Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.
Redistricting in Arkansas after the 2020 census
Redistricting is the process of enacting new district boundaries for elected offices, particularly for offices in the U.S. House of Representatives and state legislatures. This article chronicles the 2020 redistricting cycle in Arkansas.
On January 14, 2022, Arkansas' congressional map went into effect.[1] The Arkansas General Assembly approved the congressional map plan on Oct. 6, 2021.[2] On October 13, 2021, Gov. Asa Hutchinson announced he would not sign the plans into law, and, instead, let them go into effect without his signature.[3] On November 4, 2021, Attorney General Leslie Rutledge (R) released a legal opinion establishing January 14, 2022 as the map's effective date.[4] This map took effect for Arkansas' 2022 congressional elections. On May 23, 2023, the Christian Ministerial Alliance and a group of voters filed a lawsuit alleging that Arkansas' 2nd Congressional District was a racial gerrymander and in violation of the 14th and 15th Amendments. A trial was scheduled for March 24, 2025.[5]
On December 29, 2021, new state House and Senate district maps went into effect.[6] The Arkansas Board of Apportionment—made up of the governor, secretary of state, and attorney general—initially displayed these maps on Oct. 29, 2021, beginning a month-long public comment period.[7] The board met on Nov. 29 to incorporate feedback and then voted 3-0 in favor of the final maps. These maps took effect for Arkansas' 2022 legislative elections.
Click here for more information.
Arkansas' four United States representatives and 135 state legislators are all elected from political divisions called districts. District lines are redrawn every 10 years following completion of the United States census. Federal law stipulates that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.
See the sections below for further information on the following topics:
- Summary: This section provides summary information about the drafting and enacting processes.
- Enactment: This section provides information about the enacted congressional and state legislative district maps.
- Drafting process: This section details the drafting process for new congressional and state legislative district maps.
- Apportionment and release of census data: This section details the 2020 apportionment process, including data from the United States Census Bureau.
- Court challenges: This section details court challenges to the enacted congressional and state legislative district maps.
- Background: This section summarizes federal and state-based requirements for redistricting at both the congressional and state legislative levels. A summary of the 2010 redistricting cycle in Arkansas is also provided.
Summary
This section lists major events in the post-2020 census redistricting cycle in reverse chronological order. Major events include the release of apportionment data, the release of census population data, the introduction of formal map proposals, the enactment of new maps, and noteworthy court challenges. Click the dates below for additional information.
- March 24, 2025: A bench trial in a federal challenge to the congressional map was scheduled for March 24, 2025.
- Jan. 14, 2022: The congressional map approved by the Arkansas General Assembly went into effect.
- Dec. 29, 2021: The Arkansas Board of Apportionment's new state legislative maps went into effect. The same day, a lawsuit was filed against the enacted state House map.
- Nov. 29, 2021: The Arkansas Board of Apportionment voted 3-0 in favor of new state legislative maps.
- Nov. 4, 2021: Attorney General Leslie Rutledge (R) issued a legal opinion clarifying that the congressional map plans passed by the legislature would become law without Hutchinson's signature on Jan. 14, 2022.
- Oct. 29, 2021: The Arkansas Board of Apportionment accepted proposed maps for the state Senate and House.
- Oct. 13, 2021: Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) announced that he would neither sign nor veto the two proposed maps approved by the state legislature, meaning they would go into effect without his signature in 90 days.
- Oct. 7, 2021: The Arkansas General Assembly approved two proposed maps and sent them to Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R).
- Sept. 29, 2021: The Arkansas General Assembly reconvened at the start of a state legislative special session to consider congressional map proposals.
- Sept. 27, 2021: The joint House and Senate State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committees met to consider the last of the 15 congressional map plans proposed by state legislators.
- September 16, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau released data from the 2020 census in an easier-to-use format to state redistricting authorities and the public.
- Aug. 12, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau delivered redistricting data in a legacy format.
- April 26, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts.
Enactment
Enacted congressional district maps
On January 14, 2022, Arkansas' congressional map went into effect.[8] The Arkansas General Assembly approved the congressional map plan on Oct. 6, 2021.[9] On October 13, 2021, Gov. Asa Hutchinson announced he would not sign the plans into law, and, instead, let them go into effect without his signature.[10] On November 4, 2021, Attorney General Leslie Rutledge (R) released a legal opinion establishing January 14, 2022 as the map's effective date.[11] This map took effect for Arkansas' 2022 congressional elections. On May 23, 2023, the Christian Ministerial Alliance and a group of voters filed a lawsuit alleging that Arkansas' 2nd Congressional District was a racial gerrymander and in violation of the 14th and 15th Amendments. A trial was scheduled for March 24, 2025.[12]
Lawmakers approved two separate bills, both of which contained identical proposed lines: House Bill 1982 (HB 1982) and Senate Bill 743 (SB 743). The House voted 59-30 in favor of HB 1982 and 53-35 in favor of SB 743. The Senate voted 21-12 in favor of HB 1982 and 22-10 in favor of SB 743.
