Fact check: Which states have democrats been accused of gerrymandering in the 2024 election?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, Democrats have been accused of gerrymandering in several states during the 2024 election cycle:

Primary states with Democratic gerrymandering accusations:

• New York - Republicans have accused New York Democrats of hypocrisy in redistricting efforts, citing their attempts to redraw congressional maps in 2024 ^[1]. Despite laws prohibiting gerrymandering, Democrats are reportedly trying to find ways to redraw maps to their advantage ^[2].
• Illinois - Multiple sources identify Illinois as a state where Democrats have drawn gerrymandered maps, though these are described as "generally less extreme than those drawn by Republicans" ^[3]. Illinois is mentioned as having little to no Republican congressional representation despite significant Trump vote percentages ^[4].
• California - Democrats are accused of trying to redraw the state's congressional map to gain advantage ^[2], with plans to redo their maps in response to Republican redistricting efforts in Texas ^{[5] [6]}.
• New Jersey - Listed among Democratic states where Republicans have minimal congressional representation despite substantial Trump support ^[4].
• Ohio - Democrats are accused of attempting gerrymandering through a proposed constitutional amendment funded by foreign money, with critics arguing this would lead to more gerrymandering rather than less ^[7].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks crucial context about the broader redistricting landscape:

• Republican gerrymandering is more extensive - The Brennan Center analysis indicates that while Democrats have drawn gerrymandered maps in some states like Illinois, "Republicans have a significant advantage due to gerrymandering, particularly in states like Texas, Florida, and North Carolina" ^[3].
• Reactive vs. proactive gerrymandering - Democratic redistricting efforts in states like California and New York are described as responses to Republican plans in Texas, suggesting a defensive rather than offensive strategy ^{[5] [6]}.
• Scale and impact differences - The analyses suggest that Republican gerrymandering has a greater overall impact on House representation than Democratic efforts ^[3].

Beneficiaries of different narratives:

• Republican politicians and conservative media benefit from highlighting Democratic gerrymandering while downplaying their own more extensive efforts
• Democratic politicians benefit from framing their redistricting as necessary responses to Republican actions
• Redistricting consultants and legal firms profit from the ongoing battles in multiple states

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question, while factually seeking information, contains potential bias through omission:

• Selective focus - By asking only about Democratic gerrymandering accusations, the question ignores the broader context that Republican gerrymandering is more widespread and impactful according to the analyses ^[3].
• Framing bias - The question focuses on "accusations" against Democrats without acknowledging that gerrymandering is a bipartisan practice, though with different scales of implementation.
• Missing comparative context - The question doesn't seek information about Republican gerrymandering in the same election cycle, which would provide necessary context for understanding the full redistricting landscape.

The analyses reveal that while Democrats have indeed been accused of gerrymandering in multiple states, these efforts appear to be both smaller in scale and often reactive to Republican redistricting strategies.