Fact check: How many times has redistricting taken place outside of the census cycle

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, redistricting outside of the census cycle is rare but legally permissible. The most concrete information comes from one source which states that there have been three or four modern attempts at mid-decade redistricting ^[1]. These documented cases include:

• Texas and Colorado in 2003
• Georgia in 2005
• North Carolina in 2023

All of these instances were initiated by Republicans according to the analysis ^[1]. Multiple sources confirm that while states are not prohibited from redrawing maps between censuses, it is rarely done ^[2]. Current examples include Texas Republicans moving to redraw their congressional map mid-decade for potential advantage in the 2026 midterm elections ^[3], and California considering redistricting in response to Republican-controlled states' actions ^[4].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks important context about why redistricting outside the census cycle occurs. The analyses reveal that these efforts are typically partisan maneuvers rather than neutral administrative processes. Republican-controlled states appear to be the primary drivers of mid-decade redistricting efforts, with the goal of gaining electoral advantages ^{[1] [3]}.

The question also omits the legal framework - while there is no national impediment to mid-decade redistricting ^[5], the practice remains uncommon due to political and practical constraints. Democratic states like California are now considering similar tactics in response to Republican actions, suggesting a potential escalation in partisan redistricting practices ^[4].

Missing from the discussion is the impact on electoral fairness and how these practices affect democratic representation, as well as the financial and political benefits that accrue to the parties implementing these changes.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question appears neutral and factual, seeking specific numerical information about redistricting frequency. However, it could be misleading by omission as it frames redistricting outside the census cycle as a routine administrative question rather than acknowledging it as a partisan political strategy.

The question's neutrality might obscure the controversial nature of mid-decade redistricting and its role in gerrymandering. By not providing context about the political motivations behind these actions, the question could inadvertently normalize what is actually an exceptional and politically charged practice ^{[6] [2]}.

The framing also fails to acknowledge that both major political parties may benefit from portraying mid-decade redistricting either as a legitimate tool or as an abuse of power, depending on their current political position and control of state governments.