The Economist: “To consider how such a no-holds-barred fight might play out, The Economist has analyzed data produced by Dave’s Redistricting, including proposed congressional maps designed by its users. We mapped the most effective gerrymanders created by users in states controlled by each party to simulate a scenario where lawmakers faced no legal or political constraints on their map-making.”
“Overall, we found that Democrats could redraw 35 congressional districts won by Mr. Trump last year, while Republicans could redraw 34 won by Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee. Under these boundaries, 229 districts voted for Mr. Trump—one fewer than the 230 districts he won under the present maps. The theoretical numbers add some weight to Mr. Newsom’s idea that Democrats could fight Republicans to a draw.”
“In reality, state legislators do not have a free hand. In addition to legal and political challenges, it can be difficult to draw maps which are tolerable to all of a party’s local politicians, with their competing interests. The limits on redistricting power are likely to hobble the Democrats disproportionately, making it harder for them to match Republicans’ potential.”
Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball: “As judged by the presidential margin in the median House seat, the current national House district map has a small Republican bias.”
“A pending Texas Republican gerrymander could push that bias a little bit to the right, although that may also be counteracted by Democrats redrawing California. But Republicans also have other gerrymandering opportunities that could increase the GOP edge in the House.”
