Fact check: Can states redraw congressional districts outside of census years?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, states can legally redraw congressional districts outside of census years, but this practice is uncommon and faces significant practical and legal challenges. The evidence shows that while there is no explicit constitutional prohibition against mid-decade redistricting, the standard practice is tied to the decennial census cycle.

Legal Framework:

• The Constitution requires a census every 10 years, followed by reapportionment and redistricting ^[1]
• However, states are not prohibited from drawing new maps between censuses, though it is rarely done ^[2]
• Some experts argue that a mid-decade census could be conducted, but it would likely face legal challenges ^[3]

Current Political Reality:

• Republicans are actively attempting to redraw districts in several states including Ohio, Indiana, South Carolina, Missouri, and Florida ahead of the 2026 midterm elections ^[4]
• Texas, California, and Indiana are considering redrawing their congressional maps outside the typical census year cycle ^[5]
• This represents a potential "gerrymandering arms race" with states considering map redraws before either the 2026 or 2028 elections ^[6]

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several crucial contextual elements:

Political Motivations:

• The current push for mid-decade redistricting is primarily driven by Republican efforts to gain more GOP-friendly seats before the 2026 elections ^[4]
• This represents a strategic political maneuver rather than a routine administrative process
• Powerful political parties and their donors would benefit significantly from successful mid-decade redistricting efforts, as it could shift control of congressional seats without waiting for the next census

Legal and Practical Challenges:

• While technically possible, mid-decade redistricting faces potential legal challenges ^[5]
• The Supreme Court has given states "increasingly unfettered power in redistricting" over the past decade, which may facilitate these efforts ^[2]
• The practice could trigger retaliatory actions from opposing parties in other states

Historical Precedent:

• The analyses suggest this is not a common practice historically, with redistricting typically following the constitutional framework of decennial censuses ^{[1] [5]}

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself appears neutral and factual, asking a straightforward procedural question about redistricting timing. However, the framing could potentially:

• Obscure the partisan nature of current mid-decade redistricting efforts by presenting it as a general procedural question rather than acknowledging the specific Republican-led initiatives currently underway ^[4]
• Fail to convey the unusual nature of what is being proposed, since the analyses consistently indicate this is rare and not standard practice ^{[2] [5]}
• Omit the potential for escalation, as the analyses suggest this could lead to a broader "gerrymandering battle royale" affecting multiple states ^[6]

The question's neutrality, while appropriate for a factual inquiry, may inadvertently normalize what the sources suggest is an unprecedented political strategy that could fundamentally alter the traditional redistricting process.