When people talk about gerrymandering, they usually do so in terms of what the practice of drawing voting districts to favor one party means in terms of absolute power. For example, at Donald Trump’s behest, Texas Republicans redrew their congressional map this year in a way that would, in a normal election, net them five seats and make it more difficult for Democrats to win control of the House of Representatives in the upcoming midterm elections.

A look at the numbers shows that the new map would be inherently unfair in terms of reflecting the will of voters in the Lone Star State. The goal of the redistricting effort was to allow the GOP to control 30 out of 38 districts, i.e., nearly 80 percent of seats, in a state in which Trump received 56 percent of the vote in 2024*.

What people do not talk about enough is what gerrymandering does to the caliber of people serving in Congress.

One of its main effects is that fewer districts are competitive, which means that voters have less of a say in who represents them (gerrymandering is sometimes summed up as politicians choosing their voters instead of the other way around).

Why? Well, if the outcome of the general election is not in doubt, then only the primary matters. As a result, only voters of one party get to choose the district’s representative, and the candidates of that party know that, to be assured a seat in Congress, they merely have to appeal to primary voters.

And, since adherence to a specific ideology often matters more in primaries than qualifications, the caliber of candidates, and ultimately the lawmakers themselves, suffers.

For example, in a true swing district, both parties have an incentive to run candidates who appeal to as many voters as possible in order to prevail in the general election. In a gerrymandered district, however, that is not a concern because, in effect, the primary is the general election.

To illustrate this point, we turn to Florida and a couple of the people the state sent to Congress.

On Wednesday, a federal grand jury in Miami indicted Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL) on charges that she, as well as her brother and other individuals, stole federal disaster funds, laundered that money, and used it to fund her 2021 congressional campaign.

And, since Democrats routinely win Florida’s 20th district by more than 50 points, “congressional campaign” in this case means “primary,” which Cherfilus-McCormick won by five votes.

It should be noted that, as opposed to some of the political prosecutions the Trump administration has launched, this is much more likely the real deal. Cherfilus-McCormick has been on the radar of the House Ethics Committee for some time, and, earlier this year, the Office of Congressional Conduct uncovered additional potential rules violations.

While it may be of little comfort to her, she is not the only Florida lawmaker in hot water.

Rep. Cory Mills (R-FL), who won his district by 13 points last year, is facing an intra-party revolt of sorts after Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) introduced a resolution to censure her scandal-plagued colleague.

That measure accuses Mills of various types of misconduct, including stolen valor, the assault of a woman (no charges were filed in that case), threatening to release nude photos of an ex-girlfriend, and that a company of his contracted with the federal government in violation of the law. Rather than take up Mace’s measure, the House voted instead to refer the matter to the Ethics Committee.

While some might argue that this Florida Woman and this Florida Man represent the people of their state quite accurately, we believe that its voters deserve better, and that an additional gerrymander that Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) is planning will do nothing to improve the quality of candidates they get to choose from.

*As of this week, the attempt of Texas Republicans seems to be backfiring in a major way. On Tuesday, a federal court ruled that their map is likely unconstitutional because the districts were redrawn along racial lines. If this decision were to be upheld (which seems unlikely since the conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court now functions as an arm of the GOP), Republicans could ultimately lose in this year’s redistricting battle if the maps that Democrats put in place in “their” states are upheld.

Then again, in light of Trump’s unpopularity, his sabotage of the US economy, and his war on immigrants, it is quite possible that Texas Republicans would have gotten pummeled using the new map and would be better off if the old, less gerrymandered districts were to remain in place.