Fact check: What is the history of gerrymandering in the United States?

1. Summary of the results

The history of gerrymandering in the United States traces back to 1812 in Massachusetts, when Governor Elbridge Gerry signed a bill that created a district resembling a salamander, giving birth to the term "gerrymandering" ^{[1] [2]}. This practice of manipulating electoral district boundaries for political advantage has evolved into a persistent feature of American politics.

Both major political parties engage in gerrymandering, with neither Democrats nor Republicans holding exclusive responsibility for the practice ^[1]. Current examples demonstrate this bipartisan nature, with Texas serving as a prominent Republican gerrymandering battleground ^{[3] [4]} while states like Illinois also show evidence of distorted district boundaries ^[3].

The 2019 Supreme Court ruling marked a critical turning point, as federal courts lost the power to rein in state lawmakers' authority to draw legislative maps ^[5]. This decision has given states "increasingly unfettered power in redistricting" and allowed continued partisan gerrymandering to flourish ^[5].

Current impact on elections is substantial: The Brennan Center's analysis reveals that Republican gerrymandering provides approximately 16 seats advantage in the 2024 House elections ^[6]. The failure of the Freedom to Vote Act, which aimed to prohibit partisan gerrymandering, has contributed to this current electoral landscape ^[6].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several crucial contemporary developments that shape today's gerrymandering landscape:

• Reform efforts and success stories: Some states have made significant progress through independent redistricting commissions and ballot initiatives, with Virginia and Arizona creating more fair district maps ^[3]. This demonstrates that solutions exist and have been implemented successfully.
• Ongoing legal battles: Multiple court cases are actively challenging gerrymandering, including Callais v. Landry, New York Communities for Change v. Nassau County, and Mississippi State Conference of the NAACP v. State Board of Election Commissioners ^[7]. The Callais v. Landry case, scheduled for Supreme Court review in October, could potentially "upend the Voting Rights Act" ^[8].
• State-by-state complexity: The redistricting landscape varies dramatically across states, with 8 key battleground states (Texas, California, Missouri, Ohio, New York, Illinois, Indiana, and Florida) each operating under different state laws and constitutional frameworks ^[9].
• Potential consequences: Experts warn of a "continuous race to the bottom" where districts face constant redrawing, threatening democratic stability ^[4].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself contains no apparent misinformation or bias - it simply asks for historical information about gerrymandering. However, any response that fails to acknowledge the following would be incomplete or potentially misleading:

• Bipartisan nature: Presenting gerrymandering as exclusively a Republican or Democratic problem would misrepresent the historical and current reality that both parties engage in the practice ^[1].
• Reform possibilities: Omitting successful reform efforts in states like Virginia and Arizona could create false hopelessness about addressing the issue ^[3].
• Current legal significance: Failing to mention the 2019 Supreme Court decision and upcoming cases like Callais v. Landry would ignore the most consequential recent developments in gerrymandering law ^{[5] [8]}.
• Contemporary electoral impact: Not addressing the current 16-seat Republican advantage in House elections would miss the immediate practical consequences of gerrymandering ^[6].