Fact check: Which states have undergone significant redistricting changes since the 2020 census?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, several states have undergone significant redistricting changes since the 2020 census:

Texas emerges as the most prominent example, having already drawn new maps after the 2020 census and now considering a mid-decade re-draw for overt political gain ^[1]. Texas receives an F grade for gerrymandering according to the Gerrymander Project and serves as a prime example of redistricting manipulation ^[2].

Illinois is consistently mentioned as another state with significant changes, also receiving an F grade for gerrymandering with maps that skew districts in favor of Democrats ^[2].

Additional states identified as having undergone or considering significant redistricting changes include:

• Florida, Missouri, Indiana, Ohio, New Hampshire, and South Carolina - mentioned as states with potential redistricting changes in response to the 2020 census ^{[3] [4]}
• California, New York, and Maryland - also cited as states involved in redistricting discussions ^{[3] [4]}
• Virginia and Arizona - noted as examples of states that have taken steps to address gerrymandering through independent redistricting commissions ^[2]

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks important context about the political motivations behind redistricting changes. The analyses reveal that redistricting is not merely a technical census response but a strategic political tool where Republicans are trying to redraw congressional maps to gain more seats, while Democrats in states like New York and California may respond in kind ^[5].

Supreme Court influence is a crucial missing element - a decade of Supreme Court rulings have given states increasingly unfettered power in redistricting ^[1], fundamentally changing the redistricting landscape since previous decades.

The question also omits the timing aspect - some states like Texas are considering mid-decade re-draws rather than just post-census adjustments ^[1], and there are discussions about changes before the 2026 midterms ^[4].

Beneficiaries of different narratives:

• Republican party leadership benefits from downplaying the extent of gerrymandering in red states like Texas
• Democratic party leadership benefits from highlighting Republican gerrymandering while minimizing their own efforts in states like Illinois
• Independent redistricting commission advocates benefit from emphasizing the problems with partisan redistricting

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question appears neutral and factual, asking for objective information about redistricting changes. However, it could be misleadingly incomplete by framing redistricting as a routine post-census administrative process rather than acknowledging the highly partisan political warfare that redistricting has become ^{[6] [5]}.

The question's neutrality might inadvertently obscure the strategic timing of some redistricting efforts, particularly Texas's consideration of mid-decade changes that go beyond standard post-census requirements ^[1]. This framing could benefit those who prefer to present redistricting as a technical rather than political process.

The analyses suggest that the current redistricting environment represents a significant departure from historical norms, with the potential for a larger redistricting war involving multiple states ^[6], which the original question's straightforward framing does not capture.