Full Transcript
Walter Cronkite: Good evening and welcome to Democracy in the Balance. I’m Walter Cronkite. Tonight, we have an extraordinary panel of guests joining us from across history to discuss a practice that strikes at the heart of representative government – gerrymandering. In simple terms, gerrymandering is the manipulation of electoral district boundaries to benefit a particular party or group. It often involves “packing” – cramming the opposing party’s voters into a few districts – and “cracking” – spreading those voters thinly across many districts, so they hold little sway anywhere[1]. It’s a tactic nearly as old as the Republic, and it remains deeply controversial. To help explore this issue, I’m honored to be joined by three esteemed figures: President George Washington, founding father James Madison, and abolitionist and statesman Frederick Douglass. Thank you all for being here on this unusual but important occasion.
James Madison: Thank you, Walter. It’s a pleasure – and a bit of a surprise – to be here discussing a problem that, in some ways, predates even the term “gerrymander.”
George Washington: I appreciate the invitation, Walter. The health of our young republic – and I suppose I must now say our nation, centuries on – was always dear to me. I’m glad to offer my perspective on this practice that would have been quite concerning to many of us in the founding generation.
Frederick Douglass: I am pleased to join you as well. The struggle for true democracy has been my life’s work, and gerrymandering – as we call it now – is certainly one of those struggles. It’s an honor to speak about how power can be warped in a democracy, and how we might set it right.
Walter Cronkite: Wonderful. To set the stage, let’s clarify what we’re talking about historically. The term “gerrymander” itself comes from 1812, when Governor Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts approved a state senate district so oddly shaped to favor his party that it looked like a salamander on the map[2]. Newspaper wags dubbed it the “Gerry-mander,” and the name stuck. But the practice of drawing twisted electoral lines for political gain existed even before then. In fact, James Madison – the very man here with us – was one of its early targets, long before the term was coined.
James Madison: That’s true, Walter. In the first election under the new Constitution – the 1789 congressional elections – I nearly fell victim to what we would now call gerrymandering. My political opponent, the formidable Patrick Henry, was staunchly Anti-Federalist and wanted to keep me, a Federalist and an advocate for the new Constitution, out of Congress at all costs. He redrew Virginia’s 5th district boundaries quite deliberately to stack the odds against me[3]. Henry lumped my home county of Orange in with several counties known to oppose the Constitution, ensuring a majority of Anti-Federalist voters in the district[3]. In other words, Patrick Henry was gerrymandering before anyone had even invented the term for it[4].
Walter Cronkite: That’s a remarkable bit of history: one of our Founders rigging a district to defeat another Founder. And President Washington, you were aware of this scheme at the time, weren’t you?
George Washington:Indeed I was. I was quite troubled by Patrick Henry’s machinations. In fact, I wrote to Mr. Madison about Henry’s immense influence over Virginia’s legislature, saying that Henry “has only to say let this be law – and it is law.”[5][6] In this case, Henry’s influence bent the law of districting to serve his aims. To see such partisan maneuvering so soon after we formed our new government was disheartening. It went against the spirit of fair representation that we hoped would guide the Republic.
James Madison: I fully agree, President Washington. Henry’s effort was not merely a personal slight – it threatened the very launch of our constitutional government. Remember, I had promised to introduce a Bill of Rights if elected to Congress, to address the people’s demands. Henry opposed the Constitution’s strong federal structure and hoped to call another convention to undo it[7][8]. By gerrymandering me out of the First Congress, he nearly prevented the Bill of Rights from ever being introduced. Imagine: if that partisan redistricting had succeeded, we might never have secured our fundamental liberties when we did[9]. The consequences for American freedom could have been catastrophic. Thankfully, I managed to win that election by a narrow margin despite the odds[10], and I did introduce the Bill of Rights as promised. But the experience left a deep impression on me.
