Fact check: How do red states' gerrymandering tactics compare to those in blue states since 2015?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, both red and blue states have actively engaged in gerrymandering tactics since 2015, though with varying degrees of effectiveness and impact. The evidence shows this is fundamentally a bipartisan issue affecting the entire political landscape.

Republican gerrymandering efforts have proven more strategically effective, with sources indicating that Republican tactics have secured approximately 16 House seats advantage in the 2024 race ^[1]. Key red states leading these efforts include:

• Texas - described as having some of the worst gerrymandering examples, using advanced computer algorithms to maintain Republican advantages despite growing Democratic populations ^[2]
• Florida - identified as another major contributor to Republican gerrymandering advantages ^{[2] [1]}
• North Carolina - noted as a significant contributor to Republican gerrymandering benefits ^[1]

Democratic gerrymandering efforts are also documented but appear less effective overall. Sources show that Democratic gerrymandering efforts, while present, are less effective and less reliable than those of Republicans ^[1]. Key blue state activities include:

• Illinois - has created maps that skew districts in Democrats' favor as part of what sources describe as "an endless cycle" ^[2]
• California - has proposed redrawing maps to help Democrats pick up five additional U.S. House seats in response to Texas actions ^[3]
• New York - actively engaged in gerrymandering tactics alongside California ^[4]

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several crucial contextual elements that significantly impact understanding of gerrymandering since 2015:

Legal and institutional changes: The Supreme Court's 2019 decision removed guardrails against gerrymandering, allowing states to engage in more extreme partisan redistricting ^[2]. This represents a pivotal moment that fundamentally changed the gerrymandering landscape, yet only 17 states have express partisan fairness requirements in their state constitutions or laws ^[1].

Technological advancement impact: Modern gerrymandering has become more egregious in recent years due to advanced computer algorithms allowing for more precise manipulation of district boundaries ^[2]. This technological evolution has made contemporary gerrymandering far more sophisticated than historical practices.

Reform efforts and solutions: Some states have implemented independent redistricting commissions to reduce partisan influence, including Virginia and Arizona ^[2]. The proposed Freedom to Vote Act would have prohibited partisan gerrymandering and established objective baselines for evaluating map fairness, though this legislation did not pass ^[1].

Specific legal challenges: Multiple court cases have addressed gerrymandering across various states, including Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina, indicating ongoing legal battles beyond the most publicized cases ^[5].

Public opinion context: Sources indicate that public opinion favors fair maps regardless of political affiliation, suggesting the issue transcends partisan preferences among voters ^[2].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself does not contain explicit misinformation, but it may inadvertently promote several biased assumptions:

False equivalency implication: By asking for a direct comparison, the question might suggest that red and blue state gerrymandering efforts are equally effective or impactful. However, the evidence clearly shows that Republican gerrymandering tactics have been more strategically successful, providing concrete electoral advantages that Democratic efforts have not matched ^[1].

Oversimplified framing: The question treats gerrymandering as a simple red vs. blue issue, potentially obscuring the fact that this represents a systemic problem affecting democratic representation rather than just partisan gamesmanship. The focus on party competition might distract from the broader democratic implications.

Temporal bias: By focusing specifically on the period since 2015, the question may miss important context about how technological advances and legal changes (particularly the 2019 Supreme Court decision) have fundamentally altered the gerrymandering landscape ^[2].

Missing stakeholder analysis: The question doesn't acknowledge who benefits from perpetuating gerrymandering practices. Political parties, incumbent politicians, and special interest groups all have financial and power-based incentives to maintain