Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Did Illinois and New York ever gerrymander districs outside of the normal cycle
Executive Summary
Illinois and New York have been at the center of high-profile redistricting disputes, but the record shows most contested maps were drawn during the regular post‑census cycle, with notable court-ordered redraws and proposals about mid‑decade authority rather than clear, repeated mid‑decade partisan gerrymanders. Litigation and legislative tinkering have produced mid‑cycle map changes in specific instances—New York’s 2021 congressional maps were struck down and replaced by a court-appointed special master for 2022—but the pattern differs by state and often reflects court remedies or commission failures rather than routine partisan mid‑decade redistricting [1] [2] [3].
1. How Illinois’s fights look: lawsuits, reform pushes, and normal-cycle drawing that sparked extra litigation
Illinois’s most visible dispute in recent years centers on maps drawn after the 2020 census by a Democratic legislature that Republicans allege are unconstitutionally gerrymandered, prompting a January 2025 lawsuit seeking a special master and a new map to increase competitiveness and protect minority votes; that challenge frames the issue as a response to maps created in the regular cycle but contested afterward, not clear evidence of routine mid‑decade partisan remapping [4]. The larger conversation in Illinois also includes a push for a nonpartisan commission to handle future mapmaking, which supporters say could reduce litigation and prevent future cycles of partisan advantage, but the immediate legal fight focuses on compactness and constitutional guarantees rather than proof of repeated off‑cycle redraws [4] [2].
2. New York’s saga: commission breakdowns, a court replacement, and a proposal to allow mid‑decade redistricting
New York’s redistricting history shows a failed 2020 commission, legislative maps overturned by the state court, and special‑master maps for the 2022 elections, demonstrating how commission breakdowns and judicial intervention can produce maps outside a legislature’s preferred plan but grounded in the census cycle’s aftermath; the court’s role effectively imposed a non‑legislative map rather than the Legislature conducting a voluntary mid‑decade partisan redrawing [1] [2]. Separately, in 2025 New York legislators proposed a constitutional amendment that would permit mid‑decade redistricting in limited circumstances—specifically if another state acts first—while retaining a ban on partisan gerrymandering; proponents frame this as a preemptive defense against external manipulation, but critics warn it creates a tool that could be leveraged politically [5].
3. The legal landscape: courts make mid‑cycle changes, not always partisan legislatures
Federal and state courts have frequently produced mid‑cycle map changes when maps violate the Voting Rights Act or state constitutions, meaning mid‑decade changes often reflect judicial remedy rather than proactive legislative gerrymanders; examples include courts ordering new maps by special masters after finding unlawful racial or partisan gerrymanders, a pattern evident in New York and cited in broader reviews of states forced to redraw maps before the 2026 cycle [1] [3]. The Supreme Court’s precedents have at times permitted mid‑decade redistricting, and recent scholarship and CRS reports document growing attention to mid‑decade tactics, but the distinction between court‑ordered fixes and partisan mid‑cycle redistricting remains critical to assessing whether a state is engaging in unusual off‑cycle gerrymanders [2] [6].
4. Mid‑decade redistricting: a growing tactic but uneven uptake across states
Research on the 2020 cycle and subsequent years shows many states considered or pursued mid‑decade adjustments; some legislatures have explored mid‑cycle redraws, especially where political opportunity or legal pressure exists, but actions vary widely by state and are constrained by state law, court rulings, and political calculations [7] [8]. California, Texas, and a host of other states have been discussed in the context of mid‑decade efforts, and Congressional Research Service work catalogues the legal and legislative groundwork for such moves—this indicates a national debate rather than definitive proof that Illinois and New York routinely gerrymander off‑cycle [8] [6].
5. Bottom line and what to watch next: litigation, amendments, and procedural changes
The evidence shows Illinois and New York have faced intense redistricting conflicts and court‑ordered changes, but not a clear pattern of routine partisan mid‑decade mapmaking; Illinois’s 2025 lawsuit accuses post‑2020 maps of partisan bias, while New York experienced commission failure and judicial replacement after the 2020 cycle, plus a 2025 proposal to permit limited mid‑decade authority tied to other states’ actions [4] [1] [5]. Watch for court decisions, state constitutional amendment campaigns, and CRS or academic updates—these will determine whether mid‑decade redistricting becomes a normalized tool in either state or remains an exceptional remedy driven by litigation and political conflict [6] [3].