Did the Republicans or Democrats Start the Gerrymandering Fight?
Shawn GriffithsThe 2026 midterm election cycle is quickly approaching. However, there is a lingering question mark over what congressional maps will look like when voters start to cast their ballots, especially as Republicans and Democrats fight to obtain any electoral advantage possible.
The mid-decade redistricting fight now reshaping the 2026 U.S. House map is not a normal partisan tussle. It’s an openly declared arms race in which each side claims that extreme map-drawing is necessary to stop the other side’s extreme map-drawing.
Both sides point the finger at their political opponents and claim, "they started it," Meanwhile, voters are treated as nothing more than collateral damage. So, the obvious question many may be asking is, who did start it?
Well, in 2025, it was Texas Republicans that kicked things off by moving forward with a new congressional map that could take up to 5 seats away from Democrats. Then, California Democrats quickly followed in an effort to “fight fire with fire” to nullify any party losses in the Lone Star State.
But to fully understand gerrymandering in the U.S., it is important to zoom out.
Gerrymandering is nothing new. In fact, it has a long history dating back to the early years of the republic when the term "gerry-mander" was used for the first time in 1812 to describe Massachusetts Senate redistricting under Gov. Elbridge Gerry that favored the Democratic-Republican Party.
At the time, the Boston Gazette noted that one district, in particular, looked like a salamander. (Hence the term "gerrymander.")
Since the creation of the modern Republican and Democratic Parties, both have redrawn electoral maps in states they control to protect and grow their majorities, distorting and creating oddly shaped districts in the process to "crack and pack" (as it is called) political opposition into as few districts as possible.
Or at least, to the extent that they can get away with.
Gerrymandering has been used in the U.S. to target specific political groups (partisan gerrymandering) and racial demographics (racial gerrymandering).
The reason 2025 stands out is because politicians are starting to say the quiet part out of loud: This is not about representation; it is about power – and those in power are now comfortable openly weaponizing gerrymandering as a national political strategy ahead of any election cycle.
In 2025, It Was Texas Republicans Who Lit the Fuse
Over the summer, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott – pushed by President Donald Trump – called a special session to redraw the state’s congressional map, which already heavily favored the GOP. The goal was blunt: lock in up to 5 new Republican seats before the midterms.
“We have an opportunity in Texas to pick up 5 seats. We have a really good governor, and we have good people in Texas. And I won Texas,” Trump said. “I got the highest vote in the history of Texas, as you probably know, and we are entitled to five more seats.”
Abbott and state legislators echoed the sentiment, calling the mid-decade gerrymander a “correction” to align with the will of Texas voters. Republicans already hold two-thirds of the state’s congressional delegation. Adding 5 seats would make it 79%.
Notably, Republican statewide victories in recent elections haven’t come anywhere close to either two-thirds of the vote or 79%, and though Texas voters do not register by party, voter data suggests Republicans may not have the majority with the electorate they claim.
Texas Democrats responded to the redistricting effort by initially fleeing the state to prevent quorum in the legislature, which ultimately led to Abbott calling for a second special session to pass the new maps.
What made the move extraordinary wasn’t just the scale – it was the timing. Mid-decade redistricting is historically rare, usually triggered by court orders. Texas acted voluntarily, treating mapmaking itself as a partisan weapon.
California Strikes Back with Prop 50 and the Suspension of an Independent Map
Not long after Trump called on Texas to redraw its maps, Gov. Gavin Newsom publicly stated that California would respond with its own gerrymander, threatening to take 5 seats from Republicans if Texas took 5 seats from Democrats.
Newsom sent a letter to Trump, framing the Texas redistricting as “playing with fire” and said he would keep California’s independent map in place if Texas and other Republican-controlled states abandoned mid-decade redistricting.
When Texas advanced its plans, Newsom escalated, vowing to “fight fire with fire.” He backed a legislative package to replace California’s independent congressional map – which was an easy thing to pass with the Democratic majority in the legislature.
Texas and California suddenly shifted the conversation on gerrymandering and partisan redistricting from being a state-by-state issue to a national confrontation where one state’s representation could be influenced by another state’s actions.
On November 4, 2025, California voters approved the legislative-drawn congressional gerrymander under Proposition 50, which:
- Suspends the Citizens Redistricting Commission’s congressional authority through 2030.
- Enacts a legislature-drawn map projected to give Democrats up to 5 additional seats and 92% of California’s congressional delegation
- Was sold not just as a response to Texas redistricting but as a referendum on Trump.
California Republicans, who could lose 5 out of the 9 congressional seats they currently hold, immediately sued, arguing the new map is an unconstitutional racial and partisan gerrymander. However, the odds of litigation success are low.