Below are the congressional maps in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.
Arkansas Congressional Districts
until January 2, 2023
Click a district to compare boundaries.
Arkansas Congressional Districts
starting January 3, 2023
Click a district to compare boundaries.
Reactions
Under the proposed maps, two of the state’s counties would be split between multiple congressional districts: Sebastian County, which is split in two, and Pulaski County—the state’s most populous county—split between three districts.
Opponents of the proposal said the division of Pulaski County, where less than 50% of the population identifies as white alone, was conducted along partisan and racial lines. Little Rock NAACP Chapter President Dianne Curry (D) said, “This is an embarrassment to the state of Arkansas to know in the 21st century we’re dealing with blatant discrimination.”[13]
Supporters of the proposal said the county's size and location in the center of the state necessitated its split so as to lower the total number of counties being split elsewhere.[14] Republican Party of Arkansas Chair Jonelle Fulmer (R) said, “The new congressional districts are compact and keep community interests together. These lines are largely consistent with the existing lines, which were drawn by Democrats in 2010.”[15]
2020 presidential results
The table below details the results of the 2020 presidential election in each district at the time of the 2022 election and its political predecessor district.[16] This data was compiled by Daily Kos Elections.[17]
| 2020 presidential results by Congressional district, Arkansas | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| District | 2022 district | Political predecessor district | ||
Joe Biden 
|
Donald Trump 
|
Joe Biden
|
Donald Trump
| |
| Arkansas' 1st | 28.1% | 69.0% | 27.9% | 69.1% |
| Arkansas' 2nd | 42.1% | 55.2% | 44.3% | 53.1% |
| Arkansas' 3rd | 36.8% | 60.2% | 35.2% | 61.9% |
| Arkansas' 4th | 31.0% | 66.2% | 29.6% | 67.7% |
Enacted state legislative district maps
On December 29, 2021, new state House and Senate district maps went into effect.[18] The Arkansas Board of Apportionment—made up of the governor, secretary of state, and attorney general—initially displayed these maps on Oct. 29, 2021, beginning a month-long public comment period.[7] The board met on Nov. 29 to incorporate feedback and then voted 3-0 in favor of the final maps. These maps took effect for Arkansas' 2022 legislative elections.
State Senate map
Below is the state Senate map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.
Arkansas State Senate Districts
until January 8, 2023
Click a district to compare boundaries.
Arkansas State Senate Districts
starting January 9, 2023
Click a district to compare boundaries.
State House map
Below is the state House map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.
Arkansas State House Districts
until January 8, 2023
Click a district to compare boundaries.
Arkansas State House Districts
starting January 9, 2023
Click a district to compare boundaries.
Reactions
The Associated Press' Andrew DeMillo wrote:
| “ |
The new boundaries keep the number of majority-Black Senate districts the same at four. In the House, the number of majority-Black districts decreases by one to 11, and a new majority-Hispanic district was created in northwest Arkansas.[19][20] |
” |
On Dec. 29, the ACLU of Arkansas filed a lawsuit against the enacted House map alleging racial gerrymandering.
The Arkansas Democratic Party Chairman Grant Tennille said, "This process was a missed opportunity ... to have fairly drawn maps that respect voters and their communities ... Instead, we have yet another example of gerrymandering and voter suppression."[19] The state's Republican Party Chairwoman Jonelle Fulmer said, "The board's efforts to keep communities of interest together and create the first-ever majority Latino voting age district are proof of their commitment to fair and equal representation."[19]
Drafting process
The Arkansas General Assembly is responsible for drawing congressional district lines. Both chambers of the state legislature must approve a single redistricting plan. The governor may veto the lines drawn by the state legislature.[21]
Arkansas' state legislative district lines are drawn by a politician commission, the Arkansas Board of Apportionment. The commission comprises the governor, the secretary of state, and the attorney general.[21]
The Arkansas Constitution requires that Arkansas State Senate district lines be "contiguous, and that they follow county lines except where necessary to comply with other legal requirements." There are no such requirements in place for congressional districts.[21]
Timeline
Arkansas' congressional and state legislative redistricting processes operate differently from each other with congressional redistricting carried out by the Arkansas General Assembly and state legislative redistricting conducted by the Arkansas Board of Apportionment.
