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

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, several states have implemented independent redistricting commissions to reduce partisan gerrymandering:

• New York established an Independent Redistricting Commission through a constitutional amendment in 2014 to prevent partisan gerrymandering ^[1]. However, this commission failed to agree on the latest redistricting maps, which were subsequently rejected by courts for partisan gerrymandering ^[1].
• California has an independent commission that controls the redistricting process, created by a ballot measure ^[2]. This is described as a bipartisan citizen commission protected by the state Constitution ^[3].
• New Jersey is mentioned as another large Democratic state with an independent commission ^[3].

The analyses reveal that New York's commission has a flawed design with evenly divided membership and politically influenced appointments, resulting in deadlock ^[4]. The state's redistricting process has been marked by one-sided map grabs and delayed special elections ^[4].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks important context about the effectiveness and limitations of these commissions. The analyses reveal that having an independent redistricting commission doesn't guarantee success in preventing gerrymandering.

• Structural problems: New York's commission demonstrates how poor design can undermine the commission's purpose, with its evenly divided membership creating systematic deadlock ^[4].
• Political workarounds: New York is considering a constitutional amendment that would allow the Legislature to bypass the commission for mid-decade redistricting, effectively neutering the commission's authority when politically convenient ^[5].
• Partisan divide in implementation: Many Democratic states use independent citizen-redistricting commissions to maintain fairness, whereas many Republican-led states rely on partisan legislatures to draw electoral district boundaries ^[6].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself doesn't contain misinformation, but it presents an incomplete picture by implying that independent redistricting commissions are an effective solution to partisan gerrymandering. The analyses show this assumption is problematic:

• The question suggests these commissions successfully "reduce" partisan gerrymandering, but New York's experience demonstrates that poorly designed commissions can actually perpetuate the problem they were meant to solve ^{[1] [4]}.
• The framing ignores the political gamesmanship surrounding these commissions, where states like New York are actively exploring ways to circumvent their own independent commissions when it serves their political interests ^[5].
• Democratic politicians and organizations would benefit from promoting the narrative that independent commissions are effective solutions, as it allows them to claim the moral high ground on redistricting while potentially maintaining mechanisms to bypass these commissions when advantageous.