Gerrymandering Shows the Need for Term Limits
By John Eichelberger and Andy Diniman
Americans are seeing a political spectacle playing out not in town halls or debates, but in backrooms and courtrooms: redistricting – gerrymandering. What should ensure fair representation has devolved into a cynical game where politicians carve up neighborhoods like pieces of pie to guarantee re-election.
We are seeing it unfolding again in Texas, California, and across the nation. Whichever party is in power manipulates district lines to entrench incumbents, silence opposition, and render elections meaningless. It has become a bipartisan sport.
But here’s the truth most politicians won’t admit: gerrymandering is only a symptom. The deeper disease is careerism in Congress. Incumbents who stay in Washington for decades will always find ways to tilt the playing field. That’s why America desperately needs congressional term limits.
Today, out of 435 seats in the U.S. House, only 27 or 28 are considered genuine toss-ups. That means more than 90 percent of elections are decided before voters even walk into the voting booth. Think about that. In the world’s oldest constitutional republic, where free and fair elections are supposed to be the bedrock, fewer than 30 House races nationwide are truly competitive.
This is not what the Founders intended. The system was built on the idea of citizen legislators — who would serve for a season, represent their neighbors, and then return to private life. Instead, we now have politicians who treat their seats like lifetime appointments, using every trick in the book to preserve their careers.
Gerrymandering is the tool, but incumbency is the problem. Once politicians get comfortable in Washington, they begin to see their district not as a community they serve, but as turf they own. District maps become weapons to protect themselves.
The result is a Congress that looks less like a representative body and more like a private club. Senior members hold onto power for decades, becoming more responsive to special interests, lobbyists, and party bosses than to the people who elected them. And because their districts are “safe,” they rarely face serious competition.
Pennsylvania knows this story all too well. Our state has been at the center of repeated redistricting battles, with maps challenged and overturned in the courts. Each time, politicians promise reform. Each time, voters are left with the same frustration.
Term limits directly address the root of the problem. If members of Congress knew their time in Washington was short, they would have no incentive to gerrymander, no reason to cling to power at all costs, and no ability to build entrenched political machines. Instead, they would focus on what matters: serving the people, solving problems, and delivering results.
Most importantly, term limits would return power to the people. Voters wouldn’t have to trust politicians to draw “fair” maps. They would know that every seat would eventually open and every voice could be heard.
Some reforms divide Americans. Term limits unite us. Polls show overwhelming bipartisan support. Voters across the spectrum understand instinctively that power corrupts, and unlimited power corrupts absolutely.
This isn’t about left or right — it’s about right and wrong.
If incumbents control the rules, the rules will favor incumbents. Reforming maps is necessary, but it will never be enough. The only way to break the stranglehold of career politicians is to enact congressional term limits.
Gerrymandering proves our elections are broken. Term limits are how we fix them.
