How a 200-year-old salamander continues to challenge American democracy.
Last summer, something remarkable happened in Austin, Texas. In the dead heat of August, with legislators already home for the year, Governor Greg Abbott called them back to the Capitol to redraw the state’s congressional map. Republicans argued that changes could improve odds of holding or expanding seats in Congress.
Within weeks, several states had joined the frenzy. By late 2025, what began as a Texas Republican power play had mushroomed into the most widespread mid-decade redistricting effort America has seen since the 1800s. Nine states have either redrawn their maps or are racing to do so before voters head to the polls in 2026. Indiana is the lone state that proposed and failed to redistrict so far.
Welcome to the redistricting wars, where the lines on a map may prove mightier than any ballot.
The Salamander’s Long Shadow
The term “gerrymander” was born on March 26, 1812, when the Boston Gazette published a political cartoon. Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry had just signed off on a state senate district so contorted that it resembled a salamander. One artist saw the squiggling district map and sketched in claws, wings, and a head. “That will do for a salamander,” someone reportedly said. “Gerrymander!” came the response.
Two centuries later, that salamander has evolved. What once required pencils and guesswork is now driven by precision tools. Modern mapmakers rely on detailed voter databases, demographic information, and computer models that can predict electoral outcomes block by block. Potential maps can be tested in minutes, each optimized for specific advantages.
When Math Becomes Politics
To understand why redistricting matters, start with a simple fact: every ten years, America takes a headcount. The Census Bureau counts residents, Congress divides 435 House seats among states, and then comes the tricky part: each state carves itself into districts of roughly equal population.
The Constitution leaves this to the states, and they’ve answered differently. Most let legislators draw maps like any other law, meaning the lawmakers in power draw districts for the next legislature. Others have tried removing the fox from the henhouse through independent commissions. California pioneered this; Michigan and Virginia followed.
The rules seem simple: equal populations, connected geography (“compact and contiguous”), no racial discrimination. But within those constraints, one can draw dramatically different maps that produce dramatically different outcomes. How wide a population disparity is too much? What happens if political lines also look like racial lines?
Imagine a state where 60% of voters prefer Party A and 40% prefer Party B. Draw the boundaries one way, and Party A wins 100% of seats. Draw them differently, and you get a six-to-four split — closer to actual voter preferences.
The power of the pencil, indeed.
What Comes Next
The courts remain a central battlefield. Litigation over Louisiana’s congressional map is ongoing, and an expected Supreme Court ruling in 2026 could influence how aggressively states redraw lines in the middle of the decade.
Meanwhile, other states watch carefully. Florida has established a redistricting committee. Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York and South Carolina reportedly considered redistricting in 2025, some going as far as meeting with the White House on the matter.
The broader trajectory is unclear. Some states are strengthening independent commissions and judicial oversight. Others are embracing aggressive partisan strategies, often justified as responses to moves by the opposing party.
Even reform efforts carry built-in tensions. As David Tatsuo Imamura, former chair of the New York State Independent Redistricting Commission, observed in American Bar Association reporting, “Redistricting is a fundamentally political process. It should be no surprise that evenly divided commissions will have massive difficulties reaching an agreement.”
The Paradox of Reform and Reading Between the Lines
Poll after poll shows Americans dislike gerrymandering. Overwhelming majorities support taking redistricting out of legislators’ hands. Several states have passed reforms through ballot initiatives, often by wide margins.
Yet redistricting must happen, and despite the concerns about gerrymandering, politics is a natural part of the redistricting process. Population changes demand new maps. The unresolved question is whether these maps reflect a changing electorate or just preserve political advantage. That tension has become a defining feature of modern elections.
For industries like convenience services, which depend on predictable regulation and bipartisan problem-solving, that dynamic matters. When districts are drawn to minimize competition it increases partisanship. Lawmakers answer to smaller, more ideologically rigid audiences, making compromise riskier and increasingly act on more polarizing issues. The political center cannot hold because it’s been carefully carved out.
This is why NAMA closely monitors redistricting and broader political developments to keep members informed about how changes in representation can affect the policy environment for convenience services.
Stay on top of moving issues by subscribing to NAMA advocacy alerts at namanow.org/subscribe.