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 egregious examples of partisan gerrymandering by Democrats and Republicans?
Executive Summary
Partisan gerrymandering has produced some of the most consequential and contested maps in recent U.S. politics, with Republicans often winning durable advantages in states like Texas, Utah, and Missouri while Democrats have produced stacked maps in states such as California and Maryland; the legal landscape since Rucho v. Common Cause leaves many disputes to state courts and political fights [1] [2]. Recent research and reporting through September 2025 document both systemic benefits for Republicans in federal representation and targeted Democratic maneuvers at the state level, creating a patchwork of advantages that reshape House control and local power [3] [4].
1. How a court retreat reshaped the battlefield — federal courts step back and states step in
The Supreme Court’s Rucho decision removed federal courts from adjudicating partisan gerrymandering claims, redirecting most enforcement to state courts and political mechanisms, which in turn has amplified the stakes of state legislative control and ballot measures [2]. After Rucho, several state supreme courts either upheld maps as political questions or required new maps, producing divergent outcomes: South Carolina’s high court dismissed a challenge while Utah’s court pushed back against legislative maps, illustrating a fractured judicial terrain where results depend on state institutions [5] [6].
2. Republican redistricting: durable federal gains and targeted state plays
Multiple analyses and reporting indicate that Republicans have reaped consistent advantages from redistricting, converting razor-thin national vote margins into more comfortable House majorities in some cycles, with scholars finding that control over maps has meaningfully reshaped Congressional power [3]. Recent redistricting plans in places like Texas and Missouri are highlighted as classic examples where state-level Republican control sought to maximize seat gains, and those efforts have been characterized by observers as producing multiple additional seats for Republicans in the U.S. House [1] [4].
3. Democratic mapping: concentrated defenses and opportunistic gains in blue states
Democratic-controlled processes have also produced strategically engineered maps, particularly in California and Maryland, where lines have been drawn to consolidate Democratic power and protect incumbents, sometimes provoking claims of partisan packing and reduced electoral competitiveness [1] [4]. California’s Proposition 50 and similar reform proposals are referenced as Democratic attempts to counteract Republican advantages or to insulate Democratic gains; these measures reveal a dual strategy of institutional reform alongside tactical map-making [7] [4].
4. Academic studies: who benefits and how scholars measure the harm
Recent scholarship emphasizes that Republican mapmakers have, on net, benefited more from partisan redistricting—a structural advantage with implications for representation and policy—while other researchers call for dyadic analyses that focus on the voter-representative relationship rather than aggregate seat counts, arguing that the harms of gerrymandering can be invisible at different scales [3] [8]. These competing methodological frames matter because how one measures “harm” determines whether a map is seen as an outlier or as part of normal political competition [8] [3].
5. State-by-state flashpoints: Texas, California, Missouri, Utah, and South Carolina
Detailed reporting and maps show Texas and California as contemporaneous flashpoints, where both parties engaged in aggressive redistricting driven by partisan and demographic stakes; Missouri and Utah also drew attention for recent legislative maps and court fights, while South Carolina’s courts have declined to intervene—demonstrating a mosaic of local battles shaped by political control and judicial posture [1] [4] [5] [6]. The net effect is that congressional delegation outcomes and local initiatives vary dramatically across states depending on who controlled the process.
6. Political incentives and reform responses — what both parties are trying and resisting
With federal courts sidelined, both parties pursue legislative fixes, ballot initiatives, and legal strategies at the state level, with Democrats sometimes backing independent-district commissions or procedural reforms while Republicans emphasize legislative prerogatives and redistricting leverage. These tactics reflect competing agendas: entrenching power versus claiming procedural neutrality—but assessments differ based on the underlying political interests and the institutional venues available [7] [1].
7. The big picture: entrenched advantages, contested remedies, and uneven oversight
Taken together, recent reporting and scholarship through September 2025 show that partisan gerrymandering remains pervasive, with Republicans frequently achieving net systemic gains and Democrats securing tactical wins in certain states; remedies are uneven and hinge on state-level politics and courts. The split between federal abdication and state variation ensures that future map cycles will continue to be high-stakes political contests, with outcomes shaped as much by judicial philosophies and ballot rules as by raw partisan strategy [2] [3] [4].