Fact check: How do Democrats and Republicans use gerrymandering to their advantage?

1. Summary of the results

Both Democrats and Republicans actively use gerrymandering to gain electoral advantages, with recent developments showing an escalation in partisan redistricting efforts. Republicans currently hold a significant advantage, with an estimated 16-seat advantage in the 2024 House elections due to biased maps, though Democrats have also engaged in gerrymandering to a lesser extent ^[1].

The most prominent recent example involves Texas Republicans responding to President Trump's pressure to create five additional GOP congressional seats through redistricting ^{[2] [3]}. The Texas House approved this new congressional map despite fierce Democratic opposition, with Democrats arguing it unconstitutionally packs people of color into some districts while spreading them throughout others to reduce their electoral influence ^[3].

In response, California Governor Gavin Newsom has proposed abandoning the state's nonpartisan redistricting process to create a politically-drawn map that would favor Democrats ^{[4] [5]}. This plan has received support from former President Barack Obama, who called it a "responsible approach" to GOP tactics ^[5].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question doesn't capture the current constitutional and legal constraints that limit redistricting efforts. Many states are bound by constitutional language and laws that dictate how redistricting happens, and there are significant time pressures with maps needing to be set ahead of the 2026 midterms ^[2].

Geographic voter sorting plays a crucial role that's often overlooked - the natural clustering of Democratic and Republican voters in different areas creates inherent challenges for fair representation that go beyond intentional gerrymandering ^[6].

There's also a "dummymandering" risk where parties may actually hurt themselves by spreading their voters too thin across districts in an attempt to maximize seats ^[6]. Additionally, many districts are already heavily gerrymandered, limiting opportunities for further manipulation ^[6].

Alternative solutions exist beyond the current winner-take-all system, such as allocating seats based on statewide popular vote and then assigning the top vote-getters from each party to those seats ^[7].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question presents gerrymandering as a symmetrical practice where both parties engage equally, but this understates the current Republican advantage. The evidence shows Republicans have been more successful in recent gerrymandering efforts, holding a substantial 16-seat advantage ^[1].

The question also fails to acknowledge the moral complexity within parties themselves. California Democrats are experiencing significant internal conflict over Newsom's redistricting plan, with some questioning the morality of abandoning their state's voter-approved independent redistricting process ^[4].

The framing doesn't address voter preferences for reform - California voters have specifically backed independent redistricting, suggesting public opposition to partisan gerrymandering even when it might benefit their preferred party ^[4].

Finally, the question doesn't capture the immediate political context driving current redistricting efforts, particularly Trump's direct pressure on state Republicans to maximize GOP seats before the 2026 midterms, which represents an escalation beyond typical redistricting cycles ^{[2] [3]}.