What states passed anti-gerrymandering ballot measures in 2018 and 2020?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Voters approved anti‑gerrymandering ballot measures in at least five states in 2018 — Colorado, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio and Utah — with measures creating independent or reformed redistricting processes [1] [2] [3]. In 2020, additional reforms were enacted or amended (notably Virginia’s Question 1 and Missouri’s follow‑up change to its 2018 amendment), though sources show a more mixed record of enactments and amendments in that year [4] [5] [6].
1. 2018’s wave: five states rewrote the rules
In 2018 a clear cluster of voter initiatives restructured redistricting: Ballotpedia and multiple advocacy groups record that Ohio, Colorado, Michigan, Missouri and Utah each approved reforms that either created independent or bipartisan commissions or otherwise constrained partisan line‑drawing [1] [2] [3]. Grassroots groups such as Voters Not Politicians in Michigan pushed Proposal 2, a constitutional amendment passed with roughly 61% of the vote that moved map‑drawing power out of partisan hands [7]. ReclaimTheAmericanDream and other summaries likewise list Colorado, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio and Utah as states where voters "threw out the old partisan system" in 2018 [2].
2. What those 2018 measures actually did
The 2018 measures were not identical: some created independent commissions for congressional maps (Colorado’s commission) while others rewrote the process for state legislative maps or imposed fairness tests and transparency rules (Clean Missouri included statistical fairness language; Michigan’s Proposal 2 set up a citizen redistricting commission) [8] [3] [7]. Ballotpedia’s rollup of redistricting measures shows the variety — different criteria, different scopes (congressional vs. state legislative) — even among states that are often grouped together as “anti‑gerrymandering” victories [4].
3. 2020: reform, rollback and mixed outcomes
The 2020 cycle is more complicated: some states placed reform measures on the ballot (Virginia’s Question 1 was a 2020 redistricting commission referral), and in Missouri voters passed an amendment in 2020 that altered the effect of the 2018 anti‑gerrymandering language by prioritizing certain line‑drawing rules over partisan fairness [4] [5]. The Wisconsin State Democracy explainer cites Missouri’s 2020 amendment as limiting the earlier 2018 constitutional fairness clause, a reminder that voter‑driven reform can be followed quickly by legislative or ballot changes that alter implementation [5].
4. Disagreement and follow‑up litigation or legislative responses
Sources make clear there’s disagreement about outcomes and implementation: advocacy groups celebrate 2018 as a breakthrough in five states, while later reporting documents efforts by legislatures or courts to limit or reinterpret voter reforms — for example, Missouri’s post‑2018 adjustment and Utah’s 2018 commission being effectively overridden by legislative mapmaking in the later cycle [5] [9]. Ballotpedia and the Brennan Center note that different legal and political actors continued to contest how binding or effective these voter measures would be when maps were actually drawn [4] [8].
5. Why counts vary across sources
Different organizations count different things as “anti‑gerrymandering measures.” Some tallies only include measures that created independent commissions; others include reforms that added transparency rules or fairness tests. Ballotpedia lists the five 2018 states above and separately catalogs 2020 measures such as Virginia Question 1 [1] [4]. The Wisconsin State Democracy explainer and Brennan Center highlight that post‑2018 legislative actions and court decisions changed the practical reach of some measures [5] [8].
6. What available sources do not mention
Available sources do not mention a comprehensive, single official list that treats every narrow statutory change and every court ruling between 2018–2020 as an “anti‑gerrymandering ballot measure”; they instead present overlapping catalogs and narratives [4] [1]. Available sources do not provide a definitive nationwide tally that reconciles ballot language differences, simultaneous legislative referrals, or subsequent amendments beyond the examples noted above [5] [4].
7. Bottom line for readers
The clearest, well‑supported fact: in 2018 voters in Colorado, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio and Utah approved ballot measures that reformed redistricting processes [1] [2] [3]. The picture for 2020 is mixed — Virginia passed a commission referral and Missouri’s 2020 vote materially changed its 2018 reform — illustrating that ballot victories can prompt rapid legal and legislative counters that alter how anti‑gerrymandering rules function [4] [5]. Readers should treat “anti‑gerrymandering” as a category that covers a range of legal tools, each with different real‑world strength once courts and legislatures act [8] [10].