EDW: “Rigged” Is Easy to Yell. Gerrymandering Is Harder to Look At Honestly.

Trump is screaming that Virginia was “rigged.” Fine. Let’s talk about the version of “rigged” that actually exists in American politics and has existed for more than two centuries: gerrymandering. Virginia voters narrowly approved a redistricting measure that could reshape the state’s congressional map ahead of the midterms. That is a real event. Trump’s fraud rhetoric is a different thing entirely. He is taking a fight about map power and translating it into the usual grievance opera.

The word gerrymander dates back to 1812, when Massachusetts Gov. Elbridge Gerry signed off on a district so absurdly shaped it was compared to a salamander in a famous cartoon. So no, this is not some brand-new trick invented by whichever party you currently hate. This is old American behavior with a wonderfully stupid name and very durable consequences.

And here is the first thing people need to understand: redistricting is normal; gerrymandering is the weaponization of it. Redistricting has to happen every ten years after the census because populations move and districts must be redrawn to reflect that. Every state went through state-legislative redistricting after the 2010 and 2020 censuses. States with more than one U.S. House seat also redraw congressional districts.

So when people say, “Redistricting happened, therefore corruption,” they are already thinking sloppily. The sharper question is: who drew the lines, under what rules, and for what purpose? In many states, legislatures still control the process. In others, commissions or courts play major roles. Brennan Center found that in the post-2020 redistricting cycle, 26 states passed congressional maps on a wholly or mostly party-line basis, while independent commissions and courts each drew around a fifth of congressional districts. That is not housekeeping. That is power arranging the furniture before voters walk into the room.

There are legitimate ways to redraw maps. Equal population. Compliance with the Voting Rights Act. Keeping districts contiguous. Respecting cities, counties, and coherent communities of interest. Allowing public input. NCSL notes that many states have formal public-input requirements, and nearly all the rest still ran public processes in the last cycle. All of that is what redistricting looks like when it is trying, at least on paper, to represent people rather than trap them.

Then there are the dirty methods, and these are simpler than the jargon makes them sound. Packing means cramming the other side’s voters into a few districts so they waste huge margins there. Cracking means splitting them across many districts to make it harder for them to form a majority in the affected districts. That is how politicians can draw maps that still hold elections while quietly deciding who matters before anyone votes.

And here is where the law gets maddening. Some gerrymanders are ugly and still legal. Others are ugly and illegal. In Rucho v. Common Cause, the Supreme Court held that partisan gerrymandering claims are political questions beyond the reach of federal courts. In plain English, federal judges usually will not rescue you from a map just because it is shamelessly partisan. Racial gerrymandering is different. Maps that discriminate on the basis of race can still be struck down. That is one reason this whole area feels so slippery to normal people: the line between “hardball” and “unlawful” is real, but it is not where most voters think it is.

And then there is the extra-special American absurdity called mid-decade redistricting. Normal redistricting follows the census. Voluntary mid-decade redistricting can happen when politicians decide they would like another bite at the apple before the decade is over. Other mid-decade redraws happen because courts or state law require them. NCSL says at least 11 states explicitly prohibit some form of mid-decade redistricting, but most states do not clearly address it, which turns the whole thing into a state-by-state knife fight. That is why these battles keep feeling like the rules change depending on who thinks they can squeeze out three more seats.

Virginia fits that pattern perfectly. Voters approved a new redistricting measure that could help Democrats redraw the congressional map and potentially shift multiple Republican-held seats. The measure’s legality was still being litigated. That does not automatically make it fraud. It does not automatically make it noble either. It makes it what a lot of American redistricting has become: a power grab wrapped in process language while both parties pretend they discovered democracy five minutes ago.

That is the part the public should stop pretending not to see. Republicans call it “rigged” when Democrats do it. Democrats call it “fairness” when they do it back. Then they switch scripts depending on the state and the calendar. Virginia just became another front in a national map war that already includes Texas, California, Ohio, Missouri, North Carolina, Florida, and more. NCSL’s current tracking shows how active the mid-decade fight has become across the country.

So what is the reality?

The reality is that redistricting is necessary. Gerrymandering is not.
The reality is that map-drawing can be legitimate representation work or a beautiful little crime scene in a suit.
The reality is that both parties are very happy to denounce the practice in theory while enjoying it in practice.

And maybe the cleanest way to say it is this:

A lot of Americans think elections are decided on Election Day. Gerrymandering is one of the clearest ways power tries to decide them long before that.

If this helped clear the fog, share it around. Follow EDW. The word “rigged” gets thrown around like confetti now. It helps to know what the real version actually looks like.