Reverb x Civicus: Gerrymandering, Voting Rights, and the Theft Before the Vote

In David Pakman’s video, “They just STOLE THE ELECTION,” he responds to the Supreme Court’s latest blow to the Voting Rights Act and warns that the decision could reshape the 2026 midterms while setting the stage for even more aggressive partisan map-drawing in future elections. His point is not that someone walked into a polling place and stole ballots. His point is more uncomfortable than that.

Election theft can happen before Election Day.

It can happen through maps.
Through courts.
Through district lines.
Through procedural language.
Through voting rules most people do not fully understand until those rules are already being used against them.

That is the quieter theft.

And it may be the most dangerous kind.

The Theft Before the Vote

In the video, Pakman discusses the Supreme Court’s ruling involving a majority-Black district in Louisiana and explains why the impact may reach far beyond one state. Supreme Court rulings set precedent. When the Court weakens protections connected to race and representation, other districts can become vulnerable, too.

That matters because democracy is not only decided by who votes.

It is also decided by whether the lines are drawn honestly enough for those votes to matter.

The Voting Rights Act was one of the most important civil rights achievements in American history because it recognized something America had already proven over and over again: formal rights do not mean much if systems are designed to keep people from exercising them.

Poll taxes. Literacy tests. Grandfather clauses. Intimidation. Violence. Closed polling locations. Purged voter rolls. Manipulated districts.

The methods change. The goal stays familiar.

So when the Court chips away at protections that helped increase ballot access for Black Americans and reduce overt racial discrimination in voting, we cannot treat that as a dry legal development. This is not just about one district. This is about whether communities can be represented fairly or whether their political power can be diluted before they ever step into a voting booth.

That is the theft before the vote.

People Need to Know Now

Most Americans have probably heard the word gerrymandering before. They may have seen it in a civics class, heard it during election season, or caught it in the background of a news segment. But hearing the word is not the same as understanding what it means, why it matters, or how dangerous it becomes when political power decides to use it without shame.

Gerrymandering is not just some boring map issue.

It is the practice of drawing voting districts in a way that gives one political party or group an unfair advantage. It can pack certain voters into a small number of districts or split them apart so their collective power is weakened. On paper, it looks like lines. In reality, it can decide who gets representation, whose community has power, and whose vote is diluted before Election Day ever arrives.

People need to understand this now — not after the damage is already done.

This goes back to something I wrote in “The Importance of Supreme Court Nominations: A Personal Reflection.” At one time, I did not fully understand how much Supreme Court nominations mattered. I thought these were highly educated legal minds who would simply protect the law with integrity. I did not fully grasp how deeply judicial philosophy, ideology, and lifetime appointments could shape the lives of ordinary Americans. In that post, I wrote about realizing how naive I had been to think those choices did not matter as much as they do.

I understand it now.

And I think a lot of Americans are having that same kind of awakening in real time.

The things many of us once considered boring, distant, or too complicated to follow are the very things being used to reshape the country beneath our feet.

Supreme Court nominations matter. The Voting Rights Act matters. District maps matter. Local election boards matter. State legislatures matter. Voting deadlines matter. Ballot access matters.

These are not side issues.

They are the machinery of democracy.

And if we do not understand the machinery, we cannot recognize when someone is taking it apart.

Politics Is Not Team Sports

For a lot of Americans, politics has been treated like something separate from daily life. Something loud. Something annoying. Something that happened on TV, in campaign ads, or between people arguing online.

But politics is not separate from life.

Politics decides who gets access to the ballot, who gets counted, who gets represented, who gets health care, who gets clean water, who gets protection under the law, and who gets ignored until the damage is already done.

Maybe part of the problem is that many of us were able to live for a long time inside a kind of American bubble. We did not have to think about politics every day the way people in more unstable countries often do. We did not have to wonder whether our basic rights would survive the next court ruling, the next election, the next power grab, or the next authoritarian performance.

That comfort became a weakness.

Because when people do not understand politics, politics becomes easier to manipulate.

It becomes easier to sell elections like sporting events. It becomes easier to convince voters that “their side” won. It becomes easier to make people identify with a politician instead of evaluating that politician.

But voters are not players on a team.

We are not Trump. We are not Biden. We are not Harris. We are not members of a campaign staff simply because we cast a ballot.

We are the people.

We are supposed to be the interview panel. The hiring committee. The public body responsible for deciding who is fit to hold power over our shared future.

And once someone wins, our job does not end. It begins again.

Accepting that someone won an election does not mean deciding they are above criticism. It means recognizing that they now hold power, and because they hold power, they deserve more scrutiny, not less.

A president is not your quarterback.
A president is not your mascot.
A president is not your personal identity.

A president is a public servant.

You do not have to side with Trump just because you voted for him. You do not have to defend every decision, excuse every lie, or minimize every abuse of power just because you once believed he was the better choice.

That is not citizenship.

