New Bill of Rights

Candidate category · Strong floor; trade-off untested

Fair single-member districting

76% of Republicans and 92% of Democrats prefer nonpartisan commissions to the party in power (NBC News, 2025) — a Strong floor, held by an untested seats-priced trade-off and an unmeasured federalism question.

Under consideration since 2026-08-06. A candidate is neither accepted nor rejected — it is waiting on evidence against the full-spectrum test. What we know, what we don't, and what would move it are below.

The proposal

This category is the part of the Redistricting amendment that we held back. That amendment governs when maps are drawn; this candidate governs what a map may contain and who draws it, in two layers. The anti-favoritism floor: no districting plan may be drawn with the intent, or the effect, of unduly favoring or disfavoring a political party. The neutral-authority principle: each state vests districting in a body whose members are not, and are not appointed by, the officeholders whose districts it draws. The “single-member” half of the name is already federal statute and is not the live question.1

The evidence

The decisive independent reading measures the neutral-authority mechanism. Asked whether they prefer House district lines drawn by the party in power in each state or by a nonpartisan commission, 82% chose the commission — 76% of Republicans, 92% of Democrats, 79% of independents (NBC News Decision Desk / SurveyMonkey, 2025, n=30,196).2

Democrats: 92% 92% Dem Republicans: 76% 76% Rep Independents: 79% 79% Ind bipartisan floor · 76% (Republicans)
House district lines drawn by a non-partisan commission rather than by the party in power — NBC News Decision Desk / SurveyMonkey, 2025

Commission support holds where a party is actively drawing its own maps: 71% of Republicans in Republican-controlled states, including 66% of Texas Republicans, and 82% of California Democrats.2 The other independent readings:

  • States should not be allowed to draw congressional districts in a way that intentionally favors one party: 71% overall — 69% of Republicans, 74% of Democrats, 70% of independents (Economist/YouGov, 2026). That condemns the abuse; it states no rule.3
  • Asked whom they trust most to draw fair lines, 38% of Republicans and 45% of Democrats chose independent commissions over legislatures and courts (Noble Predictive Insights for The Center Square, 2026). A forced choice among institutions in which no option reaches a majority.4
  • Advocacy-commissioned: it is bad for the country when one party controls how districts are drawn — 57% of Republicans, 76% of Democrats, 72% of independents (Noble Predictive Insights for Common Cause, 2025).5 A 2021 survey of likely Republican voters found 57% support for independent commissions, but it sampled Republicans only and published no Democratic figure (R Street Institute / Tyson Group, 2021).6

Ballot results cut both ways. Florida’s anti-favoritism text passed with 62.93% against a 60% threshold (2010),7 and the state supreme court enforced it, striking the 2012 congressional map for partisan intent.8 Commissions passed in Colorado with 71.37%,9 Michigan with 61.28%,10 and Utah with 50.34%,11 and Missouri’s demographer-and-formula model with 62.02% (all 2018).12 Missouri voters then repealed that formula with 51.01% (2020),13 and Ohio’s citizens’ commission failed 53.71–46.29 (2024) after ballot language was approved on a 3–2 party-line vote and partly rewritten by court order.1415 In Utah, a legislature-backed repeal of the 2018 commission failed to reach the 2026 ballot after roughly 9,000 voters withdrew their signatures.16

Where it stands

The bipartisan floor is 76% of Republicans on the neutral-authority mechanism (NBC News, 2025): Strong. The anti-favoritism rule remains Unpolled in constitutional form: no independent national poll found asks whether the federal Constitution should forbid drawing a map to favor a party.

