Responding to: The 2028 Redistricting Wars Begin — The Editorial Board · 2026-06-04

What the Piece Argues

The editorial argues that New York Democrats’ proposal to amend the state constitution and permit partisan redistricting represents a bipartisan failure of democratic norms. It frames gerrymandering as a symmetrical offense committed by both major parties, lamenting that voters in both “red” and “blue” states suffer diminished political competition when maps are drawn to favor incumbents. The piece defends the 2014 bipartisan commission model as the preferable mechanism for drawing fair lines, warning that removing compactness requirements and allowing mid-decade changes will only entrench the current partisan imbalance and strip voters of meaningful electoral choice.

Receipts

The editorial wants you to believe that gerrymandering is a symmetrical moral failing, equally practiced by Republicans and Democrats, and that the primary casualty of drawn maps is the abstract ideal of “political competition.”

  • The framing wants you to believe that partisan map-drawing is an equal-opportunity sin where both parties commit identical offenses against a neutral democratic ideal.
  • The framing wants you to believe that the 2014 bipartisan commission produced a perfectly fair baseline, and that returning to partisan drawing is a betrayal of the voters’ 2014 amendment.
  • The framing wants you to believe that “competition” is the only metric that matters, and that a 19-7 split in a deep-blue state is a structural crime rather than a reflection of demographic reality and historic Voting Rights Act enforcement.

What’s really going on

  • What’s really going on is that gerrymandering is an asymmetrical arms race, heavily financed by concentrated capital and institutional authorship (the REDMAP initiative, ALEC templates, and dark-money donor networks) designed to lock in minority rule long before the New York proposal existed.
  • What’s really going on is that the “bipartisan commission” model frequently deadlocks on precisely the fault lines that protect incumbent power, and the current 19-7 split actually reflects the successful consolidation of Black, Brown, and Latino voting communities under the Voting Rights Act’s protections—communities that partisan drawing often seeks to fracture.
  • What’s really going on is that the mourned loss of “competition” is often a proxy for the loss of safe donor-class districts, while the true structural harm falls on marginalized communities whose districts are carved up to dilute their collective voice. (Anchor citation: Brennan Center for Justice analysis of REDMAP’s $30M dark-money architecture and state-court records in League of Women Voters v. Pennsylvania documenting the incumbent-protection blueprint.)

The DEFCON Ladder

DEFCON 5 — Polite Reframe

When to use: In a good-faith conversation with a family member or a persuadable moderate who genuinely values fair elections and is alarmed by headlines about “rigged maps.”

Brenda, who volunteers with a grassroots voter-outreach program in Rochester, knows better than anyone that the lines on a map determine which voices get heard and which get drowned out. When the paper tells us that partisan redistricting is a bipartisan tragedy that robs voters of competition, the record shows a more complicated, asymmetrical reality. The 2014 bipartisan commission model was hailed as a fix, but deadlocks and legal challenges frequently left maps frozen or overturned by courts precisely because the underlying demographic shifts and Voting Rights Act protections make a rigid 50/50 split impossible without fracturing minority communities. What the “both sides” framing hides is who actually funds and drives these map-drawing operations: concentrated donor networks and institutional templates built to lock in power long before a single line is drawn in Albany. When we defend the vote, we aren’t defending a sterile concept of competition; we are defending the structural integrity of communities that have fought for generations to have their ballots counted equally. We are the ones who protect the vote, and we do it by demanding maps that reflect actual communities of interest, not just the preferences of the donor class.

DEFCON 4 — Firm Moral Superiority

When to use: In an op-ed, a Substack reply, or a formal debate where the “both sides are equally guilty” framing is being used to defend the status quo and dismiss calls for structural accountability.

