Fact check: How many congressional seats get without gerrymandering?

1. Summary of the results

The analyses provided do not contain a direct answer to the question of how many congressional seats would be allocated without gerrymandering. Instead, the sources focus on current redistricting battles and political maneuvering around gerrymandering.

Current Redistricting Developments:

• California Democrats passed legislation to create a new congressional map that could give Democrats five additional seats in Congress, specifically designed to counter Texas gerrymandering ^{[1] [2]}
• Utah faces court-ordered redistricting after a judge ruled that the Republican-controlled Legislature improperly overruled a voter-approved ballot measure aimed at reducing partisan gerrymandering ^[3]
• Texas is expected to redraw its congressional districts, which has prompted California's counter-gerrymandering response ^[2]

Public Opinion Data:

• 56% of respondents support a national requirement for independent redistricting commissions ^[4]
• 53% of voters say they would support fair maps even if their party loses seats ^[4]

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question assumes there is a definitive answer to how many seats would exist "without gerrymandering," but the analyses reveal this is more complex than the question suggests.

Key Missing Context:

• No baseline exists for what constitutes "non-gerrymandered" districts, as the sources explain gerrymandering concepts but don't provide specific seat calculations ^[5]
• Both parties engage in gerrymandering - while California Democrats are creating maps to favor their party, they frame it as a defensive response to Republican gerrymandering in Texas ^{[1] [6]}
• Independent redistricting commissions exist in some states like California, but even these can be overridden by political actors when it serves their interests ^[1]

Beneficiaries of Different Narratives:

• Democratic Party leadership benefits from framing their gerrymandering as defensive and necessary to counter Republican efforts
• Republican Party leadership benefits from maintaining current gerrymandered maps in states they control
• Political consultants and mapmakers from both parties benefit financially from redistricting battles
• Advocacy groups promoting "fair maps" benefit from increased donations and attention during redistricting controversies

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains an implicit assumption that may be misleading:

Problematic Assumptions:

• The question assumes there is a clear, calculable number of seats that would exist "without gerrymandering," but the analyses show this is not a straightforward calculation ^{[5] [7]}
• The phrasing suggests gerrymandering has a definitive, measurable impact on total seat allocation, when the reality involves complex political and geographic factors beyond simple partisan manipulation

Framing Issues:

• The question doesn't acknowledge that both major parties engage in gerrymandering when they control state legislatures, as evidenced by current battles in California, Texas, and Utah ^{[1] [3] [2]}
• It oversimplifies the redistricting process by implying there's an objective "non-gerrymandered" baseline, when even independent commissions face political pressures and geographic constraints

The question would be more accurate if it asked about the potential impact of eliminating partisan gerrymandering or the estimated seat changes under various redistricting scenarios, rather than implying there's a definitive answer to seat allocation without gerrymandering.