Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Is Politico's Gerrymandering Poll and Analysis Misleading?

News

Is Politico's Gerrymandering Poll and Analysis Misleading?
Image generated by IVN staff.

Politico published a story last week under the headline “Poll: Americans don’t just tolerate gerrymandering — they back it.”

Still, a close review of the data shows the poll does not support that conclusion. The poll shows that Americans overwhelmingly prefer either an independent redistricting process or a voter-approved process — not partisan map-drawing without voter approval. This is the exact opposite of the narrative Politico’s headline and article promoted. The numbers Politico relied on to justify its headline came only from a subset of partisans.


The most unambiguous indication of how Americans view redistricting came from the first question in the survey, which was asked of all 2,098 adults.

Respondents were presented with only four choices describing who should draw political maps:

“Political maps should be drawn through an independent, politically neutral process.”
“Political maps should be drawn by state legislatures, but approved by voters.”
“Political maps should be drawn by state legislatures, without approval by voters.”
“Don’t know.”

The results showed 38 percent favored an independent, politically neutral process. Another 34 percent supported legislature-drawn maps only if voters approved them.

Only 7 percent supported legislature-drawn maps without voter approval.

21 percent said they did not know.

A combined 72 percent either supported independent map drawing, supported voter oversight, or were uncertain.

Only a small minority favored giving state legislatures unchecked authority. Yet the headline for the poll in POLITICO says: “Poll: Americans don’t just tolerate gerrymandering — they back it.”

Independent and undecided voters showed even less support for partisan map drawing. Among those respondents, 29.8 percent supported an independent process, and 15.4 percent favored legislature-drawn maps with voter approval. Just 2.7 percent supported legislature-drawn maps without voter approval.

A majority, 52.1 percent, said they did not know which option they preferred. These results do not in any way indicate that Americans outside the two major parties support gerrymandering.

A chart in the story also contains a misleading headline, “A majority of Americans support partisan map-drawing…Percentage of Americans who support redrawing congressional districts to neutralize the other party — and those who support doing so to gain a midterm advantage.” But the chart includes only the responses of Democratic and Republican voters.

Only those who planned to support Democrats were asked whether they would support Democrats redrawing congressional districts “to gain an advantage” over Republicans. In that subgroup, 54.25 percent supported the idea, 29.55 percent neither supported nor opposed it, 9.80 percent opposed it, and 6.39 percent said they did not know.

A parallel question was asked only of those who planned to support Republicans, asking whether their party should redraw districts to gain an advantage over Democrats. Among that subgroup, 52.76 percent supported the idea, 28.06 percent neither supported nor opposed it, 12.26 percent opposed it, and 6.92 percent said they did not know.

The poll did not ask independent, undecided, or non-aligned voters these questions. It did not ask all adults whether they support partisan gerrymandering generally. The only majorities favoring partisan redistricting appeared when partisan voters were asked whether their own party should act in its own political interest in a hypothetical scenario. Those results cannot be generalized to the population at large.

The survey asked all respondents how each party should respond if the opposing party gerrymandered first. In the scenario where Republicans acted first, 20.5 percent said Democrats should challenge the maps in court, 28.8 percent said Democrats should draw maps to neutralize the impact, 19.3 percent said Democrats should draw maps to gain an advantage and 31.3 percent said they did not know.

In the reverse scenario, where Democrats acted first, 19.9 percent said Republicans should challenge in court, 30.5 percent said they should neutralize the impact, 16.0 percent said they should draw maps to gain an advantage, and 33.5 percent said they did not know.

Support for offensive, advantage-seeking gerrymandering was low in both cases, at 19.3% and 16.0%. In both questions, the most common response was “don’t know.” These numbers do not indicate that “most voters” favor using redistricting as a political weapon.

The poll also includes a breakdown of Republican respondents by whether they identify as “MAGA Republicans” or not. MAGA-identifying respondents were more supportive of partisan advantage in the Republican-only question than non-MAGA Republicans, but neither subgroup showed majority support for unchecked legislative control when all four map-drawing options were presented.

