indeed, Republican leaders in Illinois are so jaundiced by the historic partisan decision making from the state high court that they decided to put the party’s limited resources elsewhere. This, rather than fritter its funds away on a court challenge they were certain would be rejected by the Democrat court, just as it had rejected challenges to gerrymandering in the past! Sad.

All this is perfectly legal, to the Illinois Supreme Court, anyway, and perfectly corrupt. Time for a change, after 60 straight years of one-party control of the Illinois Supreme Court. Let’s lift our courts above partisanship, to an independent-minded judiciary.

Nowlan is a former Illinois state legislator and retired professor of politics at the University of Illinois, writing for the Judicial Fairness Project.