Fact check: Can redistricting lead to gerrymandering in US states?

1. Summary of the results

Yes, redistricting can definitively lead to gerrymandering in US states. The analyses provide overwhelming evidence that redistricting processes are being actively weaponized for partisan advantage across multiple states.

Current redistricting battles are intensifying nationwide, with state leaders from both parties preparing to redraw political lines ahead of the 2026 elections in states including Texas, California, Missouri, Ohio, New York, Illinois, Indiana, and Florida ^[1]. Sam Wang, founding director of the Electoral Innovation Lab, confirms that state leaders from both sides have systematically changed election boundaries to stack districts with favorable constituents, resulting in egregious examples of gerrymandering ^[2].

The practice has created a "nuclear arms race" dynamic, where partisan gerrymandering efforts are escalating across states, with experts warning that this undermines democratic legitimacy and has far-reaching consequences for election outcomes and civic behavior ^[3]. Survey data demonstrates that Americans view gerrymandering with disdain, and the practice erodes confidence in democracy while leading to a loss of public faith in elections ^[4].

Specific examples include Texas, where Republicans plan to redraw congressional maps to extend their dominance, and California, where Democrats are considering countermeasures ^[1]. California Governor Gavin Newsom has proposed redrawing the state's congressional districts in direct response to Texas' actions ^[5].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several crucial contextual elements:

Legal framework enabling gerrymandering: The Supreme Court's rulings over the past decade have given states increasingly unfettered power in redistricting, with the Court's composition having changed since previous rulings on the issue ^[6]. The Supreme Court's decision on partisan gerrymandering specifically allowed states to continue the practice ^[6].

State-by-state variations: While some states like New York have constitutional provisions that prohibit gerrymandering, others like Texas are pushing ahead with redrawn maps despite legal challenges ^[1]. Some states have established independent commissions to draw district maps, though the effectiveness of these commissions remains uncertain ^[6].

Impact on minority representation: Civil rights organizations and political strategists have raised concerns about the potential impact on minority representation and the balance of power resulting from redistricting battles ^[5].

Multiple potential outcomes: The current situation could result in various scenarios including a full-on arms race, mutual de-escalation, successful Democratic resistance efforts, or legislative intervention to stop the practice ^[7].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself contains no misinformation or bias - it is a straightforward factual inquiry. However, the framing is somewhat neutral and doesn't capture the urgency and severity of the current gerrymandering crisis.

The question understates the reality that gerrymandering is not just a potential outcome of redistricting, but is actively happening right now across multiple states. The analyses reveal this is not a theoretical possibility but a current "battle royale" with the potential to create a never-ending gerrymandering war with significant implications for the democratic process ^[7].

The question also doesn't acknowledge that both major political parties are engaged in this practice, with Republicans and Democrats alike manipulating district boundaries for partisan advantage, making this a bipartisan assault on fair representation rather than a one-sided issue.