Congressional redististricting
The Arkansas General Assembly was called back into an extended regular session on Sept. 29, 2021, in order to, among other items, consider proposed congressional redistricting boundaries.[22] On Oct. 7, 2021, the legislature approved two maps and sent them to Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) for final approval. Hutchinson announced he would allow the maps to become law without his signature, meaning the maps would become effective 90 days later. On Nov. 4, 2021, Attorney General Leslie Rutledge (R) released a legal opinion saying the congressional district plan would become effective on Jan. 14, 2022.[23]
Legislative redistricting
The Board of Apportionment voted to accept new Senate and House maps on Oct. 29, 2021, beginning a public comment period. The board met on Nov. 29, 2021, to incorporate feedback and make any other alterations before final approval. The final maps became law on Dec. 30, 2021.[24]
Committees and/or commissions involved in the process
Congressional redistricting
The Arkansas State Legislature is responsible for drafting and approving congressional district maps. Meeting jointly, the House and Senate State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committees were responsible for the initial consideration of any proposals. Membership of those committees in the 2021-2022 legislative session is shown below:
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Legislative redistricting
Board of Apportionment
The Arkansas Board of Apportionment consists of three members, the Governor, Attorney General, and the Secretary of State.[25] The three members of the Board in the 2020 cycle are,
- Governor Asa Hutchinson (R)
- Attorney General Leslie Rutledge (R)
- Secretary of State John Thurston (R)
Staff
On June 7, 2021, the Arkansas Board of Apportionment hired former Arkansas State Supreme Court Chief Justice Betty Dickey to be its redistricting coordinator.[26] The redistricting coordinator holds meetings to collect input from the public and oversees the redistricting process.[27] Dickey began working in the position on June 15, 2021.
Drafts and proposals
Congressional district plans
On September 9, 2021, Rep. Nelda Speaks (R) introduced the first proposed congressional district plan. Click [show] on the list below to view information about the various congressional map plans proposed by state legislators and considered before the House and Senate State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committees.
On October 7, the Arkansas House of Representatives and State Senate approved the following two proposed congressional district maps and sent them to the governor for approval.
| Approved Arkansas congressional district plans, 2020 cycle | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lead sponsor | Party | Proposal | View map | House vote | Senate vote | ||
| Rep. Nelda Speaks |  Republican |
House Bill 1982 | Link | 59-30 | 21-12 | ||
| Sen. Jane English | Republican |
Senate Bill 743 | N/A | 53-35 | 22-10 | ||
On October 13, Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) announced that he would neither sign nor veto the two proposals, meaning the district lines would go into effect in 90 days.[28]
Map images
Click on the headers below to view images, when available.
Reactions
Under the proposed maps, two of the state’s counties would be split between multiple congressional districts: Sebastian County, which is split in two, and Pulaski County—the state’s most populous county—split between three districts.
Opponents of the proposal said the division of Pulaski County, where less than 50% of the population identifies as white alone, was conducted along partisan and racial lines. Supporters of the proposal said the county's size and location in the center of the state necessitated its split so as to lower the total number of counties being split elsewhere.[14]
When announcing that he would not sign the proposals into law, Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) expressed concern about the splitting of Pulaski County, saying, "While the percentage of minority populations for three of the four congressional districts do not differ that much from the current percentages, the removal of minority areas in Pulaski County into two different congressional districts does raise concerns." Hutchinson added that he was not vetoing the bills, but rather letting them go into effect in 90 days without his signature in order to "enable those who wish to challenge the redistricting plan in court to do so."[28]
State legislative district plans
The Board of Apportionment voted to accept new Senate and House maps on Oct. 29, 2021, beginning a public comment period. View those proposals here. On Nov. 29, 2021, the board met to incorporate feedback. The board then voted 3-0 in favor of final state legislative maps found here and shown below.
The final maps became law on Dec. 30, 2021.[7]
Map images
- Arkansas House map plan, approved Nov. 29, 2021Arkansas House of Representatives - approved Nov. 29, 2021
View an interactive version of this map here.
Reactions
The Associated Press' Andrew DeMillo wrote:
| “ |
The new boundaries keep the number of majority-Black Senate districts the same at four. In the House, the number of majority-Black districts decreases by one to 11, and a new majority-Hispanic district was created in northwest Arkansas.[19][20] |
” |
The Arkansas Democratic Party Chairman Grant Tennille said, "This process was a missed opportunity ... to have fairly drawn maps that respect voters and their communities ... Instead, we have yet another example of gerrymandering and voter suppression."[19] The state's Republican Party Chairwoman Jonelle Fulmer said, "The board's efforts to keep communities of interest together and create the first-ever majority Latino voting age district are proof of their commitment to fair and equal representation."[19]
Apportionment and release of census data
Apportionment is the process by which representation in a legislative body is distributed among its constituents. The number of seats in the United States House of Representatives is fixed at 435. The United States Constitution dictates that districts be redrawn every 10 years to ensure equal populations between districts. Every ten years, upon completion of the United States census, reapportionment occurs.[29]
Apportionment following the 2020 census
The U.S. Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts on April 26, 2021. Arkansas was apportioned four seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. This represented neither a gain nor a loss of seats as compared to apportionment after the 2010 census.[30]
See the table below for additional details.
