If you want to end the redistricting insanity, you have to emulate what many other countries do - stop classifying your citizens by their melanin levels, i.e. race. Then, lo and behold, we’re all just Americans.
Redistricting commissions are not a panacea. New York has one but that hasn’t stopped the Dems, with supermajorities in the legislature, from attempting the most egregious gerrymandering.
I frequently hear fellow Trump supporters lament that he will probably lose the House in the midterms, because that's what usually happens. But why does that usually happen? Because most presidents disappoint their voters by not following through on the promises they made while campaigning. That can't be said of Trump. Also, as far as precedent, the Democrats held the House for 40 years, from 1955 to 1995, through several Republican administrations.
Well, he's kind of not lived up to ending wars and not starting new ones. He's not lived up to his promises about the First Amendment.
The wars one would bite him in the ass. He knows it, and is trying to plan accordingly. Vance's point is the best--that many Democratic-run states are already a hell of a lot more gerrymandered than Texas would be even if it succeeds. MTG's already about to jump ship on the war shit.
I think it would be a really good idea to do a new census mid decade and do what has been recommended: two counts one that is for representation and the other one is just a head count . The one for representation would not include people who are not here legally. Also, I had ChatGPT make a chart comparing the percentage votes for Trump to the percentage of Republican representatives by state. nine states have about 40% votes for Donald Trump in 2024 and zero house Republican representation. even in light of split votes and such, it doesn’t seem good.
The problem you'll run into is that there actually isn't legal basis for counting or not counting illegals because the concept wasn't historically significant. Republicans absolutely should codify that only citizens count for the census, particularly because lawbreaking shouldn't be rewarded.
But Democrats will call it a "change" and fight it, and their case isn't terrible.
You have highlighted a very important factor of the census and our overall population. Who and how to count for the census exploded with the huge influx of illegals. Ditto was the aspect of entitlements. Sometimes the two go hand in hand, but the massive amounts of illegals into the country the past several years, especially under Biden, have totally changed the calculus for many aspects of our government. Many times, such as with voted representatives or the distribution of government benefits such as food stamps (SNAP). unemployment benefits, hospital and health care. Or. I've seen reports that in some cases, even some social security benefits like disability have been paid out to non-citizens. This is why laws restricting illegals from US government benefits need to be codified by Congress. Especially while the GOP has the votes they do in each house of Congress. From what I've seen, most Dems want illegals to receive benefits. At least in the past, they have used the aspect of those as an attraction for more illegals into the country.
I forgot to mention that I feel giving illegal immigrants driver licenses is dangerous because often these are used as valid ID for the particular illegal immigrant.
The text of the 14th Amendment is very clear in stating that representatives are to be allocated among the states based on "whole number of persons" -- not limited to citizens, and not limited to persons legally present. It may not make sense to us today, but I think we have to follow the text if we want to have a constitution at all.
I think Congress could call for an extra census, and I think Congress could require respondents to state their immigration status, but I don't think there's any basis to exclude people from the representative allocation just because they're not here legally.
A person is a person. The term "citizen" is used elsewhere in the amendment. If the drafters wanted to refer to citizens only, they would have.
well, I accept your argument that the 14th amendment is clear, but I don’t think it makes sense at this point so I think we need to amend the amendment so that representatives are allocated according to people here legally otherwise there’s a huge benefit of bringing 10,000 illegals in a day as we were doing and then they get more representatives in Congress and then they bring another 10,000 illegals a day and they get more representatives in Congress and so on. not to even mention the electoral college. I’m pretty certain that wasn’t the intention of the amendment. I believe the intention was to include slaves, which made sense 175 years ago.
Perfect — let’s walk through what a citizen-based apportionment system would look like, compared to the current “all persons” system.
⸻
1. Current System (All Persons Counted)
• Based on the 2020 Census, House seats are divided among states according to their total population — citizens + legal immigrants + undocumented immigrants.
• States with large immigrant populations (California, Texas, Florida, New York, New Jersey, Illinois) benefit.
