Fact check: Which political party has had more gerrymandering cases go to litigation?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, no source directly answers which political party has had more gerrymandering cases go to litigation. However, several key patterns emerge from the available data:

Republican Gerrymandering Activity:

• Republicans control redistricting in more states than Democrats and have used this to create strong gerrymanders ^{[1] [2]}
• An Associated Press analysis found that Republicans enjoyed a greater political advantage in more states than either party had in the past 50 years after the 2010 census ^[1]
• Multiple cases involve Republican-controlled states including Wisconsin, North Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina ^{[3] [4]}
• Current redistricting efforts show Republicans actively pursuing gerrymandering, such as in Texas where Democrats walked out to block a Republican-backed redistricting plan ^{[5] [2]}

Democratic Gerrymandering Activity:

• Some cases involve Democratic-controlled states or localities, including Maryland ^[3]
• Democrats have responded by matching Republican gerrymandering efforts ^[1]
• Both parties continue the practice of gerrymandering ^[6]

Legal Landscape:

• The ACLU lists 28 gerrymandering cases currently in litigation ^[4]
• The Supreme Court ruled that federal courts have no authority to intervene in partisan gerrymandering cases ^[6]

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several crucial pieces of context:

Historical Timeline: The analyses don't specify whether the question refers to cases from a particular time period, which is significant given that redistricting occurs primarily every 10 years after the census ^{[1] [2]}.

Definition Clarity: The question doesn't distinguish between different types of gerrymandering cases - whether it includes racial gerrymandering, partisan gerrymandering, or both, which could significantly affect the count.

State Control Dynamics: The analyses reveal that Republican control of more state legislatures gives them more opportunities to engage in redistricting, which could naturally lead to more litigation against Republican-drawn maps ^{[1] [2]}.

Strategic Litigation: The question doesn't account for whether litigation frequency reflects actual gerrymandering prevalence or strategic decisions about which cases to pursue in court.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question, while seemingly neutral, contains an implicit assumption that litigation frequency directly correlates with gerrymandering activity. This framing could be misleading because:

Resource Disparities: Different parties may have varying resources and strategic approaches to litigation, meaning more cases against one party doesn't necessarily indicate more gerrymandering by that party.

Structural Advantages: Since Republicans control redistricting in more states ^{[1] [2]}, they have more opportunities to gerrymander, which could naturally result in more litigation against Republican-drawn maps without indicating greater intent to gerrymander.

Legal Strategy Differences: The question doesn't account for whether one party might be more likely to settle out of court versus pursuing litigation, which could skew the litigation count.

The framing could benefit organizations or individuals seeking to make partisan points about gerrymandering without acknowledging the complex structural and strategic factors that influence litigation patterns.