Executive Summary
Gerrymandering, the manipulation of electoral district boundaries to favor one political party, remains a significant issue in American politics. Republican-controlled states like Texas and Indiana have pursued aggressive redistricting strategies to maximize partisan advantage, particularly following the 2020 census and in anticipation of the 2026 midterm elections. This white paper analyzes the potential losses for Democrats if Republican states gerrymander their congressional maps to the same extent as Democratic-controlled states. Based on historical data and current redistricting trends, Democrats could lose 5–15 seats across key states, potentially entrenching Republican control of the U.S. House of Representatives and complicating Democratic efforts to regain a majority in 2026 and beyond.
Introduction
Gerrymandering allows the party controlling a state’s redistricting process to manipulate district boundaries to maximize electoral advantage through techniques like “packing” (concentrating opposition voters into a few districts) and “cracking” (spreading opposition voters to dilute their influence). Following the 2010 elections, Republicans leveraged control of state legislatures to secure disproportionate House seats. After the 2020 census, Democrats countered with aggressive gerrymandering in states like Illinois and New York, resulting in a more balanced national outcome in 2022. However, Republican control of redistricting in states representing 187 congressional seats, compared to Democrats’ 75, provides Republicans with significant opportunities to gerrymander, particularly in states like Texas, Indiana, Ohio, Missouri, and North Carolina. This white paper assesses the potential impact on Democratic representation if Republican states gerrymander to the same degree as Democratic-controlled states.
Background: Gerrymandering in the United States
Gerrymandering has been a feature of American politics since 1812, when Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry signed a bill creating a salamander-shaped district to favor his party. Modern gerrymandering uses advanced technology and data analytics to draw precise district lines. The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2019 ruling in Rucho v. Common Cause declared partisan gerrymandering a political issue beyond federal court jurisdiction, leaving states largely free to pursue partisan redistricting within state law and Voting Rights Act constraints.
After the 2010 census, Republicans’ Redistricting Majority Project (REDMAP) secured a significant advantage in states like Texas and North Carolina. An Associated Press analysis found Republicans gained more seats relative to their vote share than Democrats. In 2020, Democrats in states like Illinois and New York drew maps to maximize their seats, creating a more competitive national landscape. As of 2025, mid-decade redistricting efforts in Republican states, prompted by political pressures and a favorable legal environment, threaten to shift this balance further.
The Scope of Republican Gerrymandering
Texas
Texas, with 38 congressional seats, is a key battleground for Republican redistricting. In 2025, Texas Republicans proposed a mid-decade redistricting plan to flip up to five Democratic-held seats in Houston, Dallas, Austin, and the Rio Grande Valley. This would increase the Republican delegation from 25–13 to potentially 30–8, despite Democrats receiving 46–48% of the statewide vote in recent elections. The proposed map uses “cracking” to dilute Democratic voters in urban areas and capitalizes on Republican gains among Hispanic voters.
If Texas gerrymanders to the level of Democratic states like Illinois (where Democrats hold 14 of 17 seats with roughly 55% of the vote), Republicans could secure an even greater advantage. Illinois’s Democratic gerrymander achieves an 82% seat share with a 55% vote share. Applying a similar efficiency gap in Texas, Republicans could aim for 32–33 seats (84–87% of the delegation) with 52–56% of the vote, resulting in Democrats losing 4–6 additional seats beyond the current proposal.
Indiana
Indiana, with 9 congressional seats, currently has a 7–2 Republican advantage. Republicans considered targeting the Democratic-held 1st District in northwest Indiana in 2021 but did not pursue it. If Indiana gerrymandered as aggressively as Democratic states like New York (where Democrats hold 19 of 26 seats with a 53% vote share), Republicans could eliminate the 1st District, creating an 8–1 or 9–0 map. This would cost Democrats 1–2 seats. The state’s Republican supermajority and lack of a gubernatorial veto make this feasible, though legal challenges under the Voting Rights Act could arise if minority representation is diminished.
