Fact check: What are some notable examples of Democratic Party gerrymandering in the 2010s?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, several notable examples of Democratic Party gerrymandering in the 2010s emerge:

Maryland stands out as the most documented case, with the Benisek v. Lamone lawsuit challenging the Democratic-controlled Maryland General Assembly's redistricting plan as a partisan gerrymander that violated representational rights and First Amendment political association rights ^[1]. The impact is evident in Maryland's current representation, where despite 34% of the presidential vote going to Republicans, there is only one Republican representative in the state's congressional delegation ^[2].

Illinois presents another clear example, where Republicans currently hold only three of 17 congressional seats despite significant Republican voter presence in the state ^[2]. This dramatic underrepresentation suggests systematic redistricting advantages for Democrats.

California shows a 21% Democratic advantage in seats, with Republicans holding only nine out of 52 congressional seats despite Trump winning 38% of the vote in the state ^[2]. Additionally, Governor Gavin Newsom has explicitly planned to redraw congressional maps to help Democrats pick up seats ^[3].

New Jersey demonstrates similar patterns with only three Republicans out of 12 congressional seats ^[2], while New York shows a 13% Democratic lead in seats, with seven out of 26 seats currently having Republican representation ^[2].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The analyses reveal significant gaps in addressing the original question. Multiple sources focus primarily on Republican gerrymandering rather than Democratic examples ^{[4] [5]}, suggesting a potential imbalance in available documentation or research focus.

Historical and legal context is largely missing from the question. The analyses show that gerrymandering has deep historical roots and has been practiced by both parties, with the Supreme Court's rulings significantly impacting redistricting power ^{[6] [7]}. The question isolates Democratic gerrymandering without acknowledging this broader bipartisan practice.

Institutional mechanisms that enable or prevent gerrymandering vary significantly by state. For example, New York's state constitution prohibits gerrymandering and specifies that redistricting occurs once per decade ^[3], while other states lack such protections.

Retaliatory dynamics between parties are evident, with California's Governor Newsom planning redistricting in direct response to Texas Republicans' efforts ^{[8] [9]}, indicating that gerrymandering often occurs as strategic political retaliation rather than isolated partisan action.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question exhibits selective framing by focusing exclusively on Democratic gerrymandering in the 2010s without acknowledging that both parties engaged in this practice during the same period. The analyses consistently note that "both Republican and Democratic states have continued the practice of partisan gerrymandering" ^[6].

Temporal bias is present in isolating the 2010s decade, as gerrymandering is an ongoing practice that extends beyond this timeframe. The analyses show that redistricting battles continue into the 2020s with governors like Newsom and Pritzker actively planning new redistricting efforts ^{[3] [8]}.

Contextual omission is evident in the question's failure to mention that Republican gerrymandering was also extensively documented during the same period, with sources noting "GOP gerrymandering creates uphill fight for Dems in the House" ^[4]. This creates a misleading impression that gerrymandering was primarily a Democratic practice during the 2010s.

The question's framing could benefit those seeking to portray gerrymandering as a uniquely Democratic problem, potentially serving Republican political interests by deflecting attention from their own redistricting practices during the same period.