Fact check: How many states have undergone court-ordered redistricting since 2004?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, none of the sources offer a definitive numerical answer to the question of how many states have undergone court-ordered redistricting since 2004. However, the sources collectively indicate that multiple states have been involved in court-ordered redistricting processes during this timeframe.

The analyses reveal several specific states that have been engaged in redistricting litigation or court interventions:

• North Carolina and Maryland are mentioned in Supreme Court partisan redistricting cases ^[1]
• Texas, California, Missouri, Ohio, New York, Illinois, Indiana, and Florida are identified as states involved in redistricting efforts or controversies ^[2]
• California and Texas are specifically highlighted in recent redistricting developments ^{[3] [4]}

The sources document a timeline of redistricting cases heard by the Supreme Court spanning the 2000s, 2010s, and 2020s, suggesting ongoing judicial involvement in redistricting matters across multiple states ^[5].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question seeks a specific numerical count, but the analyses reveal significant gaps in available data:

• No comprehensive database or systematic count of court-ordered redistricting cases is referenced in any source
• The sources focus primarily on high-profile Supreme Court cases rather than lower court interventions, which may represent only a fraction of total court-ordered redistricting ^{[6] [5] [1]}
• There's a distinction between different types of court involvement - some cases involve direct court-ordered redistricting while others involve court rulings that require states to redraw maps ^[1]

Political stakeholders benefit differently from various approaches to this question:

• Redistricting reform advocates would benefit from highlighting a high number of court interventions to demonstrate the need for systematic reform
• State legislators and political parties might prefer to minimize the appearance of widespread judicial intervention in what they consider a legislative prerogative
• Legal organizations and voting rights groups have financial and institutional interests in maintaining active litigation around redistricting issues

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself does not contain misinformation, as it simply asks for factual information. However, the question's framing reveals potential limitations:

• The question assumes that "court-ordered redistricting" is a clearly defined category, when the analyses suggest there are various forms of judicial intervention in redistricting processes ^{[6] [1]}
• The 2004 starting point may be arbitrary and could exclude relevant historical context about the evolution of redistricting litigation
• The question doesn't distinguish between different levels of courts (federal vs. state, Supreme Court vs. lower courts), which could significantly affect the count

The analyses demonstrate that comprehensive data on this topic appears to be unavailable in readily accessible sources, suggesting that any definitive numerical answer would require extensive legal research across multiple jurisdictions and court systems.