Fact check: Which states have implemented independent redistricting commissions?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, 15 states have implemented independent redistricting commissions with primary responsibility for drawing state legislative district plans ^[1]. These states include Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington ^[1].

Several specific examples demonstrate how these commissions operate:

• California established its independent redistricting commission through voter approval in 2010 ^[2], and this system is being used as a model for redistricting reform in other states like Wisconsin ^[3]
• Michigan created its Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission through a citizen referendum in 2018, which has increased trust and yielded more responsive voting maps, making it a model for other states ^[4]
• The analyses confirm that in seven states, independent commissions approved the maps during recent redistricting cycles ^[5]

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks important context about the ongoing political battles surrounding redistricting reform. Several key points emerge from the analyses:

Political Manipulation and Countermoves:

• There is an escalating gerrymandering battle, with Texas implementing a Republican redistricting scheme that has prompted California Governor Gavin Newsom to call for a special election to authorize state redistricting as a countermeasure ^{[6] [2]}
• Even states with independent commissions like California are considering partisan redistricting efforts to counter moves by other states ^[2]

Reform Efforts in Non-Commission States:

• Wisconsin does not have an independent redistricting commission, but the Wisconsin Fair Maps Coalition is actively pushing for the creation of one, partly modeled after California's process ^[3]
• This indicates that the number of states with independent commissions may grow as reform advocates continue their efforts

Varying Effectiveness:

• The analyses suggest that details matter significantly for the success of independent redistricting commissions ^[7], implying that not all commissions are equally effective or truly independent

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself does not contain misinformation or bias - it is a straightforward factual inquiry. However, the question's simplicity omits the complex political dynamics surrounding redistricting reform.

The question fails to acknowledge that:

• The landscape of independent redistricting commissions is actively evolving, with ongoing political battles that may affect both existing commissions and the creation of new ones
• Some states with independent commissions are considering bypassing their own systems for political advantage, as seen with California's proposed special election ^{[6] [2]}
• The effectiveness and true independence of these commissions varies significantly between states, making a simple count potentially misleading about the actual impact of redistricting reform

The straightforward nature of the question masks the highly partisan and strategic nature of redistricting politics, where even states with independent systems are being drawn into tit-for-tat political maneuvering.