Fact check: Who has done more gerrymandering, democrats or republicans?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, Republicans have engaged in more extensive gerrymandering than Democrats. The Brennan Center estimates that Republican gerrymandering will provide the GOP with approximately 16 House seats advantage in the 2024 congressional race compared to fair maps ^[1]. While Democrats have drawn skewed maps in some areas, creating about 7 extra Democratic-leaning seats, this is less than a third of the 23 extra GOP-leaning seats created through Republican gerrymandering efforts ^[1].

Republicans control redistricting in more states than Democrats and leveraged the 2010 census data to create strong gerrymanders ^{[2] [3]}. The analyses indicate that Republicans have been more aggressive in their gerrymandering efforts, with specific examples including Texas, where Governor Greg Abbott has defended redistricting practices and even admitted to "gerrymandering" before correcting himself ^[4].

However, Democrats have responded by matching Republican gerrymandering efforts after the 2020 census ^{[2] [3]}. One analysis suggests that while widespread partisan bias exists in current district mapping, most electoral bias cancels out at the national level, resulting in only a two-seat Republican advantage in the U.S. House of Representatives ^[5].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several crucial contextual elements:

• Historical timeline: Republicans gained significant gerrymandering advantages following the 2010 census when they controlled more state governments, but Democrats have increasingly engaged in similar practices after 2020 ^{[2] [3]}.
• Legal framework: The Supreme Court's decision in Rucho v. Common Cause effectively greenlit extreme partisan gerrymanders by removing federal court oversight, enabling both parties to engage in more aggressive redistricting ^[6].
• Geographic disadvantages: Democrats face structural and geographical disadvantages of eight House seats independent of gerrymandering, meaning they start from a disadvantaged position ^[5].
• Judicial influence: The Supreme Court's Republican majority is likely to maintain a "laissez-faire approach to gerrymandering," potentially allowing more extreme efforts by both parties, but particularly benefiting Republicans who control more state governments ^[7].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself is not inherently biased, but it oversimplifies a complex issue by seeking a binary answer. The question fails to acknowledge:

• Both parties engage in gerrymandering - the issue is not whether one party does it and the other doesn't, but rather the extent and effectiveness of each party's efforts ^{[2] [6]}.
• Structural advantages matter - Republicans benefit from controlling more state governments and having more opportunities to gerrymander, while Democrats face inherent geographic disadvantages in how their voters are distributed ^{[8] [5]}.
• The practice has evolved over time - What began as primarily Republican gerrymandering after 2010 has evolved into a more bilateral practice, though Republicans maintain advantages in scale and opportunity ^{[2] [3]}.

The question could mislead readers into thinking this is simply a matter of partisan behavior rather than a systemic issue enabled by legal precedents and structural political advantages.