Redistricting in Kansas

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Redistricting in Kansas
Policypedia-Election-logo-no background.png
General information
Current legislative control:
Congressional process:
State legislature
State legislature process:
State legislature
Total seats
Congress: 4
State Senate: 40
State House: 125
Redistricting in other states
AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyoming

Horizontal-Policypedia logo-color.png
RedistrictingState-by-state redistricting proceduresState legislative and congressional redistricting after the 2010 Census
Redistricting is the process by which new congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn. Each of Kansas' four United States Representatives and 165 state legislators are elected from political divisions called districts. United States Senators are not elected by districts, but by the states at large. District lines are redrawn every 10 years following completion of the United States Census. The federal government stipulates that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.

Redistricting is a fiercely-contested issue, primarily due to gerrymandering, the practice of drawing district lines to favor one political party, individual or constituency over another. Two areas of contention include the following:

Competitiveness: Political parties or incumbents sometimes draw district lines for their benefit at the expense of proportionality and fair representation. Some argue that this practice contributes to the present lack of competitive elections. Uncompetitive elections can in turn discourage participation.[1]
Race and ethnicity: District lines sometimes minimize the influence of minority voters by disproportionately consolidating them within single districts or splitting them across several districts. These practices are examples of "packing" and "cracking," respectively.[1][2][3][4]
In Kansas, the state legislature draws both congressional and state legislative district lines. In the 2010 redistricting cycle, the legislature could not reach a consensus to approve new congressional and state legislative district lines. As a result, it fell to a federal court to establish new district boundaries.


See also: Redistricting

Federal law stipulates that all districts, whether congressional or state legislative, must meet two primary criteria.

  1. Equal population: According to All About Redistricting, federal law "requires that each district have about the same population: each federal district within a state must have about the same number of people [and] each state district within a state must have about the same number of people." Specific standards for determining whether populations are sufficiently equal vary for congressional and state legislative districts. See below for further details.[5]
  2. Race and ethnicity: Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 states that district lines must not dilute the voting power of racial or ethnic minority groups. This provision "applies whether the denial is intentional, or an unintended end result. Courts essentially test whether the way that districts are drawn takes decisive political power away from a cohesive minority bloc otherwise at risk for discrimination."[5]

In most states, the legislatures are primarily responsible for both congressional and state legislative redistricting. However, reformers argue that partisan legislators are incapable of establishing fair district lines because they have a vested interest in the outcome. Instead, reformers advocate using different redistricting processes, including independent commissions or electronic methods. Opponents of these reforms argue that alternative processes are less accountable to voters, subject to partisan abuse, and perhaps unconstitutional.

State requirements


In addition to the federal criteria noted above, individual states may impose additional requirements on redistricting. Common state-level redistricting criteria are listed below. Typically, these requirements are quite flexible.

  1. Contiguity refers to the principle that all areas within a district should be "physically adjacent." A total of 49 states require that districts of at least one state legislative chamber be contiguous. A total of 23 states require that congressional districts meet contiguity requirements.[5][6]
  2. Compactness refers to the general principle that "the distance between all parts of a district" ought to be minimized. The United States Supreme Court has "construed compactness to indicate that residents have some sort of cultural cohesion in common." A total of 37 states "require their legislative districts to be reasonably compact." A total of 18 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.[5][6]
  3. A community of interest is a "group of people in a geographical area, such as a specific region or neighborhood, who have common political, social or economic interests." A total of 24 states require that the maintenance of communities of interest be considered in the drawing of state legislative districts. A total of 13 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.[5][6]
  4. A total of 42 states require that state legislative district lines be drawn to account for political boundaries (e.g., the limits of counties, cities and towns). A total of 19 states require that similar considerations be made in the drawing of congressional districts.[5][6]

Congressional redistricting

According to Article 1, Section 4, of the United States Constitution, the states and their legislatures have primary authority in determining the "times, places and manner" of congressional elections. Congress may also pass laws regulating congressional elections. Section 4 explicitly vests the authority to regulate congressional elections with the legislative branches of the states and the federal government and not with the executive or judicial branches.[7][8]

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.[9]

—United States Constitution

Article 1, Section 2, of the United States Constitution stipulates that congressional representatives be apportioned to the states on the basis of population. There are 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives. Each state is allotted a portion of these seats based on the size of its population relative to the other states. Consequently, a state may gain seats in the House if its population grows, or lose seats if its population decreases, relative to populations in other states. In 1964, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Wesberry v. Sanders that the populations of House districts must be equal "as nearly as practicable."[10][11][5]

The equal population requirement for congressional districts is strict. According to All About Redistricting, "any district with more or fewer people than the average (also known as the 'ideal' population), must be specifically justified by a consistent state policy. And even consistent policies that cause a 1 percent spread from largest to smallest district will likely be unconstitutional."[5]

State legislative redistricting

The United States Constitution is silent on the issue of state legislative redistricting. In the mid-1960s, the United States Supreme Court issued a series of rulings in an effort to clarify standards for state legislative redistricting. In Reynolds v. Sims, the court ruled that "the Equal Protection Clause [of the United States Constitution] demands no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens, of all places as well as of all races." According to All About Redistricting, "it has become accepted that a [redistricting] plan will be constitutionally suspect if the largest and smallest districts [within a state or jurisdiction] are more than 10 percent apart."

