It’s a sign of our times that we feel the need to point out something that used to be self-evident to everyone: Changing the rules to favor your side halfway through a contest is cheating. Now, that notion has practically become a partisan sacrament – a demonstration of power and resolve.
We also thought we’d never have to take the controversial step of defending fair and nonpartisan maps, though a large majority of Americans say they support them. But here we are. Suddenly, the nationwide debate over redistricting – who draws the maps, how they’re drawn, and who they benefit – has become a flashpoint that is spreading to other states.
What’s currently happening in Texas, along with signals of retaliation from other states, shows just how far things have gone off track. Earlier this month, more than 50 Democratic lawmakers left that state to deny Republicans the quorum needed to pass a new Congressional map. That map would shift the advantage toward the GOP by targeting five Democratic-held districts, something critics argue would reduce the influence of voters of color. As Texas legislators responded with arrest warrants and legal threats, Democratic governors in “blue” states positioned themselves to counterbalance what they see as a dangerous political escalation by redrawing GOP-held districts within their states.
The whole situation underscores how unfair representation can be when map-drawing is entrusted solely to partisan politicians. Once one state sets the precedent, others will follow until the act of drawing lines becomes an arms race.
A better way
Instead of letting lawmakers steer the map, many states now use redistricting commissions. These independent bodies are made up of citizens, experts, or bipartisan panels, and their members apply transparent criteria, gather public input, and approve maps without running for office themselves. As of 2025, twenty-one U.S. states use some form of redistricting commission to draw their congressional maps.
They vary in structure, of course. Some are completely independent, others are bipartisan or advisory, and still others are legislator-led backup panels. But they all have been proven to reduce the temptation for politicians to draw maps that benefit their own power.
Nebraska is not yet among these states. The power to redraw both Congressional and Legislative districts still resides with the Nebraska Legislature. Every 10 years, the state senators in office at the time get to shape our political reality for the next decade. Ultimately, those politicians determine which voices matter, who has a legitimate shot at power, and whether our elections even feel meaningful.
Public hearings are then held, and there is floor debate before the final versions become law. And yes, by rule, no more than five committee members may belong to the same political party. Geographic balance is also considered. Still, this has invited partisan maneuvering and popular strife. In the last redistricting cycle, senators eventually reached a compromise after weeks of contentious debate over how to draw Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District. The first proposed map of CD-2 divided Omaha right down Dodge Street, with the north half of the city in one Congressional district and the south half in another. That’s a partisan gerrymander if there ever was one, and fortunately, it was abandoned after a massive public outcry in Douglas County.
It reminds us that placing vast redistricting authority in the hands of those who stand to benefit is precarious. Though our elections are officially nonpartisan, political affiliations and alignments are well known at the State Capitol. Nebraska could do much better in this area – an independent commission not only would protect our state from future attempts to magically realign U.S. House majorities and rig elections, similar to what’s happening in Texas. But it also would create long-term strength among our state’s leaders and improve our governing bodies overall.
Change is possible – if we want it
Nebraska’s nonpartisan Legislature, its emphasis on fairness, and its transparent civic institutions would position our state well for the adoption of a nonpartisan redistricting commission. This would result in maps that truly reflect our communities – voters would have more real choices and more trust in election outcomes, and everyone would benefit from more accurate and responsive leadership.
That’s hypothetical. But the lines on a map ultimately define whether democracy works by either helping people or by entrenching power. The standoff in Texas and the brewing response show what happens when fairness gives way to strategic domination. We would expect Nebraska’s leaders, whether in the Capitol or the governor’s office, to recognize this moment for what it is. If they’re being pressured to join the current partisan fray, we would expect them to hew to our state’s nonpartisan traditions and resist it. A race to the bottom benefits no one, and it would only serve to tarnish a legacy of measured, independent leadership that sets Nebraska apart.
Our political tradition invites a different path. With our unique values, structure, and character, Nebraska could lead the way toward a process rooted in fairness instead of partisan advantage. And that starts with asking: Do we want a system based on trust, or one governed by shifting political winds?
