Fact check: Who has done more gerrymandering, democrats or republican

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, Republicans have engaged in more aggressive and extensive gerrymandering than Democrats. Multiple sources consistently point to this conclusion:

• Republicans hold an estimated 16-seat advantage in the House of Representatives due to partisan map-drawing, primarily from aggressive gerrymandering in GOP strongholds in the South and Midwest ^[1]
• Texas serves as a prime example of Republican gerrymandering efforts, where the party has redrawn congressional maps to favor themselves and attempted to entrench themselves in office ^{[2] [3]}
• While both parties have historically engaged in gerrymandering - with the term itself originating from a Democratic-Republican governor's actions in 1812 ^[4] - the current landscape shows Republican-favoring skews have almost uniformly remained uncorrected ^[1]
• Democratic gerrymanders tend to be less reliable and often create competitive seats rather than safe districts, contrasting with Republican approaches ^[1]

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several important contextual elements:

• California presents a counterexample where Democrats hold a large majority of congressional seats, though this is not necessarily due to gerrymandering since the state's map was drawn by a bipartisan commission ^[5]
• The Supreme Court's role is crucial - Chief Justice John Roberts and the Republican majority enabled gerrymandering tactics through decisions like Rucho v. Common Cause, which prevents federal courts from hearing partisan gerrymandering suits ^{[3] [6]}
• Democrats are now responding strategically - Democratic governors like Laura Kelly of Kansas are preparing counter-gerrymandering efforts, with Kelly stating she doesn't believe in "unilateral disarmament" and would support colleagues responding in kind to Republican efforts ^[7]
• The legal landscape is evolving - while the Supreme Court struck down Alabama's racially gerrymandered maps in Milligan, there are concerns about potential future decisions that could further enable partisan gerrymandering ^{[6] [8]}

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself doesn't contain explicit misinformation, but it presents the issue as potentially equivalent between parties when the evidence suggests otherwise. The framing implies a "both sides" equivalency that obscures the documented Republican advantage in gerrymandering practices ^[1].

Key beneficiaries of promoting false equivalency would include:

• Republican politicians and strategists who benefit from maintaining their gerrymandering advantages while deflecting criticism
• Conservative legal organizations that have worked to enable partisan gerrymandering through Supreme Court cases
• Media outlets that benefit from presenting "balanced" coverage even when evidence points to asymmetrical practices

The analyses consistently show that while both parties have engaged in gerrymandering historically, Republicans currently hold a significant structural advantage through more aggressive and systematic gerrymandering efforts that remain largely uncorrected.