⸻
2. If Apportionment Were Based on Citizens Only
We don’t have exact numbers (since the Census doesn’t ask everyone about citizenship), but the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) estimates the non-citizen population at ~20–22 million in 2020, including both legal permanent residents and undocumented immigrants.
If those non-citizens were excluded from apportionment:
Likely Losers (lose seats in the House / Electoral College votes):
• California (largest immigrant population, ~5–6 million non-citizens) → could lose 2–3 seats
• Texas (~4.5 million) → could lose 1–2 seats
• Florida (~2.5 million) → could lose 1 seat
• New York (~2 million) → could lose 1 seat
• New Jersey, Illinois → each could lose 1 seat
Likely Winners (gain seats, because their populations are mostly citizens):
• States in the Midwest, Mountain West, and parts of the South would gain.
• These are states with relatively few immigrants but solid citizen populations.
⸻
3. Electoral College Impact
• Since Electoral College votes = House seats + Senate seats, the shift would reduce the power of immigrant-heavy states (mostly blue or purple) and increase the power of citizen-heavy states (mostly red or swing).
• Example:
• California currently has 54 electoral votes. Under a citizens-only count, it might drop to ~51.
• Ohio (which lost a seat after 2020) might get one back.
• Montana and West Virginia, which each only have 1 seat, might gain a second.
⸻
4. Political Consequences
• Blue states lose influence, red/swing states gain influence.
• That’s why this issue is so politically charged — it isn’t just about fairness in counting; it could literally flip outcomes in close presidential elections and shift the balance of power in Congress.
⸻
✅ So bottom line:
• The current system benefits immigrant-heavy states by giving them more seats and electoral votes, even though non-citizens don’t vote.
• A citizens-only system would redistribute power toward states with fewer immigrants — mostly Midwest and smaller-population states — and reduce representation for big coastal states.
⸻
Would you like me to put together a map or table showing roughly how many seats each state would gain or lose if we switched to citizen-only apportionment?
Nice work. I like your handle too, though I'm not sure what Liberal or Leftist is anymore. I always thought I was a leftist, because I'm not OK with the $75 trillion the top 10% stole from the bottom 90% of our population in the past 50 years, due to globalization. People who call themselves leftists but spend all day looking for things to be offended by don't give a shit that all the jobs suck, and more and more of the money is going to the rich and super-rich. I don't know WHAT to call them.
I might. Since it would take 60% super majority vote of the House and Senate, we shouldn’t hold our breath, but now is a good time to start talking about it. It’s probably beyond my lifetime before it could happen, but I do think it’s time to talk about it.
I understand your point. Of course the drafters of the amendment didn't anticipate our situation, because there was literally no immigration law at the time. The 14th amendment passed Congress in 1867. The first law restricting immigration was passed in 1872.
I think passing a new amendment is unlikely, but you could try.
The clause excludes "Indians not taxed". "Indians" refer to indigenous people of North America. Is there a "One Drop Rule" that is applied to migrants from Mexico, El Salvador, Venezuela, etc. who may be of mixed race of "Indians" with European or African ancestors? Is an illegal alien without a legal SS number considered "not taxed"?
Seems to me the simplest way to administer the Census is to count only those with legal Social Security numbers.
You’re probably right. I was just thinking to myself this evening that all of those kazillion visa people that just come over for work visas or whatever I think they’re also in the count. Yikes.
I figure if you're legally paying into the system, you probably ought to be counted. Still can't vote unless you're a citizen. If you're here illegally and evading the law, no way you should be counted for apportionment or districting.
maybe let’s worry about the constitutional amendment to the 14th later. For now I do think we have a representation crisis and also a dependence crisis, so let’s take the mid-decade count a couple ways. Sure maybe it’s just only people with Social Security numbers versus those that don’t have Social Security numbers whatever it is I think we should do the counts and the analysis and that will help inform whether an amendment needs to happen or how it should happen, but let’s just do the count and not worry about the amendment part up front.
Democrats have dominated the gerrymandering wars historically, spending much of the latter half of the 20th century garnering far more seats than their vote share suggested. For example, in 1976 they had 55.9% of the nationwide house vote and got 67.1% of the seats.