| 2020 and 2010 census information for Arkansas | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State | 2010 census | 2020 census | 2010-2020 | ||||
| Population | U.S. House seats | Population | U.S. House seats | Raw change in population | Percentage change in population | Change in U.S. House seats | |
| Arkansas | 2,926,229 | 4 | 3,013,756 | 4 | 87,527 | 2.99% | 0 |
Redistricting data from the Census Bureau
On February 12, 2021, the Census Bureau announced that it would deliver redistricting data to the states by September 30, 2021. On March 15, 2021, the Census Bureau released a statement indicating it would make redistricting data available to the states in a legacy format in mid-to-late August 2021. A legacy format presents the data in raw form, without data tables and other access tools. On May 25, 2021, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (R) announced that the state had reached a settlement agreement with the Census Bureau in its lawsuit over the Census Bureau's timetable for delivering redistricting data. Under the terms of the settlement, the Census Bureau agreed to deliver redistricting data, in a legacy format, by August 16, 2021.[31][32][33][34] The Census Bureau released the 2020 redistricting data in a legacy format on August 12, 2021, and in an easier-to-use format at data.census.gov on September 16, 2021.[35][36]
Ballot measure challenges
Arkansans for a Unified Natural State veto referendums
On Oct. 9, 2021, Arkansans for a Unified Natural State announced that the group would attempt to place both proposed congressional district maps—House Bill 1982 and Senate Bill 743—on the November 2022 general election ballot as two veto referendums.[37] The effort failed after the organization did not submit the required number of valid signatures before the statutory deadline.[38]
Veto referendums are a type of citizen-initiated ballot measure that ask voters whether to uphold or repeal a law passed by the state legislature.
On Oct. 14, 2021, Secretary of State John Thurston (R) approved the group's two veto referendums for circulation.[39] In order to qualify for the ballot, supporters would have had to gather 53,491 valid signatures from registered voters across at least 15 of the state's counties within 90 days after the end of the special legislative session during which the bills were passed. Supporters of the referendums announced they would have had to gather the required number of signatures for both proposals.[37]
Court challenges
- If you are aware of any relevant lawsuits that are not listed here, please email us at editor@ballotpedia.org.
Christian Ministerial Alliance v. Thurston
On May 23, 2023, the Christian Ministerial Alliance and a group of voters filed a lawsuit alleging that Arkansas' 2nd Congressional District was a racial gerrymander and in violation of the 14th and 15th Amendments. A trial was scheduled for March 24, 2025.[40]
Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment (2021-2023)
On November 20, 2023, the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment that there is no private right of action under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in certain states. As a result of this decision, the U.S. Department of Justice is the only entity qualified to sue the seven states within the 8th Circuit's jurisdiction (Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota) for violations of Section 2. Individual voters and private organizations file the majority of lawsuits for violations of Section 2. 182 of these lawsuits have been argued successfully over the past forty years, and all but 15 of them were filed either by individual voters or private organizations.[41][42]
On Dec. 29, 2021, the Arkansas State Conference NAACP and the Arkansas Public Policy Panel filed a lawsuit with the United States Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas against the Board of Apportionment and its three members—Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R), Sec. of State John Thurston (R), and Atty. Gen. Leslie Rutledge (R)—challenging the enacted state House map.[43] The plaintiffs alleged that the legislative maps diluted the voting power of Black Arkansans in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. As relief, plaintiffs asked the court to reject the enacted House map.[43]
- Read the plaintiffs' complaint here.
Background
This section includes background information on federal requirements for congressional redistricting, state legislative redistricting, state-based requirements, redistricting methods used in the 50 states, gerrymandering, and recent court decisions.
Federal requirements for congressional redistricting
According to Article I, 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.[44][45]
| “ | 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.[20] | ” |
| —United States Constitution | ||
Article I, 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."[46][47][48]
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."[48]
Federal requirements for 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."[48]
State-based 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.
- 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 (Nevada has no such requirement, imposing no requirements on redistricting beyond those enforced at the federal level). A total of 23 states require that congressional districts meet contiguity requirements.[48][49]
- Compactness refers to the general principle that the constituents within a district should live as near to one another as practicable. A total of 37 states impose compactness requirements on state legislative districts; 18 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.[48][49]
- A community of interest is defined by FairVote as 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.[48][49]
- 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.[48][49]
Methods
In general, a state's redistricting authority can be classified as one of the following:[50]
- Legislature-dominant: In a legislature-dominant state, the legislature retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. Maps enacted by the legislature may or may not be subject to gubernatorial veto. Advisory commissions may also be involved in the redistricting process, although the legislature is not bound to adopt an advisory commission's recommendations.
- Commission: In a commission state, an extra-legislative commission retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. A non-politician commission is one whose members cannot hold elective office. A politician commission is one whose members can hold elective office.
- Hybrid: In a hybrid state, the legislature shares redistricting authority with a commission.
Gerrymandering
- See also: Gerrymandering
The term gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to favor one political party, individual, or constituency over another. When used in a rhetorical manner by opponents of a particular district map, the term has a negative connotation but does not necessarily address the legality of a challenged map. The term can also be used in legal documents; in this context, the term describes redistricting practices that violate federal or state laws.[51][52]
For additional background information about gerrymandering, click "[Show more]" below.
