Fact check: What are the constitutional limits on state congressional redistricting?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, the constitutional limits on state congressional redistricting are surprisingly minimal following recent Supreme Court decisions. The Constitution grants state legislatures the primary role in drawing legislative maps, though Congress has the power to intervene and set rules for the process, although it rarely does so ^[1].

The most significant development occurred in 2019 when the Supreme Court's ruling established that federal courts cannot intervene in cases of partisan gerrymandering, leaving states to draw legislative maps with minimal oversight ^[1]. This ruling in Rucho v. Common Cause made it clear that federal courts have no authority to intervene in partisan gerrymandering cases ^[1].

The remaining constitutional constraints are limited to:

• The 'one person, one vote' precedent, which requires similar population sizes for each district ^[1]
• The Voting Rights Act, although the Supreme Court has weakened the latter in recent rulings ^[1]

Additionally, the Supreme Court's ruling in Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP weakened voting rights laws by allowing partisan gerrymandering ^[2].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The question lacks important context about the current political dynamics driving redistricting efforts. Texas is currently engaged in a redistricting effort, with Republicans aiming to gain five more seats in the state ^[3], while Democrats in other states like California and New York are considering countermeasures to protect their own seats ^[3].

California Governor Gavin Newsom is planning to propose a ballot measure that would allow the state to draw new congressional maps if Texas enacts its own GOP-favored map, which could potentially flip several Republican-held seats in California ^[4]. Similarly, New York Governor Kathy Hochul is also considering changes to the state's redistricting process ^[4].

An important alternative approach exists: Eight states rely on independent commissions to draw congressional maps, which can help reduce partisan gerrymandering ^[3]. However, some states like New York and California are exploring ways to work around these commissions to gain an advantage ^[3].

The analyses reveal that some states rely on independent commissions to craft new maps, while others have their legislatures draw the maps ^[3], showing there are different structural approaches to redistricting beyond pure legislative control.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself does not contain misinformation, as it simply asks about constitutional limits. However, it may inadvertently suggest that robust constitutional limits exist, when in fact the Supreme Court's ruling on partisan gerrymandering has led to a trend of states engaging in partisan line-drawing ^[3].

The question fails to acknowledge that states are required to draw new legislative maps after the census, but are not prohibited from doing so between censuses ^[1], which is a crucial distinction in understanding current redistricting controversies.

The framing also doesn't capture that ongoing efforts to challenge and reform gerrymandering practices continue through various court cases ^[5], suggesting the legal landscape remains dynamic despite the Supreme Court's limitations on federal intervention.