Fact check: Can states redistrict in non-census years due to significant population changes?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, states are legally permitted to redistrict in non-census years, though this practice is uncommon. The sources reveal that states are not prohibited from drawing new maps between censuses, but it is rarely done ^[1].

The most concrete evidence comes from Texas, which is planning to redraw its congressional maps in the middle of the decade ^[2], demonstrating that mid-decade redistricting is actively occurring. This practice has prompted legislative response, as Rep. Kevin Kiley plans to introduce legislation to prohibit Mid-Decade Redistricting nationwide ^[3], which would nullify new maps adopted by states before the 2030 census, including any that are adopted this year ^[3].

While the analyses confirm that redistricting outside census years is legally possible, the typical process involves redistricting once every 10 years following the census ^[4], and the practice is tied to census data for determining congressional representation ^[5].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question specifically asks about redistricting due to "significant population changes," but the analyses reveal that current mid-decade redistricting efforts appear motivated by political gain rather than population shifts. Texas is described as "bashing through norms that were keeping folks in check" by proposing a mid-decade re-draw for overt political gain ^[1].

Key missing context includes:

• The distinction between redistricting for legitimate population changes versus partisan advantage
• Supreme Court rulings that have given states "increasingly unfettered power in redistricting" ^[1], which enables these practices
• The unprecedented nature of Trump's call for a new census that excludes undocumented immigrants ^[6], which could fundamentally alter redistricting processes

Political actors who benefit from mid-decade redistricting include state legislators seeking to maximize their party's electoral advantage, while those pushing for restrictions like Rep. Kevin Kiley benefit from appearing to champion electoral fairness.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains an implicit assumption that population changes would be the primary justification for non-census year redistricting. However, the analyses reveal that current examples of mid-decade redistricting are explicitly described as being for "overt political gain" ^[1] rather than responding to demographic shifts.

The question also fails to acknowledge that while technically legal, mid-decade redistricting violates established norms and is "rarely done" ^[1]. This omission could mislead readers into thinking such redistricting is a standard practice when it represents a significant departure from traditional electoral processes.

The framing suggests a neutral, procedural inquiry when the reality involves partisan manipulation of electoral boundaries that has prompted legislative efforts to ban the practice entirely ^[3].