  • High topline / low floor — tested and cleared. The 82% topline is the shape this test is built to catch; the published national split resolves it at 76/79/92, a 16-point spread whose lowest party number is still Strong.2
  • Depth — the open failure mode. 70% of Democrats called gerrymandering “never acceptable,” yet 18% would keep California’s independent commission if it cost their party seats (Politico / UC Berkeley Citrin Center, 2025; no Republican figure published for that item) — a 52-point drop when the cost is named.17 That experiment has never been run against the commission question that now carries the floor.
  • Abuse-vs-remedy gap. Both parties reject the abuse (69% of Republicans, 74% of Democrats; Economist/YouGov, 2026).3 The mechanism now has an independent measurement; the constitutional form of either layer does not.
  • Support tracks who holds the maps — symmetrically. With both Texas and California named, Republican opposition to out-of-cycle partisan redraws rose from 62% to 70% and Democratic opposition fell from 80% to 73% between September and November 2025 (Marquette Law School Poll).18
  • Existential-problem test — passes. One 2026 projection counts 81% of House seats as effectively decided in advance.19
  • Why-an-amendment and symmetry — pass for the anti-favoritism floor; open for neutral authority. Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) held partisan-gerrymandering claims beyond the reach of the federal courts; the majority observed that “there is no ‘Fair Districts Amendment’ to the Federal Constitution.”20 Commissions are already permitted,21 and Missouri’s was repealed by simple-majority referendum,13 so the neutral-authority case is durability, not necessity, and it federalizes a state institutional-design choice.

Framings we tested

Two framings clear the bar. “Nonpartisan commissions rather than the party in power” — 76% of Republicans, 92% of Democrats (NBC News, 2025) — is Strong, and it asks a mechanism rather than a diagnosis.2 “States should not be allowed to draw districts that intentionally favor one party” — 69% of Republicans, 74% of Democrats (Economist/YouGov, 2026) — is Strong, but it is a condemnation, not a rule.3 Neither resolves the category, because both ask what should happen without asking whether the federal Constitution should compel it. The framing that drops — 38% of Republicans on trusting commissions most — makes respondents rank institutions against each other, which is a different question.4 The operative sentences themselves, in constitutional wording, have never been asked.

What would move it

In: an independent national poll of the Florida wording federalized (“no congressional district may be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party, in every state, whichever party controls the legislature”), clearing 60% of Republicans; and a costs-named re-ask of the commission question (“should the Constitution require that the officeholders whose own districts are being drawn be barred from drawing them — even if your party wins fewer seats in your state?”) that stays at Moderate or better. Or a fairness-standard or commission measure passing after 2024, on clean ballot language, in a state whose legislature opposed it.

Out: a replicated independent finding that the Republican floor on either operative constitutional wording sits below 45%, or a re-run trade-off question showing both parties’ support collapsing when seats are the price. The failing test would be depth, reinforced by the abuse-vs-remedy gap.

Sources

  1. Single-member House districts are required by statute — 2 U.S.C. §2c, Cornell LII; Congress imposed districting standards by statute from 1842 through 1911, including “no district electing more than one Representative,” until the 1929 Reapportionment Act omitted them — Wood v. Broom, 287 U.S. 1 (1932). ↩

  2. “When it comes to drawing borders for seats in the United States House of Representatives, do you prefer it is done by the party in power in each state, or by a non-partisan commission?” — 82% nonpartisan commission / 18% party in power; by party, commission 76% R / 79% I / 92% D; 71% of Republicans in Republican-controlled states and 88% of Democrats in Democratic-controlled states, including 66% of Texas Republicans and 82% of California Democrats; n=30,196 adults, ±1.9, fieldwork Aug. 13 – Sept. 1, 2025 — NBC News Decision Desk Poll / SurveyMonkey; question wording, split samples and methodology in the topline PDF. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  3. States should not be allowed to draw congressional districts in a way that intentionally favors one party: 71% overall — 69% R / 74% D / 70% I; 7% say it should be allowed; fieldwork April 24–27, 2026 — Economist/YouGov. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  4. Whom do you trust most to draw fair congressional lines: independent commissions 41%, state legislatures 16%, courts 15%, not sure 27%; Republicans 38% commissions / 19% legislatures; Democrats 45% / 15%; true independents 38% / 8%, 43% not sure; n=2,585 registered voters, ±1.93, opt-in panel, fieldwork June 1–4, 2026 — Noble Predictive Insights for The Center Square, via Newsline. ↩ ↩2

