The North Carolina Forward Party (NCFP) started this Forward Solutions series to bring attention to action-oriented solutions to today’s threats to democracy. Guiding our efforts, we ask “what’s the problem and how do we fix it?” This is the first installment in our series. NCFP values your input and feedback is always welcome here.

SOLUTION

Drawing District Maps That Serve Citizens, Not Parties:

Putting an End to Gerrymandering

1.      Background & Context

In a true and vibrant democracy, citizens are represented by officials who are elected using objective, fair and unbiased methods. These methods include district maps drawn through neutral criteria and rules that do not intentionally provide an advantage or cause a disadvantage to any political party. Fair map drawing should not use partisan voting data, party registration, incumbent addresses, or desired electoral outcomes. However, after maps are proposed, a stress test should be done to confirm that maps meet a rational standard. 

As we are hearing these days: Voters should choose their politicians, not the other way around.

But today, more than ever, district mapping has become a new weapon of choice to pre-determine the outcome of elections and “win” seats in federal and state-level government for one party over the other before voters arrive at the ballot box. Maps are determining significant issues downstream for many years because candidates with specific policy positions are being custom-tailored to win elections.

When political parties are permitted to use electoral data to design their own districts, the temptation to entrench power is nearly irresistible. Both major parties have used that authority when given the opportunity. The problem is not simply which party draws the maps, but a system that allows any party to manipulate them. Any process that permits mapmakers to consider desired partisan outcomes will eventually be abused. Therefore, we must reduce discretion, rank and define neutral criteria in advance, prohibit partisan inputs, and create rules capable of surviving control by people acting in bad faith.

Many observers now describe the situation as a national "redistricting arms race." 

2.      How District Mapping Occurs Across the US

Redistricting is the process of redrawing the district lines that determine which geographic part of a state will be represented by an elected official. Every 10 years, the United States conducts a national Census. This population data is used to determine how many seats each state is allocated in the U.S. House of Representatives, a process called apportionment. At the state level, the people in charge of redistricting (see map below) use the population data to inform how congressional, state legislative, and other district boundaries are drawn to ensure equal representation. (excerpts taken from https://democraticredistricting.com/what-is-redistricting/)

The redistricting process looks different in states across the country, but generally falls into the five categories shown below. States that have just one seat in the House do not need to create maps since the whole state is the map used (Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming). https://redistricting.lls.edu

When redistricting is done fairly, it reflects our communities and gives every voter an equal voice. Fair redistricting is how we get a truly representative democracy. But, not everyone wants voters to have that power. Self-serving politicians see redistricting as an opportunity to manipulate district lines to entrench themselves and their party in power. That manipulation is called gerrymandering — a deliberate distortion of our democracy. Gerrymandering allows politicians to tilt the maps in their favor and choose their voters, instead of giving voters the opportunity to choose their representatives.

3.      Gerrymandering 101

What is the origin of the term “gerrymander”?

“Gerry” – In 1812, Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry and his political allies redrew Massachusetts’ state districts to tilt the balance of state power in their favor.

Sala “Mander” - The scheme, however, drew public backlash. That same year, the Boston Gazette published a political cartoon depicting one of the districts in Essex County as a salamander. The Gazette labeled this process the “Gerry-mander,” and the name stuck.

 

Partisan gerrymandering can:

 

·    Reduce competitive elections.

·    Allow politicians to choose voters rather than voters choosing politicians.

·    Make representatives less accountable.

·    Increase political polarization.

·    Dilute the voting power of certain communities.

Is gerrymandering legal?

Under current federal law, often yes. The key legal distinction is between:

1. Partisan gerrymandering (aka drawing districts to help one political party)

In 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Rucho v. Common Cause that claims of partisan gerrymandering generally present political questions beyond the reach of federal courts.

The Court did not say partisan gerrymandering is good or constitutional; rather, it held that federal judges lack a workable constitutional standard for deciding such cases. The majority specifically noted that Congress could enact federal legislation establishing standards. 

As a result:

  • Partisan gerrymandering is largely legal under federal law.
  • Federal courts generally will not strike down maps solely because they favor Democrats or Republicans.
  • States may still prohibit partisan gerrymandering under their own constitutions.

2. Racial gerrymandering (Drawing districts primarily based on race)

Race has been used by both parties to gerrymander maps to their advantage. This remains subject to constitutional and statutory limitations, although recent Supreme Court decisions have narrowed some Voting Rights Act protections. Challenges alleging racial discrimination can still succeed in court under certain circumstances. 

