How Democracy Works Helps Voters Navigate Redistricting

Few forces shape American democracy as quietly—or as powerfully—as gerrymandering. With several states now pursuing mid-decade redistricting on partisan grounds, the stakes for voters are rising, and Democracy Works is working to ensure that people can navigate the shifting political maps with confidence and clarity.

Partisan gerrymandering is a longstanding practice where the political boundaries of representative districts are drawn to benefit one political party over another. The goal of placing voters within specific districts is to increase the likelihood that a particular candidate or party will win, thereby making election outcomes more predictable. While federal law prohibits gerrymandering based on the racial identity of voters, only a few states have explicitly banned partisan gerrymandering. Even though gerrymandering is broadly unpopular among US adults, it is common at the federal, state, and local levels.

With rapidly changing political developments, voters are wondering how redistricting and associated disputes over gerrymandering will impact their voting experience. At Democracy Works, we’re prepared to help voters navigate the effects of redistricting and confidently participate in our democracy, no matter what.

The Consequences of Mid-Decade Redistricting

While decennial redistricting is necessary to account for population shifts following each US census, partisan gerrymandering, especially when conducted mid-decade, could create additional barriers for voters who want to remain civically engaged. 

Partisan gerrymandering reduces electoral competition by design, lowering the stakes of elections and potentially giving voters the impression that their voices don’t matter. An analysis of state house districts in Illinois—a state the nonpartisan Redistricting Report Card considers to be gerrymandered, particularly at the congressional level—found that voter turnout was consistently lower in uncontested races between 2012 and 2020. Though non-competitive districts were likely not the only factor driving this turnout discrepancy, they could contribute to a sense that regular civic engagement is not worthwhile. Such concerns about competition extend to the federal level. In 2022, analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice found that just 14% of congressional districts could be classified as competitive, a figure that could decrease even further following this year’s redistricting push.

Of more immediate concern for voters, a mid-decade redistricting frenzy could generate uncertainty when casting a ballot and reshape how affected constituents participate in our democracy. After Georgia officials enacted new congressional districts in 2023, resident Imani Bryant, who had previously voted in Georgia’s majority-Black 13th congressional district, was placed in the more rural, majority-white 14th congressional district. Beyond the fact that redistricting could change the district where someone votes, it could meaningfully alter whom people have the opportunity to vote for. Partisan gerrymandering often subverts key principles of redistricting, such as geographical compactness and maintaining communities of shared interests, often moving voters to districts that are less representative of their concerns.

These challenges are compounded when redistricting efforts happen across multiple levels of government, sometimes simultaneously. In Tarrant County, Texas, county officials recently enacted new precinct boundaries for the Tarrant County Commissioners Court, just weeks before the Texas Legislature began debate on new congressional lines. If all proposed changes are implemented, voters in Tarrant County may encounter dramatically different ballot options—with unfamiliar candidates and districts—in upcoming elections for several offices. Previously, in 2023, some voters in Portsmouth, Virginia, were surprised to learn they had been shifted outside their longtime state senate district, underscoring how line changes can confuse voters even in the normal course of decennial redistricting.

So, What Can We Do About It Now?

Although experts have proposed various reforms to overhaul redistricting processes and address partisan gerrymandering, it is likely to remain part of American politics for the foreseeable future. However, we can combat the disorienting effects of redistricting on voters. As the political debate over redistricting continues, Democracy Works will stand by our core mission to provide voters with the nonpartisan, up-to-date information they need to vote confidently in every election.

Democracy Works has a unique role to play in helping voters navigate the complexities of redistricting. Above all, voters need to know how redistricting will affect them—including where they’ll vote, what options they’ll have on the ballot, and what those options will mean for them. Our researchers collect comprehensive election data from official sources, powering the tools voters can rely on to stay informed.

For voters whose districts may have changed due to redistricting, TurboVote clearly notifies them of the potential change. After a voter’s district changes, TurboVote is designed to keep them informed every step of the way:

• Registration checks: Voters can verify that their address is current in the voter file, ensuring they’re registered to the correct district for their place of residence.
• Election reminders: Before an election, TurboVote notifies voters when and where they can vote based on their updated district assignment.
• Ballot previews: Sample ballots provide voters with a nonpartisan source showing the contests and ballot measures specific to their new district.
• Bilingual support: TurboVote’s help desk is fully staffed by real people, ready to answer any voting questions in both English and Spanish.

Developments surrounding redistricting are complex, and voters need support to remain informed and engaged citizens. Voters have even faced hard-to-understand choices about gerrymandering itself. During the 2024 general election, Ohio voters weighed a statewide ballot measure that would have established a bipartisan citizen-led redistricting commission. The language used on the ballot measure was widely considered to be intentionally misleading. Even though a “Yes” vote was the anti-gerrymandering option, the ballot language said that approving the constitutional amendment would “[r]epeal constitutional protections against gerrymandering” and “[e]stablish a new taxpayer-funded commission of appointees required to gerrymander.”

Democracy Works offers solutions to address this. TurboVote’s sample ballot tool uses nonpartisan language to explain what a “Yes” or “No” vote means for ballot measures, even when ballot language is skewed towards partisan ends. Whether confronted with choices about gerrymandering or other issues, all voters should understand what’s at stake in each election—and we’re here to empower them.  

Supporting All Voters

Political debates over redistricting are here to stay, and gerrymandering will likely continue to generate significant noise for voters. To help voters remain civically engaged and prepared to participate in every election, a nonpartisan organization like Democracy Works is uniquely positioned to guide voters through the complex political landscape of redistricting.

As district boundaries continue to shift, voters need clarity on how these changes affect their elections. Democracy Works is committed to communicating changes to voters—helping them cast a ballot with confidence, no matter how the lines are drawn.