Fact check: Can states redraw congressional districts in non-census years without violating federal law?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, states can legally redraw congressional districts in non-census years without violating federal law, but face significant practical and legal constraints. The evidence shows that there is no federal prohibition on redistricting outside of the census schedule ^[1]. Under the Constitution, state legislatures have the primary role of drawing legislative maps, and while Congress has the power to intervene and set rules, states are not prohibited from drawing new maps between censuses, though it is rarely done ^[2].

However, the ability to conduct mid-decade redistricting varies dramatically by state due to state-specific laws and constitutional limitations. Several states have explicitly prohibited mid-decade congressional redistricting, including New York, North Carolina, and Tennessee ^[1]. The New York State Constitution specifically prohibits gerrymandering and specifies that redistricting takes place once a decade, after the release of the U.S. census ^[3].

The legal landscape has been shaped by recent Supreme Court decisions. Notably, the Supreme Court has ruled that federal courts have no authority to intervene in partisan gerrymandering cases, which may embolden states to redraw districts for political gain ^[2]. This represents a significant shift that has given states increasingly unfettered power in redistricting ^[2].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question omits several crucial contextual factors that significantly impact the practical answer:

• State constitutional barriers: Many states have constitutional provisions that make mid-decade redistricting virtually impossible ^[3]. For example, Missouri's state constitution requires redistricting to be done after the decennial census and does not address whether it can be done at another time, leaving uncertainty about the legality ^[3].
• Procedural requirements: Some states require additional approval processes. California's plan to potentially redraw its congressional map would require voter approval, suggesting that California may not be able to unilaterally redraw its districts in non-census years ^[4].
• Political motivations: The question doesn't acknowledge that recent discussions about mid-decade redistricting are largely driven by partisan considerations. Texas law does not ban partisan gerrymandering, which could allow for strategic redistricting ^[5], while California is considering redrawing its congressional map in response to Texas' actions ^[4].
• Varying state approaches: Redistricting laws vary by state, and while some states have laws or criteria aimed at creating competitive and compact districts, others do not ^[5], creating a patchwork of different legal frameworks across the country.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question, while technically neutral, presents the issue in an oversimplified binary framework that could mislead readers about the complexity of redistricting law. The question implies there should be a straightforward yes-or-no answer about federal law violations, when the reality is that the legality depends heavily on individual state laws and constitutions rather than federal prohibitions.

The framing also omits the political context driving current redistricting discussions, particularly the strategic considerations by states like Texas and California that are considering mid-decade redistricting for partisan advantage. This omission could lead readers to view the question as purely procedural rather than understanding it within the current highly politicized redistricting environment where states have increasingly unfettered power following recent Supreme Court decisions ^[2].

Additionally, the question doesn't acknowledge that while federal law may not prohibit mid-decade redistricting, states must still comply with constitutional and statutory requirements, such as the 'one person, one vote' principle and the Voting Rights Act ^[6], which can create practical limitations even when redistricting is technically permissible.