Fact check: At least states ever done redistricting mid century

1. Summary of the results

The analyses confirm that multiple states are indeed engaging in redistricting mid-decade, breaking from the traditional pattern of redistricting only after each decennial census. Texas and California are currently taking concrete steps towards redistricting, with Texas Republicans proposing new maps for U.S. House seats and California taking counter-action ^{[1] [2]}. This represents a significant departure from the usual process of redistricting early in each decade after the census count ^[2].

The sources indicate this is not an isolated phenomenon - multiple states are either considering or actively taking steps towards redistricting, suggesting a broader trend across the nation ^[3]. Historical precedent exists for mid-century redistricting, as demonstrated by Minnesota's redistricting challenges and lawsuits in the 1960s that led to the redrawing of legislative districts ^{[4] [5]}.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original statement lacks crucial context about why this redistricting is happening now. The sources reveal that Trump prompted this current battle over voting maps ^[2], indicating this is politically motivated rather than routine administrative action.

The statement also omits the historical framework that governs redistricting. The Supreme Court established the one-person-one-vote requirement for congressional and state legislative districts in 1964 ^{[6] [7]}, and redistricting can occur at times other than after the census depending on various factors and court decisions ^[8].

Political actors benefit significantly from controlling the redistricting narrative. Texas Republicans stand to gain from their proposed redistricting of U.S. House seats, while California officials benefit from positioning themselves as defenders against partisan gerrymandering ^{[1] [2]}. The equal population standard severely limits political gains even for the most partisan redistricters ^[7], suggesting that claims about redistricting advantages may be overstated.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original statement appears to contain a grammatical error or incomplete phrasing ("At least states ever done redistricting mid century"), making it difficult to assess the precise claim being made. This unclear language could lead to misinterpretation of the actual scope and significance of current redistricting efforts.

The statement presents redistricting as if it's an unprecedented occurrence, when historical evidence shows that redistricting has been a difficult political process with precedents dating back decades ^[5]. The Founders were aware of partisan redistricting and the principle of equal representation by population has long been established ^{[6] [7]}.

By framing this as simply "states doing redistricting," the statement minimizes the political controversy and fails to acknowledge that this represents a break from normal procedures triggered by specific political circumstances rather than routine governance.