I think it could be done for the rationals, but perhaps not for the reals. A partition of the rational unit interval ##J\triangleq [0,1]\cap\mathbb Q## that I think might work is as follows:
Let ##f:\mathbb N\to\mathbb Q## be the enumeration of the rationals that considers them in maximally reduced form (no common factors of numerator and denominator) and orders them first by denominator, then numerator, viz: 0/1, 1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 2/3, 1/4, 3/4, 1/5,...
Consider the partition ##P:\{1,2\}\to 2^J## such that ##q\in J## is in ##P(1)## if ##f^{-1}(q)## is odd, otherwise it is in ##P(2)##. So our two parts are, showing just the numerators in columns two and three:
Denominator | Numerators in P(1) | Numerators in P(2) |
1 | 0 | 1 |
2 | 1 | |
3 | 2 | 1 |
4 | 3 | 1 |
5 | 2, 4 | 1, 3 |
6 | 3 | 1,5 |
7 | 1,3,5 | 2,4,6 |
... | | |
Neither part of this partition contains any intervals and I cannot see any biases in it that would cause accumulation points of other material variations in density for either P(1) or P(2). There would be work in proving it satisfied the sought criterion, but I guess that it could be done.
For the real case, I would imagine trying a non-constructive proof by contradiction. Let ##\mathscr P## be the set of all two-way partitions of ##I##, ##\mathscr K## be the set of all sub-intervals of [0,1] and define ##h:\mathscr P\to [0,1]## by
$$h(P) =\sup_{\alpha\in\mathscr K} \frac{\max(|\alpha\cap P(1)|, |\alpha\cap P(2)|)}{|\alpha|}$$
where ##|S|## indicates the measure of set S, and
$$r =\inf_{P\in\mathscr P} h(P)$$
If ##r>0.5## we try to construct a partition P such that ##0.5<h(P)<r##, thereby giving a contradiction and proving that ##r=0.5##.
If we can prove that ##r=0.5## then we try to prove that the
inf is a
min by constructing the min, and that min will be a partition that satisfies the criterion. I think that would be the hardest bit, and the most likely place where the attempt fails.
I'm moderately confident we could make ##\mathscr K## the set of intervals with rational endpoints without invalidating the proof. That could make it easier because then ##\mathscr K## will be enumerable and we might use the enumeration function for things like constructing maxima or minima or generating contradictions.
EDIT: I didn't see the post about the Lebesgue Density Theorem until I had finished posting this. It sounds like we will have ##r=1##.