Walter Cronkite: It’s fascinating – and unsettling – to realize how close we came to losing the Bill of Rights due to a gerrymander. And yet, earlier this century, the issue of gerrymandering came before the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2019, in a case called Rucho v. Common Cause, the Court essentially decided that federal judges cannot interfere with partisan gerrymandering, calling it a “political” matter beyond the reach of the courts. Chief Justice John Roberts, in writing that decision, actually invoked your situation, Mr. Madison, noting that even you had been the target of gerrymandering – suggesting the Founders simply accepted it as an unfortunate reality[11].
James Madison: (raising an eyebrow) I have to admit, Walter, when I learned of that opinion – and how Chief Justice Roberts used my case – I was perplexed and a bit troubled. To imply that because gerrymandering happened in my time it was “tolerated” by the Founders is a distortion[11]. Yes, it happened to me – but we certainly did not bless the practice. Far from seeing it as acceptable, those of us who cared about the fledgling Republic saw it as dangerous gaming of the system. I would never want anyone to conclude that we viewed such distortion of the people’s voice as an inevitability to be happily indulged. If anything, my experience proved to me how urgent it is to prevent partisan manipulation, lest it undermine the very foundation of our government.
George Washington: Mr. Madison is absolutely right. As I warned in my Farewell Address, the spirit of party – by which I meant intense partisanship – is one of the worst enemies of popular government[12][13]. It distracts public councils and enfeebles public administration[14]. One of the “expedients of party,” I noted, is to misrepresent or distort the views of different areas to pit them against each other[15]. How different is that from carving up districts so one faction always wins? It’s the same principle of factional abuse. In my view, any system that consistently allows a small but artful minority to impose its will on the majority – or to entrench itself in power – runs counter to the ideals of our Revolution[16]. Gerrymandering, by letting politicians choose their voters rather than voters choosing their representatives, is a prime example of that perversion of our democratic ideals.
Frederick Douglass: President Washington, you speak to something I witnessed repeatedly in my struggle for equal rights. In the 19th century, after the Civil War, we hoped to build a true multiracial democracy. But those who had held power – the former slaveholders and their political allies – used every trick in the book to keep newly enfranchised Black Americans from truly exercising power. They used violence and intimidation, yes, but they also used legal maneuvering to dilute Black voting strength. This included redrawing districts or shifting to at-large elections so that Black communities could not easily elect their own representatives. They might not have used the word “gerrymander” often, but the tactic was the same: rigging the system to maintain power.
I recall describing how, in the post-Reconstruction South, the ballot box was often “tainted by fraud” and intimidation made “a free vote impossible.”[17] The men in power nullified constitutional amendments – the 14th and 15th Amendments meant to guarantee equal citizenship and voting rights – through schemes that included voter suppression and, indeed, electoral manipulation. Their guiding sentiment was that no Black person should effectively have a vote. As I said in 1890, these reactionaries wanted “all that is to be had” – they would take every ounce of political power if allowed – and “their real sentiment is that no Negro shall or ought to have the right to vote.”[18] That chilling attitude drove them to break our nascent democracy in any way they could, including carving up or abolishing districts where Black voters might gain influence. So, in essence, I have seen gerrymandering used as a weapon of racial oppression as well as partisan advantage.
Walter Cronkite: Listening to you, Mr. Douglass, one cannot help but see parallels to today. Your quote – “no Negro shall have the right to vote” – unfortunately echoes in modern efforts that marginalize minority voters. Gerrymandering today is often used to dilute the voting power of racial minorities despite legal protections. For instance, a congressional district in Florida that for years empowered Black voters was recently dismantled in a redistricting pushed by Governor Ron DeSantis – effectively silencing many Black voters by splitting them into other districts. And just a few months ago, the Florida Supreme Court, dominated by his appointees, upheld that map[19]. Mr. Douglass, when you hear about a Black congressman’s district being carved up and eliminated in our times, what goes through your mind?
