| Outcome | Probability | Yes Bid | Yes Ask | 24h Change | Volume | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Indiana | 0% | 0¢ | 0¢ | — | $0 | Trade → |
| Texas | 0% | 0¢ | 0¢ | — | $0 | Trade → |
| Missouri | 0% | 0¢ | 0¢ | — | $0 | Trade → |
| Ohio | 0% | 0¢ | 0¢ | — | $0 | Trade → |
| California | 0% | 0¢ | 0¢ | — | $0 | Trade → |
| Utah | 0% | 0¢ | 0¢ | — | $0 | Trade → |
| Florida | 0% | 0¢ | 0¢ | — | $0 | Trade → |
| Nebraska | 0% | 0¢ | 0¢ | — | $0 | Trade → |
| Kansas | 0% | 0¢ | 0¢ | — | $0 | Trade → |
| New York | 0% | 0¢ | 0¢ | — | $0 | Trade → |
| New Jersey | 0% | 0¢ | 0¢ | — | $0 | Trade → |
| Maryland | 0% | 0¢ | 0¢ | — | $0 | Trade → |
| Minnesota | 0% | 0¢ | 0¢ | — | $0 | Trade → |
| Washington | 0% | 0¢ | 0¢ | — | $0 | Trade → |
| Georgia | 0% | 0¢ | 0¢ | — | $0 | Trade → |
| Louisiana | 0% | 0¢ | 0¢ | — | $0 | Trade → |
| South Carolina | 0% | 0¢ | 0¢ | — | $0 | Trade → |
| Virginia | 0% | 0¢ | 0¢ | — | $0 | Trade → |
| Wisconsin | 0% | 0¢ | 0¢ | — | $0 | Trade → |
| Illinois | 0% | 0¢ | 0¢ | — | $0 | Trade → |
| North Carolina | 0% | 0¢ | 0¢ | — | $0 | Trade → |
This market asks which U.S. states will adopt new district maps that are used for the upcoming midterm elections. Outcomes matter because late map changes can alter which candidates run where, ballot logistics, and competitive dynamics.
Redistricting normally follows the decennial census, but litigation, court-ordered remedies, settlements, or special legislative action can produce new maps on an accelerated timetable. Some states use independent commissions or have statutory timelines that reduce last-minute changes, while others are prone to court challenges that create staggered, state-by-state outcomes.
Market prices aggregate traders’ expectations about whether a state will have a legally effective new map in place for the midterms; prices move as new rulings, votes, or administrative deadlines change the likelihood a map will be used on the ballot.
A state is counted if a new, legally effective district plan for the office(s) relevant to this market is adopted or ordered and is the map used for the midterm election ballots; informal proposals or unsigned drafts do not count.
Legislative enactment with executive approval, a binding court remedial map, or a commission-adopted map that is legally in effect and used on the midterm ballots are all qualifying actions.
No — for the market to count a state, the new map must be implemented in time to be used on the midterm ballots; inability to operationalize the map before key election-administration deadlines typically means it will not count.
A settlement or consent decree that results in a concrete, implemented map before the midterms counts; agreements that merely set processes or promise future maps without an implemented plan do not resolve the market.
No — the market is concerned with substantive district plans used to allocate seats. Minor administrative corrections that do not change district boundaries in a way that affects the midterm ballots generally do not qualify.