The three strongest counterarguments are:
- It centralizes election power in Washington
Even if the committee is “nonpartisan,” giving a federal board control over every congressional map would move a major election power away from states and local voters. Critics would argue that redistricting is supposed to reflect state geography, communities, local political realities, and state constitutional traditions. A national committee could become a powerful centralized gatekeeper over the composition of Congress. - “Nonpartisan experts” are not necessarily neutral
Drawing districts always involves value judgments: compactness, competitiveness, racial representation, keeping cities/counties together, protecting communities of interest, avoiding incumbent protection, and so on. There is no purely technical map. Critics would say an expert board could still smuggle in ideological assumptions while presenting them as neutral expertise. The Federal Reserve analogy may actually worry some people, because it suggests an insulated technocratic body with major political consequences but limited direct accountability. - It could create a constitutional and accountability problem
The Constitution gives states the initial authority to set congressional election rules, while Congress may “make or alter” those regulations. So Congress probably has some authority here, but a permanent federal map-drawing board would invite serious legal fights over delegation, state sovereignty, and the Elections Clause. Even if constitutional, critics would ask: if the committee draws biased or incompetent maps, who removes them? Voters cannot directly punish them the way they can punish state legislators.
A concise conservative/liberal-skeptical version would be:
The cure may be worse than the disease. Partisan gerrymandering is a real problem, but replacing state political abuse with a centralized federal expert class creates its own risks: hidden ideology, weak democratic accountability, and nationalized control over congressional competition.
The best counter is not “gerrymandering is fine.” It is: independent commissions may be good, but a single federal technocratic commission may be too powerful, too insulated, and not as neutral as advertised.