Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.
Redistricting in Delaware 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 Delaware.
Delaware was apportioned one single at-large U.S. House seat, making Congressional redistricting after the 2020 census unnecessary.
On November 2, 2021, Gov. John Carney (D) signed Senate Bill 199 into law, enacting the state's new House and Senate district lines.[1] The Delaware General Assembly previously approved the final House and Senate map proposals on November 1, 2021.[2] The Delaware House of Representatives voted 40-1 in favor of the maps with state Rep. Michael Smith (R) voting against it. The Delaware State Senate approved the maps along party lines with all 14 Democrats in favor and all seven Republicans against.[2] These maps took effect for Delaware's 2022 legislative elections.
Click here for more information.
Delaware's single United States representative and 62 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 Delaware 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.
- Nov. 2, 2021: Gov. John Carney (D) signed the final House and Senate maps into law.
- Nov. 1, 2021: The Delaware General Assembly voted to approve final House and Senate maps, sending the proposals to Gov. John Carney (D) for final approval.
- Oct. 26, 2021: Senate Republicans released the second proposed maps for the state's Senate districts.
- Oct. 15, 2021: House Republicans released the second proposed maps for the state's House districts.
- Oct. 13, 2021: House Democrats released the first proposed maps for the state's House districts.
- Oct. 11, 2021: Senate Democrats released the first proposed maps for the state's Senate districts.
- Sept. 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.
- Sept. 10, 2021: The Delaware General Assembly launched its redistricting website.
- Aug. 12, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau delivered redistricting data to states in a legacy format.
- April 26, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts.
Enactment
Enacted congressional district maps
Delaware was apportioned one single at-large U.S. House seat, making Congressional redistricting after the 2020 census unnecessary.
Enacted state legislative district maps
On November 2, 2021, Gov. John Carney (D) signed Senate Bill 199 into law, enacting the state's new House and Senate district lines.[3] The Delaware General Assembly previously approved the final House and Senate map proposals on November 1, 2021.[2] The Delaware House of Representatives voted 40-1 in favor of the maps with state Rep. Michael Smith (R) voting against it. The Delaware State Senate approved the maps along party lines with all 14 Democrats in favor and all seven Republicans against.[2] These maps took effect for Delaware's 2022 legislative elections.
State Senate map
Below is the state Senate map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.
Delaware State Senate Districts
until November 8, 2022
Click a district to compare boundaries.
Delaware State Senate Districts
starting November 9, 2022
Click a district to compare boundaries.
State House map
Below is the state House map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.
Delaware State House Districts
until November 8, 2022
Click a district to compare boundaries.
Delaware State House Districts
starting November 9, 2022
Click a district to compare boundaries.
Reactions
In the Senate, President Pro Tempore David Sokola (D) said, "The map does retain the cores of all 21 current Senate districts ... It does retain five majority-minority Senate districts. It retains one majority-Black Senate district." Republican senators opposed the bill, saying it did not account for population growth in Sussex County, the state's fastest-growing.[4] Senate Minority Leader Gerald Hocker (R) said, "Our constituents in Sussex County are way underrepresented ... It's not fair to the senators in those districts and it's not fair to the staffing we have to represent those districts."[4]
No members of the House rose to debate Senate Bill 199.[4]
Drafting process
Because Delaware has only one congressional district, congressional redistricting is not necessary. The state legislature draws state legislative district lines. The governor may veto the lines drawn by the state legislature.[5][6]
State law requires that state legislative districts be "insofar as possible, contiguous and bounded by roads, streams and other natural boundaries." Further, state law stipulates that district lines "may not be drawn to unduly favor any person or political party." Because these requirements are statutory, the legislature may amend them at its discretion.[5][6]
Timeline
On June 24, 2021, the Delaware legislature passed House Concurrent Resolution 32 setting Nov. 7, 2021, as the final deadline for the legislative redistricting processes to be completed.[7][8] A special session to adopt new maps began on Nov. 1, 2021.[8]
Committees and/or commissions involved in the process
Redistricting proposals and legislation were prepared and released by the party caucuses in each chamber, rather than by specific legislative committees. Maps were considered and approved by special sessions of both the state House and Senate. Click here for links from the Delaware legislature of redistricting resources, legislative presentations, and recordings of public hearings.[9]
Drafts and proposals
Congressional district maps
Delaware has one at-large congressional district.
