The electoral framework is generally fair, though it is subject to increasing manipulation due to both partisan pressures and recent legal decisions. The borders of districts for the House of Representatives, which must remain roughly equal in population, are redrawn following each decennial census. In the practice known as partisan gerrymandering, House districts, and those for state legislatures, are crafted to maximize the advantage of the party in power in a given state. The redistricting system varies by state, but in most cases it is overseen by elected state officials, and observers have expressed alarm at growing partisan efforts to control redistricting processes and redraw electoral maps more than once in each census period. In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal judiciary has no authority to prevent state officials from drawing districts to preserve or expand their party’s power. Some state courts have struck down partisan-gerrymandered maps based on their own constitutions, and a handful of states have established independent bodies to manage redistricting.
In 2025, both Republican and Democratic state leaders undertook efforts to redraw their House districts in advance of the 2026 midterm elections. Prompted by a request from President Trump, officials in Texas, Missouri, and North Carolina proceeded to pass new maps, with the aim of securing some seven additional seats for Republicans. In response, California Democrats enacted a new map that was expected to add five Democratic seats. At year’s end, similar efforts were underway in several other states on each side, but court challenges and other potential obstacles were still pending. Both Republican and Democratic leaders in some states resisted the pressure to redraw maps, and the new districts’ ultimate impact on election results remained a matter of speculation.
Historically, gerrymandering has also been used as a tool of racial disenfranchisement, specifically targeting Black voters, as well as Hispanic and Native American populations. The Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965 generally prohibits racially discriminatory voting rules, and racial gerrymandering has been subject to reversal by federal courts, but it remains a problem in practice, partly due to an overlap with partisan gerrymandering in areas where Black voters tend to support Democrats and White voters tend to support Republicans. In March and October 2025, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Louisiana v. Callais, a case challenging the constitutionality of the creation of so-called majority-minority districts, which have been used to close the gap between the political representation and population share of racial minority groups. A final ruling was expected in 2026.
The US Constitution’s allocation of two Senate seats to each state regardless of its population skews congressional power away from population centers and toward less populous states. Similarly, because Electoral College votes are allocated to the states based on the size of their congressional delegations, and because most states award all of their electors to the state-level winner regardless of the margin, it is possible for a candidate to win the presidency while losing the national popular vote.
The six-member Federal Election Commission, which is legally prohibited from having a Democratic or Republican majority, is tasked with enforcing federal campaign finance laws. Commissioners are nominated to six-year terms by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Most enforcement actions require four votes, allowing partisan obstruction, and the body has long been considered ineffective as a result. In January 2025, President Trump dismissed one of the Democratic commissioners, a move that many experts said was unlawful because no cause was cited and no replacement was nominated; the dispute remained unresolved at year’s end. Two Republican commissioners resigned later in the year, leaving the panel with just two members and unable to conduct many of its statutory responsibilities.
In March 2025, the president issued an executive order that would require voters to provide proof of US citizenship, impose detailed rules and federal oversight on state vote-counting processes, and withhold federal funding from noncompliant states. The order was quickly challenged for exceeding presidential authority under the constitution and infringing on the states’ power to administer elections. Following a temporary suspension, it was permanently blocked by a federal district court in October; the government’s appeals were pending as of December.