Prior to the November 4 special elections, injunctions were filed to stop the issue from going before voters, including by Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton. The courts did not intervene then and they won’t likely intervene now.
In Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), the U.S. Supreme Court wrote that “partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts.” In other words, the high court would not police partisan gerrymandering.
This, on its own, presented an opportunity for the current 2025 mid-decade redistricting fight and aggressive gerrymanders, even though the court also admitted that partisan gerrymandering may be “incompatible with democratic principles.”
The Fire Spreads: States Already Moving Maps
This fight is not just about Texas vs. California. At the behest of national political leaders and influential figures, more states are feeling the pressure to get involved before voters have a chance to cast a ballot in the 2026 midterms.
States that have already enacted new congressional maps mid-decade
- Texas (R-controlled)
Gov. Abbott signed into law a mid-decade map aimed at increasing Republican seats. It is facing legal and political challenges, but is designed to lock in a larger GOP majority in the U.S. House.
- California (D-controlled)
Voters approved a new congressional map under Prop 50, drawn by the Democratic-controlled legislature, which is projected to flip up to 5 seats to Democrats.
- North Carolina (R-controlled)
Republicans passed another new map in 2025 shifting at least one Democratic district (NC-1) to likely GOP, potentially moving the congressional delegation from a 10-4 GOP advantage to 11–3.
- Missouri (R-controlled)
Gov. Mike Kehoe signed HB 1, a mid-decade congressional remap expected to further entrench GOP advantages
- Ohio (R-influenced commission)
The Ohio Redistricting Commission unanimously approved a new map on Oct. 31, 2025, that will likely shift the congressional delegation to a 12–3 GOP advantage. Ohio is the only state required by law in 2025 to redraw its maps.
Across these states, the pattern is consistent: whichever party controls the machinery uses mid-decade redistricting to squeeze out 1-5 seats. These are margins that could decide congressional control.
The Next Wave: States Considering or Pressured to Join
Several states are now in play with less than two months to go until the 2026 midterms – some pushed by Republicans, some by Democrats, some by courts.
- Maryland (D-controlled):
Gov. Wes Moore launched an advisory commission to propose new maps ahead of 2026, explicitly linking the effort to countering Trump-aligned redistricting elsewhere and condemning “political redlining.” Democrats currently hold all but one congressional seat in the state.
- Florida (R-controlled), Indiana (R-controlled), Kansas (R-controlled), Virginia (D-controlled):
Legislative leaders and party strategists have publicly floated or initiated steps toward re-drawing maps, citing the need not to “fall behind” in the gerrymandering fight. Ballotpedia and NCSL track exploratory actions and special-session talk.
Court-driven or hybrid battlegrounds
- Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Tennessee, Utah (All R-controlled) and others face ongoing litigation that could force new maps before 2026, adding another layer of mid-decade changes – some framed as compliance with voting-rights rulings, others criticized as partisan overreach.
The Gerrymandering Fight Didn't Start in 2025 and It Won't End There Either
If the question is, “Who began the 2025 mid-decade gerrymandering race that treats voters as pawns in a national power struggle?” The most direct answer is: Texas Republicans, prodded by Trump and his national allies.
California Democrats then made the fight bipartisan by suspending their own model independent system (specifically for their congressional map) via Prop 50 and justifying a legislative gerrymander as a defensive necessity.
But if the question is “Who started using maps as partisan weapons in ways that undermine voters?” The honest answer is: Both parties, over decades, enabled by court decisions, weak guardrails, and a political culture that rewards national advantage over local representation.
What voters are witnessing in 2025 is not only the hyper-nationalization of U.S. House control, but also the consequences of a system that for decades has made elections solely about who benefits between two private political corporations: The Republican and Democratic Parties.
Many of the states that have redrawn their maps or are considering a mid-decade redraw have already received failing grades from the Princeton Gerrymandering Project. Texas, for example, had an ‘F’ grade in partisan fairness before its more aggressive 2025 gerrymander.
The same can be said for North Carolina, Ohio, Florida, and states Democrats have called on to join the fight, like Illinois.
Other states, like California, have shown a willingness to compromise their model statuses to respond to the actions of the “other side.” California had an overall ‘B’ grade for its congressional map. Princeton gave Prop 50 an ‘F.’
Republicans point the finger at Democrats and say, “They rigged the rules first and we need to protect our majority.” Democrats turn around and accuse Trump and his Republican allies of being a “threat to democracy,” thus justifying their own gerrymander.
Both sides claim that they are defending the integrity of elections by breaking the fundamental principles of what representative democracy is supposed to mean.
The rhetoric has become so explicit that nonpartisan reformers hardly need to translate anymore. What used to be back-room map manipulation is now front-page, openly embraced by governors and presidents alike.
You Might Also Like
