The attempt to change the boundaries of the federal congressional districts in Texas has set off a political firestorm across the nation. At the beginning of each decade, after the national census results are tabulated, a process of redistricting frequently takes place. Given that there is migration within the country, usually from states in the north and northeast to states in the south and southwest, it is common for northern states to lose a congressional district or two, and the receiving states to increase the number of their districts. The goal of redistricting is to maintain a similar number of people in each district (to the best mathematical degree that is possible). This is based on the facts of the census and there is not much controversy at this stage.

Within each state, the boundaries of the congressional districts are also re-drawn in order to guarantee that each district has an equal number of people. This is where gerrymandering enters the picture. In U.S. politics, gerrymandering is “the practice of drawing the boundaries of electoral districts in a way that gives one political party an advantage over its rivals (political or partisan gerrymandering) or that dilutes the voting power of members of racial or ethnic minority groups (racial gerrymandering).” Let’s look at a typical purple state with one million voters in which there is an equal number of Republicans and Democrats (500,000 voters each party). Let’s assume the state has ten congressional districts. “Fair” districts would have roughly 50,000 voters from each party, therefore making each district competitive. Acknowledging that rural voters tend to favor Republicans and urban voters prefer Democrats, one would expect each party to win five districts, or at most six. What might happen if typical gerrymandering occurs? Let’s suppose the boundaries are drawn in such a way that in eight districts, party A has a 60,000-40,000 edge over party B, but in the two remaining districts, party B has a 90,000-10,000 edge. Although in the state, each party receives 500,000 total votes, party A wins 8 districts and party B just 2 districts. Throughout our history, both major parties have taken advantage of this “gerrymandering unfairness”. Democrats have practiced gerrymandering…so have Republicans. Therefore, some states now have laws that require the boundaries to be drawn by non-partisan organizations or approved by the state’s Supreme Court. Even so, there exist questions about fairness. If a political party wins 60% of the vote in a state, should they get 60% of the congressional seats? Or through gerrymandering, should they get 90% of the seats? Today I hear more politicians arguing for partisan gain instead of the common good. Where are the ethical adults in the room?

Here Texas enters the fray. In the midterm elections, the party that does not control the White House generally makes a strong comeback and picks up dozens of seats in the House of Representatives. This spells disaster for Trump whose approval rate is under 40% in most polls and who has an extremely slim majority in both the House and in the Senate. Trump has urged the Texas state legislature to gerrymander their districts in order to give Republicans a pick-up of five congressional seats. There is not even an attempt to hide their partisan goals. The fact that this is 2025 (and not at the beginning of a decade) shows they have no regard for the facts of the 2020 census. This move violates the historical norms of our political redistricting. Democrats in Texas have physically left their state to deny Republicans a quorum. Republicans have countered with legal actions, including calling in the FBI (although no federal laws have been broken). Nationally (and naturally), Democrats have threatened to fight “fire with fire” in blue states (like California and New York) where they can re-shape districts and turn them from Republican to Democrat control. This same tit for tat action is threatened in red states. We might easily descend into political chaos.

Where are the adults in the room who will address this issue with reason and a sense of fairness. When will “the common good” be considered? Will the adults in the room stand up and rise to the occasion?