Fact check: Which states have implemented anti-gerrymandering measures despite Republican opposition?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, several states have implemented anti-gerrymandering measures, though the sources don't always explicitly specify which ones faced Republican opposition:

States with confirmed anti-gerrymandering reforms:

• Michigan and Virginia have implemented state-level redistricting reforms ^{[1] [2]}
• Maryland has state courts that have enforced limits on partisan gerrymandering ^[1]
• Pennsylvania benefits from divided government that has helped create fairer maps ^[1]
• California operates an independent redistricting commission, often viewed as a model for anti-gerrymandering efforts ^[3]
• Arizona and Idaho have assigned redistricting to independent commissions rather than state legislators ^[4]

Commission-based approaches:

The analyses reveal that some states have established special commissions composed of citizens or bipartisan panels to limit gerrymandering ^[5]. However, only eight of these commissions are truly independent ^[1], suggesting that many states have implemented partial reforms rather than comprehensive solutions.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question assumes Republican opposition to anti-gerrymandering measures, but the analyses reveal important missing context:

Bipartisan gerrymandering reality:

While one analysis suggests that "Republicans may benefit more and have been more aggressive in their tactics, including mid-decade redistricting" ^[6], the sources also indicate that both parties engage in gerrymandering when it benefits them. For example, California Governor Gavin Newsom is considering drawing new maps to flip Congressional control back to Democratic hands, which redistricting reform advocates view as a partisan move ^[3].

Limited reform scope:

The analyses show that even states with "reforms" may not have comprehensive solutions. The fact that only eight commissions are truly independent ^[1] suggests that many states have implemented cosmetic changes rather than meaningful anti-gerrymandering measures.

Supreme Court influence:

One source notes that "a decade of Supreme Court rulings have given states increasingly unfettered power in redistricting" ^[7], indicating that federal judicial decisions have actually made it easier for states to gerrymander, regardless of party control.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains an implicit assumption that may not reflect the complete picture:

Partisan framing:

The question assumes that anti-gerrymandering measures face primarily Republican opposition, but the analyses suggest this is an oversimplification. The sources indicate that both parties resist anti-gerrymandering measures when those measures would disadvantage them politically. Democratic leaders like Gavin Newsom are also willing to engage in partisan redistricting when it serves their interests ^[3].

Incomplete scope:

The question focuses solely on Republican opposition while ignoring instances where Democrats have opposed or circumvented anti-gerrymandering measures. This framing could mislead readers into believing that gerrymandering is exclusively a Republican practice, when the analyses show it's a bipartisan issue where both parties benefit from maintaining the ability to draw favorable districts.

Missing acknowledgment of complexity:

The question doesn't account for the varying degrees of reform implementation. Many states have partial measures rather than comprehensive anti-gerrymandering systems, making it difficult to categorize them simply as having "implemented anti-gerrymandering measures."