Politicians have a knack for disenfranchising American voters. I’m not focusing here on “proof of citizenship” or “voter ID” issues. This is about two other examples with huge potential for disenfranchising voters.
Potentially the biggest story of the 2026 mid-term elections is the stampede of congressional redistricting in several states. We’re witnessing “gerrymandering warfare,” a bipartisan bad habit. Redistricting is necessary due to population shifts, but “gerrymandering” takes the process to an extreme. But is this legal?
There are few mandates or constraints governing the process. Each congressional district’s population must be approximately equal, and racial bias isn’t permitted. A Supreme Court decision last week reinforced our “color-blind” Constitution. It prohibits any redistricting intended to provide benefit to any race, but political benefit (pronounced “shenanigans”) isn’t prohibited.
While I consider the current aggressive process inconsistent with a representative democracy, that’s the way the system works. If a party doesn’t participate, it will be left behind.
The president lit the fire for this round of gerrymandering, but he didn’t start the “war.” Democrats started aggressive gerrymandering decades ago. Especially since the 2010 census, Republicans have by necessity become aggressive and are now “experts.”
Here’s an example of the extreme effect aggressive gerrymandering can have. Last week, the Commonwealth of Virginia completed aggressive redistricting. In 2024, 46% of Virginians voted Republican in the presidential election. Subject to results of constitutional challenges, Virginia’s redistricting will potentially result in producing only one Republican representative out of their allotment of 11 – previously there were five.
No state will be perfectly balanced, but this new redistricting will effectively disenfranchise approximately 35% of Virginia’s Republican voters. Similar changes are becoming widespread and bipartisan.
Next up, The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an attempt to override electors and Electoral College in our presidential election process. Under the current system, electors for each state collectively comprise the Electoral College, and officially elect the president. Excepting two states, the winning candidate in each state election receives all of that state’s “electoral” votes.
By signing the Compact, states are pledging all their electoral votes to be cast for the national popular vote winner, guaranteeing that candidate’s election by the Electoral College. Support for NPVIC is coming almost exclusively from Democrats.
Sparing many details, there are 538 electors in the Electoral College. These are allocated to U.S. states based on their number of senators and representatives, plus three for Washington D.C. Recall that each state has two senators, irrespective of population. Therefore the number of electors isn’t intended to be proportionate to each state’s population, and the popular vote winner won’t necessarily be elected president.
The Founders didn’t set it up this way to favor whoever is an “underdog.” Among other reasons, they wanted to prevent undue influence of regional population centers on presidential elections. For example, using a straight popular vote count, a small minority of states, e.g. the statistical influence of New York and other Northeast states, Illinois, and California and the West Coast states, could consistently determine who is our president.
Last month, Virginia’s governor signed the NPVIC into law, joining 17 other states and the District of Columbia in the agreement. These states now control 222 electoral votes. When states representing 270 electoral votes out of the total 538 are party to the NPVIC agreement, they will have pledged enough votes to control a majority of the Electoral College. Their goal will have been achieved, subject to legal challenges.
While there’s always a possibility of success, most experts consider the legal challenges insurmountable. Nevertheless, we should pay attention to future developments because this is moving fast to conclusion.
In 2024, candidate Harris received 62% of California’s popular vote and all 54 of its electoral votes. If NPVIC had been operable, she would have received ZERO electoral votes because candidate Trump won the national popular vote and therefore all of California’s electoral votes must be cast for Trump. Extrapolate that nationwide and the potential for disenfranchisement becomes massive.
Whenever you are in a debate about “proof of citizenship” or “voter IDs” disenfranchising voters, remind the other participants of the huge potential for disenfranchisement caused by reckless gerrymandering, and prospectively, the nationwide National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
Steve Bakke, CPA, MBA, of Fort Myers is a retired CPA & commercial finance executive.
This article originally appeared on Fort Myers News-Press: Disenfranchising of American voters comes in several forms | Opinion
Reporting by Steve Bakke / Fort Myers News-Press
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