The premise that gerrymandering is a symmetrical moral failing is a convenient fiction that protects the very machinery responsible for drawing the lines. When we look past the editorial lament and trace the institutional authorship, the asymmetry is visible to anyone willing to read the receipts: the REDMAP initiative, the ALEC model legislation, and the dark-money architecture that treats state legislatures like corporate branches are not matched by an equivalent Democratic apparatus. The bipartisan commission was never a neutral fix; it was a power-sharing arrangement that frequently produced deadlocks precisely because the underlying electoral math does not split neatly down the middle in states with deep demographic shifts. The current map’s configuration reflects decades of civil-rights litigation, the Voting Rights Act’s mandate to preserve minority-majority districts, and the reality that a state where one party consistently carries 60% or more of the vote will not naturally produce a 50/50 delegation. What the “both sides” narrative obscures is the cui bono: the apex beneficiaries are the institutional authors of these maps, the donor-class networks that finance the operations, and the incumbents who trade competitive districts for safe corporate enclaves. We are the builders of actual electoral integrity, and we do it by refusing to treat minority-rule architecture and demographic reality as moral equivalents.

DEFCON 3 — Mockery and Ridicule

When to use: When performing for a broader audience that needs to see the absurdity of treating entrenched power as a neutral “tragedy,” and the repeater needs to be shown they are being used.

Oh, the tragedy! We are asked to weep for the pristine democratic ideal of “competition” while the same corporate-backed architects who spent a decade engineering minority rule in a dozen statehouses suddenly discover a conscience over a map in New York. The editorial paints the bipartisan commission as a golden age of civic harmony, conveniently forgetting that those commissions deadlock with the regularity of a metronome precisely because the math doesn’t bend to the preferences of the donor class. If political competition were truly the goal, the same voices mourning avant-garde district shapes in the Museum of Modern Art would be funding grassroots canvassing in rural precincts instead of bankrolling super-PACs to buy judicial seats. But competition isn’t what they’re buying; they’re buying safe seats for incumbents who will never have to face a primary challenge from a progressive primary challenger. When we talk about what’s really going on, we aren’t defending a rigged game; we’re exposing the riggers who play at democracy while funding the machinery that turns elections into corporate board meetings. We are the ones who defend democracy, and we do it by refusing to clap when the house cheats at both ends of the table.

DEFCON 2 — Aggressive Villainization

When to use: In a sharp, performative exchange where the “both sides” deflection is being used to inoculate bad actors from accountability, and the bystander needs to see the mirror held up to the institutions, not the voters.

The framing wants you to believe that gerrymandering is a bipartisan sin, but the receipts say it is an institutionalized arms race designed by concentrated power to extract maximum yield from minimum votes. When you trace the money, the blueprint, and the execution, you don’t find two equal parties failing democracy; you find a highly coordinated apparatus—REDMAP, ALEC, dark-money conduits—deployed with surgical precision to fracture communities of color, dilute urban voting strength, and lock in legislative majorities long before a ballot is cast. The bipartisan commission is not some sacred temple of fairness; it is a deadlock machine, freezing precisely when the demographic reality of a state cannot be forced into a neat, donor-class-approved grid. What the “both sides” narrative does is launder minority-rule architecture into a polite tragedy for democracy, stripping the actual victims of their agency and recasting corporate donor safety as the noble pursuit of “competition.” You are being handed a deflationary myth to protect incumbents, and the mirror forces you to look at the institutions that profit from it: the money that funds the maps, the courts that enable them, and the editorial boards that mourn the loss of “competition” while ignoring the loss of actual representation. We are the ones who defend democracy, and we do it by naming the architects, refusing the deflation, and demanding maps that actually represent the people who live in them.

DEFCON 1 — Nuclear Satire

When to use: For a cathartic, scorched-earth dismantling of the “both sides” narrative, aimed at readers who need the grotesque metaphor laid bare and the institutional beneficiary named without apology.

We are told to mourn the tragic loss of “competition” as if political elections were a spectator sport where the only crime is a lack of nail-biting finishes. The reality is a baroque theater of minority rule, where institutional architects and dark-money syndicates treat state constitutions like zoning laws, carving up communities of color, fracturing urban voting blocs, and packaging safe seats for corporate incumbents like premium real estate. The bipartisan commission is not a neutral referee; it is a deadlock machine, freezing precisely when the raw demographic math refuses to conform to a fifty-fifty illusion. When the editorial board weeps for “political competition,” they are not mourning the loss of voter choice; they are mourning the loss of a rigged game where both ends of the table are allowed to cheat without consequence. The “avant-garde” shapes? They are the natural byproduct of trying to force a square, fractured electorate into a circular, donor-class fantasy. The tragedy is not the map; the tragedy is the pretense that the people who drew it care about your vote at all. We are the ones who defend democracy, and we do it by exposing the riggers, refusing their theater, and building a map that actually reflects the communities that live on it.

