Since its first usage in 1812, gerrymandering has been a fixture and point of contention in the United States’ political consciousness. Now, the heated topic is once again being taken up by the Supreme Court in the case Gill v. Whitford.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard arguments that gerrymandering — redrawing electoral districts to benefit political parties — led to the election of an unusually high number of Republicans to state offices in Wisconsin. The decision could alter the future of voting practices across the country, as the court will consider what’s partisan gerrymandering and what’s honest redistricting.

Andy Mendes | Digital Design Editor

Given how the case highlights a divisive political climate and the suppression of Democratic voters, we should consider how gerrymandering may be a women’s issue.


Since the 1980s, the majority of female voters have identified as Democrats, according to the Pew Research Center. Women’s political representation is disproportionately Democrat as well, said Danielle Thomsen, an assistant professor in the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University.

“Women in Congress are more than three times as likely to be Democrats,” Thomsen said.

Because of this gender gap, partisan gerrymandering could disproportionately affect women’s representation, as well as the manner in which women’s issues are addressed in U.S. politics.

Gerrymandering has been found to target female candidates, as in the case of Texas state Sen. Wendy Davis in 2011, according to the National Organization of Women. In this case, Republican leaders redrew Davis’ district, moving thousands of black and Latino constituents who voted for her in the previous election to predominantly conservative districts. Davis successfully sued the state under the Voting Rights Act before the election and was re-elected.

Political scientists Barbara Palmer and Dennis Simon also found that women in the Ohio House of Representatives were far more likely to have their districts redrawn than their male counterparts. They identified what they call “women-friendly districts,” in which women were more likely to be elected.

The use of gerrymandering to disadvantage female candidates was also noted in Virginia in the early 2000s, when five out of the eight women representatives had their districts redrawn to favor Republican candidates who were men.

The possibility of gender gerrymandering is especially salient in Syracuse. Democrat women are the largest constituency in the city and Onondaga County. And gerrymandering continues to be a central topic of debate in local politics.

Andy Mendes | Digital Design Editor

Former state Rep. Jim Walsh spoke out against gerrymandering throughout his 20-year tenure as a Republican representing Syracuse, and he recently expressed support for the banning of partisan gerrymandering.

Syracuse mayoral candidate Juanita Perez Williams, a Democrat, recently opposed the Consensus plan, which would potentially reshape local voting districts. And state organizations, including Common Cause NY and The League of Women Voters of NY , advocate against gerrymandering.

But Thomsen cautioned against arguments that equate gerrymandering with increased partisanship.

“For instance, we’ve seen rising polarization in the U.S. Senate, but of course state borders are fixed,” Thomsen said. “We’ve seen rising extremism among members of Congress who are coming from at-large congressional districts and who are representing the whole state, and they’re also moving in the same way ideologically as members whose districts have changed.”

So, most political scientists believe gerrymandering itself is not the cause of polarization, Thomsen said. The dynamics of partisan polarization in the U.S. extend far beyond the drawing of voting districts.

Still, paying attention to the issues of gerrymandering also provides us with opportunities to scrutinize, and maybe even combat, gender inequality in politics. At the very least, questions surrounding partisan gerrymandering can inspire more meaningful investigations into the causes and effects of gendered partisanship.

“If you have a party that is going to be in the majority for long periods of time, and there are eight percent women, do I think that matters for the issues that get put on the agenda? Absolutely,” Thomsen said. “Do I think that if you would draw districts a different way, it would fix it? No.”

This distinction between gendered partisanship and the effects of gerrymandering on gender representation is important. Yet we cannot ignore how gerrymandering affects women in U.S. politics. The current Supreme Court case can prompt critical debate on how we can avoid voter suppression.

Considering gerrymandering as a gender issue may also promote intersectional advocacy against the suppression of historically disadvantaged voters. Without such efforts, our democratic ideal of fair representation is futile.

C.C. Hendricks is a doctoral student in composition and cultural rhetoric. Her column appears biweekly. You can reach her at crhen100@syr.edu.