Frederick Douglass: It pains me deeply, Walter, though it does not surprise me. It confirms what I have long said: “Power concedes nothing without a demand.”[20] Those who hold power tightly – be it a governor, a legislature, or a political party – will not voluntarily give up their advantage. They will redraw maps, change rules, move heaven and earth to keep their grip. Hearing that a Black community in Florida had its district erased under the pretext of “fairness” or “race-neutrality” – when in fact it was a clear move to reduce Black political influence – feels like history repeating itself. After the Civil War, we saw states switching to at-large elections or bizarre district lines to ensure Black voters could never combine their votes to elect someone. Now, in the 21st century, some of these maps achieve the very same end with surgical precision – all the while politicians claim they’re doing nothing wrong. It’s dispiriting, but it reaffirms that eternal vigilance is required. If we the people – of all races – do not demand fair representation, those in power will continue to slice and dice our communities to serve their purposes[20].
Walter Cronkite: Indeed. And that brings us squarely to the current political moment. We are witnessing what some are calling a “redistricting arms race.” With the 2024 elections behind us, new pressures have emerged. President Donald Trump, who is in office again as of January 2025, and his allies are actively encouraging Republican-led states to aggressively redraw their congressional maps even in mid-decade to cement a partisan advantage. The most prominent example right now is Texas.
Not long ago, Texas had already redrawn its districts after the 2020 Census – a map that gave Republicans a strong edge (they won 25 of Texas’s 38 U.S. House seats under it). But now Governor Greg Abbott has called a special legislative session specifically to redo those congressional districts four years early, following pressure from President Trump’s team[21][22]. Initially, Gov. Abbott and some Texas Republican congressmen were hesitant – they feared overreaching could backfire, or at least they didn’t want to tamper with the map so soon[23][24]. However, President Trump personally intervened with a phone call to Governor Abbott, after which Abbott agreed to put redistricting on the agenda[25]. The stated goal? To “pick up new GOP seats” in the House through this rare mid-decade remap[21]. Mr. Madison, Mr. Douglass, President Washington – imagine this: the President of the United States leaning on a state to redraw districts not due to population changes, but purely to squeeze out a few extra seats for his party. What’s your reaction?
James Madison: Frankly, Walter, I find it alarming. In my era, we at least had the decency to redraw districts only after new population numbers warranted it – or, as Patrick Henry did, when a new government formed (still not decent, but at least it was at a transition point). The notion of mid-cycle redistricting purely for partisan gain is beyond anything I experienced. It tells me that the problem of faction – of party spirit – has grown even more potent than in our time. When I hear that President Trump expects Texas to yield up to five additional Republican seats just by redrawing lines[26], I see a manipulation of the system that violates the principle of fair representation. That principle was so important to us when designing the House of Representatives – the People’s House. We intended the House to be apportioned by population, reflecting the people’s will as closely as possible. We did not foresee that clever mapmakers could subvert that by drawing bizarre districts.
It might interest you to know that I proposed what would have been the first Constitutional Amendment – as part of the original Bill of Rights – to ensure one representative for a small number of citizens (in fact, an amendment on the size of districts was passed by Congress but not ratified by enough states). My point is, we tried to guarantee effective representation. Gerrymandering is the antithesis of that, and doing it mid-decade, with no new census, purely to entrench a party, would horrify us. It shows an excess of what President Washington warned about: the “alternate domination” of one faction, pursuing victory at any cost, which he said leads to despotism[27][13].
George Washington: Mr. Madison, I share your alarm. To see a President urge state officials to effectively manipulate election outcomes ahead of the voters is deeply troubling. When I read that Texas’s effort was “championed” by President Trump to protect his party’s narrow House majority[28], I could not help but think: this is exactly the kind of overgrown party zealotry I cautioned against. The tools have changed – in my day, faction might spread rumors or, as I said, misrepresent other districts’ positions[15]. Today, faction literally redraws the map to achieve its ends.
It’s worth noting, too, Walter, that this particular move in Texas is entirely unprecedented, according to experts[29]. Never before, it seems, has a party that already drew a favorable map just a few years prior gone back to redraw it again so soon simply to grasp at even more seats[29]. That smacks of a kind of political greed and short-sightedness that endangers the republic. One cannot maintain a healthy union if each side, when in power, uses every trick to maximize its advantage without regard for fairness or the public good. The result will be ever-increasing retaliation and bitterness – a “redistricting arms race,” as you put it. This path, if unchecked, will breed cynicism among citizens and could, in the worst case, pave the way for what I called a formal and permanent despotism born from the chaos of factional strife[27].
