America is supposed to be a representative democracy. But when you look at how House seats are divided in many states, the numbers do not add up.

By now, you have no doubt read about the escalating gerrymandering arms race, where partisans in states like Texas and California are trying to redraw district maps to give their side a leg up in the next election. But how bad are these shenanigans, and how far is your state from being truly representative?

To find an answer, No Labels built a simple “fairness score” comparing each party’s share of House seats with its share of the statewide presidential vote over the last two presidential elections. Then we graded each state to see how close the percentages were. A state where the president’s vote share and Party House share are within 10 percentage points gets an A. The grades go down from there:

B: 11–20 points off
C: 21–30 points off
D: 31–40 points off
F: more than 40 points off


Only seven states with three or more representatives earned an A, with Virginia coming closest to perfect fairness at just a 0.4 percent difference. Michigan and Pennsylvania also made the grade, thanks in part to citizen-led commissions and court-drawn maps. But most states did not.

At the bottom of the class were states like Montana and Utah, both Fs with gaps of more than 40 points between how people vote and who represents them. On the Democratic side, Massachusetts and Connecticut failed the test too, with Republicans completely shut out despite winning substantial shares of the statewide vote.

Nationwide, only 17 percent of House seats in states with three or more House representatives fall inA-graded states. Over half of all seats come from B-graded states — still off by 11 to 20 points. The rest come from states even more skewed. Just six states — California, Florida, Texas, Illinois, New York, and Massachusetts — account for nearly 30 skewed seats combined.

If every state’s House seats matched its presidential vote share — and if those seats were distributed only between the two major parties — Democrats would hold about 220 seats and Republicans 215. In other words, the current skew tilts the House by around 9 seats in Republicans’ favor.

Now, some caveats: This problem is not always caused by gerrymandering. In places like Massachusetts, population self-sorting makes it nearly impossible to draw more than one Republican-leaning district. The historical boundaries of cities and Voting Rights Act requirements also explain some of this phenomenon. But in many other states, the skew is in large part a result of which party controls the mapmaking process.

And this summer, the map wars have escalated further.

States typically redraw their maps once every 10 years after the nationwide Census.

However, in Texas, Republicans are pushing a mid-decade redraw that has already passed the state House and could soon clear the Senate. The plan would add as many as five more safe GOP seats. Governor Greg Abbott is expected to sign it, and lawsuits are already on the way. Texas Democrats, who had fled the state to block the move, returned from Illinois earlier this week, clearing the way for final passage.

In California, Democrats have already passed — and Governor Gavin Newsom has signed — a proposal that will appear on the November ballot. If voters approve, it could yield as many as five new Democratic seats. Republicans are suing to block the measure in court.

What began as a single-state power play has become a national standoff. According to the Wall Street Journal’s Kimberly Strassel, as many as 90 House seats nationwide could be redrawn if this escalates further.

If the changes in Texas and California go through, both states would fall from B grades to C grades on our fairness report card — hardly the place we should want America’s two most populous states, which combined hold nearly 100 House seats, to be.

Soon, we hope to share some innovative answers to this problem. In the meantime, America needs a serious conversation about a gerrymandering problem that increasingly allows politicians to choose their voters instead of the other way around.