Fact check: How many states have implemented independent redistricting commissions since 2020?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, the sources do not give a definitive answer to the specific question about how many states have implemented independent redistricting commissions since 2020. However, several key findings emerge:

The analyses consistently identify California as having an established independent redistricting commission that has been in place for more than a decade ^[1]. New York is mentioned as having an independent commission, though with limitations - the state legislature can accept, reject, or modify its proposals ^[2].

One source provides the most comprehensive list, mentioning that states including California, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Michigan, Montana, New York, and Washington have independent redistricting commissions ^[1]. Another analysis notes that "at least four states have established independent redistricting commissions with bipartisan support" ^[3], though this doesn't specify the timeframe.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The analyses reveal significant missing context that wasn't addressed in the original question:

• Political motivations behind redistricting reform: The sources indicate that California, despite having an independent commission model that other states look to, is now considering abandoning this approach to influence the 2026 midterms ^[4]. This suggests that even "independent" systems can be subject to political pressure.
• Varying definitions of "independent": The analyses show that not all independent commissions operate the same way - New York's commission allows legislative override, while others may have different structures ^[2].
• Broader redistricting battles: The sources reveal an ongoing "redistricting arms race" and "escalating gerrymandering battle" between states, with Texas and California being primary players ^{[5] [4]}. This context suggests that redistricting reform is part of a larger partisan strategy rather than purely good-government reform.
• Timeline ambiguity: None of the analyses specifically address the "since 2020" timeframe, making it impossible to determine which commissions were newly implemented versus pre-existing.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question, while factual in nature, contains an implicit assumption that may be misleading:

• Assumption of progress: By asking specifically about implementations "since 2020," the question implies forward momentum in redistricting reform. However, the analyses reveal that some states with existing independent commissions are actually considering abandoning these systems ^[4].
• Oversimplification of "independence": The question treats all independent redistricting commissions as equivalent, when the analyses show significant variation in how these bodies operate and their actual independence from political influence ^[2].
• Missing the bigger picture: The question focuses narrowly on counting states rather than examining the effectiveness or sustainability of these commissions, which the analyses suggest is a more complex and politically fraught issue than simple implementation numbers would indicate.