How do crime statistics compare between Republican and Democratic voters?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Crime statistics do not deliver a simple “red worse than blue” or “blue worse than red” verdict; results flip depending on the unit of analysis, the crimes examined, and what controls researchers include, and public perception is strongly partisan—Republicans worry about violent crime far more than Democrats even as federal series show long-term declines in many offenses [1] [2]. Multiple rigorous studies find that party labels alone—whether at the mayoral, city, county or state level—explain only a portion of variation in crime and often reverse once urbanization, poverty, and other structural factors are considered [3] [4] [5].
1. How voters perceive crime — a partisan chasm with electoral consequences
Republican voters are substantially more likely than Democratic voters to say violent crime is “very important” to their vote—about 73% of Republicans vs. 49% of Democrats in one Pew survey—and conservative Republicans concentrate on it even more intensely, a dynamic that has shaped campaign messaging and electoral strategy [1] [2]. That perception gap widened dramatically after 2021, with analyses noting a spike in partisan differences in how respondents view crime trends, meaning the political salience of crime often outpaces objective changes in crime rates [6] [2].
2. State-level analyses: a persistent “red-state” murder gap but with caveats
Analyses that aggregate to the state level have repeatedly found higher homicide rates in states that vote Republican in presidential contests—for example, Third Way’s multi-year work showing markedly higher murder rates in Trump-voting states since 2000 [7]. Advocates point to structural differences—poverty, lower educational attainment, and different social-service spending—that correlate with both voting patterns and violence, suggesting politics is a marker rather than a root cause [7].
3. Local and county-level studies: the picture can invert
When researchers drill down to counties or cities, patterns often change: some county-level work and state-specific studies find Republican-voting counties or rural counties with higher recent homicide and drug-death rates, while many Democratic-run cities show varied trajectories and, in some analyses, similar or lower rates once population density and other factors are controlled [8] [4] [5]. The Manhattan Institute and other scholars emphasize that results are sensitive to whether the unit is state, county, or city and to sample choices, producing competing narratives each side can cite [4].
4. Role of elected officials’ party labels: limited explanatory power
Newer longitudinal research covering hundreds of cities over decades finds that the party affiliation of mayors has little detectable causal effect on city crime rates or policing outcomes, undermining simplistic claims that Democratic mayors make cities inherently more dangerous [3]. Fact-checking outfits and social-science critiques likewise warn against using raw FBI tallies to rank cities by mayoral party because of confounders like urbanization and reporting practices [9] [5].
5. Methodological limits and where studies disagree
Disagreements trace to measurement choices: which crimes (homicide vs. property crime), which years (the 2020–21 spike matters), and whether studies exclude large cities or control for demographics and economics—decisions that can flip conclusions [4] [10]. Independent fact-checkers and social scientists stress that FBI data are not a simple scoreboard of political competence and that single charts or selective city lists can mislead [9] [5].
6. Political use of crime data — narratives, agendas, and real-world impacts
Both parties weaponize crime data: Republicans often highlight urban spikes to argue Democrats are “soft on crime,” while critics point to higher murder rates in many red states to rebut that charge; both narratives use cherry-picked aggregates to fit electoral aims, a reality noted by think tanks and journalists alike [7] [11] [4]. This politicization shapes migration decisions and policy debates even when the underlying empirical story is mixed or contingent [12] [7].
7. Bottom line
There is no uniform, uncontested statistic proving that Republican voters or Democratic voters live in systematically safer or more dangerous jurisdictions across all measures; evidence shows red states often have higher murder rates while local analyses and mayoral-affiliation studies find weak or mixed partisan effects once context is added, and public perceptions remain deeply polarized [7] [3] [4] [1].