The way the dominant American media beclowns itself about gerrymandering may have reached ground zero with this past week’s results in Virginia’s redistricting ballot measure. Having written on the topic in the past (Democratic Hypocrisy Peaks with Gerrymandering Crisis), this author has heard the arguments back and forth. The history of gerrymandering parallels that of the union. The practice, while legal, has become unethical, anti-democratic, and self-serving in almost every instance. A previous article suggested that floor crossing in Canada and the use of presidential pardons in the United States are also ideas that may be legal but subject to abuse. A snappy definition of gerrymandering would emphasize the artificial empowerment of one party at the expense of the other through the redrawing of congressional districts. Assigning blame to one party over the other seems at odds with history and the facts.
The refusal in the liberal media to acknowledge the origins, perpetrators, and sources of the radical left’s efforts to bypass democracy owes to their biases, allegiances, and cynical attempts to claim objectivity. On the April 24 edition of PBS’s Brooks and Capehart’s weekly overview of the political news dominating Washington, the two commentators dialogued about the efforts in Virginia as merely a response to what President Donald Trump had unleashed in 2025. Last summer, the president asked Governor Greg Abbott of Texas to redraw congressional districts to aid the GOP’s efforts to keep control of the House of Representatives. For Brooks, a columnist at The Atlantic, and Capehart, a cable news personality with MS NOW, the whole matter seemed to have started when Trump made his request to the Texas governor less than a year ago. Both know better, but why ruin a narrative that embarrasses Trump, hurts the GOP, and may make the Democrats look virtuous?
Brooks began the dialogue laying responsibility for the problem at the feet of the Republican Party: “Well, as Jonathan may recall, I hate this whole thing. You know, I hate it when Texas did it. I hate it when California did it. I hate it when Virginia did it. I believe in elections. I would like there to be districts where both parties have a shot of winning. And the number of those districts in this country is now vanishingly small. I understand why the Democrats did it, the Republicans started it. That’s all fair.”
Really, Mr. Brooks? Was it the Republicans who initiated this? That takes a great deal of self-imposed ignorance, but Brooks represents the journalists who also think that Trump started the politics of destruction. Like those who proverbially bury their heads in the sand and lift them occasionally, Brooks appears to have missed the presidential campaigns from 1988 to 2012. Trump began his presidential chase in 2015, long after some of the worst and most vicious campaign attack ads and personal insults in campaign history. One of the ugliest occurred in 2012 when Joe Biden, Barack Obama’s vice president, claimed Governor Mitt Romney and company intended to return African Americans to slavery. Here is Biden at a rally in Danville, Virginia, in August 2012, before a largely African American audience: “He’s going to let the big banks once again write their own rules – unchain Wall Street!” Biden said. Then he added, “They’re going to put you all back in chains” with their economic and regulatory policies. Yes, let’s blame Trump for nasty campaign rhetoric, gerrymandering, and whooping cough while we’re at it.
Gerrymandering goes back to James Madison and James Monroe fighting over a Congressional seat at the beginning of the Union. Determining the exact event that sparked the modern fight over districts remains elusive. With all due respect to Brooks and Capehart, it did not begin with Trump and Abbott.
Because of what Trump and his Republican acolytes did in Texas, the advocates of the Virginia ballot measure felt compelled to act. Democrats claim Texas engaged in norm-breaking mid-cycle redistricting to save the House for MAGA. Republicans will say the 2020 census was unfair, failed to count Republicans properly, and left many GOP-controlled states short of the proper number of congressional seats. Trumplicans will also point out New England, Illinois, New York, and Wisconsin, where Democrats have been able to win court cases and redistrict to their advantage. But the problem goes back a lot further. In the 1800s, mid-decade redistricting was pretty common. In Ohio, in the 1880s, four maps flipped back and forth depending on who won the bi-annual congressional elections. But the modern age of gerrymandering likely began in 1984 in California, when Republicans received 55 percent of the congressional vote, but only 40 percent of the seats. Since then, it’s been escalating.
Democrats will claim they have introduced bills for years, proposing an end to gerrymandering at the federal level, only to have Republicans disengage. Since Republicans are about to benefit from new census results in 2030, they may see an advantage in keeping gerrymandering. A principled view would leave redistricting with the states because the Constitution reserves it for them, and the federal government should stay out. Sean Trende of RealClearPolitics suggests that it could also come down to Republican federalists who have been pushing for independent redistricting commissions since the 1990s, only to be resisted by Democrats. They fought Governor Schwarzenegger’s commission in California in 2010. When Republicans took Congress later that year and hinted they might draw lines the way Democrats had for decades, the party of FDR and his creative use of power suddenly became incensed and demanded independent commissions. Out of nowhere, gerrymandering became a crisis in 2010 when, for the first time in sixty years, Republicans would control redistricting. If either party held a position in good faith despite gaining or losing seats in an election, it might be believable when they propose independent commissions or blue-ribbon studies.
What irks most people about Virginia is that the new governor, Abigail Spanberger, told voters she would not redistrict. Instead, she has moved to change a state that went for about 4-5 points for Kamala Harris in 2024 into a 90-10 state congressionally. It should be called nothing less than a grubby power grab for Northern Virginia. In effect, about five or six congressional representatives will live within a 20-mile radius of one another, overseeing about a third of the state’s population. As one of the cast on National Review’s The Editors podcast concluded, “So you’re taking all these rural voters and saying they have to be represented in effect by people in the Northern Virginia suburbs.” This would not have been acceptable at the Constitutional Convention in the late 1700s. Outsourcing representation would not have been approved. It comes down to power, and if Brooks and Capehart want to blame Republicans, point fingers at Texas, or overlook Democratic participation, that should not surprise. But neither should it surprise when people tire of being told false information, tune out media conglomerates, and search for better sources. Redistricting has a long history, and Trump simply joins the lengthy list of presidents who, like Abraham Lincoln, used political patronage, backroom deals, and bribery (deceitful practices) to secure the necessary votes to achieve their ends.
Dave Redekop is a retired elementary resource teacher who now works part-time at the St. Catharines Courthouse as a Registrar. He has worked on political campaigns since high school and attended university in South Carolina for five years, where he earned a Master’s in American History with a specialization in Civil Rights. Dave loves reading biographies.
