Fact check: Is there any way to make mid-cycle redistricting illegal nationwide?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, there are limited but emerging pathways to make mid-cycle redistricting illegal nationwide. The most concrete approach identified is through federal legislation, specifically a bill being introduced by Rep. Kevin Kiley that would ban mid-decade redistricting nationwide and nullify new maps adopted by states before the 2030 census ^[1]. Additionally, Rep. Mike Lawler has expressed plans to introduce a bill to Congress to end gerrymandering, stating that "gerrymandering is fundamentally wrong" ^[2].

Currently, some states have already implemented their own restrictions - New York prohibits gerrymandering and specifies that redistricting takes place once a decade ^[3]. However, there is no existing federal law that comprehensively bans mid-cycle redistricting across all states.

The analyses also reference the Freedom to Vote Act, which would have prohibited partisan gerrymandering but stalled in the Senate ^[4], indicating that previous attempts at federal redistricting reform have faced significant political obstacles.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks important context about the political motivations behind mid-cycle redistricting efforts. The analyses reveal that both major political parties engage in strategic redistricting when it benefits them - the sources discuss redistricting efforts in states like California and Texas ^{[3] [5]}, suggesting this is a bipartisan practice when politically advantageous.

Alternative viewpoints that benefit from the current system include:

• State political parties that gain electoral advantages through mid-cycle redistricting
• Incumbent politicians who benefit from gerrymandered districts that make their seats safer
• Political organizations like the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, which focuses on "protecting fair maps and combating gerrymandering" but may have partisan motivations ^[6]

The question also omits the constitutional complexities involved. States traditionally have broad authority over their own redistricting processes, and federal intervention would require navigating complex constitutional questions about states' rights versus federal oversight.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself doesn't contain explicit misinformation, but it oversimplifies the complexity of redistricting reform. The phrasing suggests there might be a straightforward way to ban mid-cycle redistricting nationwide, when the analyses reveal this would require significant federal legislation that has historically faced substantial political resistance.

The question also lacks acknowledgment that some lawmakers and experts have expressed concerns about the impact of mid-decade redistricting on the democratic process ^[7], but doesn't mention that the practice occurs on both sides of the political aisle when strategically beneficial.

Additionally, the question doesn't address that redistricting reform advocates emphasize making the process "more independent, inclusive, and transparent" ^[8] rather than simply banning mid-cycle redistricting, suggesting that comprehensive reform may require broader changes to the entire redistricting system.