The United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Louisiana v. Callais this Wednesday is likely to ignite a new wave of redistricting in Republican-led Southern states. The decision, which declared the consideration of race in congressional redistricting to be illegal, removes a major bulwark against Republican gerrymandering in the South. In each of Tennessee, Mississippi and North Carolina, only one Democratic-held seat exists, in a majority-black district.  The Louisiana map reviewed by the court (and ordered by lower courts) would have included two minority-heavy districts likely to elect Democrats, but with the Court’s decision, the state legislature will likely eliminate at least one of those districts. Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee and Florida are all reportedly looking to change their maps to ensure more Republican representation as well. 

All these efforts combined could cost Democrats more than half a dozen seats at the next congressional elections this November. Republican state legislatures in Texas, North Carolina, Ohio and Missouri have already gerrymandered their maps—creating districts designed to disadvantage Democratic candidates. The urge to respond is understandable; a spate of Republican gerrymandering without response could leave Democrats at a permanent disadvantage for elections this year and beyond. For this reason, the Democratic Party has responded. In California, voters approved a map drawn by the state legislature (instead of an independent commission, as usual) to deny Republicans several seats. In Virginia, a similar referendum occurred, although its “Yes” result has yet to be certified. These actions from both parties constitute a clear “redistricting war”. Republicans and Democrats are frantically vying to take advantage of the states’ prerogative of drawing congressional districts in order to draw grotesque, squiggly maps that give their side an electoral advantage. 

This whole episode started when President Trump urged Texas to gerrymander its districts outside of the normal redistricting cycle. But in any “race to the bottom” situation, both sides must consciously make the decision to debase themselves. It is no surprise that Republican state legislators, mindful of their party’s unswerving obedience to Trump, are eager to obey his wishes. The Democratic Party, however, faced a clear choice between its principles and political expediency. In choosing the latter, it may be sacrificing both. 

Before the 2016 election, when Trump first came to office, First Lady Michelle Obama made the famous remark that “when they go low, we go high”. She was referring to the crude, aggressive campaign of the future President, and calling on Democrats to respond with morality and dignity. Now, a decade later, her saying is under constant criticism. The prevailing view among many on the left seems to be that if Republicans do something anti-democratic or dishonorable, then it is not only acceptable but necessary for Democrats to do the same. If Democrats “go high”, then Republicans unfairly advantage themselves by breaking norms. As former Attorney General Eric Holder said in response to Obama’s statement “when they go low, we kick them”. Under this philosophy, the only possible response to a Republican gerrymander is a Democratic gerrymander. Political goals—such as securing a redistricting situation advantageous to Democrats—are increasingly blended with the moral imperative of “resistance” to the Trump administration. 

There are two issues with this line of thinking. Firstly, it abandons values that Democrats once held sacred, such as good government and democratic accountability. In the mid-2010s, Democrat-controlled states took the lead in creating independent redistricting commissions. These commissions are meant to draw balanced maps, removing the political dimension from redistricting and avoiding gerrymandering. Currently, six Democrat-led states have such commissions, compared to two in Republican-led states. Now, some Democrats regret the good they had done. Good government and impartiality is not only key to Democrats’ moral philosophy, but to a functioning society. Trust in government is at historic lows, and a spate of bipartisan gerrymandering will do nothing to repair that broken trust. Democrats alone may not be sufficient as guardians of civic virtue, but jettisoning honorable principles does nothing to heal the dysfunctional American political system. 

The other problem is that this philosophy assumes some natural goodness and legitimacy on the part of Democrats. Machiavellian doctrines (the end justifies the means) only functions when the end is seen as a completely virtuous goal. Of course, those leading the Democratic Party are certain in their conviction that the United States urgently needs a Democratic government. It is true that a Democratic Congress would take a more active role in investigating corruption in the executive branch, holding the administration accountable for the Iran War or reining in the illegal tactics of immigration agencies. However, the innate supremacy of the Democratic Party is obviously not accepted by anyone: they don’t win every election. One issue where Democrats could make a perfect contrast is gerrymandering. Republicans undermine democracy while Democrats (should) work to remove politics from the process. In fact, support for national redistricting commissions, or even broader electoral reform, could become a key plank in the Democratic platform. An overwhelming majority of Americans oppose partisan gerrymandering—including most Democratic voters—and the issue of fairness is one which fits well with general Democratic messages about authoritarianism and corruption on behalf of the Republican Party. Yet, in their haste to resist the Trump administration by any means possible, Democrats may be squandering a historic opportunity to take a principled stand and reap the obvious electoral benefits. Even if districts are gerrymandered to a Republican advantage, this can backfire and lead to huge Democratic gains if there is enough of a swing in the overall vote. But by retaliating to Republican antics with their own similar tactics, Democrats are unwittingly reinforcing their popular image as self-interested politicos. Many voters will not accept the logic that democracy can only be preserved by subverting it, and that good government can only be restored by abandoning it. 

The gerrymandering war will likely not end with the Supreme Court’s decision, or even with the 2026 elections. More and more states are expressing openness to joining in for the next election cycles. Regardless of who “wins” the war and engineers a permanent electoral advantage, American democracy has taken another blow. Republicans “started it”—but any party that abandons its principles upon kindergarten-esque excuses should endear themselves to no one.