Resolves YES if it is illegal nationwide for state legislatures to draw U.S. Congressional districts in a way that unfairly benefits one party, political interest, or demographic group. This could either be due to new laws forbidding partisan gerrymandering or court cases making it illegal. It would also count if every state passed their own individual laws forbidding it. Furthermore, the ban on gerrymandering must actually be enforced, either by courts striking down partisan maps, independent redistricting committees drawing fair maps, or some other measure that prevents skewed maps from actually being used in elections.
Note that, whatever law or case bans gerrymandering doesn't have to specifically state that gerrymandering based on the exact criteria I mentioned (partisan, political interests, and demographic groups) are banned, as long as the law in effect prevents that from happening. So for example, if a law that bans partisan gerrymandering is passed and effectively enforced, this market will resolve YES unless there is credible evidence that gerrymandering based on some other criterion (a specific political interest or demographics) is still being done despite the law.
The cutoff for this is the 2040 elections, so if gerrymandered districts are still being used in 2040 and every election before that, it resolves NO.
Current the VRA actually mandates racial gerrymanders, and is often used to defend current gerrymandered district lines on the basis that a more fairly drawn district would have a negative impact on a minority group.
If you drop the "or demographic group" from the resolution criteria, there's like a slim possibility this happens on paper, but I think it's a virtual certainty that those laws will not actually stop gerrymandering, and probably said laws will be used perversely.
@AndrewHartman I suppose that could be considered gerrymandering by some definitions, but the way I'm defining that doesn't count as gerrymandering, and the VRA's provision is considered to be a ban on racial gerrymandering. As far as I'm concerned, drawing district lines in a way that intentionally allows a minority group to get proportional representation isn't an unfair benefit, so it doesn't count as gerrymandering. This is true for political minorities as well, e.g. drawing maps in Maryland such that Republicans can win a proportion of the districts equal to their vote share wouldn't be gerrymandering, it would just be ensuring that the map is fair, unlike the Democratic gerrymander that gives them an unfair benefit.
@JosephNoonan Okay, but those goals are in tension. If you want a district that is competitive, and a particular minority overwhelmingly votes in one direction, then attaining competitiveness will necessarily involve diluting their voting power, which starts to look like a racial gerrymander.
As stated, I don't think there's a good objective resolution to the criteria. I understand what you're trying to get at, but it's a lot more complicated than you're allowing for and it'll be a very subjective call assuming the status quo ever changes in any direction.