Fact check: Which states have successfully defended non-census year redistricting in court?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, none of the sources contain information about states that have successfully defended non-census year redistricting in court. The analyses consistently indicate that the sources focus on current redistricting efforts and legal challenges rather than successful court defenses of mid-decade redistricting.

The sources primarily discuss:

• Texas's ongoing redistricting efforts and legal battles, including Governor Greg Abbott's actions against Democrats who fled the state to block redistricting plans ^{[1] [2]}
• Various states' redistricting activities including Texas, California, Indiana, New York, Missouri, and Florida, but without mention of successful court defenses ^[3]
• Legislative responses such as Rep. Kevin Kiley's plan to introduce federal legislation prohibiting mid-decade redistricting ^[4]
• California's constitutional prohibition against mid-decade redistricting as established by the California Supreme Court ^[4]

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The analyses reveal several critical gaps in addressing the original question:

• No historical precedents are provided about states that have successfully defended non-census year redistricting in court, despite this being the core question
• Limited scope of legal outcomes - while the sources mention ongoing legal battles, they don't provide information about resolved cases where states prevailed
• Absence of successful defense examples - the analyses focus heavily on challenges and opposition to mid-decade redistricting rather than successful defenses
• Constitutional considerations are only briefly mentioned regarding California's prohibition, but no analysis of states where courts have upheld such practices ^[4]

The sources appear to emphasize current political conflicts around redistricting rather than providing the requested historical legal precedents.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself does not contain misinformation or bias - it's a straightforward factual inquiry about legal precedents. However, the inability of the sources to provide relevant information suggests either:

• The question addresses a relatively uncommon legal scenario where few or no states have successfully defended non-census year redistricting
• The sources selected may have a bias toward covering current political controversies rather than historical legal precedents
• The framing assumes such successful defenses exist, when the evidence suggests this may be rare or non-existent

The analyses indicate that mid-decade redistricting faces significant legal and constitutional challenges ^{[4] [1] [2]}, which may explain why successful court defenses are not readily documented in the available sources.