The phrase racial gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to dilute the voting power of racial minority groups. Federal law prohibits racial gerrymandering and establishes that, to combat this practice and to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act, states and jurisdictions can create majority-minority electoral districts. A majority-minority district is one in which a racial group or groups comprise a majority of the district's populations. Racial gerrymandering and majority-minority districts are discussed in greater detail in this article.[53]
The phrase partisan gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district maps with the intention of favoring one political party over another. In contrast with racial gerrymandering, on which the Supreme Court of the United States has issued rulings in the past affirming that such practices violate federal law, the high court had not, as of November 2017, issued a ruling establishing clear precedent on the question of partisan gerrymandering. Although the court has granted in past cases that partisan gerrymandering can violate the United States Constitution, it has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring partisan gerrymanders. Partisan gerrymandering is described in greater detail in this article.[54][55]Recent court decisions
The Supreme Court of the United States has, in recent years, issued several decisions dealing with redistricting policy, including rulings relating to the consideration of race in drawing district maps, the use of total population tallies in apportionment, and the constitutionality of redistricting commissions. The rulings in these cases, which originated in a variety of states, impact redistricting processes across the nation.
For additional background information about these cases, click "[Show more]" below.
Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (2024)
Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP — This case concerns a challenge to the congressional redistricting plan that the South Carolina legislature enacted after the 2020 census. In January 2023, a federal three-judge panel ruled that the state's 1st Congressional District was unconstitutional and enjoined the state from conducting future elections using its district boundaries. The panel's opinion said, "The Court finds that race was the predominant factor motivating the General Assembly’s adoption of Congressional District No. 1...Defendants have made no showing that they had a compelling state interest in the use of race in the design of Congressional District No. 1 and thus cannot survive a strict scrutiny review."[56] Thomas Alexander (R)—in his capacity as South Carolina State Senate president—appealed the federal court's ruling, arguing: :In striking down an isolated portion of South Carolina Congressional District 1 as a racial gerrymander, the panel never even mentioned the presumption of the General Assembly’s “good faith.”...The result is a thinly reasoned order that presumes bad faith, erroneously equates the purported racial effect of a single line in Charleston County with racial predominance across District 1, and is riddled with “legal mistake[s]” that improperly relieved Plaintiffs of their “demanding” burden to prove that race was the “predominant consideration” in District 1.[57] The U.S. Supreme Court scheduled oral argument on this case for October 11, 2023.[58]
Moore v. Harper (2023)
- See also: Moore v. Harper
At issue in Moore v. Harper, was whether state legislatures alone are empowered by the Constitution to regulate federal elections without oversight from state courts, which is known as the independent state legislature doctrine. On November 4, 2021, the North Carolina General Assembly adopted a new congressional voting map based on 2020 Census data. The legislature, at that time, was controlled by the Republican Party. In the case Harper v. Hall (2022), a group of Democratic Party-affiliated voters and nonprofit organizations challenged the map in state court, alleging that the new map was a partisan gerrymander that violated the state constitution.[59] On February 14, 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the state could not use the map in the 2022 elections and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The trial court adopted a new congressional map drawn by three court-appointed experts. The United States Supreme Court affirmed the North Carolina Supreme Court's original decision in Moore v. Harper that the state's congressional district map violated state law. In a 6-3 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the "Elections Clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections.[60]
Merrill v. Milligan (2023)
- See also: Merrill v. Milligan
At issue in Merrill v. Milligan, was the constitutionality of Alabama's 2021 redistricting plan and whether it violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. A group of Alabama voters and organizations sued Secretary of State John Merrill (R) and the House and Senate redistricting chairmen, Rep. Chris Pringle (R) and Sen. Jim McClendon (R). Plaintiffs alleged the congressional map enacted on Nov. 4, 2021, by Gov. Kay Ivey (R) unfairly distributed Black voters. The plaintiffs asked the lower court to invalidate the enacted congressional map and order a new map with instructions to include a second majority-Black district. The court ruled 5-4, affirming the lower court opinion that the plaintiffs showed a reasonable likelihood of success concerning their claim that Alabama's redistricting map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.[61]
Gill v. Whitford (2018)
- See also: Gill v. Whitford
In Gill v. Whitford, decided on June 18, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the plaintiffs—12 Wisconsin Democrats who alleged that Wisconsin's state legislative district plan had been subject to an unconstitutional gerrymander in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments—had failed to demonstrate standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to bring a complaint. The court's opinion, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, did not address the broader question of whether partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. Roberts was joined in the majority opinion by Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Kagan penned a concurring opinion joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas penned an opinion that concurred in part with the majority opinion and in the judgment, joined by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch.[62]