Republicans finally fought fire with fire in the 1990s, and recent decades have seen the two sides each get about the number of seats that their vote share suggests. Overall, though, there are about 25 blue state Republicans and 50 red state Democrats, so if both parties go all out, Republicans have more to gain. Which is expected, since they have more small states.
The real issue is fiscal bankruptcy-state and city. Not sure how states cannot go into bankruptcy if they’re unable to pay their obligations or bills (states cannot print money). The federal level is bankrupt too, by both parties.
They’ll squeeze every single penny from the working and professional classes until the U.S. is pre-Meili Argentina.
Gerrymandering is one of those wedge issues that the parties like to keep in their back pocket go whip out to stir up their voters. If either side actually cared about representative democracy, they'd be pushing for more districts like the framers intended.
This is really just a resolution problem. The more smaller districts you have, the harder it is to gerrymander them. There are so many problems that would be solved or minimized if we just increased the number of house seats.
Wouldn't tit-for-tat be unnecessary if only actual citizens voted? Why not focus on an "election day" and in-person voting with legitimate (not Soros funded folks) ids? Until we ditch the mail-ins and machines, this will all be for naught and Gavin might have to look at the state of his state.
Gerrymandering on it face seems undemocratic. Manipulating districts for the sole purpose of political gain doesn't fit easily into a democratic electoral process. Both parties are guilty. The fact that the Supreme Court court, other than prohibiting gerrymandering on racial lines, has never taken a principled stand on gerrymandering by either side, except to say its not judicially feasible to create a judicial standard which, IMO, is an abdication of its authority, not to mention spineless. It would seem that every election becomes more about winning and less about participating in a democratic process where citizens have the real freedom to choose.
Simple game theory says that CA passing the new map is the end of its Independent Redistricting Commission.
If the new map passes, CA will be D +44 through 2030.
CA is expected to lose four seats after the 2030 census, dropping them to 48. Maintaining D+44 will be critical because red states will gain seats and increase their gerrymanding. CA Dems will not accept "adding" to the Republican majority, but the independent commission will not accept a D46/R2 map.
The precedent to override the commission had been set in 2025 and a 2031 special election will be held to use D+44 maps.
One nit: The KCRA reporter is Ashley Zavala (with an "L"). She is an outstanding reporter who tries to hold CA government accountable.
when Trump announced the idea, it was widely covered in the news. But I have heard nothing about it since. Presumably, if it is a serious idea, the Census Bureau would already be working on planning it. I wonder if they are.
It's not really fair to start a redistricting timeline with the Texas redistricting, because that is mostly a reaction to countless decades of heavy Democrat gerrymandering. It wasn't the first tit by a longshot. Gerrymandering is only becoming an issue now that the Republicans finally decided to respond.
And the Democrats did a particularly heavy round of gerrymandering after the 2020 census, while the Republicans did not. (And let's not forget that everyone agrees that the last census "accidentally" overcounted all of the big blue states, and undercounted most of the big red states, which is also giving the Democrats a completely unjustifiable overrepresentation). As things stand now, my understanding is that North Carolina is the only red state that has a significant gerrymander. And I've read that if everyone dropped gerrymandering, that would likely net the Republicans between 20 and 30 seats. But who knows if that was accurate. But it's still pretty clear that our current map is heavily gerrymandered in the Democrats favor.
And it would be great to get rid of gerrymandering altogether, and not just because I'm a Republican so that would work to my partisan advantage. Everyone hates it. And I suspect that representatives would be much more responsive to community needs if they were subject to competitive elections. It's also very undemocratic to have the govt choose its constituents rather than the other way around. (And the whole illegal immigration controversy is another manifestation of that problem, as the Democrats attempt to replace the nation's current population with one that is more likely to support them).
The big problem though is finding an effective mechanism to prevent gerrymandering. The supposedly independent "nonpartisan" commissions that some states use don't seem to provide any benefit, because then issue just becomes who gets to select the members of these commissions, and what kind of a say the minority has. And it's likely to be the legislature that does this, or some other body controlled by the legislature. So it's just the legislature pretending to delegate the work to someone else. Take the examples of Texas and California. Even after the current gerrymander, Texas will still be less gerrymandered than California currently is, and the California districts were drawn by an independent commission. And California will be insanely more gerrymandered than Texas if they pass the proposed changes.
