Which Tennessee districts have been accused of gerrymandering?
Executive summary
Federal and state challenges and reporting allege Tennessee’s congressional map — especially the plan that split Nashville across multiple districts — was a partisan gerrymander drawn by the Republican-controlled legislature; a federal appeals court found it was a political gerrymander but not a racial one and allowed the map to stand [1] [2]. State legislative maps have also been litigated: a trial court struck some state Senate maps while upholding House districts, and the Tennessee Supreme Court later overturned a lower-court injunction on Senate maps [3] [4].
1. Nashville at the center: which congressional districts drew accusations
Critics and multiple outlets singled out the congressional districts that contain parts of Nashville — the redrawn seats from the 2022 map that split Davidson County among three congressional districts — as the focal point of accusations that lawmakers “cracked” the city to dilute urban and Black voting strength [1] [5]. Ballotpedia and The New York Times reporting describe Tennessee’s post‑2020 congressional map as intentionally dispersing Nashville into neighboring, overwhelmingly Republican districts so that the city’s Democratic-leaning vote would have less influence on House delegation outcomes [1] [4].
2. Federal court ruling: political gerrymander acknowledged, race not found
A three-judge federal panel dismissed a challenge to the U.S. House map in August 2024, concluding the map was drawn with political motives — a political gerrymander — but did not meet legal standards for a racial gerrymander under existing law, and therefore could remain in place [2]. Tennessee Lookout’s summary emphasizes that the court found evidence consistent with partisan intent but ruled that political gerrymandering, unlike racial gerrymandering, is permissible under current federal precedent [2].
3. State legislative maps: litigation and mixed outcomes
State-level litigation over Tennessee’s legislative maps has produced mixed rulings: a trial court struck down certain state Senate maps as violating the state constitution while upholding House districts, and the Tennessee Supreme Court later overturned a lower-court injunction against the state Senate districts, showing ongoing legal contention over how district lines were drawn [3] [4]. Ballotpedia documents lawmakers’ actions and quotes from Democratic lawmakers who labeled the new maps “partisan gerrymanders,” signaling partisan disagreement within state politics [4].
4. Who is accusing whom — partisan framing and public responses
Accusations have come largely from Democratic lawmakers, local observers and advocacy groups who argue the maps were crafted to favor Republicans and minimize Nashville’s representation; Republican sponsors defended the plans during floor debate, saying the maps were lawful and not intended as partisan gerrymanders [4] [2]. Media analysis and opinion pieces frame the Republican‑controlled legislature as the drafter of maps that shift Nashville’s electorate into surrounding rural districts to preserve GOP seats [5] [1].
5. Legal limits and what the rulings mean for voters
The federal ruling that a map is politically gerrymandered but not racially discriminatory has practical consequences: it upholds the map for the decade unless higher courts or new legal standards change, meaning the challenged districts will likely remain in place through the next census cycle [2]. Available sources do not mention a definitive statewide remedy or legislative reform enacted in direct response to these rulings; sources note public plans and proposals submitted during the 2021–22 redistricting process but show the legislature ultimately enacted maps and faced court challenges [6] [7].
6. Competing perspectives and hidden agendas
Reporting shows a clear partisan split: Democrats and some local advocates portray the maps as deliberate disenfranchisement of urban and Black voters in Nashville, while Republican map sponsors contend legality and compliance; the judiciary found partisan intent but applied the existing legal framework that differentiates political from racial gerrymandering [4] [2]. Watch for vested political incentives: the Republican majority that drew the maps benefits electorally from dispersing Democratic voters, and Democratic challengers have both representational and political motives in opposing those lines [1] [5].
7. What remains unanswered in current reporting
Sources document the districts tied to accusations — notably the Nashville‑splitting congressional seats and contested state Senate districts — and court outcomes, but available sources do not mention specific remedial maps adopted after the federal ruling or new statutory reforms passed by Tennessee altering the redistricting process in response [2] [3]. Continued litigation, legislative action, or changes in federal jurisprudence could alter the landscape in coming years; for now, the contested maps remain largely intact [2].