Common Cause reaffirms its unwavering commitment to fair representation, fair maps, and people-centered democratic processes in every state. We oppose partisan gerrymandering, regardless of which party engages in it, and we will evaluate all redistricting proposals using the same fairness criteria set forth below. Independent redistricting commissions are still the best mechanism we know of for achieving fair representation, but they are a means to an end—not the end itself.

In the current mid-decade redistricting battle, we recognize that President Trump and Republican leaders are pursuing a calculated, asymmetric strategy to redraw districts mid-decade in states like Texas, to lock in unaccountable power and silence voters. This is not an isolated political tactic; it is part of a broader march toward authoritarianism, dismantling people-powered democracy, and stripping away the people’s ability to have a political voice and say in how they are governed. In just 6 months, this broader strategy has included executive orders to seize control of elections, end birthright citizenship, and gut government services; punitive actions against dissenting media, law firms, and universities; targeted campaigns against communities of color, immigrants, and other marginalized groups; and the deployment of military forces in U.S. cities against the people of this country. When voters lose their political voice, every decision that affects their lives—from healthcare and education to climate and civil rights—is made without their consent. Such attacks undermine all future democracy reforms and subvert democracy itself.

In this grave moment, we understand why some states, including California, are considering counterbalancing measures in response. We will not endorse partisan gerrymandering even when its motive is to offset more extreme gerrymandering by a different party. But a blanket condemnation in this moment would amount to a call for unilateral political disarmament in the face of authoritarian efforts to undermine fair representation and people-powered democracy.

Our current strategic posture—evaluating countermeasures against our fairness criteria and not condemning those that meet them—is a last resort. We took Cause commune contre Rucho to the Supreme Court, which refused to curb partisan gerrymandering. We helped craft the Freedom to Vote Act to ban partisan gerrymandering, but Congress did not pass it. We have championed independent redistricting commissions nationwide, yet neither party has embraced them fully. We are here because the courts, Congress, and political leaders failed to act.

We therefore will not condemn countermeasures that meet our fairness criteria. And we will oppose countermeasures that do not meet our criteria. We have established these fairness criteria so we can respond to the most urgent threats to fair representation while holding all actors to the same principled standard: people—not parties—first. This moment is not only about countering immediate threats. It is an urgent call to expand the movement for fair representation, grow public demand for structural change, and strengthen the alliances needed to achieve it. Common Cause will meet this moment.

Fairness Criteria

• Proportionality: Any mid-decade redistricting should be a targeted response proportional to the threat posed by mid-decade gerrymanders in other states.
• Public participation: Any redistricting must include meaningful public participation, whether through ballot initiatives or open public processes.
• Racial equity: Redistricting must not further racial discrimination or dilute the political voice of Black, Latino, Indigenous, Asian American, and Pacific Islander, or other communities of color.
• Federal reform: Leaders pursuing mid-decade redistricting must publicly endorse the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to Vote Act, including provisions banning mid-decade redistricting and partisan gerrymandering.
• Endorsement of independent redistricting: Leaders pursuing mid-decade redistricting must publicly endorse a neutral, fair redistricting system, such as citizen-led independent redistricting commissions, as the long-term solution.
• Time-limited: Any new redistricting maps must expire following the 2030 Census, which counts all people in our country, and be replaced through the regular decennial redistricting process.