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.
Do Republican-run cities have higher violent crime rates than Democratic-run cities after controlling for population and poverty?
Executive summary
Recent, peer-reviewed and journalistic analyses find little evidence that a mayor’s party alone predicts a city’s violent-crime rate after accounting for population and poverty; a January 2025 multi‑city study of 400 cities found mayoral party “made little difference” for crime and policing [1]. Multiple fact-checks and research briefs warn that raw comparisons between “red” and “blue” cities confuse correlation with causation and are sensitive to unit of analysis (city, county, or state) and sample selection [2] [3] [4].
1. The headline finding: party of the mayor is a weak predictor of city crime
A peer-reviewed research program that tracked 400 medium and large U.S. cities over nearly three decades concluded that the political affiliation of mayors “made little difference when it comes to crime rates and policing,” a finding summarized by Harvard and repeated in several outlets [1] [2]. Harvard’s Ash Center also emphasizes that mayors have limited leverage over police budgets and arrest patterns in ways that consistently produce detectable partisan differences [3].
2. Why simple comparisons mislead: population distribution and sampling choices matter
Many widely circulated charts showing higher violent crime in Democrat‑run cities reflect the fact that large urban jurisdictions—where crime rates historically differ from rural areas—tend to elect Democrats; the top 100 cities in 2024 were disproportionately led by Democrats, which skews raw averages [2] [5]. Analysts warn that whether you analyze at the city, county or state level, or which set of places you include, can flip the narrative: county‑level and state‑level results sometimes point the other way [4].
3. Poverty, density and other confounders drive much of the variation
Researchers and commentators stress that structural factors—poverty, inequality, housing, segregation, and firearm prevalence—are primary drivers of violent crime differences across places. Studies testing mayoral party while controlling for population size and poverty generally find no robust partisan effect; blaming party control alone conflates correlation with causation [3] [1].
4. Mixed evidence at other geographic scales: states and police agencies
When analysts shift to state-level comparisons, patterns can reverse: some reporting shows higher murder rates in states led by Republican governors, while other reviews highlight that many high‑violence localities are concentrated in otherwise Democratic states [6] [4]. Investigations of specific police agencies and metropolitan areas (for example, Memphis) reveal extremely high rates that are not neatly explained by mayoral party [7] [6].
5. Media and partisan actors use selective snapshots for political narratives
Fact‑checking outlets and academic centers document frequent misuse of crime statistics in political messaging: both parties have advanced one‑sided interpretations—Republicans pointing at high‑crime Democratic cities, and others pointing to high crime in Republican jurisdictions—often by cherry‑picking years, measures, or samples [2] [3] [5]. Project Syndicate and Newsweek pieces illustrate how selective examples (e.g., Memphis or New Mexico) are used to justify opposite claims [7] [8].
6. What rigorous studies do (and don’t) show
Careful longitudinal work that follows many cities and controls for socioeconomic variables finds no consistent causal effect of mayoral party on violent crime or policing outcomes over decades [1] [3]. These studies do not claim politics has zero influence on public safety—only that simple partisan labels for mayors are not a reliable causal explanation in aggregate [1]. Available sources do not mention experimental or quasi‑experimental evidence proving the opposite.
7. Practical takeaway for readers and policymakers
Policymakers and voters should focus on place‑specific drivers—poverty reduction, gun policy, policing resources and practices, housing, and social services—rather than relying on party labels as shorthand for safety outcomes; cross‑city comparisons need consistent controls for population, poverty, and reporting practices to be meaningful [3] [1]. Be skeptical of headlines or charts that don’t disclose sample selection, the unit of analysis, or controls for socioeconomic context [2] [4].
Limitations and open questions: existing analyses in the provided coverage focus on mayoral party and broader partisan control; available sources do not mention every possible control variable or alternative statistical specifications readers might want to see, and there remains debate about how best to operationalize “crime” and geographic aggregation [1] [4].