4.      How District Mapping Currently “Works” in NC

North Carolina places unusually concentrated redistricting authority in the General Assembly, particularly because redistricting legislation is not subject to the ordinary gubernatorial veto process. That is why legislative elections in North Carolina often have consequences that extend far beyond state politics and can affect control of the U.S. House of Representatives. That is exactly why control of the legislature is so important in North Carolina.

A Look at the Recent Timeline in NC Mapping

Before reviewing North Carolina’s recent history, it is important to be clear about the principle at stake. The concern is not that one party currently controls the process. The concern is that any party can abuse the process when the rules allow it. Democrats drew favorable maps when they held power in earlier decades. Republicans have done the same in more recent years. The lesson is not that one side is uniquely guilty. The lesson is that voters need a system that limits partisan manipulation regardless of which party is in charge.

Prior to 2010, Democrats controlled North Carolina’s government for many decades. Democrats were accused of drawing favorable legislative maps during those years, particularly in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s.

The most famous case from that era involved majority-minority districts that led to the Supreme Court case Shaw v. Reno. The Court ruled that race had been used too heavily in drawing one district.

Then, Republicans won control of the NC state legislature and gained responsibility for drawing NC maps after the 2010 Census.

Beginning in 2011:

  • Republicans drew congressional maps.
  • Multiple courts found portions of those maps unconstitutional.
  • Some maps were struck down as racial gerrymanders.
  • Other maps were challenged as partisan gerrymanders.

Several rounds of redistricting followed. North Carolina has redrawn congressional maps far more often than most states.

The Big Court Reversal

The biggest recent development occurred between 2022 and 2023. In 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that extreme partisan gerrymandering violated the state constitution.

The court rejected the enacted maps and ordered remedial maps under the legal standards it applied at that time. The remedial map resulted in a closely divided congressional delegation, although the partisan balance of a delegation does not by itself establish whether the map was neutrally drawn.

Then, in 2023, after the court’s membership changed, the court reheard the matter and reversed its prior decision. The new majority ruled that partisan gerrymandering claims were political questions that courts should not decide. That decision effectively reopened the door to partisan gerrymandering.

Courts currently provide less oversight of partisan gerrymandering than they did just a few years ago.

What Are the Current Mapping Conditions in NC (2026)?

Today Republicans control the North Carolina House and Senate. Therefore, Republicans control map drawing. Recent congressional maps have generally been viewed by critics as favoring Republicans, and additional map changes have been proposed or implemented ahead of the 2026 elections. Litigation continues over some of those maps.

5.      What mapping tactics have happened recently in other states?

Recent events in other states show why this cannot be treated as a one-party issue. When one party uses redistricting aggressively, the other party often feels pressure to respond in kind. That creates a redistricting arms race where voters lose trust and district lines become political weapons. The Forward Party’s concern is not which party benefits in a given year. The concern is the system itself.

Beginning in 2025, several states began pursuing mid-decade redistricting, often explicitly to improve one party's chances of winning seats in Congress. Both parties pursued redistricting efforts when they believed doing so would increase their representation.

According to multiple reports, President Trump publicly encouraged Republican-controlled states to redraw congressional maps ahead of the 2026 midterm elections to help preserve the GOP's House majority.

Texas

Texas is the most prominent example. Governor Greg Abbott called a special legislative session in 2025 to redraw congressional districts. A new map was ultimately enacted that analysts estimated could create up to five (5) additional Republican-leaning congressional seats. The map was challenged in court as an alleged racial gerrymander. A federal court initially blocked it, but the U.S. Supreme Court later allowed the map to be used while litigation continued.

California

In response to Texas Republicans' 2025 mid-decade redistricting effort, California Democrats led by Governor Gavin Newsom pursued a countermeasure to redraw California's congressional districts. California voters ultimately approved a new map designed to strengthen Democratic representation, triggering lawsuits and a broader national debate over whether one state's partisan redistricting justifies similar actions elsewhere.

Virginia

Over the past year, Virginia Democrats pursued an unusual mid-decade redistricting effort aimed at redrawing the state's congressional map. Democrats advanced a constitutional amendment and proposed new districts that analysts estimated could have resulted in a 10-1 democrat to republican representation in a state with at least 45% conservative voters. Although voters narrowly approved the amendment, the Virginia Supreme Court ultimately struck it down, leaving the state's bipartisan redistricting system in place.

Recent redistricting fights have also occurred in Florida, Tennessee, Louisiana, Ohio, and New York.

6.      North Carolina Forward Party Launches Anti-Gerrymandering Task Force to Develop Fair and Transparent Alternative District Maps

In June 2026, the North Carolina Forward Party (NCFP) formed the Anti-Gerrymandering Task Force, a statewide initiative dedicated to exposing partisan map manipulation by those in power and developing fair, transparent alternatives for North Carolina's congressional and legislative districts.

