The debate surrounding partisan gerrymandering in the United States has intensified, with a recent social media post from "Appodlachia" querying which major political party has made the practice a "hallmark of their strategy to gain and insulate political power." This query highlights a long-standing and contentious issue in American democracy, particularly following the decennial census and subsequent redistricting processes. Gerrymandering, the manipulation of electoral district boundaries to favor one political party, has been a feature of U.S. politics for centuries, evolving with technological advancements. As Appodlachia stated, > "We're all trying to find the major political party — who has made gerrymandering a hallmark of their strategy to gain and insulate political power in the United States — who did this."
Historically, both Republican and Democratic parties have engaged in gerrymandering to secure electoral advantages. However, the Republican Party's "REDMAP" (Redistricting Majority Project) initiative, launched after the 2010 census, is widely cited as a particularly effective and strategic effort. This project focused on winning control of state legislatures in key states, thereby gaining the power to redraw congressional and state legislative maps. The strategic use of advanced mapping software allowed for precise district configurations designed to maximize partisan gains.
The impact of REDMAP was significant, contributing to a net gain of approximately 19 Republican congressional seats between 2012 and 2016, even in elections where Democratic candidates collectively received more votes nationally. This strategy aimed to create "safe" districts, insulating incumbents and reducing electoral competition. While Democrats have also pursued aggressive gerrymandering tactics in states where they hold legislative control, such as Illinois and New York, the scale and coordination of REDMAP post-2010 are frequently emphasized in analyses of partisan power consolidation.
The U.S. Supreme Court's 2019 ruling in Rucho v. Common Cause declared partisan gerrymandering cases non-justiciable in federal courts, effectively shifting the battleground to state courts. This decision has led to varied outcomes across states, with some state courts rejecting partisan maps while others have upheld them. The ongoing state-by-state legal and political struggles underscore the persistent challenge of ensuring fair representation and competitive elections in the face of partisan redistricting efforts.
The persistent question of which party has made gerrymandering a central strategy continues to fuel discussions about electoral fairness and the responsiveness of elected officials. Efforts towards independent redistricting commissions and other reforms are ongoing, seeking to mitigate the impact of partisan map-drawing and foster a more representative political landscape.