Frederick Douglass: I concur with both of you. What I see is a continuation of the age-old struggle: those in authority bending rules to keep power. The details differ – 19th-century politicians might stuff ballot boxes or enact literacy tests; 21st-century politicians use computer software and fine-grained data to draw crazy lines. But the essence is the same. In Texas, for instance, I read that Republicans control 25 of 38 seats with the current map, even though the state’s electorate is not monolithic[30]. Now they want to grab up to five more seats[26]. How will they do that? Likely by either splitting communities – perhaps breaking apart areas with many Democratic or minority voters (the “cracking” Walter described) – or by “packing” even more opposition voters into a few sacrificial districts[1]. Either way, it dilutes the power of certain voters. And we can guess who many of those voters are: often racial minorities or communities that don’t support those in power.
This is not speculation – we have evidence. In Texas’s last redistricting (2021), the Justice Department raised constitutional concerns, suggesting that the maps discriminated against minority voters[31]. Instead of fully addressing those concerns, state leaders now seem intent on doubling down, while claiming they’re just “delivering for Texans.” It’s the same kind of false pretext I saw in my day. Oppressors back then claimed to worry about “negro supremacy” or some invented threat[32][33] – an utterly absurd notion – when in truth what they feared was losing their own supremacy. Similarly, today’s map manipulators might claim they’re just adjusting lines for fairness or because “the law allows it,” but really they fear fair competition. They want to choose their voters before the voters can choose them. It’s a fundamental perversion of democracy.
Walter Cronkite: You’ve all painted a stark picture of the problem: gerrymandering as a tool of factional power-grabbing, with deep roots in our history and new fervor today. Now I’d like to turn to solutions – and how each of you, coming from your distinct vantage points, might address gerrymandering if you were in a position to do so today. How do we hammer away at the political processes that allow gerrymandering to flourish? How do we restore or ensure fair representation? Mr. Madison, perhaps we can start with you. You were the principal architect of the Constitution – what remedies would you consider if you were drafting a solution for gerrymandering now?
James Madison: That’s an excellent and challenging question. Our Constitution, as written in 1787, leaves the drawing of congressional districts largely to the states, with Congress holding the power to override state rules if it wishes (Article I, Section 4 gives Congress authority to regulate the “Times, Places and Manner” of elections). In my time, we did not foresee the extreme partisan mapmaking that would later emerge, though we experienced early hints of it. If I were addressing this issue today, I would likely advocate for structural reform at the federal level to curb the worst abuses of gerrymandering.
One idea, consistent with our constitutional framework, would be for Congress to legislate national standards for redistricting – or even require independent, non-partisan commissions to draw congressional districts, taking that power out of the hands of self-interested legislatures. This is not without precedent: in recent years several states have established such commissions to produce fairer maps. Congress could mandate this for all states for House elections – it would be a modern use of the power Article I already gives it. In other words, use the constitutional tools at hand to insist on fairness.
Another approach could be a constitutional amendment. It might explicitly guarantee the right to fair representation, or ban partisan gerrymandering outright. I generally believed, as President Washington echoed in his Farewell Address, that if a part of the system is wrong, the people can correct it “by an amendment in the way the Constitution designates”[34] – not by unilateral usurpation, mind you, but by thoughtful reform. An amendment against gerrymandering could set clear rules or criteria for district boundaries (for example, requiring compactness, respecting communities, and forbidding intentional favoring of a party or incumbent). Admittedly, achieving a constitutional amendment is a high bar – but the very threat of it might spur Congress to act on its own, which is easier.