Other Republican States
Other Republican-controlled states present additional opportunities for gerrymandering:
- Ohio: Republicans hold a 10–5 advantage but could target two Democratic toss-up seats, potentially yielding a 12–3 split.
- Missouri: The current 6–2 Republican map could target the Democratic-held 5th District in Kansas City, aiming for a 7–1 split.
- North Carolina: After a 2022 state Supreme Court shift, Republicans redrew maps to secure a 10–4 advantage, and further gerrymandering could eliminate one Democratic seat.
- Florida: Republicans transformed a 16–11 edge into a 20–8 advantage in 2022 and are considering mid-decade redistricting to gain additional seats.
If these states gerrymander to the level of Democratic states like New Mexico (where Democrats hold all 3 seats despite one being a toss-up), Republicans could gain 3–5 additional seats collectively.
Estimating Democratic Losses
Assuming Republican states gerrymander to match the partisan bias of Democratic states (e.g., an efficiency gap of 10–15%), Democrats could lose:
- Texas: 4–6 seats
- Indiana: 1–2 seats
- Ohio, Missouri, North Carolina, Florida, and others: 3–7 seats
- Total: 8–15 seats
This would shift the House baseline from a 220–215 Republican majority (post-2024) to a 228–230 Republican majority, significantly altering the national balance of power.
Conclusion
If Republican-controlled states like Texas, Indiana, and others gerrymander their congressional maps to the same degree as Democratic-controlled states, Democrats could face substantial losses in the U.S. House, potentially forfeiting 8–15 seats. This would entrench Republican control, making it challenging for Democrats to achieve a majority in 2026 and beyond. The disparity in redistricting control, combined with a legal environment that limits federal oversight of partisan gerrymandering, underscores the significant impact of these efforts on Democratic representation.
In 2018, my own state of Missouri passed a constitutional amendment which would’ve authorized the state demographer, operating under the auspices of the state auditor, to draw up legislative districts. It was billed to the voters as “Clean Missouri,” meaning to clean up corruption in elections. Despite Republican supermajorities in the state legislature (57% of the population, but over 66% of the legislature) and the victory of the Republican US Senate candidate, enough Teabrainers* fell for it and passed it. (It is way too easy to amend the Missouri constitution. Just takes a simple majority of the popular vote.)
The worrisome part was that the state auditor of the time was literally the only Democrat to hold statewide office here. Her 2018 Republican opponent, who I met personally and initially actively supported, turned out to be a NeverTrumper with a sorted history in her own finances, and those lost in a moderately close election. (Better looking than the female Democrat incumbent, I will give her that.) Because minority/Democrat populations here are concentrated in three areas — St. Louis, Columbia, and Kansas City — the not-so-secret plan was to create mostly rural districts which had “spokes” extending into these areas. So my hometown rural White (we had a Black family there many years ago, and there are a few Hispanic-esque folks there now) conservative county which went something like 67% Trump and is over 100 miles from the nearest of those three centers would face a strong possibility of being represented in the state legislature by Black urban liberal with some funky name. The provision called for the redistricting to occur based on the coming 2020 census, in time for the 2022 election
Something had to be done. In 2020, Republicans pushed a constitutional amendment billed as combating corruption. It reduced the value of a gift that a lobbyist give a legislator (by five dollars), a couple of other innocuous things, AND it changed how legislative districts were drawn — back to how they were done before 2018.
Watching the election with regard to this in real time was almost hilarious. Neither side could really say what it was about. Republicans did not want to call 2018 voters idiots, and Democrats didn’t want to expose to the Teabrainers what they had slipped in. So Republicans championed it as a general reform bill, talking in broad general terms, and Democrats could do nothing but say that it was a token gesture, so why bother voting for it. Meanwhile, on the down low where people like me actually paying attention to the situation operate, we had to bite our tongues while working to get it passed.
We succeeded.
So, a state not only can be gerrymandered by the party in control. It can also be gerrymandered by the opposition party if enough in the majority are Teabrained.
