Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Can gerrymandering in blue states like Massachusetts impact national election outcomes in 2024?
Executive summary
Gerrymandering nationally in 2024 is estimated to give Republicans a roughly 16-seat advantage in the House, driven mainly by aggressive GOP maps in the South and Midwest rather than Democratic maps in New England [1]. In Massachusetts specifically, multiple analyses and simulations say Republican voters are so uniformly scattered that drawing a Republican congressional district is effectively impossible, making the state’s all-Democratic delegation plausibly a product of voter geography as much as mapmaking [2] [3].
1. Why national gerrymanders matter: the 16-seat effect
The Brennan Center’s analysis finds that mapmaking overall in this cycle produces a substantial national tilt—about a 16-seat advantage to Republicans in the 2024 House fight compared with “fair maps”—meaning that changes to maps in one region can shift which party controls committees and the legislative agenda [1]. That framing places state-level fights in context: while a single blue state like Massachusetts contributes few seats to the national delegation, cumulative red-state gerrymanders are the dominant driver of the projected national advantage [1].
2. Massachusetts: gerrymander or geography?
Researchers and local reporting converge on the view that Massachusetts’ single-party control of redistricting and its Democratic supermajority produce a 9–0 delegation, but independent simulation work — including the Metric Geometry and Gerrymandering Group and academic studies cited by GBH — suggests Republicans’ votes are so evenly distributed that it is effectively impossible to draw a Republican-majority congressional district under current population patterns [2] [3]. That implies the delegation’s partisan uniformity may stem from electoral geography as much as from politically motivated line-drawing [2] [3].
3. Competing narratives: political messaging vs. technical analyses
National Republican figures have pointed to Massachusetts as an example of Democratic gerrymandering, using the mismatch between a Republican presidential share and a fully Democratic delegation as evidence [4]. Massachusetts officials and many analysts counter that the distribution of Republican voters precludes a Republican seat even under neutrally drawn maps; state lawmakers and simulation studies explicitly make that argument [4] [2] [3]. Both narratives exist in the reporting: one highlights apparent asymmetry, the other points to structural voter distributions and technical simulations.
4. Litigation and legal rebuttals: the Freedom to Vote Act test
The Brennan Center’s simulations applying the Freedom to Vote Act’s rebuttable-presumption test show maps in Connecticut and Massachusetts produced high rates of partisan bias on paper, but analysts there judge the states likely to rebut that presumption in litigation by showing that voter distribution makes “compliant” maps infeasible [1]. In short, a map can fail a statistical bias test yet still survive court challenge if defenders demonstrate geography-driven limits on competitiveness [1].
5. What this means for 2024 national outcomes
Because Massachusetts holds nine House seats, any single-party advantage there is small in raw numbers compared with large-state shifts in the South and Midwest; Brennan Center analysis explicitly attributes the roughly 16-seat Republican advantage to aggressive GOP gerrymanders in those regions rather than New England maps [1]. Therefore, even if Massachusetts were perfectly “neutral,” the national tilt likely would be driven by other states’ maps, not by changes in Massachusetts alone [1].
6. Remaining uncertainties and civic leverage points
Open questions remain about how litigation, state reforms, or new mapping rules could reshape specific states before future cycles. Advocacy groups in Massachusetts emphasize community mapping engagement and independent redistricting reforms as remedies, pointing to strong local organizing and transparency efforts [5] [6]. At the same time, national trackers and news outlets continue to document both Republican and Democratic redistricting moves elsewhere, underscoring that the nationwide balance depends on many states’ outcomes [7] [8].
7. Bottom line for readers
Gerrymandering in blue states like Massachusetts contributes to the national conversation, but current expert work and simulations indicate Massachusetts’ all-Democratic delegation is largely the result of voter geography and distribution rather than an outlier example of partisan map-rigging; the dominant national effect in 2024 comes from Republican-favoring maps in other regions that Brennan Center analysts estimate give Republicans about a 16-seat edge [2] [3] [1]. Available sources do not mention whether any single change in Massachusetts alone would shift control of the U.S. House in 2024.