During his career as a politician, Elbridge Gerry served in Congress and was later a diplomat to France before becoming the governor of Massachusetts in 1810. He also served as James Madison’s vice president from 1813 until his death in 1814.
Characterized as somewhat of a maverick, Gerry was an outspoken anti-Federalist who feared any concentrated power, particularly in the federal government. He held strong views on the delineation of powers between the federal government and the states as well as between Congress and the president. For example, he argued successfully for Congress to have the right to override a presidential veto. At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Gerry was one of three members who refused to sign the Constitution. One of his objections was the lack of a Bill of Rights, which he successfully pushed to be added later.
Although not initially in favor of political parties, late in his career, Gerry joined the Democratic-Republicans. He saw the opposing party, the Federalists, as wanting too much centralized power in the federal government.
In 1811, while he was serving as the governor of Massachusetts, Gerry became obsessed with the Federalists’ opposition to President Madison’s foreign policy and believed they would ultimately destroy the republic. His fears got the better of him as he took matters into his own hands by firing Federalist state employees and replacing them with Democratic-Republican loyalists, using his attorney general to prosecute Federalist newspaper editors for libel, and taking control of Harvard’s Federalist-dominated board.
In the meantime, the Democratic-Republican party controlled the Massachusetts state legislature and they wanted to keep it that way. In 1812, they drew up a bill that created new redistricting maps for state senate seats that would keep themselves in power. Governor Gerry signed the bill into law, enabling his party to win 29 of 40 seats.
As legend has it (there is more than one story on this), at a dinner party hosted by a Federalist shortly after the new redistricting maps became law, Gerry was the butt of a joke. The new map for Gerry’s own state senate district was satirically drawn by Elkanah Tisdale, a political cartoonist in attendance at the dinner party. His rendition resembled a mythical, fire-breathing salamander with wings. According to this story, someone else at the party combined Gerry’s name with the word “salamander” to say that changing district maps was “gerrymandering.” The Federalists publicized their cartoon and joke and, as they say, the rest is history.
Today, gerrymandering is not a joke. It is defined as the implementation of electoral district maps to intentionally advantage one political party over another. While US House districts are drawn by the states every 10 years based on new US census data, often these maps are drawn unfairly. Voters can be disenfranchised by either diluting their votes when they are spread across many districts (called “cracking”) or by consolidating many voters into one district (known as “packing”). Other gerrymandering techniques are called “hijacking” when two districts are combined to force one incumbent official out and “kidnapping” when an incumbent’s address is moved to another district to make it difficult for them to be re-elected.
With the aid of computer software, maps can be drawn with laser precision to carve out or include any group of voters. It is illegal to gerrymander districts to discriminate against voters based on race, but not on party affiliation. The US Supreme Court, in Rucho v Common Cause (2019), claimed the Court did not have the jurisdiction to rule in the case, thus essentially allowing gerrymandering based on party affiliation.
In August, this administration asked the governor of Texas to redraw the state’s maps so that five currently Democratic districts would flip to Republican, thus increasing the odds for a Republican-majority US House win during the 2026 mid-term elections. These new maps are likely illegal and unconstitutional as they appear to be based on race which will violate the rights of millions of Texans.
This administration is so afraid their party will lose their House majority that they are resorting to extraordinary measures by breaking precedent to redraw their districts mid-census. This is a flagrant power grab to ensure the US House remains under Republican domination for potentially decades to come and to ensure this unpopular administration remains in power.
In response, Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, has begun a campaign to redistrict California’s maps to change five districts to benefit the Democratic party to neutralize Texas’ gerrymandering. Under the California constitution, district maps are drawn by a nonpartisan commission and any changes to this process require a state constitutional amendment that must be approved by a majority of California voters. If approved by voters in November, this redistricting plan, under the proposed Election Rigging Response Act, would only occur if Texas or other Republican states change their maps. If they do, then California’s new maps would take effect, but only through 2030 when the independent commission would take over to redraw the maps with new census data for the 2032 elections. It is worth noting that Newsom supports federal legislation to make it mandatory for all states’ maps to be drawn by nonpartisan commissions.
