So whenever there is a federal statute that criminalizes something means states shouldn’t have redundant laws doing the same?

I would argue we are already way too far down the road of "redundant statutes".

According to the book "3 Felonies a Day", there are well over 300,000 crimes in US jurisdictions, which is far beyond what any person could read, know, understand, and internalize. At this point, if you're not a convicted felon, it's simply because the government isn't efficient at prosecuting, not because you haven't broken a law.

There should be periodic de duplication of laws. And also removal of laws are are now archaic —like being able to sue a spouse for abandonment or laws that impinge on civil liberties but aren’t enforced.

For every new law they should remove one or two that are redundant or archaic.

Theft is illegal but then they have other provisions to make sure it really is illegal. Once is enough.

I agree. There needs to be more maintenance effort to reduce the "technical debt" of accumulated laws.

Sadly I think it's not done because there is no incentive. Voters don't vote out incumbents who add too many news statutes or who don't remove outdated/irrelevant/unconstitutional ones. I think it's a lot like refactoring code without the ability to write unit tests or know if the change had any secondary side effects for years or decades after.