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: Which states have the most extreme examples of partisan gerrymandering in 2025?
Executive Summary
By late 2025, the most extreme, widely reported examples of partisan gerrymandering center on Texas, Missouri, Utah, Ohio and, to a lesser degree, California — states where recent maps, legal fights, and political strategies aim to entrench one party’s advantage. Federal litigation and a pending Supreme Court decision on the Voting Rights Act’s Section 2 are amplifying stakes: courts are now a primary battleground determining whether maps that critics call “rigged” will stand [1] [2] [3].
1. Why Texas looks like the lightning rod for modern map fights — lawsuits are piling up
Texas has emerged as a focal point because its newly drawn congressional districts prompted federal litigation alleging intentional dilution of minority voting power and explicit partisan advantage, which plaintiffs argue violates the Voting Rights Act and constitutional principles. The state defends the maps as lawful attempts to reflect political geography and to preserve Republican representation, but the October 2025 federal court case marks a turning point: judges will evaluate whether mapmakers prioritized partisan outcomes over legal mandates [1] [4]. This legal conflict illustrates how litigation, not just legislatures, determines whether aggressive redistricting survives scrutiny.
2. Missouri: a high-profile example where redistricting debates intersect with racial equity concerns
Missouri’s 2025 redistricting fight received attention for GOP efforts that critics say would advantage Republicans while undermining Black voters’ influence in Kansas City, framing the dispute as both partisan and racial. Coverage in September 2025 described a deliberate Republican push to reshape districts to secure future elections, with opponents warning the maps could reduce minority-preferred representation [2]. This portrays Missouri as emblematic of redistricting that combines political calculus with demographic targeting, putting the state at the center of national alarms about discriminatory map-drawing practices.
3. Utah’s strategy: engineering to retain seats despite court rebukes
Utah’s Republican-controlled process demonstrates another extreme approach: after a court required a fairer map, state lawmakers advanced a new congressional plan designed to keep all four Republican seats intact. The October 2025 reporting highlighted a deliberate effort to circumvent judicial guidance while preserving partisan outcomes, showing how legislatures can push back against court-ordered adjustments and reassert control of maps [5]. Utah’s case underscores a pattern where fast legislative responses aim to neutralize judicial remedies, escalating cycle-of-maps-and-lawsuits dynamics.
4. Ohio and California: lock-in tactics and the national redistricting playbook
Reporting through late 2025 points to Ohio and California as states where mapmakers have pursued “lock-in” strategies—redesigning districts to make general elections noncompetitive while shifting influence toward primary voters—effectively cementing one-party control. Observers highlight tactics such as closing primaries and drawing safe districts, which together produce entrenched seats and reduced electoral accountability [4]. In California the focus is usually on Democratic-drawn lines that protect incumbents, while Ohio’s maneuvers have been emblematic of Republican consolidation; both illustrate how different parties can deploy similar mechanics to the same effect.
5. The Supreme Court shadow: Section 2 and a potential nationwide shift in 2025–2026
A pending Supreme Court matter — framed in September–October 2025 analyses around Louisiana v. Callais and other Section 2 questions — could reshape redistricting by altering how courts assess racial vote dilution claims. Analysts warned that a decision weakening Section 2 could permit more partisan maps that currently are constrained by race-based protections, potentially translating into a net gain of congressional seats for Republicans and a long-term shift in House control [3] [6]. This legal possibility elevates state map fights into a national contest over the rules that govern map legality.
6. Competing narratives: partisanship, race, and institutional defense of maps
Media and political actors frame these state cases differently: Republicans and some state officials present maps as rightful political representation or adherence to census-driven shifts, while critics—civil rights groups, Democratic officials, and some scholars—describe the same maps as rigging outcomes and diluting minority votes. Coverage across 2025 shows these competing narratives are amplified by strategic litigation and high-stakes political messaging, with each side leveraging courts, public opinion, and procedural tools to validate their maps [7] [4]. The result is not merely conflicting claims, but coordinated campaigns to entrench preferred interpretations of legitimacy.
7. Bottom line: where the most extreme gerrymanders are happening and why it matters
Synthesizing late-2025 reporting, the most extreme examples of partisan gerrymandering are concentrated in Texas, Missouri, Utah, Ohio, and California, each for distinct but overlapping reasons: litigation over minority vote dilution in Texas and Missouri, legislative countermeasures in Utah, lock-in tactics in Ohio and California, and a high-stakes Supreme Court backdrop that could change legal constraints nationwide. These dynamics matter because they determine who wins seats independently of voter preference, shaping Congressional control prospects for the 2026 cycle and beyond if the courts do not reassert stricter limits [1] [2] [3].