It is interesting to note that if approved by CA voters, the redistricting maps as proposed will be legal. And temporary. As Newsom says, we must fight fire with fire. It is analogous to a nuclear arms race: we must build our own weapons if only to deter the other side from using theirs. If Texas redraws their maps, California will redraw theirs to neutralize Texas’ impact.
The rules of the game, as well as what have been norms, have changed. The Democratic party must play by the new rules. Democracy and free and fair elections are at stake. So, too, is the opportunity to hold this administration accountable for its cruel and authoritarian actions as it militarizes our cities, kidnaps our neighbors, and strips away government services and programs, all while giving huge tax cuts to the very wealthy.
One might wonder why control over the US House matters. If one party holds the presidency and the majority in the US Senate, does it matter if the opposition party wins the majority in the House? Yes, it matters tremendously.
The US Constitution gives Congress the power to create federal laws, to control taxation (including tariffs), to control federal government spending, to create federal agencies, to determine financial sanctions against foreign entities, and to declare war, among many other powers. Having a divided Congress makes it difficult for the party of the president to unilaterally do any of these actions.
The Constitution also enumerates many powers specifically to the US House. There are many ways these powers can be exercised by the Democratic party if it holds the majority in the House in 2026, even if the Republicans still control the Senate. They can stop any legislation the Senate tries to pass to further this administration’s dictatorial goals. The House, not the Senate, holds the power to initiate revenue bills (like the one big awful tax bill passed in July). The House has the sole power to impeach, and not just the president, but also cabinet officials, federal judges, and other federal officials. The House alone has the power to elect the president if the Electoral College ends in a tie. Also, if the president and vice president are unable to serve, the speaker of the House, typically the leader of the majority party in the House, becomes president.
Another way the Democrats, if they hold the majority in the House, will have control is through the work of the House committees, which is where most of the legislative work is performed. All legislation comes through a committee before it is sent to the full House for a vote. The majority party controls who chairs each committee and how many members of each party sit on each committee.
Not allowing the current majority party to rig the system to keep themselves in power in the US House for years to come is extraordinarily important. The rules of US politics have changed and the minority party must play by the new rules. Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. Or all will be lost. Our democracy with all its liberties and freedoms, with its rule of law, will be gerrymandered out of existence if this rigging of our elections by the GOP is not countered and neutralized.
Elbridge Gerry, the maverick politician, who feared his opponents’ power and wanted to hold onto his own so they could not win against him, is now remembered, not for all the good he did at the start of this nascent republic, but by the power grab he made to insulate himself and his party from losing. How ironic that after the first gerrymandered maps were implemented, Gerry lost his re-election. And how ironic that someone who was against concentrated power in government did not mind if the power was concentrated in him. And now he is on the wrong side of history and except for his legacy of “gerrymandering,” he would be utterly unknown to us today.
Text and photograph copyright © 2025 by Dawn Dailey. All rights reserved. Photo of the Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco, California.
Not a subscriber to the monthly blog posts? Click here to subscribe. Subscribers receive an email each month that includes the post with the lead photo as well as bonus photos not posted on the website. Email addresses are never sold or shared.
A NOTE ON SOCIAL JUSTICE:
Jesus says the greatest commandments are to love God and to love people (Matthew 22:37-40). The Christian faith boils down to these two precepts.
Social justice puts that love into action by helping individuals who are oppressed, mistreated, or suffering, and by pursuing ways to dismantle systems of oppression. How we treat others, particularly those less powerful in society than ourselves, matters (Matthew 25:31-46).
Racial justice is one aspect of social justice. Check out my web page on “Justice Matters” to find resources and to connect with organizations engaging in the cause of racial justice. Click here to learn more.