President Trump’s approval ratings have plunged underwater, the GOP is having a hard time selling the provisions of the “One Big Beautiful Bill” to the American people and Democratic voters are looking forward to casting a vote against Trump in next year midterms elections that could seriously hamper the administration’s ability to deliver on its priority with little resistance from Congress.
Facing an existential threat to the second part of his second term, Donald Trump is resorting to an electoral nuclear option: mid-decade redistricting. The White House is pushing some Republican-held states to redraw their congressional maps in the middle of the decade in an effort to dilute Democratic votes – a practice called Gerrymandering – in order to net the GOP a few additional seats to offset any electoral loss in swing district. Most notably, Texas Governor Gregg Abbott has called on legislators to review the state’s map during a special legislative session originally convened after the 4th July flooding crisis: the proposed changes would increase the number of seats won by Trump in 2024 by 5 units. On top of that, Ohio is legally mandated to redraw its map ahead of the 2026 cycle, and the GOP is likely to gain a further couple of districts.
A Gerrymandering Conondrum
The prospect of a Republican gerrymandering campaign has left Democrats wondering about the path forward. A faction of the party, particularly progressives, maintains that Democrats should remain steadfast on their commitment to fair representation and take the high ground, while other prominent figures like California Governor Gavin Newsom or Arizona Senator Ruben Gallego have urged the party to fire back, gerrymandering blue states maps in order to level the field.
Aside from intra-party discussions and the fact the many Democratic-led states like California or Colorado entrust independent commissions to draw Congressional districts, Democrats face another understated problem: blue states’ maps already substantially benefit the party, leaving little wiggle room for further changes.

The map above shows the 2024 percentage bias of each state when it comes to Congressional maps, calculated considering the difference between the statewide share of votes each party received and the percentage of Congressional delegation it represents. For instance, Democrats won 57% of the 2024 House vote in New York, but they hold 19 of the 26 seats allocated to the Empire States, making up 73% of its delegation and resulting in a 16-point Democratic Bias.
The darkest shades of blue, indicating a strong bias in favor of Democrats, paint populous states along the coasts, while the reddest states are mainly located at the center of the US and register significantly smaller population: this means that states that feature a strong percentage bias favoring Republicans actually net the GOP fewer surplus seats, that is to say the difference in districts carried compared to a hypothetical scenario in which seats are allocated proportionally to the statewide share of vote – for the purpose of this analysis, considering a decimal approximation

For example, Republicans won 69% of the vote in North Dakota, which elected only 1 Representative to the House due to its small population. Consequently, 100% of its delegation hails from the GOP, resulting in a significant 31% percentage bias. On the other hand, if we consider the seat bias, we understand that Democrats would have a right to 31% of North Dakota’s delegation, translating into a hypothetical 0.31 seats, meaning that because of the state’s slim population, Democrats would only marginally benefit if congressional seats were allocated proportionally despite of the high percentage bias.

Proportional Representation
If a hypothetical PR system was adopted, Republicans would see major gains in California, Illinois and New York: this entails that the Democratic Party does not have significant leeway to increase its edge in those blue states. They already won 9 surplus seats in California, 5 in Illinois and 4 in New York, compared to Republicans’ 3- and 2-seat excess in Texas and North Carolina, which gives them substantial space to gerrymander their maps – even though the Voting Rights Act of 1965 places limitations racial gerrymandering, despite the Supreme Court’s reported openness to review the constitutionality of the law.
It would be more complicated for Democrats to limit Republican presence in the California or much less in Illinois Congressional delegation, as they currently lead respectively 40-12 and 14-3. New York may be more doable, as Republican currently hold 3 seats between Staten Island and Long Island which could be at least partially incorporated into part of New York City to make them more liberal: House Leader Hakeem Jeffries (NY-08) is expected to meet in August with governor Kathy Hochul to discuss the matter.
Independent Commissions
Democrats have also to grapple with the fact that many blue states adopt independent commissions for redistricting, which makes it hard to imagine how they could gain seats in states like Colorado or New Jersey. GOP lawmakers, on the other hand, prefer retaining control of their states’ maps and produce a consistent number of lopsided maps particularly in the South and Midwestern states like Iowa or Wisconsin, where the state Supreme Court recently rejected a lawsuit to strike down the current map heavily favoring Republicans. Central states, despite registering some of the highest percentage bias levels, yields the GOP only a handful of seats, while the partisan leaning of congressional maps in the East Coast blue states – from Virginia to Maine – netted the Democratic Party almost 17 surplus seats, helping them winning a higher share of seats than the percentage of votes received nationwide.

It’s worth noting that a biased map is not necessarily gerrymandered. Particular electoral geographies may result in one party winning, often by small margins, a big portion of a state’s competitive seats: still, gerrymandering does remain easier to carry out in less biased states.. Overall, considering that in 2024 Democrats benefitted from states’ Congressional maps, winning 4 surplus seats nationwide, and given the intra-party divisions and the legislative difficulties to change certain maps with little advantage, it looks like gerrymandering may not be the more effective way for them to counter GOP efforts to retain the House. But if they decide otherwise, it could trigger a full-fledged redistricting war that Republicans would probably be more prepared to fight, given their full control of legislatures in states that could be further gerrymanderable. Missouri may try to dilute one of its two urban, deep blue districts in St. Louis and Kansas City, like neighboring Kansas, and more notably the GOP may target two southern heavyweights: Georgia and Florida. With full control of their legislatures, Republicans may try to squeeze out a further seat or two from these two already-gerrymandered states.