Cooper v. Harris (2017)
- See also: Cooper v. Harris
In Cooper v. Harris, decided on May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the judgment of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, finding that two of North Carolina's congressional districts, the boundaries of which had been set following the 2010 United States Census, had been subject to an illegal racial gerrymander in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the court's majority opinion, which was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor (Thomas also filed a separate concurring opinion). In the court's majority opinion, Kagan described the two-part analysis utilized by the high court when plaintiffs allege racial gerrymandering as follows: "First, the plaintiff must prove that 'race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature's decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district.' ... Second, if racial considerations predominated over others, the design of the district must withstand strict scrutiny. The burden shifts to the State to prove that its race-based sorting of voters serves a 'compelling interest' and is 'narrowly tailored' to that end." In regard to the first part of the aforementioned analysis, Kagan went on to note that "a plaintiff succeeds at this stage even if the evidence reveals that a legislature elevated race to the predominant criterion in order to advance other goals, including political ones." Justice Samuel Alito delivered an opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part with the majority opinion. This opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy.[63][64][65]
Evenwel v. Abbott (2016)
- See also: Evenwel v. Abbott
Evenwel v. Abbott was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts in Texas. The plaintiffs, Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger, argued that district populations ought to take into account only the number of registered or eligible voters residing within those districts as opposed to total population counts, which are generally used for redistricting purposes. Total population tallies include non-voting residents, such as immigrants residing in the country without legal permission, prisoners, and children. The plaintiffs alleged that this tabulation method dilutes the voting power of citizens residing in districts that are home to smaller concentrations of non-voting residents. The court ruled 8-0 on April 4, 2016, that a state or locality can use total population counts for redistricting purposes. The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.[66][67][68][69]
Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2016)
Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts that were created by the commission in 2012. The plaintiffs, a group of Republican voters, alleged that "the commission diluted or inflated the votes of almost two million Arizona citizens when the commission intentionally and systematically overpopulated 16 Republican districts while under-populating 11 Democrat districts." This, the plaintiffs argued, constituted a partisan gerrymander. The plaintiffs claimed that the commission placed a disproportionately large number of non-minority voters in districts dominated by Republicans; meanwhile, the commission allegedly placed many minority voters in smaller districts that tended to vote Democratic. As a result, the plaintiffs argued, more voters overall were placed in districts favoring Republicans than in those favoring Democrats, thereby diluting the votes of citizens in the Republican-dominated districts. The defendants countered that the population deviations resulted from legally defensible efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act and obtain approval from the United States Department of Justice. At the time of redistricting, certain states were required to obtain preclearance from the U.S. Department of Justice before adopting redistricting plans or making other changes to their election laws—a requirement struck down by the United States Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder (2013). On April 20, 2016, the court ruled unanimously that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that a partisan gerrymander had taken place. Instead, the court found that the commission had acted in good faith to comply with the Voting Rights Act. The court's majority opinion was penned by Justice Stephen Breyer.[70][71][72]
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015)
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2015. At issue was the constitutionality of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, which was established by state constitutional amendment in 2000. According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, "the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." The state legislature argued that the use of the word "legislature" in this context is literal; therefore, only a state legislature may draw congressional district lines. Meanwhile, the commission contended that the word "legislature" ought to be interpreted to mean "the legislative powers of the state," including voter initiatives and referenda. On June 29, 2015, the court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, finding that "redistricting is a legislative function, to be performed in accordance with the state's prescriptions for lawmaking, which may include the referendum and the governor's veto." The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito dissented.[73][74][75][76]Trifectas and redistricting
In 34 of the states that conducted legislative elections in 2020, the legislatures themselves played a significant part in the subsequent redistricting process. The winner of eight of 2020's gubernatorial elections had veto authority over state legislative or congressional district plans approved by legislatures. The party that won trifecta control of a state in which redistricting authority rests with the legislature directed the process that produces the maps that will be used for the remainder of the decade. Trifecta shifts in the 2010 election cycle illustrate this point. In 2010, 12 states in which legislatures had authority over redistricting saw shifts in trifecta status. Prior to the 2010 elections, seven of these states were Democratic trifectas; the rest were divided governments. After the 2010 elections, seven of these states became Republican trifectas; the remainder either remained or became divided governments. The table below details these shifts and charts trifecta status heading into the 2020 election cycle.
