Fact check: What role do state courts play in redistricting disputes between censuses?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, state courts have a significantly limited role in redistricting disputes between censuses, primarily due to the 2019 Supreme Court decision in Rucho v. Common Cause. This landmark ruling removed federal judges from resolving most disputes over partisan gerrymandering, effectively constraining judicial intervention in redistricting matters ^{[1] [2]}.

However, state courts can still play some procedural and administrative roles in redistricting processes. The California Supreme Court demonstrated this by denying a Republican petition that requested lawmakers wait 30 days before taking action on redistricting legislation, showing that state courts can influence the timing and process of redistricting efforts ^[3]. Additionally, the California Supreme Court halted a Republican redistricting lawsuit challenging Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom's proposal to redistrict California's congressional map ^[4].

The analyses also indicate that states now have increasingly unfettered power in redistricting following a decade of Supreme Court rulings, with states being primarily responsible for drawing legislative maps ^[2]. When disputes do arise, parties still vow to challenge new maps in court, suggesting that while limited, some judicial review remains possible ^[5].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The analyses reveal several important gaps in understanding the full scope of state court involvement in redistricting:

• The distinction between federal and state constitutional challenges is not clearly addressed. While federal courts have limited authority over partisan gerrymandering claims, state courts may still have jurisdiction over violations of state constitutional provisions or state-specific redistricting requirements.
• The difference between routine redistricting cycles and emergency redistricting between censuses is not well-defined in the sources. The current examples focus on reactive redistricting efforts (California responding to Texas changes) rather than typical inter-census disputes.
• Procedural versus substantive review powers of state courts remain unclear. The sources show state courts can influence timing and process but don't clarify their authority to review the actual fairness or legality of redistricting plans.
• Variation between different state court systems and their respective powers under state constitutions is not addressed, despite the fact that redistricting authority varies significantly by state.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself does not contain explicit misinformation, but it may carry an implicit assumption that state courts play a substantial role in redistricting disputes between censuses. The analyses suggest this assumption may be overstated given the current legal landscape following Rucho v. Common Cause ^{[1] [2]}.

The question also fails to acknowledge the political context surrounding recent redistricting disputes, particularly the partisan nature of the California-Texas redistricting conflict mentioned in multiple sources ^{[5] [6]}. This omission could lead to an incomplete understanding of why redistricting disputes arise between censuses and the political motivations driving them.

Additionally, the framing suggests redistricting disputes between censuses are common occurrences, but the analyses primarily focus on specific reactive measures rather than routine inter-census redistricting disputes, potentially mischaracterizing the frequency and nature of such conflicts.