The only thing that I can think of that might work is to develop some reasonably objective criteria that everyone agrees on for boundary-drawing, and then just apply those criteria mechanically. This way there would be no discretion on the part of the legislatures. Some obvious criteria here would be following city, community and county boundaries, rivers, mountains, etc, as well as keeping districts as compact as possible. Although it's hard to imagine the Democrats ever agreeing to something that doesn't give them a big advantage. And I can also see this approach failing miserably.
I live in California. I used to hear from my representative in one form or another. I now don’t feel represented one iota. Democrats here have the power and are a cult. That’s my honest impression. Of course that’s the riding message from the liberal side. MAGA are fascists etc. Isn’t life grand.
In the 2020 Census illegal aliens were counted in California which gave Californa two extra congressional seats. Lots of rumors that they were also registered to vote. California now only has mail in voting so there is a lot of opportunity for voter harvesting and manipulation of ballots as there doesn't seem to be much in the way of validating voter signatures.
If you want to end the redistricting insanity, you have to emulate what many other countries do - stop classifying your citizens by their melanin levels, i.e. race. Then, lo and behold, we’re all just Americans.
Of course unemployment would rise as all the race hustlers would be put out of business.
Totally the next cannot mention race. Race is a construct. We are Americans.
Melanin, not melatonin.
Right you are. My bust - will edit.
Yup!
Redistricting commissions are not a panacea. New York has one but that hasn’t stopped the Dems, with supermajorities in the legislature, from attempting the most egregious gerrymandering.
Conquest's Second Law.
Anything Democrats call "nonpartisan" is intended to be even more partisan than usual. The "nonpartisan" label is cover for getting away with it.
I frequently hear fellow Trump supporters lament that he will probably lose the House in the midterms, because that's what usually happens. But why does that usually happen? Because most presidents disappoint their voters by not following through on the promises they made while campaigning. That can't be said of Trump. Also, as far as precedent, the Democrats held the House for 40 years, from 1955 to 1995, through several Republican administrations.
Well, he's kind of not lived up to ending wars and not starting new ones. He's not lived up to his promises about the First Amendment.
The wars one would bite him in the ass. He knows it, and is trying to plan accordingly. Vance's point is the best--that many Democratic-run states are already a hell of a lot more gerrymandered than Texas would be even if it succeeds. MTG's already about to jump ship on the war shit.
I think it would be a really good idea to do a new census mid decade and do what has been recommended: two counts one that is for representation and the other one is just a head count . The one for representation would not include people who are not here legally. Also, I had ChatGPT make a chart comparing the percentage votes for Trump to the percentage of Republican representatives by state. nine states have about 40% votes for Donald Trump in 2024 and zero house Republican representation. even in light of split votes and such, it doesn’t seem good.
The problem you'll run into is that there actually isn't legal basis for counting or not counting illegals because the concept wasn't historically significant. Republicans absolutely should codify that only citizens count for the census, particularly because lawbreaking shouldn't be rewarded.
But Democrats will call it a "change" and fight it, and their case isn't terrible.
You have highlighted a very important factor of the census and our overall population. Who and how to count for the census exploded with the huge influx of illegals. Ditto was the aspect of entitlements. Sometimes the two go hand in hand, but the massive amounts of illegals into the country the past several years, especially under Biden, have totally changed the calculus for many aspects of our government. Many times, such as with voted representatives or the distribution of government benefits such as food stamps (SNAP). unemployment benefits, hospital and health care. Or. I've seen reports that in some cases, even some social security benefits like disability have been paid out to non-citizens. This is why laws restricting illegals from US government benefits need to be codified by Congress. Especially while the GOP has the votes they do in each house of Congress. From what I've seen, most Dems want illegals to receive benefits. At least in the past, they have used the aspect of those as an attraction for more illegals into the country.
