How has state political control shifted in the US since 2020?
Executive summary
Since 2020 the balance of state political control has trended toward greater Republican dominance of state governments even as presidential battlegrounds have fluctuated: Republicans have retained and in some places expanded control of state legislatures and governorships, while several states moved rightward in presidential vote share between 2020 and 2024, even as a handful of swing states continued to oscillate [1] redistricting-maps-vis" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">[2] [3]. Those shifts have been amplified by post‑2020 efforts over redistricting, reapportionment and voting‑law changes that reshape where and how state control translates into political power [4] [2] [5].
1. Republican consolidation at the state level
Republicans entered the post‑2020 era with—and have sustained—a structural advantage in state governments: they've maintained a majority of state legislative chambers and governorships nationwide, translating into more opportunities to pass laws and control redistricting in many states [1] [2]. Major reporting and analyses since 2020 document Republicans having "full control of government in more states," a fact that increases their leverage over map‑drawing and state policy even where federal or presidential outcomes differ [2].
2. Presidential maps: a rightward shift after 2020
Between 2020 and 2024 most states moved toward the Republican presidential nominee, with exit‑poll and state‑by‑state analyses finding that "all but two" of declared states shifted toward Donald Trump and that numerous states swung hard to the right compared with 2020 margins [3] [6]. National trackers and analysts noted that key 2020 pickup states for Democrats—Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin—remain competitive, but many states that were closer in 2020 showed clear redward movements in 2024 [7] [8].
3. The swing‑state story: durable volatility
The mechanics of change vary by state: some long‑standing swing states only nudged relative to the national vote while others—Georgia and Arizona among them in 2020—moved more dramatically and then partly reverted or continued to oscillate, reinforcing the idea that swing states are by definition more volatile than the nation [9] [8]. Political scientists and forecasters caution that these patterns reflect durable divisions in certain states rather than a simple national realignment, with many states nevertheless voting for the same party across multiple presidential cycles [10] [11].
4. Structural levers: redistricting and reapportionment
The 2020 Census and subsequent map fights reshaped political opportunity: reapportionment shifted congressional seats toward fast‑growing Sun Belt states such as Texas and Florida, altering the stakes of state control and increasing the importance of governorships and legislatures for congressional advantage [4]. At the same time, Republicans’ greater state control has given them more chances to draw favorable maps, and Democrats have in some places turned to independent commissions or ballot initiatives to blunt that power—creating a national tug‑of‑war over map authority [2].
5. Rule changes and the weaponization of election law
Political control at the state level has also been exercised through changes to voting rules: after 2020 a concerted set of proposals and enacted laws—particularly from Republican lawmakers—targeted mail‑in voting, drop boxes, absentee procedures and election administration, with the explicit aim of reshaping who votes and how votes are counted [5]. Those changes are part policy, part strategic response to 2020’s controversies, and they feed back into state control by altering turnout and administration in future contests [5] [2].
6. What remains uncertain and where reporting is limited
Public sources show a clear pattern—Republican advantages in state governments, rightward shifts in many states’ presidential margins since 2020, and aggressive post‑census redistricting and voting‑law efforts [1] [3] [4] [5]—but available reporting does not definitively attribute every seat change to one cause over another; demographic change, turnout dynamics, campaign strategy and national tides all interact, and the sources note regional variation and enduring competitiveness in many swing states [8] [11].