Have Democrasts tried to stop all gerrymandering?

1. What “stopping gerrymandering” means in practice

There are two distinct approaches in the sources: structural reform to prevent partisan maps (independent commissions, national legislation like the Redistricting Reform Act) and active political responses—lawsuits, legislative redrawing, and ballot measures—to block or reverse specific maps. Democrats have pursued both; some efforts are preventive and reform-minded, others are explicitly retaliatory to blunt GOP mid‑decade maps ^{[4] [3] [6]}.

2. Litigation and courts as a primary Democratic tool

When Democrats oppose maps they see as racially or politically unfair, they often turn to courts. Reporting notes suits against Republican redistricting in multiple states and that courts have blocked aggressive Democratic maps in the past as well (for example, a court struck down an attempted 8‑0 map in one state), indicating litigation is a two‑way tool that Democrats use but which does not guarantee a total ban on partisan maps ^{[7] [8]}.

3. Ballot measures and voter approval: California as a test case

California’s Proposition 50 allowed the Democrat‑dominated legislature temporarily to replace a commission’s map—an explicit act of partisan redrawing that was presented by its supporters as a necessary response to Republican gerrymanders elsewhere. Voters approved Prop 50, showing Democrats can and will use ballot mechanisms to change how maps are drawn when they believe the stakes merit it ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

4. Legislative counter‑moves and “fight fire with fire” politics

Several Democratic state leaders and members of Congress endorsed or drafted laws aimed at limiting partisan redistricting nationwide (the Redistricting Reform Act) while other Democratic state governments pursued their own map changes to blunt Republican advantage. Reporting frames this as a tit‑for‑tat escalation rather than a unilateral effort to eliminate gerrymandering from the American system ^{[4] [5] [3]}.

5. Reform advocates vs. partisan actors — competing perspectives

Advocacy groups and reformers often favor independent commissions and national standards to remove politicians from map‑drawing; some organizations, however, judged California’s retaliatory map by criteria such as proportionality and public participation rather than condemning it outright, revealing disagreement within anti‑gerrymandering circles about acceptable responses ^{[3] [5]}.

6. Limits of what Democrats have done and cannot do

Available reporting shows Democrats have pursued reforms, lawsuits, ballot measures and counter‑maps, but they have not achieved a nationwide ban on partisan gerrymandering. Some Democratic attempts have been blocked by courts, and states vary in the legal paths available (for example, state constitutional constraints on mid‑decade redistricting) ^{[7] [6]}. Sources do not claim Democrats succeeded in eliminating gerrymandering everywhere; instead, they show a patchwork of actions and outcomes ^[8].

7. Why the fight continues: incentives and national coordination

The current cycle intensified after a push from President Trump urging Republicans to lock in advantages, prompting Democratic leaders to coordinate redistricting responses and push national reform bills. Analysts warn this escalation incentivizes both parties to gerrymander when they can, sustaining the cycle rather than ending it ^{[9] [10] [8]}.

8. Bottom line for the original question

If the question asks whether Democrats have tried to stop all gerrymandering nationwide, the sources show the answer is no in the absolute sense: Democrats have actively sought reforms and used legal and political tools to block or reverse many Republican gerrymanders and have sometimes drawn maps themselves in response, but they have not eliminated partisan gerrymandering overall ^{[4] [1] [3]}. The debate in reporting centers on whether these efforts are principled reform or reciprocal partisanship—and reform advocates remain divided on tactics ^{[5] [3]}.