I forgot to mention that I feel giving illegal immigrants driver licenses is dangerous because often these are used as valid ID for the particular illegal immigrant.
Agreed.👍
The text of the 14th Amendment is very clear in stating that representatives are to be allocated among the states based on "whole number of persons" -- not limited to citizens, and not limited to persons legally present. It may not make sense to us today, but I think we have to follow the text if we want to have a constitution at all.
I think Congress could call for an extra census, and I think Congress could require respondents to state their immigration status, but I don't think there's any basis to exclude people from the representative allocation just because they're not here legally.
A person is a person. The term "citizen" is used elsewhere in the amendment. If the drafters wanted to refer to citizens only, they would have.
well, I accept your argument that the 14th amendment is clear, but I don’t think it makes sense at this point so I think we need to amend the amendment so that representatives are allocated according to people here legally otherwise there’s a huge benefit of bringing 10,000 illegals in a day as we were doing and then they get more representatives in Congress and then they bring another 10,000 illegals a day and they get more representatives in Congress and so on. not to even mention the electoral college. I’m pretty certain that wasn’t the intention of the amendment. I believe the intention was to include slaves, which made sense 175 years ago.
ChatGPTs take:
Perfect — let’s walk through what a citizen-based apportionment system would look like, compared to the current “all persons” system.
⸻
1. Current System (All Persons Counted)
• Based on the 2020 Census, House seats are divided among states according to their total population — citizens + legal immigrants + undocumented immigrants.
• States with large immigrant populations (California, Texas, Florida, New York, New Jersey, Illinois) benefit.
⸻
2. If Apportionment Were Based on Citizens Only
We don’t have exact numbers (since the Census doesn’t ask everyone about citizenship), but the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) estimates the non-citizen population at ~20–22 million in 2020, including both legal permanent residents and undocumented immigrants.
If those non-citizens were excluded from apportionment:
Likely Losers (lose seats in the House / Electoral College votes):
• California (largest immigrant population, ~5–6 million non-citizens) → could lose 2–3 seats
• Texas (~4.5 million) → could lose 1–2 seats
• Florida (~2.5 million) → could lose 1 seat
• New York (~2 million) → could lose 1 seat
• New Jersey, Illinois → each could lose 1 seat
Likely Winners (gain seats, because their populations are mostly citizens):
• States in the Midwest, Mountain West, and parts of the South would gain.
• Examples: Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kentucky, Montana, West Virginia, Alabama.
• These are states with relatively few immigrants but solid citizen populations.
⸻
3. Electoral College Impact
• Since Electoral College votes = House seats + Senate seats, the shift would reduce the power of immigrant-heavy states (mostly blue or purple) and increase the power of citizen-heavy states (mostly red or swing).
• Example:
• California currently has 54 electoral votes. Under a citizens-only count, it might drop to ~51.
• Ohio (which lost a seat after 2020) might get one back.
• Montana and West Virginia, which each only have 1 seat, might gain a second.
⸻
4. Political Consequences
• Blue states lose influence, red/swing states gain influence.
• That’s why this issue is so politically charged — it isn’t just about fairness in counting; it could literally flip outcomes in close presidential elections and shift the balance of power in Congress.
⸻
✅ So bottom line:
• The current system benefits immigrant-heavy states by giving them more seats and electoral votes, even though non-citizens don’t vote.
• A citizens-only system would redistribute power toward states with fewer immigrants — mostly Midwest and smaller-population states — and reduce representation for big coastal states.
⸻
Would you like me to put together a map or table showing roughly how many seats each state would gain or lose if we switched to citizen-only apportionment?
Impressive!
Nice work. I like your handle too, though I'm not sure what Liberal or Leftist is anymore. I always thought I was a leftist, because I'm not OK with the $75 trillion the top 10% stole from the bottom 90% of our population in the past 50 years, due to globalization. People who call themselves leftists but spend all day looking for things to be offended by don't give a shit that all the jobs suck, and more and more of the money is going to the rich and super-rich. I don't know WHAT to call them.
I might. Since it would take 60% super majority vote of the House and Senate, we shouldn’t hold our breath, but now is a good time to start talking about it. It’s probably beyond my lifetime before it could happen, but I do think it’s time to talk about it.
