Fact check: Have any states successfully redistricted in non-census years without facing legal challenges?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, no sources identify any states that have successfully redistricted in non-census years without facing legal challenges. The analyses consistently show that while states are not legally prohibited from redrawing maps between censuses, such actions are rarely undertaken and typically generate significant opposition ^[1].

Current examples demonstrate the contentious nature of non-census year redistricting:

• Texas is actively attempting to redraw its congressional map in a non-census year, which is being met with opposition and potential legal challenges ^{[1] [2]}
• California is planning to redraw congressional maps in 2026, which could face legal hurdles ^[3]
• New York is also considering redrawing congressional lines in response to Texas' efforts ^[4]

The analyses reveal that California faces particular obstacles due to its independent redistricting commission, which serves as a barrier to Governor Gavin Newsom's redistricting plans ^[5].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several crucial pieces of context that emerge from the analyses:

• Supreme Court influence: A decade of Supreme Court rulings have given states "increasingly unfettered power in redistricting" ^[1], suggesting the legal landscape has shifted to potentially favor state redistricting efforts
• Political motivations: Texas is specifically pushing a redistricting plan designed to "add 5 GOP House seats before 2026 elections," with other states potentially following suit ^[2]
• Retaliatory redistricting: California and New York's redistricting considerations appear to be direct responses to Texas' actions, indicating a potential domino effect ^[4]
• Institutional barriers: Some states like California have structural impediments (independent redistricting commissions) that complicate non-census redistricting efforts ^[5]

Political beneficiaries of successful non-census redistricting would include:

• Republican Party leadership who would gain from Texas adding 5 GOP House seats
• Democratic Party officials in California and New York who might counter with their own favorable redistricting
• Governor Gavin Newsom and other state executives seeking to maximize their party's congressional representation

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself does not contain misinformation, but it assumes a precedent exists for successful non-census redistricting without legal challenges. The analyses suggest this assumption may be fundamentally flawed, as:

• The practice is described as rare rather than established ^[1]
• Current attempts are generating significant legal and political opposition ^{[1] [2]}
• Even states considering such redistricting face substantial procedural and legal hurdles ^{[3] [5]}

The question's framing may inadvertently normalize what appears to be an exceptional and controversial practice rather than a routine governmental function. The analyses indicate that non-census redistricting is more accurately characterized as a contentious political maneuver rather than an established administrative process.