That is team loyalty.

You can vote for someone and later decide they failed. You can support someone and later hold them accountable. You can admit you were wrong without losing your dignity. You can change your mind without betraying your values.

In fact, sometimes changing your mind is the most patriotic thing you can do.

Because this country does not need more people defending politicians like sports teams.

It needs citizens willing to ask the harder question:

Is this person still serving the people?

And if the answer is no, then loyalty belongs to the country — not the politician.

Not Everyone Fits Neatly Into “Left” and “Right”

One place where I want to pause with Pakman’s framing is when he says “we on the left.”

I understand what he means. He is speaking from his perspective, to his audience, and within the political reality of this moment. And on the issue itself, I agree with the larger point: this district-drawing game is a race to the bottom. It is not healthy for the country long-term. It is not the democracy we should be aiming for.

But I also want to make room for people like me.

Because I am part of the audience, too.

I used to vote more conservatively. I now live a more progressive life. Over time, I have found my balance as an Independent voter. That does not fit neatly into the boxes people keep trying to shove us into.

This is not only left versus right.

There are other people here.

Independents. Former Republicans. Disillusioned conservatives. Moderates horrified by what the modern Republican Party has become. People who still hold some traditionally conservative values but cannot stomach authoritarianism, cruelty, voter suppression, or attacks on democracy.

Those people matter, too.

Voting rights should not be a partisan issue. Fair representation should not be a partisan issue. The idea that government works for the people should not belong to one side of the political spectrum.

When politics becomes nothing but “left” versus “right,” people start defending teams instead of principles. They start asking whether a move helps their side instead of asking whether it harms the country.

The question should not be, “Does this help Democrats or Republicans?”

The question should be, “Does this protect the people’s right to be represented?”

Democracy does not belong to the left or the right.

It belongs to the people.

The Pattern Is the Point

This is why I keep coming back to the same theme across my Civicus and Reverb work: these are not isolated events.

The attacks on mail-in voting were not isolated. The SAVE Act was not isolated. The endless claims of “election integrity” were not isolated. The demonizing of voter access was not isolated. The weakening of the Voting Rights Act was not isolated.

They are pieces of the same strategy.

In my earlier post, “Trolled Into Tyranny,” I wrote about Trump embracing Putin’s claim that U.S. elections are “rigged” because of mail-in ballots. That moment mattered because it showed how easily foreign propaganda can become domestic policy when it flatters the right ego. Trump did not reject the lie. He absorbed it. Then he repeated it. Then he tried to turn it into action.

That is how disinformation moves.

It starts as a smirk. Then it becomes a talking point. Then it becomes a campaign slogan. Then it becomes a policy threat.

And now, through the courts and redistricting, we are watching another version of that same process unfold.

In “Eroding the Right to Vote: Unpacking the SAVE Act’s Real Impact,” I wrote that voter suppression is accelerating under the language of “election integrity.” The SAVE Act was presented as a security measure, but its real-world effect would be to make voting harder for millions of legal voters, especially women, low-income Americans, elderly voters, disabled voters, and people of color.

That is why it matters to name the trick directly.

They do not have to say, “We want fewer people to vote.”

They can say, “We want secure elections.”

They do not have to say, “We want to reduce Black political power.”

They can say, “We are concerned about race-conscious districts.”

They do not have to say, “We want to choose our voters.”

They can say, “We are simply following the law.”

But when the law is reshaped to protect power instead of people, we have to be honest about what we are seeing.

Power Grabs Are Not the Same as Voter-Approved Pushback

This is also where we have to be careful not to flatten every redistricting fight into the same thing.

Because what happened in California is different.

Do I love gerrymandering as a long-term solution? No. I think it is a race to the bottom, and I would much rather see fair maps, independent commissions, and a system where politicians are not drawing their own paths to power.

But there is a difference between a power grab and voter-approved pushback.

California did not simply have a handful of politicians quietly decide to rewrite the rules behind closed doors. The voters were asked.

That does not make the whole situation ideal.

But it does make it different.

Because the people were asked.

If the people vote for a process, that is democracy. If politicians hide the process, manipulate the lines, and protect themselves from accountability, that is a heist.

Government works for us.

Not just red states. Not just blue states. Not just certain districts. Not just the voters who help one party win. Not just the people with the most money, the most power, or the loudest platform.

All of us.

The people are not supposed to be managed by government.

The government is supposed to answer to the people.

Adults Fighting Over Crayons While Democracy Burns

At some point, the whole thing starts to sound like a child’s game.

Redraw this line. Move that district. Pack these voters over here. Split those voters over there. Change the rules before the next election. Cry fraud when you lose. Claim victory when the map is tilted in your favor.

Didn’t any of these adults learn how to share the crayons?

Because that is what it feels like sometimes — powerful people fighting over the map like children fighting over a coloring book. Except this is not a coloring book. These are congressional districts. These are communities. These are voters. These are people’s lives.