State process

See also: State-by-state redistricting procedures

In 37 states, legislatures are primarily responsible for drawing congressional district lines. Seven states have only one congressional district each, so congressional redistricting is not necessary. Four states employ independent commissions to draw the district maps. In two states, politician commissions draw congressional district lines.

State legislative district lines are primarily the province of the state legislatures themselves in 37 states. In seven states, politician commissions draw state legislative district lines. In the remaining six states, independent commissions draw the lines.[12]

In Kansas, the state legislature draws both congressional and state legislative district lines. Redistricting plans are subject to veto by the governor. State legislative district maps must be submitted for final approval to the Kansas Supreme Court, which must determine whether the maps are constitutional. If the court rules that the maps violate the law, the state legislature may attempt to draw the lines again. There are no such provisions in place for congressional redistricting.[13]

In 2002, Kansas adopted guidelines for congressional and state legislative redistricting. These guidelines ask that "both congressional and state legislative districts be contiguous, as compact as possible, and recognize and consider communities of common 'social, cultural, racial, ethnic, and economic' interests." In addition, these guidelines stipulate that state legislative districts should "preserve existing political subdivisions and avoid contests between incumbents to the extent possible." Congressional districts should "preserve whole counties and maintain the core of existing districts where possible." The state legislature may amend these guidelines at its discretion.[13]

District maps

Congressional districts

See also: United States congressional delegations from Kansas
Click the above image to enlarge it.
Source: The National Atlas of the United States of America

Kansas comprises four congressional districts. The map to the right depicts Kansas' congressional district lines as drawn following the 2010 United States Census. The table below lists Kansas' current House representatives.

Kansas delegation to the United States House of Representatives
NamePartyPositionAssumed officeTerm ends
Kevin YoderRepublican PartyDistrict 3 2011January 3, 2017
Lynn JenkinsRepublican PartyDistrict 2 2009January 3, 2017
Mike PompeoRepublican PartyDistrict 4 2011January 3, 2017
Tim HuelskampRepublican PartyDistrict 1 2011January 3, 2017

State legislative maps

See also: Kansas State Senate and Kansas House of Representatives

Kansas comprises 40 state Senate districts and 125 state House districts. State senators are elected every four years in partisan elections. State representatives are elected every two years in partisan elections. To access the current state legislative district maps, click here.[14]


There are conflicting opinions regarding the correlation between partisan gerrymandering and electoral competitiveness. Some critics contend that the dominant redistricting methods result in a lack of competitive elections. Jennifer Clark, a political science professor at the University of Houston, said, "The redistricting process has important consequences for voters. In some states, incumbent legislators work together to protect their own seats, which produces less competition in the political system. Voters may feel as though they do not have a meaningful alternative to the incumbent legislator. Legislators who lack competition in their districts have less incentive to adhere to their constituents’ opinions."[15]

Some question the impact of redistricting on electoral competitiveness. In 2006, Emory University professors Alan Abramowitz, Brad Alexander and Matthew Gunning wrote, "[Some] studies have concluded that redistricting has a neutral or positive effect on competition. ... [It] is often the case that partisan redistricting has the effect of reducing the safety of incumbents, thereby making elections more competitive."[16]

The individuals involved in redistricting must balance the desire for increased competitiveness with other principles that might conflict with that goal, such as compactness, contiguity, and maintaining communities of interest. For instance, it may at times be impossible to draw a competitive district that is both compact and preserves communities of interest.

In 2011, James Cottrill, a professor of political science at Santa Clara University, published a study of the effect of "non-legislative approaches" to redistricting on the competitiveness of congressional elections. Cottrill found that "particular types of [non-legislative approaches] encourage the appearance in congressional elections of experienced and well-financed challengers." Cottrill cautioned, however, that non-legislative approaches "contribute neither to decreased vote percentages when incumbents win elections nor to a greater probability of their defeat."[17]


See also: Margin of victory analysis for the 2014 congressional elections

In 2014, Ballotpedia analyzed the margins of victory in all 435 contests for the United States House of Representatives. Ballotpedia found that the average margin of victory was 35.8 percent, compared to 31.8 percent in 2012. An election is deemed competitive if it was won by a margin of victory of 5 percent or less. A total of 318 elections (73 percent of all House elections) were won by margins of victory of 20 percent or more. Only 26 elections (6 percent of the total) were won by margins of victory of 5 percent or less. See the table below for further details.