Lastly, I’d emphasize transparency and citizen engagement. In a republic, ultimately the people have to demand this change. Gerrymandering thrives in the shadows and in the apathy of the public. If voters make it known that they will not tolerate politicians gaming the maps, politicians will be less inclined to do so. One positive development I’ve seen is that the public today is much more aware of gerrymandering – they see the funny-looking districts on the news and on social media and rightly ask, “How is this allowed?” That outrage can translate into pressure on state lawmakers to hand over the pen to neutral arbiters, or into support for national reform.
So, in summary: I would urge using the Constitution’s mechanisms – either congressional legislation or amendment – to establish impartial redistricting processes. We must align our district-drawing with the fundamental principle of equal liberty and fair representation that our republic rests upon.
Walter Cronkite: Strong ideas. And indeed, there was proposed legislation in recent years – the For the People Act, for example – that would have required independent redistricting commissions nationwide to curb partisan map-drawing[35][36]. It passed the House at one point but stalled in the Senate. So Mr. Madison, your instincts align with current reform movements.
President Washington, if you were Commander-in-Chief in this era, how would you address this threat to democratic fairness? As someone who prized unity and warned against partisan excess, what course would you counsel?
George Washington: My perspective is guided by an overriding concern for the unity and legitimacy of our government. I would focus on the ethical and patriotic obligations of our leaders. In my time, I tried to set a precedent by rising above party – indeed, I had no formal party affiliation and hoped others would follow that example. While that didn’t last long after me, the principle can still be appealed to. I would call on lawmakers’ sense of honor and duty: drawing fair districts should be seen as a patriotic responsibility. After all, the “happiness of the people,” as I noted, depends on a government that truly represents them[37][38]. How can we claim to be a model republic if our representatives choose their voters and not the other way around?
If I were addressing the nation as its leader now, I would use the bully pulpit to shame the practice of extreme gerrymandering. I would speak plainly: Gerrymandering is a form of political corruption, even if it’s done by drafting pens and computer algorithms rather than bags of cash. It betrays the public trust. When politicians carve districts for personal or party gain, they are effectively telling certain citizens, “Your vote matters less. We’ve arranged it so we win no matter what you do.” That is a cynical message that breeds distrust and disengagement. A house divided against itself in this way cannot stand healthy for long.
So, I would urge a kind of gentlemen’s (and gentlewomen’s) agreement across parties: let us compete for votes on a level field. I might convene a bipartisan commission of respected Americans – elder statesmen, judges, civic leaders – to propose guidelines for fair redistricting, appealing to both parties to adopt them in good faith. In essence, I’d pursue a moral consensus that gerrymandering in its extreme form is un-American. This may sound idealistic, but moral leadership can alter behavior. Recall that in my Farewell Address I said “virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government.”[39] To preserve our union, we must appeal to what is best in us, not what is worst.
If moral persuasion failed – and I am not naive, it very well might in today’s climate – I would support more concrete measures, much like Mr. Madison outlined. I would not stand in the way of legislation to require independent commissions or stricter judicial scrutiny of egregious gerrymanders. In fact, I think a reinvigorated Voting Rights Act that covers partisan disenfranchisement as well as racial would be wise. Democracy must be actively safeguarded by law. But above all, the people’s voice – enlightened public opinion – is the final safeguard. I would encourage citizens to, as Mr. Douglass might say, demand change, loudly and firmly. Because if the public outcry is great enough, politicians will have to listen.
Walter Cronkite: And speaking of public outcry, Mr. Douglass, you were certainly never one to stay silent in the face of injustice. How would you advise the public and our leaders now? You’ve seen how “power concedes nothing without a demand” – what demands should be made today to end the stranglehold of gerrymandering?
Frederick Douglass: Walter, you know I believe in the power of activism and speaking truth to power. First and foremost, I’d tell the general public: do not accept these gerrymanders quietly. If your district is drawn in a nonsensical way, if you notice your community’s voice being diluted, raise the alarm. Organize, protest, write to your representatives, support lawsuits – make it known that you consider this an affront to your rights. In my time, we used newspapers, pamphlets, speeches – whatever we had. Today you have an even mightier tool in technology and social media. Use it to shine a spotlight on unfair maps and the politicians behind them.
