The U.S. House of Representatives currently operates with a narrow Republican majority, making the balance of power particularly fragile. In this delicate environment, even minor shifts in congressional seats could determine which party controls the House. While partisan gerrymandering has long been a tactic used by both parties to consolidate power, Republicans have wielded it with ruthless efficiency.

It’s time for Democrats to stop playing fair and fight fire with fire. Republicans have maintained a slim majority in the House, a result influenced in large part by aggressive redistricting in many GOP-controlled states. North Carolina stands as a glaring example. North Carolina has a near 50-50 partisan split, yet consistently sends a disproportionately large number of Republicans to Congress, thanks to ruthless gerrymandering.

Despite its purple status, North Carolina’s Republican-dominated legislature has crafted districts that all but guarantee Republican control. Similar tactics have been deployed in states including Texas and Florida, further entrenching Republican power.

Meanwhile, Democrats have tied their own hands in California, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, New Jersey, and Michigan by adopting independent or bipartisan redistricting commissions. While noble in theory, this unilateral disarmament has left Democrats at a structural disadvantage. These states must immediately abandon their commissions and pursue aggressive gerrymandering instead; the effects would be profound. Even a modest gain of 5 to 10 seats would shift the balance of power and control in the House.

Republican-controlled states such Arizona, Montana, Idaho, and Utah also have bipartisan or independent commissions. These states are already overwhelmingly Republican, and further manipulation would yield little to no additional advantage for the GOP. Their commissions serve more as safeguards against overreach rather than tools for partisan advantage.

Where Dems can strike back

California: With its 52 congressional districts, California represents the most significant opportunity for Democrats. Gerrymandering could consolidate Democratic control by dismantling competitive districts, potentially yielding an additional 4 to 6 seats.

Colorado: Colorado’s eight districts are fairly split, but targeted redistricting could deliver 1 to 2 more Democratic seats.

Washington: With 10 districts, Washington could see an increase of 1 or 2 Democratic seats if gerrymandering were applied.

Oregon: Oregon’s current map slightly favors Democrats, but further manipulation could secure 1 additional seat.

New Jersey: With 12 districts, aggressive gerrymandering could potentially shift 1 or 2 seats to Democrats.

Michigan: Michigan’s independent commission has resulted in a balanced map. However, reverting to partisan redistricting could yield a Democratic net gain of 1 to 2 seats.

In the tightly contested House, a shift of 10 to 15 seats would be decisive. If blue states engaged in gerrymandering with the same fervor as North Carolina, Florida, and Texas, Democrats would counterbalance the effects of Republican-led gerrymandering, potentially reclaiming a permanent majority.

Democrats have a choice to make. Will they continue to unilaterally disarm in the name of fairness while Republicans manipulate the system without consequence? Or will they level the playing field and ensure that representation better reflects the will of the voters?

In a political environment where every advantage counts, fighting fire with fire is not just a strategy, it is a necessity.

Timothy Flynn lives in Montague.