| State | Primary redistricting authority | Pre-2010 trifecta status | Post-2010 trifecta status | Post-2018 trifecta status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Legislature | Divided | Republican | Republican |
| Colorado | Congressional maps: legislature State legislative maps: politician commission |
Democratic | Divided | Democratic |
| Indiana | Legislature | Divided | Republican | Republican |
| Iowa | Legislature | Democratic | Divided | Republican |
| Maine | Legislature | Democratic | Republican | Democratic |
| Michigan | Legislature | Divided | Republican | Divided |
| New Hampshire | Legislature | Democratic | Divided | Divided |
| North Carolina | Legislature | Democratic | Divided | Divided |
| Ohio | Congressional maps: legislature State legislative maps: politician commission |
Divided | Republican | Republican |
| Oregon | Legislature | Democratic | Divided | Democratic |
| Pennsylvania | Congressional maps: legislature State legislative maps: politician commission |
Divided | Republican | Divided |
| Wisconsin | Legislature | Democratic | Republican | Divided |
2010 redistricting cycle
Following the 2010 United States Census, Arkansas neither gained nor lost congressional seats. At the time of redistricting, Democrats controlled the state Senate, the state House, and the governorship. In the wake of the 2010 election, however, Republicans held three congressional seats.[77]
On April 14, 2011, Governor Mike Beebe signed the new congressional district map into law. That same year, Ross announced his retirement from the United States House of Representatives. In the election that followed, Democrats lost District 4, marking the first time since Reconstruction that Democrats had not held at least one of the state's congressional seats.[77]
On July 29, 2011, the Arkansas Board of Apportionment approved new state legislative district maps. Governor Mike Beebe and Attorney General Dustin McDaniel, both Democrats, voted to approve the maps. Secretary of State Mark Martin, a Republican, dissented. The new state House map reduced the number of majority-minority districts from 13 to 11.[78]
On January 23, 2012, state senator Jack Crumbly and a group of residents from eastern Arkansas filed suit against the Arkansas Board of Apportionment. The plaintiffs alleged that the new district lines constituted a racial gerrymander by diluting the black vote in Crumbly's district. On September 17, 2012, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas "rejected the plaintiff's challenges, upholding the state plan against racial gerrymandering and Voting Rights Act claims."[21]
See also
- Redistricting in Arkansas after the 2010 census
- Redistricting in Arkansas
- State-by-state redistricting procedures
- Majority-minority districts
External links
- Search Google News for this topic
- All About Redistricting
- Dave's Redistricting
- FiveThirtyEight, "What Redistricting Looks Like In Every State"
- National Conference of State Legislatures, "Redistricting Process"
- FairVote, "Redistricting"
Footnotes
- ↑ State of Arkansas, Attorney General Leslie Rutledge, "Opinion No. 2021-092," November 4, 2021
- ↑ AP News, "Arkansas redistrict plan splitting Pulaski County advances," October 6, 2021
- ↑ AP News, "Arkansas governor OKs House map splitting Little Rock area," October 13, 2021
- ↑ State of Arkansas, Attorney General Leslie Rutledge, "Opinion No. 2021-092," November 4, 2021
- ↑ Democracy Docket, "Arkansas Congressional Redistricting Challenge (Christian Ministerial Alliance)," accessed January 30, 2025
- ↑ Democracy Docket, "Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. The Arkansas Board of Apportionment complaint," Dec. 29, 2021
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 Arkansas Online, "Arkansas board accepts redrawn legislative district maps," Oct. 30, 2021
- ↑ State of Arkansas, Attorney General Leslie Rutledge, "Opinion No. 2021-092," November 4, 2021
- ↑ AP News, "Arkansas redistrict plan splitting Pulaski County advances," October 6, 2021
- ↑ AP News, "Arkansas governor OKs House map splitting Little Rock area," October 13, 2021
- ↑ State of Arkansas, Attorney General Leslie Rutledge, "Opinion No. 2021-092," November 4, 2021
- ↑ Democracy Docket, "Arkansas Congressional Redistricting Challenge (Christian Ministerial Alliance)," accessed January 30, 2025
- ↑ AP News, "Arkansas governor OKs House map splitting Little Rock area," October 13, 2021
- ↑ 14.0 14.1 Associated Press, "Arkansas redistrict plan splitting Pulaski County advances," Oct. 7, 2021
- ↑ AP News, "Arkansas governor OKs House map splitting Little Rock area," October 13, 2021
- ↑ Political predecessor districts are determined primarily based on incumbents and where each chose to seek re-election.