I understand your point. Of course the drafters of the amendment didn't anticipate our situation, because there was literally no immigration law at the time. The 14th amendment passed Congress in 1867. The first law restricting immigration was passed in 1872.
I think passing a new amendment is unlikely, but you could try.
The clause excludes "Indians not taxed". "Indians" refer to indigenous people of North America. Is there a "One Drop Rule" that is applied to migrants from Mexico, El Salvador, Venezuela, etc. who may be of mixed race of "Indians" with European or African ancestors? Is an illegal alien without a legal SS number considered "not taxed"?
Seems to me the simplest way to administer the Census is to count only those with legal Social Security numbers.
You’re probably right. I was just thinking to myself this evening that all of those kazillion visa people that just come over for work visas or whatever I think they’re also in the count. Yikes.
I figure if you're legally paying into the system, you probably ought to be counted. Still can't vote unless you're a citizen. If you're here illegally and evading the law, no way you should be counted for apportionment or districting.
The 14th Amendment wasn’t written for aliens but freed slaves- as you know.
Only citizens should have the vote and other citizens benefits.
maybe let’s worry about the constitutional amendment to the 14th later. For now I do think we have a representation crisis and also a dependence crisis, so let’s take the mid-decade count a couple ways. Sure maybe it’s just only people with Social Security numbers versus those that don’t have Social Security numbers whatever it is I think we should do the counts and the analysis and that will help inform whether an amendment needs to happen or how it should happen, but let’s just do the count and not worry about the amendment part up front.
Agreed. Let's see what the numbers are.
Hooray! I think Timelines are a great public service, and I'm glad we have a new one after a few months.
This timeline starts 213 years too late.
Democrats have dominated the gerrymandering wars historically, spending much of the latter half of the 20th century garnering far more seats than their vote share suggested. For example, in 1976 they had 55.9% of the nationwide house vote and got 67.1% of the seats.
Republicans finally fought fire with fire in the 1990s, and recent decades have seen the two sides each get about the number of seats that their vote share suggests. Overall, though, there are about 25 blue state Republicans and 50 red state Democrats, so if both parties go all out, Republicans have more to gain. Which is expected, since they have more small states.
Silly, archaic and stupid by both of these criminal orgs called political parties. The difference between the two who is licking whose boots.
The real issue is fiscal bankruptcy-state and city. Not sure how states cannot go into bankruptcy if they’re unable to pay their obligations or bills (states cannot print money). The federal level is bankrupt too, by both parties.
They’ll squeeze every single penny from the working and professional classes until the U.S. is pre-Meili Argentina.
https://www.truthinaccounting.org/library/doclib/Financial-State-of-the-States-2024.pdf
But mostly they'll squeeze the working classes. Of course, the professional classes, unless they are elite, are just more working class dogs.
Gerrymandering is one of those wedge issues that the parties like to keep in their back pocket go whip out to stir up their voters. If either side actually cared about representative democracy, they'd be pushing for more districts like the framers intended.
This is really just a resolution problem. The more smaller districts you have, the harder it is to gerrymander them. There are so many problems that would be solved or minimized if we just increased the number of house seats.
AGREE.
Wouldn't tit-for-tat be unnecessary if only actual citizens voted? Why not focus on an "election day" and in-person voting with legitimate (not Soros funded folks) ids? Until we ditch the mail-ins and machines, this will all be for naught and Gavin might have to look at the state of his state.
Exhaustive and exhausting
Gerrymandering on it face seems undemocratic. Manipulating districts for the sole purpose of political gain doesn't fit easily into a democratic electoral process. Both parties are guilty. The fact that the Supreme Court court, other than prohibiting gerrymandering on racial lines, has never taken a principled stand on gerrymandering by either side, except to say its not judicially feasible to create a judicial standard which, IMO, is an abdication of its authority, not to mention spineless. It would seem that every election becomes more about winning and less about participating in a democratic process where citizens have the real freedom to choose.
Simple game theory says that CA passing the new map is the end of its Independent Redistricting Commission.