  5. Bad for the country when one political party controls how voting districts are drawn: 57% R / 76% D / 72% I; independent citizen commissions 77% nationally (no party split); community interests ahead of political advantage 78%; oppose mid-decade redistricting 51% R / 70% D / 60% I; 2,000+ registered voters nationally, fieldwork Aug. 26 – Sept. 2, 2025; advocacy-commissioned — Common Cause / Noble Predictive Insights. ↩

  6. Independent redistricting commission: 57% support / 25% oppose / 18% unsure; sample was n=1,200 likely Republican voters nationwide, so the figure is the whole sample rather than a crosstab and no Democratic figure is published; live callers, fieldwork Jan. 25 – Feb. 5, 2021 — R Street Institute / Tyson Group survey memo. ↩

  7. Florida Amendment 6 (2010) wrote into Art. III §20 that no plan or district “shall be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent”; passed with 62.93% against a 60% threshold — Fair Districts Amendment. ↩

  8. The Florida Supreme Court struck the state’s 2012 congressional map for unconstitutional partisan intent and ordered eight districts redrawn, July 9, 2015 — League of Women Voters of Florida v. Detzner. ↩

  9. Colorado Amendment Y (2018), legislatively referred independent commission for congressional redistricting: passed 71.37% against a 55% threshold — Ballotpedia. ↩

  10. Michigan Proposal 2 (2018), citizen-initiated independent commission: passed 61.28% (2,516,998–1,590,638) — 2018 Michigan Proposal 2. ↩

  11. Utah Proposition 4 (2018), advisory independent commission: passed 50.34% (512,218–505,274) — 2018 Utah Proposition 4. ↩

  12. Missouri Amendment 1 (Clean Missouri, 2018), nonpartisan state demographer plus fairness formula: passed 62.02% (1,469,093–899,613) — Ballotpedia. ↩

  13. Missouri Amendment 3 (2020), legislature-referred partial repeal of the 2018 formula: passed 51.01% (1,489,503–1,430,358) — Ballotpedia. ↩ ↩2

  14. Ohio Issue 1 (2024), citizens’ redistricting commission: failed 53.71–46.29 (2,937,489–2,531,900) — 2024 Ohio Issue 1. ↩

  15. The Ohio Ballot Board approved Issue 1 ballot language on a 3–2 party-line vote, Sept. 19, 2024; sponsors sued and the state supreme court ordered two of eight disputed sections rewritten — Spectrum News 1. ↩

  16. A legislature-backed initiative to eliminate the Proposition 4 commission submitted over 200,000 signatures with more than 160,000 verified, but roughly 9,000 voters formally withdrew signatures, dropping one Senate district below the 8% threshold and keeping repeal off the 2026 ballot — Ballotpedia News, March 28, 2026. ↩

  17. 70% of Democrats say gerrymandering is “never acceptable”; 18% would keep California’s independent commission if it cost their party seats; 63% wanted their party to redraw in response; n=1,177 registered voters, Aug. 2025 — Politico / UC Berkeley Citrin Center, via AOL. ↩

  18. Oppose out-of-cycle partisan redraws, with both Texas and California named: 71–28 overall; R 70–30, I 68–31, D 73–27 (fieldwork Nov. 5–12, 2025), versus R 62–38 and D 80–20 (fieldwork Sept. 15–24, 2025) — Marquette Law School Poll. ↩

  19. 81% of House seats projected as effectively decided — FairVote, Monopoly Politics 2026. ↩

  20. Rucho v. Common Cause, No. 18-422 (June 27, 2019), 5–4: partisan-gerrymandering claims are political questions “beyond the reach of the federal courts”; “The answer is that there is no ‘Fair Districts Amendment’ to the Federal Constitution”; and “We do not understand how the dissent can maintain that a provision saying that no districting plan ‘shall be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party’ provides little guidance” — Cornell LII. ↩

  21. Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015) upheld a commission created by initiative for congressional districting — Harvard Law Review. ↩

← All candidates