Both groups showed high levels of uncertainty in the neutral structural questions.

Politico’s article about its poll included a pro-gerrymandering quote from John Bisognano, president of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, who said there had been “an extraordinary public outcry in favor of fighting back against Donald Trump’s overreaches in basically every forum.”

The story did not mention that the largest share of respondents in the poll favored an independent, politically neutral process or that more than half of independent voters said they did not know how maps should be drawn.

The poll was conducted not by a U.S.-based election research organization, but by Public First, a London-based firm. The use of a foreign research company to measure Americans’ views on U.S. election rules is unusual, particularly for a story framed around the claim that “Americans” support gerrymandering.

Politico announced a new partnership with the firm on October 30, 2025. Neither the story nor the poll contains any information about who financed the Public First poll. Public First is owned by SHGH, Inc., known as Stonehaven Global Holdings. The Executive Chair of Stonehaven is Peter Lyburn, and Public First’s CEO is Rachel Wolf.

Wolf is a former UK political operative for the Conservative Party and Boris Johnson. She is the co-author of the Conservative Party’s 2019 manifesto, which called for leaving the EU and getting Brexit done.

The survey’s stated margin of sampling error is plus or minus two percentage points for the full sample. Politico did not publish full crosstabs publicly, although the complete dataset is available to subscribers of its Pro platform.

Is Politico's Gerrymandering Poll and Analysis Misleading? was first published by IVN and republished with permission.


Read More

California’s New Law Aims To Close a Housing Gap for Domestic Violence Survivors
Emily Scherer for The 19th; Getty Images

California’s New Law Aims To Close a Housing Gap for Domestic Violence Survivors

Domestic violence survivors often struggle to find housing, and California’s “Unseen and Unheard Housing Act” will help make more housing available to meet their specific needs.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the bill Sunday requiring cities and counties to factor in domestic violence survivors when planning for future housing.

Keep ReadingShow less
Classsroom
empty classroom with desks and chalkboard
Photo by Ivan Aleksic on Unsplash

Who Gets a Seat?: Florida’s New Bans on Undocumented Students in Public Higher Education

Each year, roughly 8,000 undocumented students graduate from Florida high schools. In 2026, Florida became the newest state to pass a regulation prohibiting this population from enrolling in state public colleges and selective universities. In June 2026, Florida State Board of Education passed Rule 6A-10.0240, which requires all 28 Florida College System institutions to certify admitted students as citizens of the United States or have lawful presence. In September 2026, a separate state board extended a similar ban to Florida’s most selective public universities.

Throughout the United States, there are three states that have historically upheld similar barring policies: Alabama and South Carolina ban undocumented students from all public colleges and universities, while Georgia bars them only from its most selective public universities. Florida’s restrictions are administrative rules and regulations, not state laws passed by the Legislature. Similar bills died in committee during Florida’s 2026 legislative session.

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

The CLARITY Act crypto bill failed a procedural vote on Sept. 15, but it could return. Here's what it does, who would regulate crypto, and the Trump angle.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

The CLARITY Act

The CLARITY Act

The CLARITY Act, which failed in a procedural vote on Sept. 15, and a new venture by the Trump family’s World Liberty Financial cryptocurrency company made us think it was time to write about the cryptocurrency legislation. Even though it’s not currently active, the bill could come back.

Keep ReadingShow less
Tattered American flag

Trump's "Restoring Truth and Sanity" order targets how museums and parks present slavery and racism. Why one writer says Americans should push back.

Nisian Hughes/Getty Images

Trump's Mendacious, Deceitful Rewriting of American History

History is made of two parts. One is indisputable facts and the other is the interpretation of those facts. The history of history is filled with varying interpretations of the basic facts, usually tinted by the perspective of the historian or commentator. That perspective can be the writer's political leanings, his philosophy, or any number of personal biases.

All historians, however, whether conservative or liberal, regardless of philosophy generally agree on the basic facts. For example, while there are fringe groups and individuals who deny that the Holocaust happened—that 6 millions Jews were killed by the Nazis—no reputable historian disputes that fact.

Keep ReadingShow less