Definition
To gerrymander is to manipulate the boundaries of an electoral district — or the system of districts as a whole — in order to achieve a political or electoral outcome that the natural or neutral drawing of boundaries would not produce. The term functions both as a verb (to gerrymander a district) and as a noun (a gerrymander, meaning the resulting map or the practice itself).
In legal usage, the term encompasses several distinct types of manipulation:
1. Partisan gerrymandering: Drawing district lines to entrench one political party's electoral advantage, typically by concentrating the opposing party's voters into a small number of districts ("packing") or dispersing them across many districts where they fall short of a majority ("cracking").
2. Racial gerrymandering: Manipulating district lines using race as the predominant factor — either to dilute minority voting strength or, in some cases, to engineer majority-minority districts. Racial gerrymandering is subject to constitutional scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause and the Voting Rights Act.
3. Other forms: The same logic applies to any deliberate distortion of district lines for an improper purpose, including protecting incumbents or punishing particular communities.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): Listed as an obsolete form — the current form is gerrymander, defined as the manipulation of electoral district boundaries for partisan advantage.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): "To divide (a State) into districts for the choice of representatives, in an unnatural and unfair way, with a view to give a political party an advantage over its opponent." Labeled "Political Cant, U.S."
The common and legal meanings track closely, but the legal meaning has grown significantly more complex. Ordinary usage treats gerrymandering as a general synonym for unfair map-drawing. Legal usage distinguishes sharply between partisan and racial gerrymandering because the two trigger different constitutional frameworks, different standards of judicial review, and very different levels of judicial enforceability. Treating them as interchangeable in legal research will produce serious error.
---
Common Confusion
Partisan gerrymandering and racial gerrymandering are frequently conflated but are legally distinct claims. Federal courts have held that partisan gerrymandering claims present nonjusticiable political questions beyond the reach of federal courts (Rucho v. Common Cause, 2019), while racial gerrymandering claims remain fully justiciable and subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. A map that is simultaneously partisan and racial in motivation may be challenged only on racial grounds in federal court, though state courts applying state constitutional law may reach partisan claims. Researchers conflating the two categories will misread both the case law and the available remedies.
---
Why It Matters in Research
The legal landscape of gerrymandering has shifted dramatically and repeatedly, and corpus materials from different eras reflect entirely different doctrinal frameworks.
Pre-1960s materials treat gerrymandering primarily as a political problem beyond judicial remedy. The reapportionment revolution beginning with Baker v. Carr (1962) and Reynolds v. Sims (1964) introduced the one-person, one-vote principle and opened federal courts to redistricting challenges for the first time — materials from before this period reflect a world in which courts routinely declined jurisdiction.
Racial gerrymandering doctrine developed on a separate track and accelerated significantly after Shaw v. Reno (1993), which introduced the predominant factor test for when race-based districting triggers strict scrutiny. Sources from before 1993 will not reflect this framework.
Partisan gerrymandering doctrine was in flux for decades before Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) definitively closed the federal courthouse door to such claims. Law review articles, briefs, and lower court opinions from 1986 to 2019 reflect active litigation and competing proposed standards; these materials are not wrong, but they describe a contested legal question that has since been resolved at the federal level.
State constitutional claims remain active and jurisdictionally variable. Several state courts have invalidated partisan gerrymanders under state constitutions after Rucho. Researchers working on post-2019 materials must track state-by-state developments that federal sources will not capture.
The term itself appears in sources going back to the early nineteenth century, but its legal content in any given source depends heavily on when that source was written. Always date the source before relying on its doctrinal framework.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary (2nd Ed.) captures the core concept accurately for its era: dividing territory "with such a geographical arrangement as to accomplish a sinister or unlawful purpose," specifically using the example of securing a political majority where natural lines would not produce one. The entry also notes application to school district division, reflecting that gerrymandering was understood to extend beyond electoral districts to other forms of governmental boundary-drawing.
What Black's 2nd does not reflect — because it predates the relevant constitutional developments — is the bifurcation between partisan and racial gerrymandering as legal categories, the one-person, one-vote framework, the Voting Rights Act dimension, or the eventual federal judicial retreat from partisan gerrymandering claims. The historical entry is useful for establishing the term's baseline meaning but should not be read as a guide to modern doctrine.
Webster's 1913 labels the term "Political Cant, U.S." — a signal that even at that date it was understood as an Americanism rooted in a specific episode (the 1812 redistricting associated with Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry). The political rather than legal framing in Webster's reflects how far the doctrine had yet to develop.
---
Jurisdictional Note
Federal doctrine governs racial gerrymandering claims nationwide under the Equal Protection Clause and the Voting Rights Act. Partisan gerrymandering is not currently remediable in federal court. State constitutional law varies significantly: some states (including Pennsylvania, North Carolina under earlier rulings, and Ohio) have seen state courts strike down partisan gerrymanders under state constitutional provisions, while other states provide no such remedy. Researchers must check state-specific doctrine for any post-2019 partisan gerrymandering question.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Redistricting, Gerrymandering, and the One-Person One-Vote Principle — The Law Mind Administrative Law & Government Encyclopedia
Racial Gerrymandering — Shaw v. Reno and the Predominant Factor Test — The Law Mind Constitutional Law Encyclopedia
Redistricting and Gerrymandering — One Person, One Vote (Reynolds v. Sims) — The Law Mind Constitutional Law Encyclopedia
---