Fact check: What states have independant redistricting boards?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, eight states have independent redistricting commissions that control the redistricting process: California, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Michigan, Montana, New York, and Washington ^[1]. These commissions are designed to remove partisan politics from the map-drawing process.

California is the most frequently mentioned example across all sources, with voters taking the power to draw congressional maps away from lawmakers in 2010 through a statewide referendum ^[2]. The state established a bipartisan citizen commission that draws congressional lines ^[3] and has become a model for other states ^[4].

Additional states have different types of redistricting commissions that may include elected officials or their appointees, including Hawaii, New Jersey, and Virginia ^{[5] [1]}. Some states also have advisory or backup commissions rather than fully independent ones ^[1].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks important context about the different types of redistricting commissions that exist. While the question asks specifically about "independent" boards, the reality is more nuanced - some states have fully independent commissions, while others have hybrid models that include elected officials or their appointees ^[5].

The analyses reveal that California Republicans support independent redistricting nationwide and oppose gerrymandering in both blue and red states ^[4], suggesting bipartisan support for independent redistricting exists even in heavily Democratic states. This indicates that independent redistricting isn't necessarily a partisan issue, despite political parties potentially benefiting differently from various redistricting approaches.

Political parties and incumbent politicians would benefit from maintaining control over redistricting in states without independent commissions, as they can draw maps that favor their electoral prospects. Conversely, good government groups and voting rights advocates benefit from promoting independent redistricting as it supports their goals of fair representation.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself doesn't contain misinformation, as it's a straightforward factual inquiry. However, the question's framing around "independent" redistricting boards may oversimplify the complex landscape of redistricting reform, where states have implemented various models with different levels of independence ^{[5] [1]}.

The question doesn't acknowledge that redistricting systems exist on a spectrum from fully partisan (controlled by legislatures) to fully independent, with many states falling somewhere in between with hybrid commissions that include both independent members and political appointees.