Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What are the crime rates in US cities with Democratic mayors compared to Republican mayors?
Executive Summary
Multiple recent analyses converge on the same finding: mayoral party labels are not a reliable predictor of city crime rates. Large, multi-decade studies and contemporary fact-checks find little or no causal link between whether a mayor is a Democrat or Republican and changes in crime, policing budgets, or arrest rates, though partisan shifts can modestly affect policing demographics and arrest patterns [1] [2] [3].
1. Big-picture verdict: Mayoral partisanship doesn’t move crime statistics
Large-sample empirical work across roughly three decades shows that electing a Democratic versus a Republican mayor produces no detectable effect on overall crime, arrests, or police staffing and spending. Multiple independently-reviewed studies using different research designs and nearly 400 cities found consistent null effects: crime trajectories and police employment rarely shift in response to mayoral party change, undermining simple partisan explanations for city crime differences [1] [4] [5]. Contemporary fact-checking echoes this conclusion, warning that raw comparisons — for instance, noting that many big cities are led by Democrats — conflate correlation with causation and ignore structural drivers like urban density and local economies [2] [6]. The empirical consensus is robust enough to reject broad partisan blame narratives as an explanation for city-level crime outcomes [1] [7].
2. Where nuances appear: Policing outcomes and racial composition of arrests
Although overall crime rates and police budgets show no partisan pattern, several studies identify modest, consistent effects on the racial composition of arrests and police force demographics when a Democratic mayor takes office. Researchers report a decline in the Black share of arrests for certain low-level offenses and evidence that Democratic mayors slightly increase Black representation among officers — changes that can alter who gets arrested without changing the total volume of arrests or crime [3] [5]. These findings matter for equity and community trust even if they do not translate into headline crime-rate differences. Fact-checkers emphasize this nuance: the absence of a party-level crime effect does not mean mayors lack influence on policing practices or on outcomes that disproportionately affect communities of color [2] [1].
3. Why party labels fail: Complexity of crime drivers and data limits
Experts and the FBI caution that crime rates are shaped by multifaceted factors — economic conditions, population density, youth employment, policing strategies, and local social services — not merely the party affiliation of a mayor [2] [6]. Studies explicitly warn against city rankings or simplistic comparisons using FBI data because such metrics omit context like policing resources, demographic composition, and spatial concentration of crime. Research that controls for these variables still finds weak partisan effects, supporting the view that policy tools (e.g., youth jobs, alternative response programs) are likely more consequential than partisan headlines when it comes to reducing crime [7] [5].
4. The political uses and misuses of the research: Blame narratives persist
Despite rigorous evidence, political actors on both sides continue to use crime as a partisan cudgel, typically by spotlighting high-crime jurisdictions that happen to have Democratic mayors or citing short-term crime spikes without context. Fact-checks published in 2025 highlight this pattern and label it misleading: the correlation between mayoral party and city crime rates is weak, and selective examples ignore decades-long downward trends and the complex causal web behind crime statistics [2] [6]. The research community cautions that such selective framing can distract from evidence-based interventions and can obscure the modest but meaningful ways mayoral decisions affect policing composition and community outcomes [7] [1].
5. Practical takeaway: Focus policy debate on interventions, not slogans
The converging evidence leads to a clear policy implication: voters and policymakers should prioritize interventions with demonstrated impacts — youth employment, targeted social services, and alternative 911 responses — rather than attributing crime trends to mayoral party control. Multiple studies argue that neither party consistently shrinks or inflates crime through mayoral power alone, so effective crime reduction will require sustained policy programs and cross-jurisdictional strategies tailored to local socioeconomic realities [4] [7]. The modest shifts in arrest demographics tied to mayoral partisanship merit attention for equity-focused reforms, but they do not validate broad claims that Democratic-run cities are inherently more dangerous than Republican-run ones [3] [1].