Not if the Supreme Court rules that the Constitution requires active approval by the legislature, not laws creating a legal framework passed by the legislature.

For example many states require electors for the electoral college to be allocated by law, a partisan legislature may simply appoint electors for their preferred candidates, even if that candidate "loses" the election.

A committee with that kind of power is never going to be independent

Gerrymandering is pretty much considered a non-issue in Australia. The boundaries are drawn by an electoral authority which is fiercely independent.

The extent of politicisation of all different aspects of society, from electoral authorities, to courts, to sheriffs and DAs really seems to be a problem unique to America, I'm afraid.

How is this independent committee chosen and how do you ensure they are independent?

Doesn't seem that independent. They are literally appointed by the legislature / members of the legislature.

> one member selected by the majority leader of the Iowa State Senate

> one member selected by the majority leader of the Iowa House of Representatives

> one member selected by the minority leader of the Iowa State Senate

>one member selected by the minority leader of the Iowa House of Representatives

>one member selected by the first four members

California already uses a committee like this, so do other states.

As noted above, many countries in the world do this. But that is not the question. The question is how are the members of this committee chosen and how do you ensure it is independent?

California is not a good example of political independence: they have a super majority of Democrats in all branches of government.

"Independence" means variations on the Left; the Right can be completely ignored as they are politically powerless—largely due to ~1M Right-leaning voters exiting California for over a decade now.

Would you mind explaining the California process and how they ensure independence?