Fact check: Which states were most affected by the 2019 Supreme Court ruling on partisan gerrymandering?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, Texas emerges as the most prominently mentioned state affected by the 2019 Supreme Court ruling on partisan gerrymandering ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]}. The ruling in Rucho v. Common Cause effectively removed federal courts from having authority to decide whether partisan gerrymandering goes too far, giving states "increasingly unfettered power in redistricting" ^[1].

Other states significantly impacted include:

• California, Missouri, Ohio, New York, Illinois, Indiana, and Florida - all mentioned as states undergoing potential redistricting battles following the ruling ^[3]
• South Carolina - specifically cited in relation to Republican legislators drawing congressional maps that diminished Black voter influence ^[6]

The ruling has had widespread implications across multiple states, with the analyses indicating that the decision made "gerrymandering even easier" by removing federal judicial oversight ^[6].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The analyses reveal several critical pieces of context missing from the original question:

• The ruling's broader impact on voting rights: The decision particularly affected the ability to challenge maps that "diminished the influence of Black voters," as seen in South Carolina ^[6]
• State-level responses: Some states have attempted to "take the partisanship out of redistricting through the use of commissions" as a response to the federal court withdrawal ^{[7] [1]}
• Ongoing legal challenges: Current maps in states like Texas are "still being challenged in court" despite the Supreme Court ruling ^[1]
• The Voting Rights Act connection: The Trump administration's support for legal arguments that could "further weaken the Voting Rights Act" represents an additional layer of impact ^[1]

Political parties and advocacy groups benefit differently from the ruling's implementation - Republican-controlled states gained more freedom to draw favorable maps, while Democratic states and civil rights organizations lost a key avenue for legal challenges.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself does not contain misinformation, but it lacks important framing about the ruling's nature and scope. The analyses reveal that:

• The question implies a limited impact when the ruling actually had "widespread implications" across numerous states ^{[3] [7]}
• Missing the racial dimension: The question doesn't acknowledge that the ruling particularly affected challenges to maps that diminished minority voting power ^[6]
• Temporal context absent: The question doesn't reflect that this was part of "a decade of Supreme Court rulings" that progressively gave states more redistricting power ^[1]

The framing could inadvertently minimize the systemic nature of the ruling's impact, which extended far beyond just a few "most affected" states to fundamentally change how partisan gerrymandering challenges can be pursued nationwide.