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.
Which party gerrymanders most
Executive Summary
Both major U.S. parties have engaged in gerrymandering, but multiple recent empirical studies and reporting show Republicans have produced more state-level gerrymanders in the last decade, roughly twice as many strong partisan advantages at the state-legislature level as Democrats, while litigation and isolated Democratic maps show both parties weaponize districting where they control the process [1] [2] [3]. The pattern varies by state, by legal context, and by the metric used to define a gerrymander; recent analyses of the 2020 redistricting cycle find clear Republican-controlled gerrymanders in multiple states while also documenting Democratic examples and widespread mixed or ambiguous cases [4] [5] [3].
1. What the major claims say — Republicans dominate recent gerrymanders, but both parties play
Multiple sources posit two central claims: first, that Republicans are responsible for more successful partisan gerrymanders in the modern era, and second, that Democrats also gerrymander where they control redistricting. The University of Virginia Center for Politics study measured “excess seats” and concluded that about twice as many state legislatures strongly favored Republicans compared with those favoring Democrats, a direct empirical claim that frames the recent balance of gerrymandering toward the GOP [1] [2]. Complementary reporting highlights contemporary GOP efforts to circumvent anti-gerrymandering reforms in places like Utah, showing partisan actors adapting tactics to preserve map advantages [3]. At the same time, independent and academic studies of the 2020 cycle document Democratic gerrymanders in some states, underscoring that the problem is bipartisan in occurrence if not symmetric in scale [4] [5].
2. Recent empirical evidence: the double‑Republican pattern and how it was measured
The most-cited empirical work in these materials used post‑2020 election results to compute excess-seat edges and partisan bias across 48 states, finding 25 states where Republican maps strongly exaggerated Republican presidential vote shares into legislative seats versus 11 for Democrats; that ratio underpins the conclusion that Republicans achieved a larger aggregate map advantage in the 2020–22 cycle [1] [2]. The Election Law Journal study assessing the 2020 Census redistricting cycle reached compatible conclusions: GOP-controlled processes produced multiple clear partisan gerrymanders, while Democrats produced fewer, and nonpartisan authorities rarely produced maps showing clear bias [4]. These studies are recent (2023 and 2025 analyses) and rely on cross-state statistical comparisons rather than case-by-case legal adjudications [1] [4].
3. Case studies and news reporting: tactics, countermeasures, and the Utah example
Journalistic reporting documents how partisan actors adapt to legal and institutional constraints. Coverage of Utah describes Republican legislative maneuvers to circumvent a voter‑approved independent commission and to replace judicial review with partisan bias tests—moves described as efforts to game reform mechanisms and retain map control [3]. These narratives illustrate how gerrymandering outcomes depend not just on vote geography but on legislative incentives, statutory design, and ongoing policy fights over who draws maps. The reporting supports the empirical studies by showing on-the-ground political strategies that produce the statistical patterns researchers report, particularly in states where one party controls the map process [3] [1].
4. Litigation, mixed evidence, and the limits of simple tallies
Post‑2020 litigation documents a complex mix: reports show many redistricting lawsuits combining racial and partisan claims, with Republicans more frequently sued for racial gerrymandering in some Southern states and Democrats sued in high-profile partisan cases like Maryland and New York [5]. A broad 2025 assessment concluded clear partisan gerrymandering in only a handful of states, mixed evidence in many others, and no evidence in several, reflecting measurement challenges and legal constraints on calling maps gerrymanders [6] [4]. This mixture means raw counts of “gerrymandered states” can hide nuance: legal standards, map metrics, and the interaction of race and partisanship all shape findings [4] [5].
5. Historical perspective and why past practices complicate attribution
Historical analyses emphasize that gerrymandering is an enduring, bipartisan practice dating back to the early Republic; districting has been used by different parties across eras to entrench power, complicating any simple present‑day attribution [7] [8]. Scholars note that the partisan balance of gerrymandering shifts with institutional reforms, wave elections, and national polarization; the prominence of Republican advantages in recent cycles reflects both strategic success and the particular geography of partisan sorting, not a unique or new invention by one party alone [9] [1]. This historical frame cautions against framing gerrymandering as exclusively one party’s practice even while acknowledging asymmetric outcomes in recent years [8] [2].
6. Bottom line: Republican advantage in recent cycles, but the problem is bipartisan and legally fraught
Synthesis of the provided analyses shows Republicans have engineered more state‑level gerrymanders in the most recent redistricting cycle, with roughly twice as many strong state‑level biases favoring GOP control in 2020–22 analyses, while Democrats also draw partisan maps where they control processes and both sides face legal challenge [1] [4] [5]. Measurement choices, legal outcomes, and regional specifics change the story in individual states, so the most accurate statement is that Republicans have had the larger aggregate advantage recently, but gerrymandering remains a bipartisan, contested practice whose scale depends on institutional rules and litigation [3] [9] [6].