Led by North Carolina Forward Party Vice Chair Lennie Friedman, the task force brings together citizens, policy experts, data analysts, and reform advocates committed to ensuring that voters choose their representatives—not the other way around.

Announced by Friedman in June on Spectrum News’s Capital Tonight with Tim Boyum—where he highlighted the need for greater transparency and accountability in the redistricting process—the Task Force aims to bring awareness to the egregious practice of gerrymandering and enhance the collective public understanding that there is a better way.

"Our goal is simple: create maps that serve the people of North Carolina rather than political parties," said Friedman. "For too long, district lines have been manipulated to predetermine outcomes and protect political interests. We're committed to demonstrating that a fairer, more representative approach is not only possible, but practical."

Heading into the second half of 2026, NCFP leaders will embark on a statewide speaking tour to present the task force's findings, showcase the alternative maps, and engage citizens in discussions about representation, accountability, and the future of democracy in North Carolina.

The party hopes the project will serve not only as a critique of the current process, but also as a constructive blueprint for how redistricting can be conducted in a way that is transparent, defensible, and centered on voters rather than political interests.

Related Links: 

7.      How our task force’s efforts fit within an overall long-term mapping strategy that puts citizens first

The underlying challenge is that the U.S. Constitution gives state legislatures substantial authority over congressional districting. So, many of the strongest reforms would require either state constitutional amendments, federal legislation, and/or future Supreme Court rulings.  

Short-Term: Better Maps

The Task Force’s goal is to “walk before we run” and focus on drawing better maps in the short-term. The end product of the Task Force initiative is to develop a series of "shadow maps" for North Carolina's U.S. Congressional districts, State Senate districts, and State House districts. Its objectives are to draw maps using objective and publicly understandable criteria, including district compactness, respect for county boundaries, and preservation of communities of interest. The Tasks Force’s approach is summarized in the following graphic:

Medium-Term: State-Level Reforms

If the goal is to prevent abuse by either party, the reforms that tend to receive the broadest support from democracy scholars across the political spectrum are:

·       Change who has authority over mapping. This could include the use of independent redistricting commissions. Politicians would no longer directly draw their own districts. However, a commission is only as neutral as the rules governing its membership, data, criteria, discretion, and tie-breaking procedures. Issues to resolve include: Who would select the members? What is the partisan balance? How long are their terms?

·       Establish clear anti-gerrymandering standards in state constitutions. North Carolina voters could amend the state constitution to ban partisan gerrymandering, require compact districts, prohibit mid-decade redistricting, require transparent, publicly disclosed mapping criteria, measurements, and calculations.

·       Use transparent, rules-based map generation. Rules-based systems can apply predetermined neutral criteria, provided that the source data, instructions, criterion ranking, calculations, and tie-breaking procedures are publicly disclosed. Some reformers advocate using computer-generated maps that follow neutral criteria such as:

·       Equal population.

·       Compactness.

·       Contiguity

·       Respect for county and municipal boundaries.

·       Voting Rights Act compliance

·       Consistent application of predetermined rules.

Publish the criteria, source data, measurements, calculations, criterion priorities, and tie-breaking procedures used to create and evaluate every map and apply them identically regardless of which party controls the government.

·       Adopt transparent mapping requirements. Require public hearings, publication of draft maps, public access to mapping software and data. Ensure mapping criteria, measurements, and calculations are publicly disclosed.

These reforms are not intended to guarantee a particular partisan outcome. They are intended to reduce subjective discretion, prevent manipulation, and ensure that the same rules protect voters regardless of which party holds power.

Long-Term: Nationwide Gerrymandering Ban Via Federal Legislation (and upheld by courts)

·       Federal legislation can establish a nationwide ban on partisan gerrymandering and require neutral redistricting standards.

·       State supreme courts and the U.S. Supreme Court must uphold and enforce those federal standards.

Over the past several years, Congress introduced several major bills aimed at reducing or eliminating partisan gerrymandering. The most significant was the For the People Act (H.R. 1/S. 1), which would have required independent redistricting commissions for congressional districts, established national map-drawing standards, and prohibited partisan gerrymandering. It passed the House in 2019 (234–193) and again in 2021 (220–210) but was blocked in the Senate by a filibuster and failed to obtain the 60 votes needed to advance.

After that effort stalled, senators introduced the Freedom to Vote Act, a compromise proposal that would have established national redistricting criteria, increased transparency, and provided legal remedies against partisan gerrymanders. Although it gained support from Senate Democrats, it also failed to overcome the Senate filibuster and never became law.

