Political Science

Racial Gerrymandering is Wrong

By Sean Evans, Chair and Professor of Political Science

May 5, 2026 -

                Racial gerrymandering is wrong because it violates the principle of equality, produces less competitive elections, and contributes to polarization. Thus, we should applaud last week’s Supreme Court decision in Louisiana v Callais, which curtailed racial gerrymandering by holding that plaintiffs must prove intentional racial discrimination in drawing legislative districts to sustain a claim under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.  

                Racial gerrymandering began in response to Southern White Democrats' fear of Republican gains in the 1970s. They drew legislative lines that kept Black percentages large enough to elect White Democrats but not large enough to elect any Black Democrats. The result was that a moderate White Democrat could win the primary and was conservative enough to appeal to Independents to win the general election. These fiscally conservative, pro-business, and socially moderate Democrats could distinguish themselves from the national Democratic Party and control Southern politics into the 21^st Century.

However, what was good for Southern Democrats, overall, was not good for Black Democrats. Blacks grew frustrated by Democrats using them and challenged these lines as discriminatory. The Supreme Court agreed in Thornburgh v Gingles ruling that states could not dilute the power of compact, cohesive racial minority groups. This led to a positive right of representation and the creation of majority-minority districts. Over time, the Gingles test evolved into a requirement of racial proportional representation.

Gingles was first exploited in the 1992 redistricting cycle when Black Democrats and Republicans used the Voting Rights Act to force the creation of majority-minority districts.  The result was more Black Congressmen and Whiter districts more likely to elect Republicans. Black and Latino representation in the South jumped from 9% in 1992 to 21% in 1994. Minorities continue to hold 21% of Southern seats today.

Moreover, Republican representation jumped from 33% in 1992 to 51% by 2002 and 72% by 2012. Republicans now hold 70% of Southern districts.  The losers were moderate White Southern Democrats who declined from 86% of Southern Democratic seats in 1992 to 51% by 2002, and 40% by 2012. Today, White Democrats only hold 33% of Southern Congressional seats.  

Table 1

Mean U.S. House Ideological Score by Region, Party, and Race, 1992-2026

The process also contributed to Congressional polarization because liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans replaced moderate White Democrats. Using Nominate ideological scores that range from -1 (liberal) to 1 (conservative), with a score near 0 a moderate, Table 1 shows the Southern Democrat average ideology score has progressively moved from the conservative side of the party to one that reflects the national Democratic Party.

The table shows that White Democrats kept their left-of-center orientation through 2010 but began to shift further left thereafter. As the percentage of White Democrats continued to decrease, Minority Democrats, who were consistently to the left of the party mean, became a larger percentage and moved the Southern party to the left. Through the continual process of Southerners sorting to the party that best fits their ideology, White Democrats began to vote like national Democrats. Meanwhile, Southern Republicans have become more conservative and a greater percentage of the Republican Conference, which pushes the GOP further to the right.

As minorities shifted to majority-minority districts and Whites became increasingly more Republican, Democrats and Republicans had increasingly safer districts. With less competition from the opposing party, politicians increasingly catered to their base because the primary determined the winner of the general election. By putting racial minorities, the most consistently Democratic voters, into more Republican districts, the districts will become more competitive. Competition could also drive Democrats to moderate and make them more competitive in the South.

Besides contributing to polarization and less competitive elections, racial gerrymandering also segregates voters. The Civil Rights community wants integration in everything but electoral districts. Guaranteeing one group will win violates the principle of equality because it treats some groups, whether racial or partisan, as more worthy of representation than others. The Voting Rights Act only guarantees the “opportunity…to elect representatives of their choice.”

Consequently, it is wrong that Black politicians can win by only seeking Black votes. We should want Black politicians to seek White votes and vice versa because electoral integration is more likely to promote equality and social cohesion by fostering mutual understanding and respect. 

While we should not underestimate the damage to political legitimacy and trust that comes from minority voters losing representation in Congress, partisanship divides Americans more than race today. By increasing competition and reducing polarization, we can reduce division, avoid utopian ideological policies, and develop more effective solutions that address all our problems, including our racial ones.