I would particularly urge those who are most harmed by gerrymandering – often minority communities – to join in common cause with others. This isn’t just a “Black issue” or a “Democrat issue” or a “Republican issue.” It’s an American issue. For instance, gerrymandering can and does hurt Republicans in states where Democrats hold power (take for example the state of Illinois or, potentially, New York where Democrats might redraw lines to their favor). No party’s hands are completely clean over the long arc of history. So ordinary people of all political stripes should see the shared value in fairness.
From a policy perspective, I echo the call for restoring and strengthening the Voting Rights Act. In 1965, long after my time, that Act was passed to prevent the kind of racist voter suppression I fought against. It required certain states to get federal approval before changing voting laws or districts, precisely because those states had a history of discriminatory maps and rules. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court in 2013 (Shelby County v. Holder) gutted that preclearance system. And what happened? States like Texas and others immediately started implementing aggressive gerrymanders and voting restrictions that likely would have been blocked before[31]. I would demand that Congress revive the parts of the Voting Rights Act that were struck down – update the formula, re-establish oversight. And not just for racial discrimination, but look at partisan abuses too, since often they overlap (partisan gerrymanders frequently target communities of color under the guise of partisanship). A new Voting Rights Act, call it the John Lewis Voting Rights Act if you will, should make it clear that extreme gerrymandering is illegal because it undermines the principle of equal voting power.
Furthermore, I’d support the creation of independent redistricting commissions countrywide, as discussed. Some states have led the way, proving that it’s possible to have citizens or bipartisan panels draw maps more fairly than self-interested legislators. Those experiments by states are like the “laboratories of democracy.” Let’s take their success and make it the norm.
Finally, I would remind everyone of something from my own life: when we fought for the Fifteenth Amendment to secure Black men the right to vote, there were those who said, “What’s the point, those in power will just find new tricks to take it away.” Well, those pessimists were partly right – the opponents of equality did find new tricks, like gerrymandering, to weaken that Amendment. But the answer is not to give up – it’s to fight those new tricks with new tools and greater resolve. If there is no struggle, there is no progress[40]. So I would galvanize a movement – across age, race, party – that says enough. We demand fair maps. We demand a democracy where our votes count equally. And we won’t rest until that is achieved.
Walter Cronkite: Stirring words, Mr. Douglass. It brings to mind how much has changed and yet how much remains the same in our democracy’s journey.
Before we conclude, I want to touch on one more aspect: the consequences if we do nothing. What does gerrymandering mean for the general public – the average citizen tuning in? Some might think, “This is insider politics – why should I care if my district looks funny as long as I can vote?” What would each of you say directly to the citizens about why this issue matters personally to them?
James Madison: I would say to the citizens: gerrymandering cheats you of true self-government. In a well-constructed republic, as we intended, the legislature should mirror the will of the people – not perfectly, but in rough proportion. If, say, 55% of a state’s voters prefer one party, you’d expect about 55% of the seats to go to that party in a fair system. Gerrymandering skews this. It can allow a party with a minority of votes to claim a majority of seats, effectively reversing the public’s will. When that happens, policies and laws may no longer reflect what a majority of citizens want.
Moreover, gerrymandering often creates safe seats where the real contest is only in the dominant party’s primary. This can lead to more extreme candidates winning office (since they only cater to their base, not the general electorate), and that polarizes governance. I wrote in Federalist No. 10 about the dangers of faction and how an extended republic could mitigate it – but if factions entrench themselves via district manipulation, it defeats the cooling mechanism we hoped for. So, dear citizen, if you’ve ever wondered why Congress or your state legislature seems unresponsive, why politicians don’t feel accountable – gerrymandering is likely a big part of the answer. It lets them take you for granted. It’s essentially stealing your voice in subtle ways. And that should anger every American who cherishes our representative democracy.
