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.
Are there demographic disparities in SNAP usage between conservative and liberal states?
Executive summary
Available reporting shows measurable geographic differences in SNAP enrollment and benefit levels across states and regions, with the South holding the largest share of recipients (39%) and some states (New Mexico, Louisiana) having about 1-in-5 residents on SNAP [1] [2]. But survey and academic work indicate that individual ideology or partisan identity alone does not straightforwardly predict whether low‑income people take SNAP — participation among conservatives and liberals can be similar depending on policy context (work requirements) and messaging [3] [4].
1. Snapshots: Where SNAP use is concentrated — region and state patterns
State and regional data show clear geographic disparities: the South accounted for 39% of all SNAP households as of May 2025, the national average monthly benefit that month was $188.45 per person and $350.89 per household, and states such as New Mexico and Louisiana had much higher per‑capita participation (about 1 in 5 residents) than the national average of roughly 1 in 8 [1] [2]. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ state fact sheets offer state‑by‑state breakdowns that reporters and researchers use to track these differences [5].
2. Partisan geography vs. individual ideology: two different questions
Be careful to separate “conservative vs. liberal states” from “conservative vs. liberal people.” A 2013 Pew survey found that self‑described conservatives were no more likely than liberals or moderates to have received food stamps — 17% across ideological groups in that survey — suggesting ideology at the individual level did not correspond to large differences in past SNAP receipt [3]. Academic research out of Cornell likewise shows that low‑income conservatives accepted federal assistance at similar rates to their liberal counterparts when work requirements were in place, while changes in rules (for example waiving work requirements) produced different uptake trends across liberal and conservative states [4].
3. Policy rules change behavior: the role of work requirements and administration
Researchers exploiting the period when work requirements were waived (post‑2009) found participation rose in both liberal and conservative states but the magnitude and trajectory differed — participation eventually increased more in liberal states than conservative states in that study period; when a work requirement was in effect, enrollment was “about the same” across ideologies [4]. This indicates that state policy choices and federal administrative rules — not just innate partisan culture — drive observable differences in state-level participation.
4. Politics, messaging and practical constraints shape the picture
Political leaders and federal agencies influence both access and public narratives. Recent federal actions and disputes during the 2025 shutdown altered benefit flows and highlighted how administration choices can create sudden disparities in who actually receives benefits month‑to‑month [6] [7]. Advocacy, partisan messaging, and how programs are framed — for example emphasizing community benefit vs. individual handouts — also affect whether people apply for or accept assistance, according to experimental and marketing‑framing research cited by Cornell [4].
5. Partisan outcome: red/blue breakdowns and practical reality
Analyses that map SNAP recipients into “red” and “blue” geographies show that many Republican‑represented areas also contain large numbers of SNAP households (one analysis found high absolute counts in Republican senators’ states and congressional districts), so political affiliation of state government does not neatly predict absence of need [8] [9]. The takeaway is that both red and blue jurisdictions can have large caseloads; differences are often about poverty rates, employment, demographics and policy choices rather than simple ideology [10] [5].
6. What reporting does not settle — gaps and limitations
Available sources document state‑by‑state caseloads and how policy shifts change participation, but they do not offer a single, up‑to‑date apples‑to‑apples statistical model in these search results that attributes disparities solely to state partisanship after controlling for income, demographics, and policy variables — “not found in current reporting.” Nor do the snippets provide a unified recent peer‑reviewed estimate of participation rates in strictly “conservative” versus “liberal” states after accounting for work rules and administration changes [5] [4].
7. Bottom line for readers
There are clear geographic disparities in SNAP usage and benefit levels across states and regions (higher shares in parts of the South and specific states like New Mexico and Louisiana), but the simple claim “conservative states have lower SNAP usage because people are conservative” is not supported by the sources: individual ideology does not automatically predict program take‑up, and state policy choices (work requirements, administration and recent federal actions) are major drivers of observable differences [1] [2] [3] [4].