Fact check: Which states have successfully redistricted in non-census years and what were the outcomes?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, there is limited information available about states that have successfully completed redistricting in non-census years. The sources reveal that while mid-decade redistricting is legally permissible, it is rarely done ^[1].

Current redistricting efforts identified include:

• Texas - Republicans are planning to redraw congressional maps in a mid-decade redistricting effort to extend their dominance and potentially add 5 GOP House seats before the 2026 elections ^{[1] [2]}
• Multiple Republican-led states - Ohio, Indiana, South Carolina, Missouri, Nebraska, and Florida are pursuing redistricting efforts to gain more seats in the 2026 midterm elections ^[3]
• Virginia - Used a special master in 2022 to draw current maps following a court case ^[4]

Key outcomes noted:

• Most current redistricting efforts are still uncertain and face potential legal challenges ^{[1] [3] [2]}
• The Supreme Court has given states increasingly unfettered power in redistricting over the past decade ^[1]
• Extensive redistricting litigation is ongoing across numerous states including Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, and many others ^[5]

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question assumes successful completion of non-census year redistricting, but the analyses reveal several critical missing contexts:

• Legal challenges are the norm - The sources indicate that redistricting efforts typically face court challenges, making "successful" redistricting a complex determination ^{[1] [3] [2] [5]}
• Partisan motivations - The analyses show that current redistricting efforts are primarily Republican-led initiatives aimed at gaining electoral advantages rather than neutral redistricting processes ^{[1] [3] [2]}
• Reform efforts exist - Some states have taken actions to reduce partisanship in redistricting, presenting an alternative approach to the partisan gerrymandering described ^[4]
• Federal intervention possibilities - The Trump administration's plans for a "new census" that would exclude undocumented immigrants could potentially impact future redistricting processes ^[6]
• Voting rights implications - Ongoing cases like the Louisiana redistricting dispute highlight how redistricting intersects with constitutional voting rights protections ^[7]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains implicit assumptions that may be misleading:

• Assumes "successful" redistricting - The question presupposes that states have completed non-census redistricting successfully, when the evidence shows most current efforts are ongoing and face uncertain outcomes ^{[1] [3] [2]}
• Neutral framing - The question presents redistricting as a neutral administrative process, while the analyses reveal it is primarily a partisan political strategy where Republicans benefit from redrawing maps to gain electoral advantages ^{[1] [3] [2]}
• Omits legal complexity - The question doesn't acknowledge that redistricting typically involves extensive litigation and court oversight, making simple "success" determinations problematic ^{[5] [7]}

The question would be more accurate if it acknowledged the ongoing, contested nature of mid-decade redistricting efforts and the partisan motivations driving most current attempts.