* “Teabrainery” explained: https://catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com/2021/07/the-daily-fudd-e132-special-report.html?m=1
This has definitely been an issue on other areas as well.
Yes, you mentioned Missouri. Most of the recent cases, like the ones you discuss, involve the majority taking advantage of its power. My point was to show how a MINORITY party can do it as well and potentially flip a state’s congressional and legislative alignment. I would suggest Republicans in your state attempt what Democrats did here, but we all know how the double standard is. Frankly, I‘m not convinced anything short of, uh, an extreme action (such as military occupation by the current federal administration) can save our Left Coast.
Yeah. I’d gladly be recalled for that.
Alaskas experience with ranked choice voting is at least somewhat similar in how it benefits Democrats despite them being a minority. As far as what could happen on the West Coast it does appear as if drastic action would be needed.
(I so hope this formatting holds!)
The 2022 Alaska fail was the Republicans’ own fault. Ranked voting was actually pushed there at least in part by small far-Right parties. They had more support than their vote totals suggested because supporters worried voting for them would have a spoiler effect in favor of the Democrats. Ranked voting would’ve been able them to make a statement with the vote without such a fail.
The problem in 2022 which caused exactly that to happen, though, was that Republicans are frankly too individualistic (putting preference over party), lazy, and Teabrainish. I discuss it in some detail in this 2022 blog post: <“Faithful wound” time: Republican critics are well-meaning but wrong about “ranked voting” loss in Alaska House race — Teabrainery was the problem.> https://catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com/2022/09/relative-priorities-of-teabrainery-in.html?m=1
A New York Republican had this to say in the aftermath: “Ranked choice voting is too [YOU WOULD NEVER ALLOW THIS WORD] complicated, advantaging the Party of Government — Leftists and Democrats who spend their days scheming about how to increase the odds of their candidates’ winning elections, while Republicans try to tend to business and jobs outside politics.”
Teabrainery and focus on personal interests.
See also this from about a week later: https://catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com/2022/09/relative-priorities-of-teabrainery-in.html?m=1
Here I address a 2024 Sharyl Attkisson article on the whole concept which comes full circle and brings out that GOPe opposition really does end up boiling down to — for better or worse — trying to ice out third parties: https://catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com/2024/03/sharyl-attkisson-article-on-ranked.html?m=1
======
I appreciate our similar views about the situation on your coast. I have written quite extensively on the hows and whys and justifications of such action. I have suggested President Trump consider using state forces from loyal Red states for the purpose. Hence my talk of being recalled.
Considering the sort of behavior that takes place pretty regularly in cities like Los Angeles, Portland, and Seattle, such justifications would not be hard to find if the will and interest existed to do it.
I meant constitutional, legal, and heritage justifications. Unlike a number of churches with which we are both familiar, our country does not run on arbitrary authority.
The reasons to do so are BEYOND abundant.
=======
On ranked voting, here’s an interesting scenario to parallel what happened in Alaska which might help some civicly-engaged members of your church: Imagine UCG and LCG deciding to form some sort of merger, with the credentialed/recognized elders of both denominations voting for a single leader. John Elliot and Aaron Dean are put forward as candidates, as is Gerald Weston. Given the relative sizes of the two denominations, Elliot or Dean seems the most likely to win. But ranked voting is used, and while they both get more votes than Weston in the first tier, neither get a majority. So the accounting firm counting the votes goes to the second tier, where everyone expects one of those two to be put over the top. However, one of those candidates, who came in third in the recent election, holds a particularly negative position in the eyes of a large number of UCG elders. “NeverDeaners,” if you will. So, many of them actually cross denominational lines and vote for Weston as their second choice. The result: The merger of olarger and considerably smaller denominations ends up with the smaller denomination’s people gaining power. Despite being held by the majority (including a sizable number of Weston voters), UCG’s principles would be deprecated in favor of LCG’s principles.
Storal of the mory: Vote agenda, not personality or preference. There have long been “Yellow Dog Democrats.” Our country might need some “Yellow Dog Republicans.”