If the new map passes, CA will be D +44 through 2030.
CA is expected to lose four seats after the 2030 census, dropping them to 48. Maintaining D+44 will be critical because red states will gain seats and increase their gerrymanding. CA Dems will not accept "adding" to the Republican majority, but the independent commission will not accept a D46/R2 map.
The precedent to override the commission had been set in 2025 and a 2031 special election will be held to use D+44 maps.
One nit: The KCRA reporter is Ashley Zavala (with an "L"). She is an outstanding reporter who tries to hold CA government accountable.
Could President Trump's proposal for a 2025 census excluding illegal immigrants really happen?
Don’t know- but if it is feasible, the municipal bond ratings will be the first crystal ball to let us know
when Trump announced the idea, it was widely covered in the news. But I have heard nothing about it since. Presumably, if it is a serious idea, the Census Bureau would already be working on planning it. I wonder if they are.
Here's a story from The Hill
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5440548-trump-orders-new-census/
It's not really fair to start a redistricting timeline with the Texas redistricting, because that is mostly a reaction to countless decades of heavy Democrat gerrymandering. It wasn't the first tit by a longshot. Gerrymandering is only becoming an issue now that the Republicans finally decided to respond.
And the Democrats did a particularly heavy round of gerrymandering after the 2020 census, while the Republicans did not. (And let's not forget that everyone agrees that the last census "accidentally" overcounted all of the big blue states, and undercounted most of the big red states, which is also giving the Democrats a completely unjustifiable overrepresentation). As things stand now, my understanding is that North Carolina is the only red state that has a significant gerrymander. And I've read that if everyone dropped gerrymandering, that would likely net the Republicans between 20 and 30 seats. But who knows if that was accurate. But it's still pretty clear that our current map is heavily gerrymandered in the Democrats favor.
And it would be great to get rid of gerrymandering altogether, and not just because I'm a Republican so that would work to my partisan advantage. Everyone hates it. And I suspect that representatives would be much more responsive to community needs if they were subject to competitive elections. It's also very undemocratic to have the govt choose its constituents rather than the other way around. (And the whole illegal immigration controversy is another manifestation of that problem, as the Democrats attempt to replace the nation's current population with one that is more likely to support them).
The big problem though is finding an effective mechanism to prevent gerrymandering. The supposedly independent "nonpartisan" commissions that some states use don't seem to provide any benefit, because then issue just becomes who gets to select the members of these commissions, and what kind of a say the minority has. And it's likely to be the legislature that does this, or some other body controlled by the legislature. So it's just the legislature pretending to delegate the work to someone else. Take the examples of Texas and California. Even after the current gerrymander, Texas will still be less gerrymandered than California currently is, and the California districts were drawn by an independent commission. And California will be insanely more gerrymandered than Texas if they pass the proposed changes.
The only thing that I can think of that might work is to develop some reasonably objective criteria that everyone agrees on for boundary-drawing, and then just apply those criteria mechanically. This way there would be no discretion on the part of the legislatures. Some obvious criteria here would be following city, community and county boundaries, rivers, mountains, etc, as well as keeping districts as compact as possible. Although it's hard to imagine the Democrats ever agreeing to something that doesn't give them a big advantage. And I can also see this approach failing miserably.
I live in California. I used to hear from my representative in one form or another. I now don’t feel represented one iota. Democrats here have the power and are a cult. That’s my honest impression. Of course that’s the riding message from the liberal side. MAGA are fascists etc. Isn’t life grand.
In the 2020 Census illegal aliens were counted in California which gave Californa two extra congressional seats. Lots of rumors that they were also registered to vote. California now only has mail in voting so there is a lot of opportunity for voter harvesting and manipulation of ballots as there doesn't seem to be much in the way of validating voter signatures.
I remember in the 2020 Presidential election a Las Vegas Revue Journalist signed 9 discarded ballots and 8 of them went through...an 89% failure rate on verifying voter signatures. https://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/opinion-columns/victor-joecks/victor-joecks-clark-county-election-officials-accepted-my-signature-on-8-ballot-envelopes-2182390/