Gerrymandering

But there is another problem with gerrymandering: politics is always changing. A map might look favorable right now, but it may not stay that way in the future. Over time, states and regions shift because demographics change and political coalitions evolve. For example, the South used to be much more Democratic, but over the decades it became a GOP stronghold. And places like Texas, once seen as deep red, have been shifting toward being more competitive.

At the same time, the parties themselves are changing. Democrats have become more progressive than they used to be, which can shift their support away from their old voting base in some areas. Republicans have also changed, moving from the traditional GOP identity toward something more like a MAGA party. As a result, voting patterns are not stable. Younger voters still lean more Democratic overall, but a noticeable portion of young men have been shifting toward the GOP, while young women are more likely to stay with Democrats.

We can also see changes in Latino voting patterns. Latinos have often leaned Democratic in the past, but that is not as consistent anymore. In recent years, more Latinos have shifted to the right, and some have become strong GOP supporters—sometimes influenced by factors like Christian identity or views on illegal immigration.

Because voting patterns keep shifting, gerrymandering can easily backfire. The entire strategy depends on predicting who will vote for which party, and where those voters will live. If those assumptions change, a map designed to benefit one side may stop working—or even start helping the other side. That is why gerrymandering is not only wrong in principle, but also risky in practice. We might see that in 2026 or 2028, because when the voting landscape changes quickly, gerrymandering may not be as effective as the people doing it think.