Fact check: What are the exceptions to the 10-year redistricting cycle in the US?

1. Summary of the results

The standard 10-year redistricting cycle in the United States, tied to the decennial census, has several notable exceptions that allow for mid-decade redistricting under specific circumstances ^{[1] [2]}.

Key exceptions include:

• Ohio is currently the only state due for a mid-decade redraw of its congressional lines because 2018 reforms require both parties to agree on the map, which they failed to do during the last redistricting cycle ^[2]
• Texas operates under a state constitution that does not explicitly prohibit mid-decade redistricting, allowing for the possibility of redrawing congressional lines ahead of the 2026 midterms ^[2]
• California typically follows the once-per-decade rule specified in its state constitution, but Governor Gavin Newsom is attempting to bypass this by putting a redistricting measure on the ballot for a special election ^{[2] [3] [4]}

Structural exceptions to traditional redistricting processes:

• Eleven states use bipartisan commissions or include nonpoliticians to reduce the role of politicians in drawing new districts, which represents an exception to the traditional partisan redistricting process ^[5]
• Some states have implemented laws or criteria aimed at creating competitive and geographically compact districts, or laws against redistricting done to benefit a political party ^[5]

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The analyses reveal important political motivations behind these exceptions that weren't addressed in the original question. Governor Newsom's redistricting initiative is explicitly framed as a response to "President Trump's attempts to rig Texas' elections" and to "fight back against" Texas redistricting efforts ^{[4] [3]}. This suggests that Democratic leadership benefits from portraying mid-decade redistricting as a defensive measure against Republican gerrymandering.

The sources also indicate that different states have varying constitutional constraints - while some like New York have constitutions that prohibit mid-decade redistricting, others like Texas and Ohio have more flexible frameworks ^[2]. This creates an uneven playing field where some states can engage in strategic redistricting while others cannot.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question appears neutral and factual in nature, simply asking for information about exceptions to the redistricting cycle. However, the framing omits the highly partisan political context in which these exceptions are being utilized.

The sources reveal that current redistricting battles are explicitly tied to partisan advantage, with California's Governor Newsom characterizing Texas redistricting as "rigging" elections ^[4]. This suggests that discussions of redistricting exceptions cannot be separated from their political implications, which the original question does not acknowledge.

The question also doesn't address the timing sensitivity of these exceptions - the sources indicate these are not merely theoretical possibilities but active political strategies being deployed in response to specific partisan moves ^{[2] [3]}.