Note: The data below are provided only for informational purposes. It should be noted that there are conflicting opinions regarding the correlation between redistricting and competitiveness. A variety of factors at the local, state and federal levels can impact electoral competitiveness.

In Kansas, three elections for the United States House of Representatives were won by margins of victory of 20 percent or greater. The smallest margin of victory occurred in District 2, where Lynn Jenkins (R) won by 18.4 percent. The largest margin of victory occurred in District 1, where Tim Huelskamp (R) won by 35.9 percent. The average margin of victory in Kansas was 26.9 percent. See the table below for full details.

Electoral margins of victory in 2014 United States House of Representatives elections, Kansas
District Winner Margin of victory Total votes cast Top opponent
District 1 Republican Party Tim Huelskamp 35.9% 204,161 Jim Sherow
District 2 Republican Party Lynn Jenkins 18.4% 225,686 Margie Wakefield
District 3 Republican Party Kevin Yoder 20% 224,077 Kelly Kultala
District 4 Republican Party Mike Pompeo 33.3% 208,153 Perry Schuckman

State legislatures

See also: Margin of victory in state legislative elections

In 2014, Ballotpedia conducted a study of competitive districts in 44 state legislative chambers between 2010 and 2012. Ballotpedia found that there were 61 fewer competitive general election contests in 2012 than in 2010. Of the 44 chambers studied, 25 experienced a net loss in the number of competitive elections. A total of 17 experienced a net increase. In total, 16.2 percent of the 3,842 legislative contests studied saw competitive general elections in 2010. In 2012, only 14.6 percent of the contests studied saw competitive general elections. An election was considered competitive if it was won by a margin of victory of 5 percent or less. An election was considered mildly competitive if it was won by a margin of victory between 5 and 10 percent. For more information regarding this report, including methodology, click here.

Note: These data are provided only for informational purposes. It should be noted that there are conflicting opinions regarding the correlation between redistricting and competitiveness. A variety of factors at the local, state and federal levels can impact electoral competitiveness.

There were nine competitive elections for the Kansas House of Representatives in 2012, compared to 10 in 2010. There were 15 mildly competitive state House races in 2012, compared to 10 in 2010. This amounted to a net gain of four competitive elections.

Partisan composition

The tables below summarize the current partisan composition of the Kansas House of Representatives and the Kansas State Senate.


SLP badge.png
Party As of May 2015
     Democratic Party 28
     Republican Party 97
Total 125


Party As of May 2015
     Democratic Party 8
     Republican Party 32
Total 40

Race and ethnicity

See also: Majority-minority districts

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 mandates that electoral district lines cannot be drawn in such a manner as to "improperly dilute minorities' voting power."

No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.[9]

—Voting Rights Act of 1965[18]

States and other political subdivisions may create majority-minority districts in order to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. A majority-minority district is a district in which minority groups comprise a majority of the district's total population. As of 2013, Kansas was home to no congressional majority-minority districts.[2][3][4]

Proponents of majority-minority districts maintain that these districts are a necessary hindrance to the practice of "cracking." Cracking occurs when a constituency is divided between several districts in order to prevent it from achieving a majority in any one district. In addition, supporters argue that the drawing of majority-minority districts has resulted in an increased number of minority representatives in state legislatures and Congress.[2][3][4]

Critics, meanwhile, contend that the establishment of majority-minority districts results in "packing." Packing occurs when a constituency or voting group is placed within a single district, thereby minimizing its influence in other districts. Because minority groups tend to vote Democratic, critics argue that majority-minority districts ultimately present an unfair advantage to Republicans by consolidating Democratic votes into a smaller number of districts.[2][3][4]


See also: Demographics of congressional districts as of 2013 and Demographics of congressional districts as of 2013 (as percentages)

The tables below provide demographic information for each of Kansas' congressional districts as of 2013. At that time, the population of the largest congressional district, District 3, totaled 723,284, and the population of the smallest, District 2, totaled 713,181, which represented a difference of 1.4 percent.[19]

