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.
Fact check: What are the most gerrymandered states in the US by party?
Executive Summary
The assembled analyses portray a redistricting landscape where Republicans currently appear to benefit more from recent gerrymanders, especially in states like Texas, Missouri, and Florida, while Democrats retain tools and safe havens in states with independent commissions such as California and New York [1] [2] [3]. Competing narratives describe an escalating “arms race” of partisan mapmaking ahead of 2026, with both parties preparing retaliatory moves where they control state government, and with advocates calling for federal standards to curb partisan and racial gerrymandering [4] [5] [6].
1. Why Texas and Missouri keep surfacing as the partisan hotspots
Recent reporting repeatedly cites Texas and Missouri as focal points where Republicans are redrawing maps to expand their House advantage, potentially creating as many as five additional GOP seats in Texas alone and new maps already advancing in Missouri [3] [2] [7]. Analysts link these actions to state-level Republican control and explicit calls from national GOP figures urging redraws that would favor their party in the 2026 cycle [2]. The pattern is described not as isolated but as a coordinated effort with strategic significance because gains in a few states can shift the balance of the entire House [8].
2. Where Democrats are counterpunching and why commissions matter less than you think
Democratic-led responses include early redistricting threats and proposals in states like California, New York, and Wisconsin, both to neutralize Republican gains and to exploit Democratic control where available [7] [9] [5]. However, reporting highlights that independent commissions in California, New York, Michigan, and New Jersey have limits: the lack of uniform federal standards means commissions do not fully prevent partisan outcomes elsewhere, creating an uneven national playing field that benefits legislatures poised to gerrymander [6]. This dynamic fuels calls for federal intervention to standardize anti-partisan criteria [6].
3. Evidence that Republicans have had the upper hand recently
Academic research cited in the briefs finds measurable GOP advantage from recent redistricting, with scholars estimating the Republican Party could net multiple congressional seats from these maps — figures as high as a dozen seats are referenced as plausible under current trends [1]. Journalistic analyses echo that Republicans have been more successful so far in converting state control into favorable House maps, with active map changes already on the books in several key states heading into the 2026 electoral cycle [2] [8]. The consistency between scholarly and newsroom assessments strengthens the claim of GOP gains.
4. The “arms race” framing: both sides preparing to escalate
Multiple pieces frame the situation as a partisan “arms race”: Republicans move to redraw maps, Democrats threaten to retaliate where possible, and both sides seek regional fixes to national consequences [4] [5]. This framing underscores strategic reciprocity: when one party secures a series of favorable state maps, it provokes counter-moves in other states and intensifies pressure on governors and legislatures. Analysts warn this could produce a patchwork of aggressively partisan districts across the country unless a legislative or judicial check is enacted [4] [6].
5. Where the reporting diverges and why sources disagree
The supplied analyses diverge on emphasis and remedy: academic work stresses quantifiable GOP gains, while some outlets emphasize political maneuvering and the risk of reciprocal Democratic redistricting [1] [2] [5]. Another vein centers on structural reform—arguing independent commissions are insufficient and calling for federal bans on partisan and racial gerrymandering [6]. These differences reflect source agendas: policy scholars focus on seat-count modeling, political reporters track immediate legislative action, and reform advocates highlight systemic fairness concerns [1] [2] [6].
6. What’s missing from the conversation but important to the picture
The collected analyses omit detailed, state-by-state quantitative gerrymander measures (e.g., efficiency gap or partisan symmetry) and do not provide precise seat-change projections for every contested state, leaving uncertainty about the exact magnitude of partisan advantage [3] [1]. They also lack legal timelines: court challenges and the pace of state legislatures could alter outcomes rapidly. Finally, there’s limited coverage of demographic shifts and turnout effects that could negate or amplify map-driven advantages in 2026, which are critical for judging long-term impacts [4] [9].
7. Bottom line: who are the most gerrymandered states by party, based on these analyses
Synthesizing the provided sources, the states most frequently identified as currently most gerrymandered for Republicans are Texas and Missouri, with Florida and Indiana also spotlighted, while Democrats are positioned to use California, New York, and commission-led states as counterweights where they control redraws [3] [2] [7] [5]. The net takeaway is that Republicans hold a near-term structural edge in several key states, but the landscape is volatile: planned Democratic responses, legal challenges, and calls for federal standards could reshape outcomes before the 2026 elections [1] [6].