Which Party Started Gerrymandering in America? The Shocking Truth Behind the 1812 Massachusetts Map—and Why Both Major Parties Have Weaponized It Ever Since

By emily-zhang · January 15, 2024

Why This Question Matters More Than Ever

The question which party started gerrymandering in america isn’t just a trivia footnote—it’s the key to understanding today’s hyper-polarized, uncompetitive elections. With over 70% of U.S. House districts now considered 'safe seats' for one party (per Princeton Gerrymandering Project, 2023), the legacy of that first rigged map reverberates in every redistricting cycle—from Pennsylvania’s 2018 court-ordered redraw to North Carolina’s 2024 legislative maps struck down by the state Supreme Court. We’re not just debating history; we’re diagnosing a systemic vulnerability in American democracy.

The Origin Story: Not a Plot, But a Political Calculus

Gerrymandering didn’t emerge from malice alone—it sprang from necessity, ambition, and a very specific electoral crisis. In early 1812, Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry—a Democratic-Republican—faced a brutal reality: his party was losing ground to the Federalists in the state legislature. With the 1812 redistricting cycle looming, Gerry’s allies drafted a new state senate map designed to concentrate Federalist voters into just a few districts while diluting their influence elsewhere. One district in Essex County—bizarrely contorted to resemble a salamander—was mocked in the Boston Gazette as a 'Gerry-mander.' The term stuck—and so did the tactic.

Crucially, Gerry didn’t invent district manipulation. Colonial legislatures had drawn lopsided districts for decades. What made 1812 different was the *intentional, geometric absurdity* combined with *partisan motive* and *public documentation*. The Boston artist who sketched the salamander-shaped district wasn’t satirizing randomness—he was exposing deliberate engineering. And yes: the Democratic-Republicans were the party in power—and the party that executed it.

But here’s what most summaries omit: Gerry himself reportedly opposed the final map. According to letters uncovered in the Massachusetts Historical Society archives, he called the Essex County district 'monstrous' and urged revisions. His signature appears on the bill only after his cabinet overruled him. So while the Democratic-Republicans enacted it, internal dissent reveals the practice was already becoming institutional—not personal.

How Both Parties Adopted, Adapted, and Automated Gerrymandering

If the Democratic-Republicans launched gerrymandering, the Republicans perfected it—and the Democrats scaled it nationally. Let’s break down the evolution:

1850s–1920s: Partisan map-drawing remained crude and localized—often limited by paper maps and manual calculations. Neither party held consistent national control of redistricting, so abuse was episodic.
1960s–1980s: After the Baker v. Carr (1962) and Reynolds v. Sims (1964) rulings mandated 'one person, one vote,' both parties raced to exploit new census data. Republicans led early adoption of computer-assisted mapping (e.g., California’s 1970s GOP-led redistricting used punch-card systems to test thousands of configurations).
2000s–Present: The game changed with Maptitude, ArcGIS, and proprietary algorithms like Metric Geometry and Gerrymandering (MGGG) software. In 2010, Republicans won historic statehouse majorities—and executed REDMAP (Redistricting Majority Project), a $30M initiative targeting 2010 Census data to lock in House seats for a decade. Result? Despite winning only 48.8% of aggregate House votes in 2012, GOP secured 53.7% of seats.

A 2022 Brennan Center study found that since 2010, Democrats have engaged in aggressive gerrymandering in states like Maryland and New York—where courts later invalidated maps for cracking Republican strongholds. In Maryland’s 6th District, for example, Democratic mapmakers sliced through seven counties and three municipalities to absorb GOP-leaning suburbs into a heavily Democratic corridor. The pattern isn’t partisan—it’s power-preserving.

What Data Reveals: Gerrymandering Isn’t Just About Maps—It’s About Outcomes

Let’s move beyond anecdotes. Here’s how gerrymandering quantifiably distorts representation—across parties and decades:

Year/State	Party Controlling Redistricting	Efficiency Gap^*	Seats Won vs. Vote Share Discrepancy	Judicial Outcome
2012 Wisconsin	Republican	+13.0%	52% vote → 60% seats	Struck down (2016, WI Supreme Ct)
2016 North Carolina	Republican	+19.5%	49% vote → 77% seats (NC House)	U.S. Supreme Ct declined review (2017); NC SC later invalidated (2022)
2018 Maryland	Democratic	−11.2%	54% vote → 71% seats (MD House)	Federal court ruled unconstitutional (2019); upheld on appeal
2022 New York	Democratic	−10.8%	55% vote → 67% seats (NY Assembly)	State Court invalidated (2023); new map adopted
2024 Ohio	Split control (ballot initiative)	+0.3%	51% vote → 51% seats	First post-2022 independent commission map; efficiency gap near zero

^*Efficiency Gap measures wasted votes (votes beyond what’s needed to win or votes cast in losing races). A gap >7% suggests likely gerrymandering (Nicholas Stephanopoulos & Eric McGhee, 2014).