Demographics of Kansas' congressional districts (as percentages)
District Hispanic White Black Native
Asian Pacific
Other Multiple
Kansas 10.74% 77.78% 5.59% 0.69% 2.44% 0.06% 0.08% 2.61%
District 1 14.5% 78.6% 2.7% 0.4% 1.5% 0.1% 0% 2.1%
District 2 5.9% 83.8% 4.3% 1.3% 1.3% 0.1% 0.1% 3.2%
District 3 11.3% 73.4% 8.7% 0.3% 3.8% 0.1% 0.1% 2.2%
District 4 11.2% 75.3% 6.6% 0.8% 3% 0.1% 0.1% 2.9%
Source: United States Census Bureau, "2009-2013 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates," accessed April 8, 2015
Demographics of Kansas' congressional districts
District Hispanic White Black Native
Asian Pacific
Other Multiple
Kansas 308,122 2,230,704 160,429 19,925 69,982 1,794 2,255 74,896 2,868,107
District 1 104,213 563,594 19,486 2,771 10,764 575 288 14,988 716,679
District 2 41,750 597,990 30,576 9,247 9,619 357 601 23,041 713,181
District 3 82,092 530,808 63,004 2,456 27,823 441 816 15,844 723,284
District 4 80,067 538,312 47,363 5,451 21,776 421 550 21,023 714,963
Source: United States Census Bureau, "2009-2013 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates," accessed April 8, 2015

Redistricting after the 2010 census

See also: Redistricting in Kansas after the 2010 census

Following the 2010 United States Census, Kansas neither gained nor lost congressional seats. Although both chambers of the state legislature were controlled by Republicans at the time of redistricting, a stalemate nonetheless ensued.[13][20]

In the spring of 2012, a coalition of Democrats and moderate Republicans in the state Senate passed one redistricting plan and the conservative-dominated House passed another; they adjourned in May without reaching agreement.[9]

—The Almanac of American Politics

The United States District Court for the District of Kansas was asked to intervene and draw congressional and state legislative district lines. On June 7, 2012, the court approved the new district maps.[13][20]

Redistricting after the 2000 census

On March 11, 2002, the state legislature approved new district lines for the Kansas House of Representatives. A new district map for the Kansas State Senate was passed on April 8, 2002. Congressional district boundaries were approved by the legislature on May 31, 2002.[13][20]

The state supreme court ultimately approved the new state legislative district maps. Although the new congressional boundaries were subject to a federal court challenge, the lines were maintained.[13][20]

Michael Barone and Chuck McCutcheon, writing for The Almanac of American Politics, noted the following about the 2000 redistricting cycle in Kansas:[20]

In 2002, Republicans had full control of redistricting in Kansas for the first time since the 1960s, but did not use it to partisan advantage. At the request of the University of Kansas, they kept the Democratic college town of Lawrence in the 3rd District, which also included Johnson County and Kansas City. That helped reelect Democrat Dennis Moore, who won the seat in 1998, until he retired in the Republican year of 2010.[9]

—The Almanac of American Politics

Redistricting ballot measures

Voting on
elections and campaigns
Ballot measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
See also: Redistricting measures on the ballot and List of Kansas ballot measures

Ballotpedia has tracked no ballot measures relating to redistricting in Kansas.

Recent news

This section displays the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms "Redistricting Kansas."

Some of the stories below may not be relevant to this page due to the nature of Google's news search engine.

Redistricting in Kansas - Google News Feed

  • Loading...

See also

External links

Additional reading


  1. 1.0 1.1 All About Redistricting, "Why does it matter?" accessed April 8, 2015
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Indy Week, "Cracked, stacked and packed: Initial redistricting maps met with skepticism and dismay," June 29, 2011
  3. 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 The Atlantic, "How the Voting Rights Act Hurts Democrats and Minorities," June 17, 2013
  4. 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Redrawing the Lines, "The Role of Section 2 - Majority Minority Districts," accessed April 6, 2015
  5. 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 All About Redistricting, "Where are the lines drawn?" accessed April 9, 2015
  6. 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 FairVote, "Redistricting Glossary," accessed April 9, 2015
  7. The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, "Election Regulations," accessed April 13, 2015
  8. Brookings, "Redistricting and the United States Constitution," March 22, 2011
  9. 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.
  10. Brennan Center for Justice, "A Citizen's Guide to Redistricting," accessed March 25, 2015
  11. The Constitution of the United States of America, "Article 1, Section 2," accessed March 25, 2015
  12. All About Redistricting, "Who draws the lines?" accessed March 25, 2015
  13. 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 All About Redistricting, "Kansas," accessed April 28, 2015
  14. Kansas Legislative Research Department, "Kansas Legislative District Profiles," accessed April 28, 2015
  15. The Daily Cougar, "Redistricting will affect November election," October 16, 2012
  16. The Journal of Politics, "Incumbency, Redistricting, and the Decline of Competition in U.S. House Elections," February 2006
  17. Polity, "The Effects of Non-Legislative Approaches to Redistricting on Competition in Congressional Elections," October 3, 2011
  18. Yale Law School, The Avalon Project, "Voting Rights Act of 1965; August 6, 1965," accessed April 6, 2015
  19. United States Census Bureau, "2009-2013 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates," accessed April 8, 2015
  20. 20.0 20.1 20.2 20.3 20.4 Barone, M. & McCutcheon, C. (2013). The almanac of American politics 2014 : the senators, the representatives and the governors : their records and election results, their states and districts. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.