Fact check: Which states have seen a reduction in gerrymandering after implementing independent commissions?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, seven states have implemented independent citizen-redistricting commissions: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Michigan, Montana, and Washington State ^[1]. These commissions are specifically designed to draw electoral district boundaries without giving any political party an unfair advantage, thereby reducing gerrymandering.

Michigan stands out as a clear success story, where the independent commission has led to a more representative election process, with the percentage of voters supporting Democrats now matching the percentage of seats allocated to that party ^[2]. Arizona and Virginia are also highlighted as examples where independent commissions have produced more fair district maps ^[3].

California's independent redistricting commission is frequently mentioned as a model for advocates hoping to end partisan gerrymandering ^{[4] [5]}. The state is noted alongside New York as having independent redistricting commissions that serve as obstacles to partisan gerrymandering ^[5].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The analyses reveal several important gaps in understanding the full picture of redistricting reform:

• Implementation challenges: While states have established these commissions, the analyses note that "details matter" for successful redistricting commissions, and community feedback is crucial in the redistricting process ^[6]. However, specific details about what makes these commissions effective are not provided.
• Political retaliation concerns: The analyses suggest that some Democratic states like California and Illinois might respond to Republican gerrymandering in other states with their own gerrymanders ^[7], indicating that even states with independent commissions may face pressure to abandon fair redistricting practices.
• Broader reform challenges: One analysis highlights the fundamental dilemma of democratic reform and the challenge of responding to norm-breaking tactics like gerrymandering ^[8], suggesting that independent commissions may not be a complete solution to the problem.
• Limited scope: The analyses don't provide comprehensive data on measurable reductions in gerrymandering metrics (such as efficiency gaps or competitiveness measures) across all states with independent commissions.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself does not contain misinformation, but it may inadvertently suggest that independent commissions are universally successful at reducing gerrymandering. The analyses reveal that:

• Success varies by implementation: Not all independent commissions are equally effective, as the importance of specific design details and community engagement suggests that some may be more successful than others ^[6].
• Ongoing political pressures: Even states with independent commissions face political pressures that could undermine their effectiveness, as suggested by discussions of potential retaliatory gerrymandering ^[7].
• Limited data availability: The analyses themselves acknowledge gaps in available information about the actual effectiveness of these commissions in reducing gerrymandering, which suggests that claims about their success should be made cautiously.

The question assumes that independent commissions have definitively reduced gerrymandering, when the evidence suggests a more nuanced picture where some states have seen improvements while facing ongoing challenges.