Fact check: What are the most gerrymandered congressional districts in the US as of 2024?

1. Why a 16‑seat edge matters and who is winning the map war

Multiple independent analyses converged in late 2024 to quantify the partisan tilt from redistricting; the Brennan Center and companion studies estimated an aggregate Republican advantage of about 16 seats relative to a counterfactual set of neutrally drawn maps, a margin large enough to decide control of the House in a closely divided chamber ^[1]. This advantage is not evenly distributed: Southern and Sun Belt states supplied most of the gain, where aggressive state-level control over redistricting—combined with advanced mapping technology—converted competitive areas into safer seats for the majority party in state legislatures ^{[1] [4]}.

2. States and districts repeatedly flagged as the worst offenders

State-level rankings from 2025 list North Carolina, Maryland, and South Carolina among the most gerrymandered states, reflecting entrenched practices and court battles over maps ^[5]. Analysts repeatedly point to Texas and Florida as major sources of Republican seat gains in 2024, while Illinois has districts drawn to the Democrats’ benefit; California’s proposed “Mitchellmander” maps further exemplify how commissions or legislators can compress representation into lopsided delegations ^{[1] [2]}. These state patterns produce individual congressional districts that are among the most skewed, even if exact rankings vary by methodology.

3. District-level examples that illustrate how gerrymanders work

Kansas’s 3rd Congressional District has been redrawn to favor Republicans but continued to elect Democrat Sharice Davids, which highlights both the potency of mapmaking and the persistence of candidate-level factors such as incumbency and local campaigning ^[3]. In states like Texas and North Carolina, mapping produced districts that transform marginal counties into safe seats, demonstrating how contiguity and compactness rules can be stretched to prioritize partisan outcomes ^{[1] [4]}. California’s proposed maps show how wholesale redesigns can flip a state’s internal balance, creating delegations with extreme one‑party supermajorities ^[2].

4. How researchers measure “most gerrymandered” and why results differ

Scholars and advocacy groups use different metrics—seat advantage simulations, efficiency gap, wasted votes, compactness and ensemble modeling—to identify the “most gerrymandered” places, producing consistent national patterns but different local lists. Ensemble simulation work underpins the Brennan Center’s 16‑seat figure by comparing enacted maps to thousands of neutral map possibilities; state rankings like those published in 2025 rely on qualitative and quantitative blends, which explain why North Carolina or Maryland can top one list while particular Texas or Florida districts dominate another ^{[1] [5]}.

5. Conflicting signals: when gerrymanders fail and why that matters

Empirical anomalies—Democrats winning in Republican‑leaning drawn districts or incumbents surviving hostile remaps—underscore that gerrymandering raises odds, not certainties ^[3]. Campaign resources, candidate quality, national tides, and local issues can overcome a structural tilt, meaning that while maps create predictable advantages, they do not fully determine outcomes; this nuance is crucial when interpreting claims about “the most gerrymandered districts,” which often conflate map intent with electoral result ^{[3] [6]}.

6. Courts, technology, and the future: what shapes the next cycle

Analysts note that digital mapping tools amplified partisan precision in 2024, and ongoing court challenges and reform efforts will shape future cycles ^[4]. Legal rulings and state reforms—whether tightening criteria for mapmakers or shifting control to independent commissions—can blunt or reinforce current advantages; proposed measures like California’s Mitchellmander illustrate that reform or partisan redesign can both produce extreme outcomes, depending on process and politics ^{[4] [2]}.

7. Bottom line: where the deepest distortions are and what to watch

Synthesis of available analyses points to Texas, Florida, North Carolina, and parts of the Midwest and Sun Belt as the primary sources of the 16‑seat GOP edge, with individual flagrantly skewed districts occurring in states where one party controlled mapmaking; Maryland, Illinois and proposed California maps show the reverse dynamic when Democrats control lines ^{[1] [5] [2]}. Watch ongoing litigation, state legislative control changes, and commission proposals—those institutional shifts will determine whether the 2024 map advantages persist or are substantially rebalanced before the next redistricting cycle ^{[1] [5]}.