Which party has benefited most from gerrymandering in recent decades?
Executive summary
Scholarly and advocacy analyses conclude that Republicans have held the bigger gerrymandering advantage in recent congressional cycles, driven by aggressive mapmaking in Southern and Midwestern GOP strongholds after the 2010 and 2020 censuses (Brennan Center) [1]. Other reputable voices — including Brookings and Princeton’s Gerrymandering Project — note regional variation and argue the aggregate advantage is contested; Brookings concludes “neither party currently enjoys a significant aggregate advantage” in the most recent measures [2] [3].
1. What the leading researchers say: Republicans gained an artificial head start
The Brennan Center’s analysis of the post-2020 redistricting cycle finds that, while both parties engaged in gerrymandering, “overall, the bias in this cycle’s maps strongly favors Republicans,” largely because of aggressive mapmaking in GOP-dominated states in the South and Midwest and deferential state courts in Republican states [1].
2. A prominent counter‑argument: the aggregate picture is muddier
Brookings’ analysis pushes back on the simple narrative that gerrymanders now systematically favor one party: it states that “neither party currently enjoys a significant aggregate advantage from gerrymandered districts,” arguing national vote-seat alignment in recent elections undermines a simple Republican‑bias claim [2]. That places emphasis on turnout, geography and incumbency as countervailing forces [2].
3. Mid‑decade fights and visible GOP initiatives
Reporting from The Guardian and contemporaneous redistricting events show Republicans led high-profile mid‑decade efforts — notably in Texas — to redraw maps to increase GOP seats; The Guardian documented a shift in Texas’ 2024 map that moved several districts toward Republicans and triggered federal challenges [4]. The 2025–26 redistricting wave is explicitly tied to a GOP push in some states to lock in more Republican‑leaning districts [5] [4].
4. Courts, legal doctrine, and the limits of federal policing
Legal constraints matter: the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision decades ago to treat partisan‑gerrymandering claims as political questions removed a principal federal remedy, leaving state courts and statutes to police maps (Britannica) [6]. Scholars and advocates note that where Republican legislatures draw maps and state judges are elected or deferential, GOP advantages can persist [1].
5. Democratic responses and parallel gerrymanders
The fight isn’t one‑sided. Democratic actors have responded — for example, California voters recently approved a map change to favor Democrats, and Democrats in some states have moved to redraw maps when they control government [5] [7]. The Brennan Center acknowledges both parties engaged in gerrymandering after the 2020 census even as Republicans gained a larger overall edge [1].
6. Independent scoring and algorithmic tools complicate claims of dominance
Independent projects like Princeton’s Gerrymandering Project produce quantitative scores and algorithmic baselines to detect partisan bias; such tools show that partisan manipulation varies by state and map, reinforcing that the advantage is not uniform and must be assessed state‑by‑state [3].
7. What the latest elections and litigation reveal (2024–25 snapshot)
Recent litigation has invalidated some GOP maps (for example, federal courts in Texas found racial‑gerrymandering issues), while the Supreme Court’s actions and stays have sometimes allowed contested maps to remain in place for elections — evidence that legal outcomes materially affect who benefits [5] [6]. News coverage after 2024–25 shows both losses and gains for Republicans, with litigation and voter initiatives reshaping the map landscape [7] [4].
8. Bottom line and caveats for readers
Available reporting and research indicate Republicans have typically reaped larger net advantages from gerrymandering in recent decades — especially after major redistricting cycles — but the aggregate story is contested: some analysts (Brookings) argue no significant current aggregate advantage, and state‑level litigation, ballot initiatives and independent mapping projects regularly alter the balance [1] [2] [3]. Limitations: national summaries mask state variation; available sources do not mention a definitive, universally accepted numerical measure of “most benefited” across all decades.
Sources cited above reflect contemporary academic, advocacy and press reporting (Brennan Center [1]; Brookings [2]; Princeton Gerrymandering Project [3]; Guardian and redistricting reporting [4]; 2025–26 redistricting context and court actions [5]; legal background [6]; New York Times synthesis of 2025 developments p1_s4).