- ↑ Daily Kos Elections, "Daily Kos Elections 2020 presidential results by congressional district (old CDs vs. new CDs)," accessed May 12, 2022
- ↑ Democracy Docket, "Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. The Arkansas Board of Apportionment complaint," Dec. 29, 2021
- ↑ 19.0 19.1 19.2 19.3 19.4 19.5 U.S. News & World Report, "Arkansas Panel Approves New State House, Senate Districts," Nov. 29, 2021
- ↑ 20.0 20.1 20.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ 21.0 21.1 21.2 21.3 All About Redistricting, "Arkansas," accessed April 20, 2015
- ↑ Arkansas Democrat Gazette, "Return of Arkansas Lawmakers on tap for redistricting," accessed September 10, 2021
- ↑ State of Arkansas, Attorney General Leslie Rutledge, "Opinion No. 2021-092," November 4, 2021
- ↑ Arkansas Online, "Arkansas board accepts redrawn legislative district maps," Oct. 30, 2021
- ↑ Arkansas Board of Apportionment, "More About the Board of Apportionment," accessed June 15, 2021
- ↑ AP, "Former chief justice to coordinate Arkansas redistricting," accessed June 9, 2021
- ↑ University of Arkansas-Division of Agriculture: Public Policy Center, "Redistricting in Arkansas," accessed June 15, 2021
- ↑ 28.0 28.1 5 News, "Arkansas congressional redistricting bills to go into law without governor's signature," Oct. 13, 2021
- ↑ United States Census Bureau, "Apportionment," accessed July 11, 2018
- ↑ United States Census Bureau, "2020 Census Apportionment Results Delivered to the President," April 26, 2021
- ↑ United States Census Bureau, "2020 Census Operational Plan: Executive Summary," December 2015
- ↑ United States Census Bureau, "Census Bureau Statement on Redistricting Data Timeline," February 12, 2021
- ↑ Office of the Attorney General of Ohio, "AG Yost Secures Victory for Ohioans in Settlement with Census Bureau Data Lawsuit," May 25, 2021
- ↑ U.S. Census Bureau, "U.S. Census Bureau Statement on Release of Legacy Format Summary Redistricting Data File," March 15, 2021
- ↑ U.S. Census Bureau, "Decennial Census P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data," accessed August 12, 2021
- ↑ United States Census Bureau, "Census Bureau Delivers 2020 Census Redistricting Data in Easier-to-Use Format," September 16, 2021
- ↑ 37.0 37.1 Facebook, "Arkansans for a Unified Natural State," Oct. 9, 2021
- ↑ Phone conversation with Arkansans for a Unified Natural State, Jan. 14, 2022
- ↑ Facebook, "Arkansans for a Unified Natural State," Oct. 14, 2021
- ↑ Democracy Docket, "Arkansas Congressional Redistricting Challenge (Christian Ministerial Alliance)," accessed January 30, 2025
- ↑ Election Law Blog, "Divided 8th Circuit panel finds Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not allow private plaintiffs to sue," November 20, 2023
- ↑ Election Law Blog, "Divided 8th Circuit panel finds Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not allow private plaintiffs to sue," November 20, 2023
- ↑ 43.0 43.1 Democracy Docket, "Complaint," Dec. 29, 2021
- ↑ The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, "Election Regulations," accessed April 13, 2015
- ↑ Brookings, "Redistricting and the United States Constitution," March 22, 2011
- ↑ Brennan Center for Justice, "A Citizen's Guide to Redistricting," accessed March 25, 2015
- ↑ The Constitution of the United States of America, "Article 1, Section 2," accessed March 25, 2015
- ↑ 48.0 48.1 48.2 48.3 48.4 48.5 48.6 All About Redistricting, "Where are the lines drawn?" accessed April 9, 2015
- ↑ 49.0 49.1 49.2 49.3 FairVote, "Redistricting Glossary," accessed April 9, 2015
- ↑ All About Redistricting, "Who draws the lines?" accessed June 19, 2017
- ↑ All About Redistricting, "Why does it matter?" accessed April 8, 2015
- ↑ Encyclopædia Britannica, "Gerrymandering," November 4, 2014
- ↑ Congressional Research Service, "Congressional Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A Legal Overview," April 13, 2015
- ↑ The Wall Street Journal, "Supreme Court to Consider Limits on Partisan Drawing of Election Maps," June 19, 2017
- ↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear potentially landmark case on partisan gerrymandering," June 19, 2017
- ↑ United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Columbia Division, "South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, et al. v. Alexander," January 6, 2023
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Alexander, et al. v. The South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, et al.," February 17, 2023
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP," accessed July 21, 2023
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Justices will hear case that tests power of state legislatures to set rules for federal elections," June 30, 2022
- ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, “Moore, in his Official Capacity as Speaker of The North Carolina House of Representatives, et al. v. Harper et al.," "Certiorari to the Supreme Court of North Carolina,” accessed June 16, 2023
- ↑ SCOTUSblog.org, "Supreme Court upholds Section 2 of Voting Rights Act," June 8, 2023
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Gill v. Whitford: Decision," June 18, 2018
- ↑ Election Law Blog, "Breaking: SCOTUS to Hear NC Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 27, 2016
- ↑ Ballot Access News, "U.S. Supreme Court Accepts Another Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 28, 2016
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Cooper v. Harris: Decision," May 22, 2017
- ↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear challenge to Texas redistricting plan," May 26, 2015
- ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Agrees to Settle Meaning of ‘One Person One Vote,'" May 26, 2015
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Evenwel v. Abbott," accessed May 27, 2015
- ↑ Associated Press, "Supreme Court to hear Texas Senate districts case," May 26, 2015
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "The new look at 'one person, one vote,' made simple," July 27, 2015
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Brief for Appellants," accessed December 14, 2015
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission," April 20, 2016
- ↑ The New York Times, "Court Skeptical of Arizona Plan for Less-Partisan Congressional Redistricting," March 2, 2015
- ↑ The Atlantic, "Will the Supreme Court Let Arizona Fight Gerrymandering?" September 15, 2014
- ↑ United States Supreme Court, "Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Opinion of the Court," June 29, 2015
- ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Upholds Creation of Arizona Redistricting Commission," June 29, 2015
- ↑ 77.0 77.1 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.
- ↑ Arkansas News, "Update: Governor's redistricting maps adopted by panel," July 29, 2011
 |
State of Arkansas Little Rock (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
