Fact check: What are the most notable examples of gerrymandering by democrats in the US?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, several notable examples of Democratic gerrymandering emerge:

Maryland stands out as a clear example, with the Benisek v. Lamone court case specifically challenging a congressional map drawn by Democrats ^[1]. This case represents one of the most documented instances of Democratic gerrymandering reaching the courts.

Illinois appears consistently across multiple sources as a state where Democrats have drawn skewed maps ^[2]. Governor JB Pritzker has left the door open to redistricting the state's congressional map, which could potentially benefit Democrats ^[3].

California represents a significant current example, with Governor Gavin Newsom planning to redraw California's congressional maps specifically to help Democrats pick up five additional U.S. House seats ^{[3] [4]}. This effort is being positioned as retaliation against Republican redistricting efforts in Texas.

New York shows potential for Democratic gerrymandering, with state Senator Michael Gianaris introducing a resolution to amend the state constitution to allow for redistricting ^[3].

New Mexico is also mentioned as a state where Democrats have drawn skewed maps, though to a lesser extent than Republican efforts in other states ^[2].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The analyses reveal crucial context missing from the original question:

• Scale disparity: While Democrats have engaged in gerrymandering, the bias in current electoral maps "strongly favors Republicans" ^[2]. Republican gerrymandering in states like Texas, Florida, and North Carolina is described as more significant than Democratic efforts ^[2].
• Structural advantages: Republicans have "a greater advantage due to their control of the redistricting process in many states" ^[2]. This suggests that Republican gerrymandering opportunities are more extensive.
• Legal landscape: The Supreme Court's decisions have "enabled partisan gerrymandering" ^[5], creating an environment where both parties can engage in the practice with fewer legal constraints.
• Reactive vs. proactive efforts: Some Democratic gerrymandering efforts, particularly California's, are explicitly described as "retaliation" or "counterefforts" to Republican redistricting plans ^[4].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question, while factually seeking information, contains an implicit bias by focusing exclusively on Democratic gerrymandering without acknowledging the broader context. This framing could mislead readers into believing that gerrymandering is primarily a Democratic practice.

The analyses consistently show that both parties engage in gerrymandering, but Republicans have "more openly embraced the practice" ^[5] and benefit from greater structural advantages. By asking only about Democratic examples, the question omits the fact that Republican gerrymandering is currently more extensive and impactful on electoral outcomes.

Additionally, the question fails to acknowledge that some Democratic redistricting efforts are direct responses to Republican gerrymandering, rather than independent attempts to gain unfair advantage. This context is crucial for understanding the current redistricting landscape and the motivations behind various party actions.