And the person at the center of so much of this chaos is not some steady civic leader calmly trying to protect the country. Trump spends so much of his time raging, projecting, threatening, lying, and performing that the rest of us are left trying to sort out the damage while his enablers pretend this is normal.

It is not normal.

A president should not behave like a man flipping the game board every time the rules do not favor him. A political party should not respond to demographic change by trying to shrink the electorate, weaken representation, and redraw the map until the outcome becomes easier to control.

That is not leadership.

That is rules-as-optional politics.

And the consequences are not childish at all.

When politicians treat democracy like a game, ordinary people pay the price. Communities lose representation. Voters lose power. Rights become negotiable. Courts become weapons. And the country becomes less governed by the people and more managed by those desperate to stay in control.

So yes, share the crayons.

Or better yet, take the crayons out of the hands of the people who keep using them to scribble over democracy.

Fairness Is the Thing They Cannot Afford

And let’s be honest about why Republicans do not want fair maps.

Fair maps would force them to compete for actual voters.

Fair maps would force them to defend actual policy.

Fair maps would force them to answer for the chaos, the cruelty, the corruption, the incompetence, and the endless performance politics surrounding the so-called TACO-in-Chief.

That nickname lands because it points to the same larger problem: rules, consequences, and responsibilities are treated as things to dodge, bluff, or manipulate.

Republicans know what they are defending.

They know this is not normal leadership. They know this is not steady governance. They know this is not competence. They know this is not a vision for the American people.

So instead of building a platform that wins people over, they keep reaching for the machinery.

Restrict voting. Redraw maps. Attack mail-in ballots. Challenge legitimate districts. Weaken the Voting Rights Act. Call it “election integrity.” Pretend the cheating is fairness.

But fairness is exactly what they are afraid of.

Because when the map is fair, the voters matter more than the manipulation.

Fairness is dangerous to people who know they cannot win honestly.

And if politicians cannot be trusted to draw fair maps for the people, then the people deserve a better system: independent commissions, public review, transparent standards, and technology that exposes manipulation instead of hiding it.

The point is not to let machines govern us.

The point is to stop politicians from cheating us.

And no, this is not a Trump golf game.

You do not get to move the ball, rewrite the scorecard, redraw the course, and then claim you won fair and square. Elections are not private country club games for powerful men who think rules are for other people.

They are supposed to belong to the people.

“Stolen” Does Not Always Look Like We Expect

When people hear the phrase “stolen election,” they often think of conspiracy theories. Fake ballots. Secret machines. Midnight dumps. The same tired mythology Trump has used to poison public trust since 2020.

But real election theft often looks far more boring.

It looks like court opinions. Redistricting sessions. Registration rules. Documentary requirements. Fewer polling places. Longer lines. Voters removed from rolls. Communities split apart on a map. People giving up because the process was made too confusing, too expensive, too intimidating, or too exhausting.

That is the theft before the vote.

Not stealing ballots.

Stealing access.
Stealing representation.
Stealing faith.
Stealing the conditions required for democracy to function.

The danger of a moment like this is despair. When the courts bend, when lawmakers scheme, when propaganda floods the zone, when rights that should have been settled are suddenly back on the chopping block, it is easy to feel powerless.

But powerlessness is part of the design.

Confusion is part of the design. Exhaustion is part of the design. Apathy is part of the design.

So the response cannot be silence.

It has to be attention.

Pay attention to state legislatures. Pay attention to redistricting. Pay attention to voter registration deadlines. Pay attention to court rulings. Pay attention to local election boards. Pay attention to the language being used when rights are restricted.

And most importantly, help other people pay attention before the damage is presented as normal.

Because democracy does not usually vanish all at once.

It is narrowed. Explained away. Proceduralized. Litigated. Rebranded. Packaged as fairness while making representation less fair.

That is why this moment matters.

Not because one video said something dramatic.

Because the drama is attached to something real.

Maybe election theft does not begin on Election Day.

Maybe it begins when the rules are rewritten so some votes carry less power than others.

Maybe it begins when representation is treated as a threat.

Maybe it begins when the courts give permission for the powerful to draw democracy into smaller and smaller rooms.

And maybe the only way to stop it is to refuse to look away while it is happening.

Because democracy does not die only when votes are ignored.

Sometimes it dies when the map is drawn so those votes never had a fair chance to speak.

---

Further Reading on CherryCoBiz

Trolled Into Tyranny
Trump, Putin, and the projection game behind attacks on mail-in voting.

Eroding the Right to Vote: Unpacking the SAVE Act’s Real Impact
A deeper look at how “election integrity” language can be used to create barriers for legal voters.

We the People Still Have Power
A reminder that constitutional rights belong to the people, not to politicians.

The Importance of Supreme Court Nominations: A Personal Reflection
A reflection on why court appointments matter far more than many of us once realized.