State legislative district maps
On Nov. 1, 2021, the Delaware General Assembly passed Senate Bill 199, which contained the legislative body's final House and Senate map lines, sending the proposals to Gov. John Carney (D) for final approval.[2] The Delaware House of Representatives voted 40-1 in favor of the maps with state Rep. Michael Smith (R) voting against it. The Delaware State Senate approved the maps along party lines with all 14 Democrats in favor and all seven Republicans against.[2]
House maps
Final House map
Images of the state House districts finalized on Oct. 28 and adopted by the Delaware General Assembly on Nov. 1 are shown below with more detailed information available here.
Previous draft maps
Click "Show more" below to view draft maps proposed by party leaders before the adoption of the final map.
Senate maps
Final Senate map
Images of the state Senate districts finalized on Oct. 25 and adopted by the Delaware General Assembly on Nov. 1 are shown below with more detailed information available here.
Previous draft maps
Click "Show more" below to view draft maps proposed by party leaders before the adoption of the final map.
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.[10]
Apportionment following the 2020 census
The U.S. Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts on April 26, 2021. Delaware was apportioned one seat 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.[11]
See the table below for additional details.
| 2020 and 2010 census information for Delaware | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | |
| Delaware | 900,877 | 1 | 990,837 | 1 | 89,960 | 9.99% | 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.[12][13][14][15] 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.[16][17]
Court challenges
- If you are aware of any relevant lawsuits that are not listed here, please email us at editor@ballotpedia.org.
As of 2025, Ballotpedia had not tracked any lawsuits challenging enacted maps in this state.
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.[18][19]
| “ | 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."[21][22][23]
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."[23]
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."[23]
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.[23][24]
- 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.[23][24]
- 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.[23][24]
- 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.[23][24]
Methods
In general, a state's redistricting authority can be classified as one of the following:[25]
- 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.[26][27]
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.[28]
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.[29][30]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."[31] 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.[32] The U.S. Supreme Court scheduled oral argument on this case for October 11, 2023.[33]
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.[34] 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.[35]
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.[36]
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.[37]
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.[38][39][40]
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.[41][42][43][44]
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.[45][46][47]
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.[48][49][50][51]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, Delaware did not add to its single congressional seat, rendering congressional districting unnecessary. At the time of redistricting, Democrats held the governorship and majorities in both the state Senate and the state House. The state legislature voted to approve new state legislative maps on June 30, 2011. On July 8, 2011, Governor Jack Markell signed the redistricting plan into law.[5]
See also
- Redistricting in Delaware after the 2010 census
- Redistricting in Delaware
- 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
- ↑ Delaware General Assembly, "Senate Bill 199," accessed Nov. 15, 2021
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 WGMD, "Redistricting Legislation Passes in Delaware – Waiting for Governor’s Signature," Nov. 1, 2021
- ↑ Delaware General Assembly, "Senate Bill 199," accessed Nov. 15, 2021
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Delaware Live, "General Assembly passes redistricting bill; new district lines take effect next election," Nov. 1, 2021
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 All About Redistricting, "Delaware," accessed April 22, 2015
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 Delaware Code, "Title 29, Chapter 8," accessed April 22, 2015
- ↑ Delaware General Assembly, "House Concurrent Resolution 32," accessed July 1, 2021
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 WGMD, "De. House District Maps Released," Oct. 14, 2021
- ↑ Delaware General Assembly, "Redistricting Information," August 16, 2022
- ↑ 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
- ↑ The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, "Election Regulations," accessed April 13, 2015
- ↑ Brookings, "Redistricting and the United States Constitution," March 22, 2011
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ 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
- ↑ 23.0 23.1 23.2 23.3 23.4 23.5 23.6 All About Redistricting, "Where are the lines drawn?" accessed April 9, 2015
- ↑ 24.0 24.1 24.2 24.3 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
 |
State of Delaware Dover (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 |