George Washington: To the everyday American I would say: your faith in the system is at stake. When people see blatant gerrymandering – those bizarrely drawn districts that everyone jokes look like salamanders or dragons – they intuitively know something’s off. It erodes trust. I have always held that the legitimacy of our government depends on the informed and confident consent of the governed. If large numbers of citizens come to feel their electoral system is rigged or preordained, they may disengage or grow cynical. That cynicism is poison to a republic. It can lead to apathy (people not voting because “what’s the point, the map is fixed”) or to alienation and unrest. In my Farewell Address, I warned against the idea that any usurpation by those in power, even if seemingly minor or beneficial, is dangerous because it sets a precedent that can destroy free government[41]. Gerrymandering is a usurpation – it is politicians usurping the right of the people to fair elections.
So, this issue matters to you because it affects whether you truly have a say in choosing your representatives. It affects whether your community – be it your town, your county, or your ethnic community – can get responsive leadership. It even affects how well government works: excessively gerrymandered legislatures spend more time in partisan trench warfare and less time solving problems, because they’re elected from artificially polarized districts. If you want a government that addresses real issues – education, healthcare, security – rather than just fights ideological battles, you should care about this. Fair districts encourage competition, and competition usually produces better public servants. In short, caring about gerrymandering is caring about the quality and honesty of your governance.
Frederick Douglass: And I would add: gerrymandering can diminish the hard-won rights of those who have been historically marginalized. For minority voters, this is very personal. It can mean whether or not you have someone in the legislature who genuinely represents your community’s experiences and fights for your needs. I’ll give an example in plain terms: if a city has a large Black population concentrated enough to elect a Black representative, a gerrymander might carve that city into pieces, attaching each slice to a larger suburban or rural white area, so that not one Black representative can be elected. The result: the Black voters in that city, though maybe 30-40% of each new district, won’t be able to elect someone of their choice. Their preferred candidates lose, and they may feel nobody in power looks like them or is accountable to them. That is a recipe for alienation and injustice – I saw it in the post-Reconstruction era, and it took a century and the Civil Rights Movement to even partially repair that damage.
Even if you are not part of a minority group, gerrymandering might be hurting you in other ways. Perhaps you’re a political minority in your area – say, a Republican in a heavily Democratic state or vice versa – and the maps are drawn to ensure your voice never translates into a seat at the table. It’s fundamentally about fairness and equality. We Americans might disagree on many things, but fairness is something most of us hold dear. Gerrymandering is unfair. It tells some of us that our votes matter more than others, based purely on arbitrary lines drawn on a map by a ruling clique.
So to the public I say: This is your fight. It’s not abstract. It affects whether your school gets funded, whether your neighborhood’s concerns are heard, whether policies reflect your will. We can’t afford to be indifferent. Democracy is not a spectator sport. As I and others in my time fought to expand the franchise and make America live up to its creed, so too must you fight to ensure that the franchise, once granted, is not hollowed out by tricks like gerrymandering.
Walter Cronkite: Thank you. That is a powerful note to move toward closing on.
Before we end, I’d like to lighten the tone just a bit and ask if any of you have a final thought or even a bit of optimism about how we move forward. We’ve dissected the problem and hammered the current abuses. Do you see hope on the horizon? Perhaps in public awareness, court decisions, bipartisan reform efforts – what gives you hope that democracy will prevail over gerrymandering?
James Madison: I take heart in the fact that Americans today are arguably more aware of this issue than ever before. It’s discussed in the open. When we wrote the Constitution, we of course couldn’t anticipate all the challenges, but we trusted in Americans’ ability to learn and improve their institutions. Over the centuries, you’ve amended the Constitution to expand rights and fix flaws. I have hope that, similarly, you will find a way to tame gerrymandering. The very backlash we see – citizens organizing for reform, some states adopting better systems – that is the American spirit at work. It may take time, but I believe the trajectory is toward a more perfect union, and that means a more representative union. The tools of democracy, though abused by some, are still available to correct these wrongs.
