Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Which states created new redistricting commissions after 2018 ballot measures?
Executive Summary
The core claim is that several states created new redistricting commissions through 2018 ballot measures, most prominently Michigan, Colorado, Missouri, and Utah, with other states having preexisting or later-established commissions. Reporting and reviews since 2018 confirm that voters in those states approved measures to move redistricting away from full legislative control, but the design, scope, and subsequent performance of those commissions vary and provoked debate about partisanship and legal challenges [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. This analysis extracts the key claims, matches them to available reporting, and contrasts contemporary assessments of how those post-2018 commissions functioned and how many states overall now use citizen or independent commissions [1] [5].
1. What supporters said they won in 2018 — voter power and anti-gerrymandering reform
Ballot initiatives in the 2018 midterms were widely promoted as returning the mapmaking power from partisan legislatures to independent or bipartisan citizen bodies, and major coverage singled out Michigan’s Proposal 2 and Colorado’s measures as emblematic victories for reformers. Voters in Michigan approved an Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission charged with drawing state legislative and congressional maps outside direct legislative control, and Colorado approved processes to reduce partisan influence in both state and federal districts [1] [3]. Reporting at the time framed these wins as part of a national wave of anti-gerrymandering reforms, joining earlier examples like California and Arizona, and suggesting an emerging consensus that commissions could make maps fairer and more transparent [6] [7].
2. Which states are commonly listed as creating new commissions after 2018 — an inventory and caveats
Media summaries and later reviews consistently list Michigan and Colorado as 2018 successes and frequently cite Utah as having passed a commission-related measure the same year; some contemporaneous outlets also reported Missouri reforms, though Missouri’s measures were more limited or targeted different aspects of redistricting [1] [8] [4]. Analysts compiling state-by-state rosters through 2025 note that several other states had commissions created earlier (Arizona, California, Montana, Washington, Idaho) or through different mechanisms, so the net increase attributable specifically to the 2018 ballot cycle is concentrated but not huge [7] [5]. This distinction matters because counting “new commissions after 2018” can either mean commissions created in 2018 specifically, or commissions added to the national total since 2018; reporting mixes those frames [7] [5].
3. How these commissions differed in design — independent, bipartisan, or advisory?
The reforms approved in 2018 did not all create identically empowered bodies. Michigan’s commission was structured as an Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission with defined criteria and member selection rules intended to limit partisan control, while Colorado’s approach established separate independent processes for state and congressional maps with statutory and constitutional safeguards [1] [3]. Utah’s Proposition 4, also passed in 2018, created a seven-member independent commission, but the scope and operating rules vary from Michigan’s more prescriptive constitutional language [1]. These structural differences produced divergent legal and political outcomes as courts and legislatures tested the commissions’ authorities and as advocates evaluated their performance [1] [5].
4. Real-world outcomes and controversies — performance, challenges, and partisan critiques
Follow-up reporting and state legislative reviews found mixed effectiveness and sparked partisan controversy. Michigan’s commission drew praise for increased transparency but faced accusations of partisan influence and legal scrutiny over particular maps, while Missouri saw disputes over Senate maps and questions about how reforms affected actual outcomes [1]. Evaluations through 2025 emphasize that commissions can reduce blatant legislative map-drawing but are not immune to political pressure, implementation flaws, or litigation — and that state-specific rules governing eligibility, selection, and criteria dramatically shape results [1] [5]. Commentators on different sides use these mixed results to argue either that commissions need stronger safeguards or that they remain politically contestable institutions [1] [5].
5. Big-picture tally and lingering questions — how many states now rely on commissions?
By mid-decade, summaries of state systems reported that seven states had established independent citizen-redistricting commissions in some form, naming Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Michigan, Montana, and Washington, while other states used bipartisan or legislative commissions or hybrid models [5]. That count incorporates reforms before and after 2018; the 2018 ballot measures specifically account for a notable but limited subset of those additions. The central unresolved issues for voters and policymakers are whether existing commissions can be strengthened to withstand partisan pressures, how to measure “fairness” across different criteria, and whether jurisdictions that rejected reforms (like Ohio in subsequent years) will revisit the question [5] [1].