Republicans in general don’t think in the tactical way of Democrats in general. This has a long history going back to the 1850s at least, but if it changes that would likely increase the already existing polarization within the United States.
Precisely that New York Republican’s point, even if she didn’t necessarily appreciate it herself. And that’s why, back 20 years ago when I was doing street activism supporting GWOT with a national outfit called ProtestWarrior, I described myself to a college reporter doing a story on such activities as holding “a Rightwing ideology, but a Leftwing mentality.” I tried to think tactically, and I endeavored to put the cause before personal preference.
As for “polarization,” I’ve been noting that increasing certainly since the days of the Vreat Black Hope in the White House. But honestly, the recent election has seemed to dampen this a bit, at least in everyday society. For better or worse, I say that, because, as we are both laid out here, such a softening of conflict is more likely to get one side — MY side, the good guys — to let down their guard and ease off on offensive efforts.
But then came Sydney Sweeney!😁
I find the whole Sydney Sweeney thing deeply entertaining and revealing, but that is a subject for another time. It is baffling just how asymmetrical the personal hatred is regarding politics in this country. Concerning your calling yourself a leftist tactically, look up my book review about rules for right wing radicals that exports Saul Alinskys tactics to their opposition.
Found it. Both of them, actually. I will read them at my next opportunity. Other matters call now. Thank you.
And for some Sydney Sweeney entertainment, here is a music video parody worth the watch😁: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_tLCv_ryJAE&pp=ygUVc3lkbmV5IHN3ZWVuZXkgcGFyb2R50gcJCa0JAYcqIYzvo
Posted comment here: https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2012/12/05/book-review-rules-for-conservative-radicals/#comment-94783
Any thoughts on the gerrymandered Black set-aside districts where is practically illegal for a White or Republican to get elected? Some years ago, one of those areas try to introduce, nonpartisan elections, wherein party affiliations were not stated on ballots. Courts overturned that effort because “civil rights” groups argued that Black people wouldn’t know who to vote for.
And I’m supposed to feel guilty for wanting voter ID requirements.
Before you ask, yes, Hank “Guam might capsize” Johnson is from one of those.
I’m very much against those sorts of districts and think that they could easily be overturned with a friendly Supreme Court ruling.
That’s it? No, “This could be the forerunner to Israelite enslavement in our own land”? C’mon, I was hoping for something.
As for the situation itself, it’s a race war. We were too wimpish back in the ‘60s. I have read a bit of the stuff Armstrong put out back then. Sometimes he wimped out, but sometimes he nailed it. Apart from the hypocrisy of forbidding civic engagement by his followers, it’s a case of the broken clock being right twice a day. (And you can’t disagree with me without disagreeing with a big part of Armstrong’s gospel.)
Dems and NeverTrumpers keep telling us he’s going to end “democracy.” I am so looking forward to that day.
The end of the democracy would likely be followed by the beginning of something else just as the end of the Federalists was the beginning of the Whigs and the end of the Whigs was the begin of the Republicans.
I was thinking something more like a revised Articles of Confederation (each state gets one vote in Congress), with a strong executive, and a few guaranteed rights:
Personal religious practice (but collective actions could be monitored — no more concealing beliefs or bait-and-switches).2. – Basic arms (combat rifle [or home-defense carbine or shotgun for those physically incapable of the rifle] and carry piece).3. – Due process for most things (including public defenders and legal aid — I hate seeing anybody railroaded).
Add specific enumerated federal roles in animal welfare (“cats,” and the one place I do break Left politically), private-citizen arms training/self-defense laws (“guns”), environment (“national security”), and maintenance of heritage (heritage — no “civil rights,” just equal protection [mostly]).
Plus, military occupation of Blue states and special rights for MAGA-hatters!
Yeah, I’m a dreamer.
It is a fantasy, for sure. But lots of people dream of utopian perfect worlds.
What describe there is hardly a utopia. I said nothing about hot blondes hanging all over me!😁
Now THAT is a fantasy. (Ha! Beat you to it!)