As a result, no federal law currently bans partisan gerrymandering nationwide. Congressional redistricting remains governed primarily by state laws, state constitutions, and court rulings, resulting in a patchwork of different redistricting systems across the country.

In 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of Rucho v. Common Cause that claims of partisan gerrymandering generally present political questions beyond the reach of federal courts.

The Court did not say partisan gerrymandering is good or constitutional; rather, it held that federal judges lack a workable constitutional standard for deciding such cases. The majority specifically noted that Congress could enact federal legislation establishing standards. 

8.      Beyond Mapping

Redistricting reform is essential, but it is not the only reform needed to create a healthier political system. A fair process should not simply make the two-party system more comfortable for the two major parties. It should protect voters, including unaffiliated voters, independents, third parties, and future political movements.

That means looking beyond the lines on a map and considering broader reforms that reduce manipulation, increase accountability, and give voters more meaningful choices.

Limit how often maps can be redrawn

The starting point should be the 10-year Census cycle. District maps should generally be drawn after each decennial Census and remain in place for the full decade.

Redistricting should not become a rolling political weapon that either party can use whenever it gains power or sees an opportunity. Mid-decade redistricting should be allowed only under narrow, objective circumstances, such as a court order, a legal requirement, or a significant statewide population shift. One possible trigger to consider would be a statewide population increase or decrease of 15% or more.

The principle is simple: voters deserve stable rules, and politicians should not be able to redraw the playing field whenever it benefits them.

Consider term limits

Term limits may also be part of the broader conversation. Gerrymandering is often used to protect political power and make elected offices safer for incumbents. Term limits would not eliminate gerrymandering, but they could reduce the incentive to draw districts primarily to protect long-term political careers.

Any term-limit proposal would need to be carefully designed, but the underlying goal is consistent with the rest of this effort: public office should belong to citizens, not political insiders.

Improve ballot access and voter choice

A fair political system should not be designed only around Democrats and Republicans. North Carolina has a large number of unaffiliated voters, and voters should have meaningful access to independent candidates, third parties, and emerging political movements.

Easier ballot access would not guarantee success for any candidate or party, but it would allow voters to hear from more voices and reduce the sense that elections are controlled by two closed political organizations.

Use instant runoffs / ranked-choice voting

Instant runoffs, also known as ranked-choice voting, should also be part of the broader reform discussion.

Under the current system, voters are often told that supporting an independent or third-party candidate is a “wasted vote” or could help elect the candidate they like least. Ranked-choice voting helps address that problem by allowing voters to rank candidates in order of preference.

If no candidate earns a majority, the instant runoff process reallocates votes based on voter preferences until a majority winner is identified. This can reduce spoiler concerns, encourage more candidates to run, and give voters more freedom to support the candidate they actually prefer.

Study multi-member districts and proportional representation

Some election reform advocates argue that the deeper problem is not only how single-member districts are drawn, but the winner-take-all nature of single-member districts themselves.

One longer-term proposal is the Fair Representation Act model, which generally includes:

  • Larger multi-member districts;
  • Ranked-choice voting;
  • More proportional representation.

Proponents argue that this approach could make gerrymandering less effective because a single district line would no longer determine a single winner. In a multi-member district, more than one viewpoint could earn representation from the same broader region.

However, multi-member districts are a structural reform, not just a mapping reform. They would require careful legal review, voter education, and clear rules to ensure they expand representation rather than simply creating a different form of insider control.

Limit the influence of money in politics

Finally, any serious conversation about political reform should include the role of money in politics. Gerrymandered districts, weak ballot access, safe seats, and concentrated campaign funding all work together to protect insiders and reduce accountability.

Limiting the influence of money in politics does not mean limiting speech. It means increasing transparency, reducing conflicts of interest, and making sure elected officials are accountable to voters rather than only to the largest donors, party organizations, or political committees.

The broader goal

None of these reforms is a silver bullet. Term limits, ranked-choice voting, easier ballot access, limits on mid-decade redistricting, multi-member districts, and campaign finance reform all involve tradeoffs.

But together, they point toward the same principle: elections should be designed around voters, not around protecting the people and parties already in power.

The goal is not to guarantee a preferred outcome for any party. The goal is to create a transparent, rules-based system that gives voters more choice, limits manipulation, and applies the same way no matter who is in power.

What’s Next?

Thank you for your interest and support of the NCFP Solutions Series. We will continue to track and report on the progress of the Anti-Gerrymandering Task Force as they move forward.

Send us your comments, questions and input via our contact form here.

Join or learn more about the task force by contacting Lennie Friedman at [email protected].