Report Warns Redistricting Manipulation Destroys Voter Trust for Almost No Partisan Advantage

A comprehensive new analysis of congressional district bias reveals that 28 states have maps that disproportionately favor one party over another, yet these advantages largely cancel each other out nationally, creating a slim one-seat difference in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The study by Purple Values Foundation, released Tuesday, examined all 50 states and found what researchers call a "worst-case scenario" for American democracy: eroding voter trust and representation with minimal partisan gain for either side.

"We're destroying democracy's foundation, voters' trust in government, for essentially nothing," said Mike Saletta, President of Purple Values Foundation. "You've got all this district manipulation happening, alienating voters, and at the end of the day it produces a result that could've happened by random chance."

Study Challenges Abbott and Newsom to End Redistricting Arms Race

The report directly challenges Texas Governor Greg Abbott and California Governor Gavin Newsom to break the cycle of escalating redistricting warfare by simultaneously committing to proportional representation in their states.

Texas currently holds 4 more Republican seats than proportional representation would predict, while California gives Democrats 11 seats beyond what they proportionally deserve, the study notes. Under the proposed arrangement, Texas would move to roughly 21 Republican and 17 Democratic seats, while California would shift to approximately 20 Republican and 32 Democratic seats.

Both governors are on record as being willing to escalate redistricting battles, but the report questions whether they're willing to take steps toward healing the country.

California's Independent Commission Produces Most Disproportional Map

The study's most surprising finding concerns California's celebrated independent redistricting commission. Despite operating transparently with seemingly neutral criteria, the commission has produced the most disproportionate map in America, giving Democrats 11 more seats than their vote share warrants.

Democrats win about 60% of California's votes but hold 83% of House seats—an outcome the study calculates has less than a 1% chance of occurring randomly. California's bias score of 3.14 tops the nation, higher than any state accused of traditional gerrymandering.

Intended or not, California's redistricting system has created the most disproportional congressional map in the country. California’s rule that prioritizes keeping districts as compact as possible, preserves large urban Democratic blocs while disenfranchising millions of Republican voters.

The Numbers Tell the Story

The two states at the center of the gerrymandering feud, Texas and California, rank number 9 and number 1, respectively. If Texas succeeds in implementing its redistricting plan, its Bias Rank would move from ninth to second and its Bias Score from 1.31 to 2.94.

Additionally, the study identified 12 states with a two seat or greater advantage beyond what proportional representation would predict.

Democratic advantages:

• California: +11 seats
• Illinois: +4 seats
• New York: +4 seats
• Massachusetts: +3 seats
• Connecticut: +2 seats
• Washington: +2 seats
• New Jersey: +2 seats

Republican advantages:

• Florida: +4 seats
• Texas: +4 seats
• South Carolina: +2 seats
• Tennessee: +2 seats
• North Carolina: +2 seats

An additional 16 states show a bias of one-seat, of those 13 favor Republicans and three favor Democrats. The net effect of all the bias is one additional House seat for Republicans and millions of dissatisfied voters.

Massachusetts, Oklahoma Exemplify the Problem

The study highlights stark examples of disproportionate representation: In Massachusetts, one-third of voters support Republican candidates, yet Republicans hold zero of the state's nine congressional seats. In Oklahoma, Democrats receive over a third of the vote but hold none of its five seats.

Established research shows that 78% of House races are predetermined before Election Day due to safe seat arrangements. The race is essentially decided in the primary election.

Statistical Analysis Confirms Bias

Researchers analyzed voting patterns using data from the 2020 and 2024 presidential elections alongside the Cook Political Report’s Partisan Voting Index. Their findings show a clear trend: in 28 states, political bias favored the majority party, while only 3 states showed bias toward the minority. Statistically, it’s very unlikely this happened by chance.

Even after accounting for the typical advantages that majority parties tend to have, the odds of this pattern happening randomly were about 1 in 42. Under more realistic models, those odds dropped to less than 1 in 5,000.

Three States Break the Pattern

Colorado, Michigan, and Minnesota present anomalies as Democratic-leaning states that give Republicans extra representation. Researchers attribute this "reverse bias" to court interventions or independent commission decisions that prioritized factors other than partisan balance.

Methodology and Data Sources

The analysis combined multiple data sources to create a robust assessment of partisan preference for each state. Those sources include:

• 2020 and 2024 presidential election results
• Cook Partisan Voting Index ratings
• Current House membership data as of August 2025

Researchers calculated expected proportional seat allocations for each state and compared them to actual representation using standardized statistical measures.