Fact check: Which states have implemented independent redistricting commissions to reduce gerrymandering?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, several states have implemented independent redistricting commissions to reduce gerrymandering. The most consistently mentioned states across sources include:

• California - Established an independent redistricting commission in 2008 and expanded it in 2010 to prevent partisan gerrymandering ^{[1] [2]}
• Michigan - Has an independent commission to draw district lines ^[3]
• Arizona - Operates an independent commission for redistricting ^{[3] [4]}
• Colorado - Uses an independent commission to prevent gerrymandering ^[3]

Additional states mentioned include New York, which has had an independent redistricting commission since 2014 ^[2], though one source notes that New York's commission is not as powerful as others ^[5]. New Jersey is also mentioned as having a similar commission ^[1], and Idaho and Virginia are noted as states that have attempted to prevent partisan gerrymandering through independent commissions ^[4].

The sources indicate that while 18 commissions of some type exist across states, only eight are considered truly independent ^[6]. Seven states have independent commissions that approved congressional maps, though the specific states are not always identified ^[5].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The analyses reveal important nuances about independent redistricting commissions that provide crucial context:

• Varying levels of independence: Not all commissions labeled as "independent" have equal power or autonomy. Some commissions may be more susceptible to political influence than others ^{[5] [6]}
• Implementation challenges: The effectiveness of these commissions varies significantly between states, with some being more successful at reducing partisan influence than others
• Limited scope: While 18 states have some form of redistricting commission, only eight are considered truly independent, suggesting that many states maintain significant political control over the redistricting process ^[6]

Political stakeholders who benefit from maintaining traditional redistricting processes (typically controlled by state legislatures) would likely emphasize the challenges and limitations of independent commissions, while reform advocates and good-government organizations would benefit from promoting the expansion of truly independent redistricting systems.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself does not contain misinformation or bias - it is a straightforward factual inquiry about which states have implemented independent redistricting commissions. However, the question could benefit from additional specificity about what constitutes "independent" redistricting, given that the analyses reveal significant variation in the actual independence and effectiveness of different state commissions ^{[5] [6]}.

The question appropriately focuses on the mechanism (independent commissions) rather than making assumptions about their effectiveness, which allows for a factual response based on implementation rather than outcomes.