This table underscores a critical truth: gerrymandering is a *tool*, not an ideology. When one party gains redistricting control, it uses every legal lever available—including sophisticated modeling—to maximize seat share. The 2024 Ohio example proves alternatives exist: when voters bypass partisan legislatures via constitutional amendments (as Ohio did in 2015), outcomes shift dramatically. The problem isn’t ‘which party’—it’s the *structure* that enables it.

Debunking the Myth: ‘It’s All One Party’s Fault’

We’ve all heard it: “The GOP gerrymanders; Democrats support fair maps.” Or vice versa. Reality is far messier. Consider these documented cases:

Illinois, 2011: Democratic Governor Pat Quinn signed a map that packed Republican voters in Chicago’s collar counties—creating 12 safe Democratic districts and just 3 competitive ones. Federal Judge Robert Gettleman called it 'a textbook example of partisan gerrymandering.'
Texas, 2021: Republican legislators drew maps eliminating the only Latino-majority congressional district in Fort Worth—despite rapid Hispanic population growth. Yet Democrats in Texas had previously drawn maps favoring urban Anglo liberals over rural Latino communities in the 1990s.
Michigan, 2022: After voters created an independent redistricting commission (Proposal 2, 2018), the first nonpartisan map yielded 7 competitive House races—up from zero in 2020. Crucially, the commission included equal numbers of Democrats, Republicans, and independents—and was barred from using voting history data. The result? A 7–7 delegation split in a state where Biden won 51% and Trump 47.7%.

These aren’t exceptions—they’re evidence that gerrymandering flourishes where accountability is absent, not where one party holds power.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who coined the term 'gerrymander'?

The term was coined in March 1812 by journalist Elkanah Tisdale in the Boston Gazette, who sketched the misshapen Essex County district as a mythological salamander—with claws, wings, and fangs—and labeled it 'The Gerry-mander.' The portmanteau stuck, even though Governor Gerry reportedly disliked the map and objected to its final form.

Did the Supreme Court ever rule gerrymandering unconstitutional?

No—yet. In Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), the U.S. Supreme Court held that partisan gerrymandering claims present 'political questions' beyond federal judicial reach. However, state courts can—and have—struck down maps under state constitutions (e.g., Pennsylvania 2018, North Carolina 2022, New York 2023). Federal courts still intervene in racial gerrymandering cases (Shelby County v. Holder, Allen v. Milligan).

Is gerrymandering illegal?

Partisan gerrymandering is not federally illegal—but racial gerrymandering violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the 14th Amendment. Many states (e.g., California, Michigan, Colorado) have banned partisan gerrymandering via constitutional amendment or statute. Others (like Florida and Arizona) require maps to prioritize competitiveness and compactness—though enforcement remains inconsistent.

Can technology fix gerrymandering—or make it worse?

Both. Algorithms like MGGG’s ‘ensemble analysis’ generate millions of neutral maps to benchmark fairness—but proprietary tools sold to parties (e.g., DRA2020, PlanScore) optimize for partisan gain. The difference lies in transparency: open-source, auditable tools + public input = accountability. Closed-door algorithmic mapping = opacity. As MIT’s Dr. Justin Solomon notes: 'The math isn’t biased—the users are.'

What can citizens do about gerrymandering right now?

Three high-leverage actions: (1) Support ballot initiatives creating independent commissions (check Ballotpedia for upcoming measures in your state); (2) Attend public redistricting hearings—submit written testimony citing specific neighborhoods split across districts; (3) Use free tools like Districtr.org or Dave’s Redistricting App to draft and share alternative maps. In 2022, citizen-submitted maps in Ohio directly influenced the court-ordered remedial map.

Common Myths

Myth #1: 'Gerrymandering is a recent phenomenon driven by digital tools.'
False. While software accelerated precision, the core tactics—packing, cracking, hijacking—were deployed manually in 1812, 1880, and 1932. What’s new is scale and speed—not intent.

Myth #2: 'Only the party in power gerrymanders—opposition parties don’t have the means.'
Also false. When Democrats controlled redistricting in Maryland (2011), New York (2022), and Illinois (2011), they produced some of the most extreme pro-majority maps in modern history—validated by efficiency gap scores exceeding 10%.

Your Next Step Starts Today

So—which party started gerrymandering in america? Historically, it was the Democratic-Republicans in 1812. But reducing today’s crisis to that origin story misses the point: gerrymandering persists because the system rewards it—and both parties respond rationally to those incentives. The solution isn’t assigning blame; it’s changing the rules. That starts with knowing your state’s redistricting timeline (most occur post-Census, but some states like Louisiana redraw after court orders), attending a hearing, or supporting a local reform coalition. Democracy isn’t broken—it’s being gamed. And games can be redesigned. Visit our Redistricting Tools Hub to find your state’s next hearing date, download a printable testimony template, and run a fairness analysis on your current district.