Princeton Gerrymandering Project Completes Analysis of Congressional Plans for 2026
After an unprecedented wave of mid-decade redistricting, the congressional map for 2026 has more changes mid-cycle than at any other time in American history.
In the age of modern voting rights, since 1971 legislatures have only redrawn their Congressional maps twice: in Texas in 2003, and in Georgia in 2006. This year alone, eight maps have been redrawn. Starting with President Donald Trump's request that Texas redistrict its congressional map, a wave of redistricting has engulfed the country. Republicans have redrawn maps in Texas, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Florida; and Democrats have gotten voters to redraw the California map, but failed to get new maps in Virginia and New York. In addition, a state court has redrawn the Utah map to undo a Republican-drawn gerrymander. The Princeton Gerrymandering Project has now graded all of these plans.
A team of students led by Professor Sam Wang has applied the PGP rubric to perform simulations and evaluate the performance of all congressional maps to be used in November to elect the 120th Congress. "We can now see that the breakdown in fair districting has become a major problem on both sides of the aisle," says Professor Wang. "The wholesale redrawing of maps illustrates the critical need for nationwide reform to make maps truly representative of the people."
Until reform is enacted, the Princeton Gerrymandering Project will continue to document the loss of electoral competition that affects voters of either party or no party.
New Grades
| Princeton Gerrymandering Project – Congressional grades | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| State | Grade | State | Grade |
| Arizona | A | Pennsylvania | B |
| Colorado | A | Utah | B |
| Connecticut | A | Arkansas | C |
| Hawaii | A | Louisiana | C (RACIAL) |
| Idaho | A | Mississippi | C |
| Indiana | A | Oklahoma | C |
| Kentucky | A | New Mexico | D |
| Massachusetts | A | Oregon | D |
| Michigan | A | Alabama | F (RACIAL) |
| Minnesota | A | California | F |
| Montana | A | Florida | F |
| Nebraska | A | Georgia | F |
| New Jersey | A | Illinois | F |
| New York | A | Kansas | F |
| Rhode Island | A | Missouri | F (RACIAL) |
| Virginia | A | Nevada | F |
| Washington | A | North Carolina | F |
| West Virginia | A | Ohio | F |
| Iowa | B | South Carolina | F |
| Maine | B | Tennessee | F |
| Maryland | B | Texas | F |
| New Hampshire | B | Wisconsin | F |
To learn more about the grading rubric, read our methodology.
Credits
This work was done by Kareish Thony, Harsidak Singh, Ahmed Virk, and Pejmon Shariati.
Further Reading
To understand more, read "Fixing Bugs in Democracy" by Sam Wang.