DEFCON 1+ — Prophetic Indictment

When to use: When the moral weight of the structural harm must be felt, drawing on canonical witness and prophetic cadence to indict the architects who treat democracy as a commodity.

The prophets warned of those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness (Isaiah 5:20). What we witness here is not a tragedy of democracy, but a damned desecration of it. When the architects of minority rule treat state legislatures like private estates, drawing lines to fracture the Black and Brown communities that have fought, bled, and marched for the ballot, they do not act in the name of competition. They act in the name of extraction. The bipartisan commission is no altar of fairness; it is a stalling mechanism, deadlocking when the demographic reality refuses to bow to the donor-class ledger. And yet the voices that weep for “political competition” are often the same voices that funded the machinery of minority rule, same voices that cheered when the Voting Rights Act was gutted, same voices that treated gerrymandering as a noble tactic when it served their ledger. Jeremiah spoke of those who dress the wound of my people lightly, crying “Peace, peace,” when there is no peace (Jeremiah 6:14). There is no peace when the map is a weapon, and calling it a “both sides” tragedy is a God-damned whitewash over the rot. We are the ones who defend democracy, and we do it by refusing to let the architects launder their extraction into a moral failure. We demand maps that honor the covenant of the ballot, and we will build them by any means necessary that operate within the analytical and political instruments available to us.

DEFCON 1++ — Profane Scorched-Earth

When to use: The all-out, maximal-expletive catharsis for the reader who needs the gloves off, the bullshit named, and the architects flayed without restraint.

Let’s cut the sacred-cow bullshit about a “bipartisan tragedy for democracy” and call it what it really is: a fucking extraction racket dressed up in civics-class nostalgia. You don’t get to weep over lost “competition” while your donor-class buddies bankrolled the entire REDMAP fucking apparatus, fractured minority communities, and bought judicial seats to lock in minority rule, then suddenly discover a conscience because New York wants to redraw a map. The bipartisan commission is a fucking deadlock machine, and it only “works” when the math bends to the preferences of the people who fund it. You want avant-garde shapes in the Museum of Modern Art? Fine. But don’t pretend the current grid is some pristine baseline of fairness—it’s a fucking corporate zoning map designed to keep incumbents safe and communities of color diluted. The tragedy isn’t the lines; the tragedy is the sheer fucking audacity of the people who drew them demanding a pat on the back for playing fair while they rig the game at both ends of the table. We are the ones who defend democracy, and we do it by telling the architects to take their bipartisan fairy tales and shove them where the sun doesn’t shine, then building maps that actually fucking represent the people who live on them.

The Deeper Breakdown

The “both sides” framing of gerrymandering obscures a concrete distributional reality: one party has systematically institutionalized minority-rule architecture through targeted, heavily funded operations (REDMAP, ALEC templates, and dark-money conduits) designed to lock in legislative majorities long before demographic shifts or voter turnout change. The New York proposal does not exist in a vacuum; it is a structural response to a national apparatus that spent a decade fracturing communities of color and diluting urban voting strength to manufacture safe donor-class districts. The bipartisan commission model frequently deadlocks precisely because the underlying electoral math in states with deep demographic shifts cannot be forced into a rigid fifty-fifty split without violating community-of-interest integrity. The real beneficiaries of the “both sides” narrative are the institutional architects, the donor networks that fund the maps, and the incumbents who trade competitive districts for corporate-safe enclaves. The primary cost-bearers are marginalized communities whose districts are carved up to dilute their collective voice and suppress turnout. Anchor receipts for this analysis include Brennan Center for Justice data on REDMAP funding architecture, state court records on minority-vote dilution litigation, and Supreme Court precedents that left partisan gerrymandering claims non-justiciable at the federal level (Rucho v. Common Cause, 2019). Key missing information: the exact financial trace of dark-money contributions to the current New York redistricting lobbying effort, which would require state-level campaign-finance disclosures not yet fully aggregated in public databases.