Squares, rectangles and the war over maps
In 1812, Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry signed a bill creating a State Senate district so twisted and contorted it resembled a mythical beast. A famous political cartoon depicted it as a winged monster, and Federalists — the political losers of the map — coined a new term for this partisan creation: the “Gerry-mander.” From its very birth, the phrase was a political attack. It was created not to describe the necessary and lawful process of redistricting but its deliberate corruption.
Today, that vital distinction between the process and its abuse is dangerously lost. As we see with the partisan battles and faux outrage of national media, this isn’t just a semantic game. It’s an attempt to delegitimize a core function assigned to state legislatures, smearing any unfavorable result as inherently corrupt. The word “gerrymander” has been weaponized to attack any map Democrats dislike, conflating the legitimate, constitutional process of redrawing lines with its worst outcomes while muddying the waters of what actually constitutes the phrase and giving blue states a hedge against their actions.
Let’s start with an honest premise: Redistricting is, and always will be, a political act. The dream of a perfectly nonpartisan process, run by a committee of supposedly neutral figures, is a well-intentioned fantasy. Politics is about allocating power, and there is no more direct allocation of power than drawing the lines where votes are cast.
The solution is not to chase this fairy tale by creating unaccountable commissions that simply mask politics behind a bureaucratic curtain from institutions such as the media, academia, and nongovernmental organizations. As Vice President JD Vance recently argued, when one side aggressively uses the process to its advantage in states such as Illinois and New York, the other side is naive not to respond in kind. “What the Democrats have done is they’ve gerrymandered the hell out of the states that they control,” Vance stated. “Republicans have to be willing to fight fire with fire.”
The vice president is right to point out the hypocrisy. The left decries partisan maps in red states while, often with less media outrage, blatantly creating their own brutal gerrymanders in blue states. Vance’s call for action highlights a fundamental truth: This is a political fight, and conservatives should not unilaterally disarm.
But acknowledging that the process is a political fight doesn’t mean we must accept the cynical, community-shattering tactics that define its worst outcomes. While partisanship is unavoidable, it shouldn’t be the only principle at play. An approach rooted in reality doesn’t seek to eliminate politics but to ground it in durable, commonsense principles that serve the voter. The most important of these is simple: Keep communities whole.
The goal of redistricting should not be to contort districts into sprawling, nonsensical shapes that carve up towns and counties for political gain. This practice creates safe, uncompetitive seats that fuel polarization and sever the sacred link between a representative and their community.
For a model of how to get this right, we need look no further than our own Pennsylvania First Congressional District.
Comprised almost entirely of Bucks County, PA-01 is a testament to what happens when district lines follow community lines. Residents here — from Levittown to Perkasie — share local media, county government, school districts, and economic challenges. They have a coherent identity. This allows their representative to focus on the tangible needs of a specific community, not the competing interests of disparate areas cobbled together by a computer algorithm.
More importantly, the structure of PA-01 fosters genuine accountability. As a natural swing district, it cannot be taken for granted by either party. To win in Bucks County, a candidate must appeal to Republicans, Democrats, and independents alike. They must build broad coalitions and practice the lost art of persuasion — which is much easier for Republicans locally. This is why the district consistently produces representatives who are more focused on practical results than on partisan warfare.
This isn’t an argument against partisanship; it’s an argument for a smarter, more sustainable form of it. Fighting fire with fire is a political necessity, but as Sun Tzu said, the best way to win the war is on favorable ground. Drawing districts along county and municipal lines is a principled guardrail. It forces parties to compete on a fair playing field, producing stronger candidates and healthier debate. It’s a strategy built for the long term, creating durable majorities rather than fragile ones built on gerrymandered maps that can shatter with the next political wave.
Let’s abandon the myth of the nonpartisan commission and accept that redistricting is inherently political. But let’s demand that our state legislatures operate under a primary principle: Maps must respect the integrity of counties and municipalities. Let the parties fight it out within districts that make sense. Let them compete for the votes of real, coherent communities, and let’s be clear in our purpose.
We must remember the vital distinction this whole debate rests on: Like how every square is a rectangle but not every rectangle is a square, every gerrymander is a redistricting, but not every redistricting is a gerrymander.
Publius Pax is a tenth-generation Bucks Countian, political consultant, and author.
