Fact check: Can states redraw congressional districts for reasons other than population changes?

1. Summary of the results

Yes, states can redraw congressional districts for reasons other than population changes. While redistricting typically occurs after the decennial census to reflect population shifts ^[1], current events demonstrate that states are actively pursuing redistricting for partisan political advantage.

Texas is leading this effort, with Republicans attempting to redraw districts to gain five additional GOP seats in the 2026 midterm elections ^{[2] [1] [3]}. This redistricting effort was initiated after President Trump suggested it should be done for Republican advantage ^[1]. The proposed Texas map explicitly aims to advantage Republican candidates, setting aside legal justifications ^[3].

Democratic-led states are responding in kind. California Governor Gavin Newsom has threatened to redraw California's congressional maps to offset Republican redistricting efforts unless they are canceled ^[4]. Other Democratic-led states like New York are also considering similar actions ^[2]. California could potentially gain up to five congressional seats if their redistricting measure is approved ^[4].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several crucial contextual elements:

• Historical precedent: Gerrymandering has been a long-standing practice that has become more egregious in recent years due to advances in technology and the lack of legal checks ^[5]. Texas, in particular, has a history of gerrymandering that predates current efforts ^[6].
• Independent redistricting commissions: Some states like California established independent redistricting commissions specifically to prevent partisan gerrymandering ^[7]. However, Democrats are now considering undoing this nonpartisan work to counter Republican redistricting efforts.
• Mid-decade census proposals: Florida Governor Ron DeSantis supports conducting a mid-decade census, which could provide justification for redistricting, though this idea faces significant opposition ^[8].
• Distinction between redistricting and reapportionment: The question doesn't clarify that redistricting refers to drawing congressional maps, while reapportionment involves reallocating seats based on population changes from the census ^[8].

Who benefits from different narratives:

• Republican politicians like those in Texas benefit from portraying mid-decade redistricting as necessary for fair representation
• Democratic politicians like Gavin Newsom benefit from framing their response as defensive measures against Republican overreach
• Advocacy groups like The People (led by Katie Fahey) benefit from promoting nonpartisan redistricting solutions ^[7]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question appears neutral and factual, asking about legal possibilities rather than making claims. However, it lacks important context that could lead to incomplete understanding:

• Timing implications: The question doesn't specify that while states can redraw districts for non-population reasons, doing so mid-decade for purely partisan purposes represents an escalation of traditional gerrymandering practices.
• Legal vs. practical considerations: The question doesn't distinguish between what states are legally permitted to do versus established norms and practices around redistricting timing.
• Current political context: The question omits that this issue has become particularly contentious due to Trump's encouragement of Republican-led redistricting efforts and the resulting Democratic counter-responses ^{[1] [4]}.

The question itself doesn't contain misinformation, but its framing could benefit from acknowledging the current partisan redistricting battle occurring across multiple states.