Fact check: What states have the worst gerrymandering denying the other party representation based upon percentage of each party registration in each state?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, Wisconsin emerges as the most gerrymandered state in America, with Republican-drawn maps systematically favoring the party's candidates across districts ^[1]. The 11 worst gerrymandered states according to expert analysis are North Carolina, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Louisiana, Arkansas, Utah, Texas, Ohio, West Virginia, and Wisconsin ^[2].

Texas and Florida are consistently identified as having the worst examples of gerrymandering ^[3], with Texas actively planning to redraw congressional maps to extend Republican dominance ^[1]. North Carolina also appears prominently in multiple analyses as having severe gerrymandering issues ^{[2] [4]}.

The analyses reveal that both parties engage in gerrymandering, though with different approaches. While Republicans have more openly embraced the process, particularly in states like Texas ^[5], Democrats have also gerrymandered in states like Illinois, creating maps that skew districts in their favor as a response to Republican gerrymandering ^{[3] [5]}.

Specific examples of the worst gerrymanders include Salt Lake City, Nashville, Jacksonville, and narrow strips in Illinois ^[6]. The ACLU has documented 28 gerrymandering cases across states including Louisiana, New York, Mississippi, South Carolina, Alabama, and Colorado ^[7].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question focuses solely on partisan gerrymandering but omits the critical issue of racial gerrymandering, which is equally significant in denying representation. The analyses reveal that gerrymandering cases involve both partisan and racial discrimination ^[7], and the Supreme Court may strike down Voting Rights Act safeguards against racial gerrymandering ^[8].

The Supreme Court's role in enabling gerrymandering is completely absent from the original question. The Court's rulings have given states "increasingly unfettered power in redistricting" ^[1], and recent decisions suggest the Court plans to make gerrymandering even worse ^[8]. This institutional context is crucial for understanding why gerrymandering persists.

Legislative solutions are also missing from the discussion. The proposed Freedom to Vote Act would have prohibited partisan gerrymandering but failed to pass, resulting in maps that strongly favor Republicans in some states ^[4]. This shows there are potential remedies that powerful interests have blocked.

Both major political parties benefit from maintaining the current system in different states. Republican leadership benefits from gerrymandering in states like Texas, Florida, and North Carolina, while Democratic leadership benefits in states like Illinois. This creates a perverse incentive structure where neither party has motivation to end the practice nationally.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains an implicit assumption that gerrymandering can be measured simply by comparing "percentage of each party registration in each state." This oversimplifies the issue, as gerrymandering involves complex geographic manipulation of district boundaries that can't be captured by statewide registration percentages alone ^{[5] [9]}.

The question's framing suggests a false equivalency between parties, when the analyses clearly show that Republicans have more systematically and openly embraced gerrymandering as a strategy ^[5]. While both parties engage in the practice, the scale and openness differ significantly.

The question also implies that party registration is the primary metric for measuring fair representation, but this ignores other factors like racial gerrymandering and the complex legal standards established by the Voting Rights Act and "one person, one vote" precedent ^[1].

By focusing only on "denying the other party representation," the question minimizes the broader democratic harm of gerrymandering, which includes reducing competitive elections, entrenching incumbents, and undermining the principle that voters should choose their representatives rather than representatives choosing their voters ^[5].