Fact check: Do both parties engage in redistricting

1. Summary of the results

The analyses overwhelmingly confirm that both major political parties actively engage in redistricting. Multiple sources provide concrete evidence of this bipartisan practice:

• Republican redistricting efforts are documented in states like Texas and Missouri, where they are attempting to redraw congressional maps to their advantage ^{[1] [2]}
• Democratic counter-responses are equally well-documented, with California Governor Gavin Newsom proposing a special election to approve new congressional maps ^[3], and Democratic governors in both California and New York vowing to retaliate against Republican redistricting by redrawing their own states' maps ^{[4] [5]}
• The practice appears to be reactive and strategic, with Democrats specifically responding to Republican efforts in Texas by proposing their own redistricting plans in Democratic-controlled states ^{[1] [6]}

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several important contextual elements revealed in the analyses:

• Current Republican advantage: Republicans currently hold an advantage in the redistricting process due to their control of redistricting in many states ^[7]
• Scale and coordination: Multiple states are simultaneously taking steps toward redistricting, including Texas, California, Missouri, and New York, suggesting this is a coordinated national strategy rather than isolated incidents ^{[6] [2]}
• Opposition from reform groups: Some good government groups oppose partisan redistricting efforts from both parties, arguing that such plans lead to gerrymandering regardless of which party initiates them ^[3]
• Proposed solutions exist: There are alternative approaches like the "Define-Combine Procedure" that could create fairer maps through a two-stage process involving both parties ^[8]

Beneficiaries of different narratives:

• Political parties benefit from portraying redistricting as necessary defensive measures against the opposing party's gerrymandering
• Reform organizations benefit from emphasizing the bipartisan nature of gerrymandering to build support for redistricting reform
• Individual politicians in safe districts benefit from maintaining the current system regardless of party affiliation

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself appears factually neutral and unbiased - it simply asks whether both parties engage in redistricting without making claims about the legitimacy, frequency, or impact of such practices. However, the framing could potentially:

• Minimize the severity of gerrymandering by treating it as a normal, expected political practice rather than a threat to democratic representation
• Create false equivalency by implying both parties engage equally, when the analyses suggest Republicans currently have structural advantages in the redistricting process ^[7]
• Lack urgency about the democratic implications of partisan redistricting, as the question doesn't address the impact on fair representation or competitive elections

The question would benefit from additional context about the democratic consequences of partisan redistricting and the current imbalance in redistricting power between the parties.