George Washington: My optimism comes from the character of the American people. In my life, I saw a scrappy collection of colonies unite and defeat an empire, then painstakingly form a constitutional government that has endured. That tells me there is a reservoir of wisdom and courage among the people. Factions may seem strong, but ultimately, We the People are stronger – if we choose to be. I am also encouraged by younger generations I hear about – they seem to genuinely care about fairness and are less tied to rigid party loyalties. Perhaps they will insist on reforms that our generation did not foresee. The fact that we’re having this frank conversation is itself a sign of hope – sunlight is the best disinfectant, as the saying goes. Gerrymandering survives in complexity and obscurity; expose it clearly, and I trust that Americans’ innate sense of justice will force change.
Frederick Douglass: I’m hopeful because I know how far we’ve come. I lived to see the abolition of slavery, something that seemed impossible when I was born. I saw Black men win the right to vote – something considered outrageous in my youth. Yes, there were setbacks and yes, the struggle continues, but progress is real. In recent years, I’ve seen courts – sometimes to my surprise – strike down racially gerrymandered districts, recognizing that the rights of minority voters must be protected. I’ve seen communities rally to demand fair maps – for example, when egregious maps are revealed, people pack hearing rooms to say “No, we won’t stand for this.” This gives me hope that the moral arc is bending towards justice.
I often quote that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” It doesn’t bend by itself; people bend it. And I see people bending it now – lawyers, activists, ordinary voters, even some principled politicians – all pushing for a system where our democracy is robust and genuine. So, while we’ve spoken strongly about the problems, I believe in the resilience of democracy. America has a way of confronting its demons and, eventually, reforming itself. Gerrymandering is a stubborn demon, but I do think its days are numbered if enough of us stand up and fight.
Walter Cronkite: Gentlemen, thank you. This has been an enlightening and inspiring discussion. We delved into the history – from Patrick Henry’s proto-gerrymander against James Madison[3], to Governor Gerry’s salamander[2], through the post-Civil War struggles Mr. Douglass recounted, right up to today’s battles in Texas and beyond[42]. We examined the corrosive effects on our democracy and, importantly, heard ideas on how to combat this practice and restore the power where it belongs: in the hands of the people.
To our listeners, I hope this conversation underscores why gerrymandering isn’t just a wonky technical issue, but a fundamental threat to the principle of government of, by, and for the people. But as our guests reminded us, it’s a threat we can overcome with knowledge, vigilance, and collective action. After all, the arc of our nation’s history has been one of expanding and strengthening democracy – and each of us has a role to play in continuing that legacy.
Thank you, President Washington, Mr. Madison, and Mr. Douglass, for lending your voices and wisdom across the centuries tonight. And thanks to all of you out there for listening. Until next time, for Democracy in the Balance, I’m Walter Cronkite. Good night – and as always, stay informed.
FOOTNOTES
[1] [26] [28] [29] [30] Despite risks, Texas Republicans launch Trump-backed effort to redraw congressional lines | Reuters
[2] Cartoon, “The Gerry-Mander”, 1813 | Smithsonian Institution
https://www.si.edu/object/cartoon-gerry-mander-1813%3Anmah_509530
[3] [4] The Congressional Election of 1789 – Montpelier
https://www.montpelier.org/the-congressional-election-of-1789/
[5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] How a Gerrymander Nearly Cost Us the Bill of Rights – POLITICO Magazine
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/08/18/gerrymander-the-bill-of-rights-227626
[12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [27] [34] [37] [38] [39] [41] Avalon Project – Washington’s Farewell Address 1796
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp
[17] [18] [32] [33] Frederick Douglass, “The Race Problem,” address, 1890, excerpts
https://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/maai2/politics/text2/douglass.pdf
[19] [42] States’ Redistricting Arms Race Could Upend the Midterms
[20] [40] (1857) Frederick Douglass, “If There Is No Struggle, There Is No Progress” | BlackPast.org
[21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [31] Gov. Abbott was reluctant to do congressional redistricting | The Texas Tribune
https://www.texastribune.org/2025/07/22/texas-redistricting-abbott-republicans-resistant-trump/
[35] [36] Why the For the People Act Is Critical for Fair Voting Maps
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/why-people-act-critical-fair-voting-maps