Fact check: How effective have independent redistricting commissions been in reducing gerrymandering?

1. Summary of the results

Independent redistricting commissions have demonstrated measurable effectiveness in reducing gerrymandering across multiple states. The evidence shows that when commissions or courts draw district lines, the rate of competitive elections increases compared to legislatively-drawn maps ^[1].

Specific success stories include:

• Pennsylvania, where the state Supreme Court replaced a legislative-drawn map with a new one, resulting in more competitive elections ^[1]
• Arizona, California, and Colorado, which have successfully established independent citizen-redistricting commissions ^[2]
• Virginia and Arizona, which have made notable progress in reducing gerrymandering through independent commissions and ballot initiatives ^[3]

The data indicates that states with independent commissions tend to have more competitive districts, providing concrete evidence of their effectiveness in creating fairer electoral maps ^[1].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several important nuances about commission effectiveness:

Commission Design Matters Critically: The effectiveness depends heavily on specific characteristics such as independence, authority, composition, transparency, and public input processes ^{[1] [4]}. Not all commissions are equally effective - the devil is in the details of how they're structured ^[4].

Technological Arms Race: Experts like Sam Wang and Kareem Crayton point out that gerrymandering has become more egregious with advanced computer algorithms, making the work of independent commissions both more necessary and more challenging ^[3].

Legal Vulnerabilities: The Supreme Court's 2015 ruling upholding independent commissions may not guarantee their continued effectiveness given the court's changed composition, creating potential future legal challenges ^[5].

Ongoing Political Resistance: While some states have succeeded, there have been setbacks in other states, indicating that establishing effective commissions faces continued political opposition ^[2].

Who Benefits from Each Viewpoint:

• Political parties and incumbents benefit from maintaining legislative control over redistricting, as it allows them to draw favorable maps
• Good government groups, voting rights organizations, and competitive candidates benefit from promoting independent commissions
• Legal and consulting firms specializing in redistricting benefit from the complexity and ongoing battles over commission implementation

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself appears neutral and factual - it simply asks about effectiveness without making claims. However, it could be misleading by omission in that it doesn't acknowledge:

• The significant variation in commission design and authority across different states
• The ongoing legal and political challenges these commissions face
• The relatively recent implementation of many commissions, making long-term effectiveness assessments preliminary
• The technological evolution of gerrymandering techniques that commissions must counter

The question assumes a binary effectiveness framework when the reality is more nuanced - effectiveness varies significantly based on implementation details and external political pressures.