Fact check: Can states redistrict in non-census years without violating the US Constitution?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, states can redistrict in non-census years without violating the US Constitution. Multiple sources confirm this constitutional flexibility:

• The Constitution grants states primary authority over drawing legislative maps, with no explicit prohibition against redistricting in non-census years ^[1]
• There is "no national impediment to a state trying to redraw districts in the middle of the decade and to do it for political reasons" ^[2]
• "Nothing prevents legislatures from conducting redistricting more often" than every 10 years ^[3]
• Mid-decade redistricting is described as "rare, but allowed" ^[4]

The Supreme Court has significantly strengthened states' redistricting powers, with one source noting that federal courts have no authority to decide whether partisan gerrymandering goes too far ^[3]. The Constitution "leaves it to states to determine who exactly those members of Congress will represent" ^[5], with some states assigning this power to legislatures while others use nonpartisan or bipartisan commissions.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several important contextual elements:

• Rarity of the practice: While constitutionally permissible, mid-decade redistricting is rarely done ^[1], making it an exceptional rather than routine occurrence
• Current real-world example: Texas is actively redrawing its congressional maps in 2025, halfway between the 2020 and 2030 census ^[5], demonstrating this practice in action
• Legal challenges and hurdles: While not constitutionally prohibited, mid-decade redistricting can face legal hurdles ^[6], suggesting practical complications beyond constitutional questions
• Historical context: The practice of gerrymandering has existed for over 200 years in America ^[7], indicating this is a long-standing constitutional interpretation
• Supreme Court precedent: A decade of Supreme Court rulings have given states increasingly unfettered power in redistricting ^[1], showing recent judicial trends favoring state authority

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself appears neutral and factual, seeking clarification on constitutional law rather than making claims. However, the framing could potentially mislead by:

• Implying constitutional violation: The question's structure suggests there might be constitutional barriers to non-census year redistricting, when the evidence shows no such constitutional prohibition exists
• Omitting political motivations: The question doesn't acknowledge that such redistricting is typically done "for political reasons" ^[2], which is a crucial aspect of why and when states pursue this option
• Missing the partisan context: The analyses reveal this is fundamentally about political manipulation in legislative map-making ^[7], but the original question presents it as a purely procedural constitutional matter

The question appears genuinely inquisitive rather than deliberately misleading, but it lacks the political context that makes this issue significant in contemporary American politics.