Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.

Redistricting in Florida after the 2020 census

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Florida is considering mid-decade U.S. House redistricting. Click here to read more about the ongoing redistricting effort in Florida and other states.
Election Policy VNT Logo.png
Redistricting
State legislative and congressional redistricting after the 2020 census
General information
State-by-state redistricting procedures • Majority-minority districts • Gerrymandering
The 2020 cycle
United States census, 2020 • Congressional apportionment • Redistricting committees • Deadlines • 2022 House elections with multiple incumbents • New U.S.House districts created after apportionment • Congressional maps • State legislative maps • Lawsuits • Status of redistricting after the 2020 census
Redrawn maps
Redistricting before 2024 elections • Redistricting before 2026 elections
Ballotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker


BP-Initials-UPDATED.png 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 Florida.


Florida's 28 United States representatives and 160 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.

Congressional districts
Congressional redistricting in Florida ahead of the 2026 elections is ongoing.

After Texas Republicans launched their congressional redistricting effort, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) suggested in July 2025 that his state might also redraw its congressional district boundaries.[1] In August 2025, Florida began taking official action toward congressional redistricting ahead of the 2026 elections.

Heading into the redistricting effort, Republicans represented 20 of Florida's 28 Congressional districts, and Democrats represented eight.

Click here for more information about the congressional maps enacted in Florida after the 2020 census.

Legislative districts
Litigation over state legislative redistricting in Florida after the 2020 census is ongoing.

On May 23, 2024, a group of community organizations and voters filed a lawsuit arguing that three congressional districts and seven state house districts were unconstitutional racial gerrymanders. On February 13, 2025, a three-judge panel allowed a challenge against eight of the 10 districts to continue, allowing a challenge against all state house districts and Florida's 26th Congressional District, but not Florida's 27th or 28th.[2]

Click here for more information about the state legislative maps enacted in Florida after the 2020 census.

See the sections below for further information on the following topics:

  1. Summary: This section provides summary information about the drafting and enacting processes.
  2. Enactment: This section provides information about the enacted congressional and state legislative district maps.
  3. Drafting process: This section details the drafting process for new congressional and state legislative district maps.
  4. Apportionment and release of census data: This section details the 2020 apportionment process, including data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
  5. Court challenges: This section details court challenges to the enacted congressional and state legislative district maps.
  6. 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 California 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.

Enactment

Enacted congressional district maps

See also: Congressional district maps implemented after the 2020 census

On March 27, 2024, the U.S. District Court for Northern Florida upheld the state's congressional map after it was struck down by a lower court on Sep. 2, 2023. As a result, this map was used for Florida's 2024 congressional elections. According to the U.S. District Court for Northern Florida's order:

“ This case involves constitutional challenges to the congressional districting map proposed by Governor Ron DeSantis and enacted by the Florida Legislature in 2022 ... Plaintiffs had to prove both discriminatory effects and a discriminatory purpose. They proved neither. Thus, [we] concur in the decision to grant judgment in the Secretary’s favor.[5][6] ”

On December 1, 2023, the Florida First District Court of Appeal ruled 8-2 that the redistricting plan did not unconstitutionally limit Black voting power.[7] The plaintiffs appealed to the Florida Supreme Court, which heard arguments on September 12, 2024.[8]

On September 2, 2023, Leon County Circuit Court Judge J. Lee Marsh struck down enacted North Florida congressional districts and ordered the Legislature to redraw district boundaries.[9] On June 2, 2022, the Florida Supreme Court had declined to block Florida's enacted congressional map, which Governor Ron DeSantis (R) signed into law on April 22.[10]

The Florida First District Court of Appeal had reinstated the congressional district boundaries on May 20, overruling Leon County Circuit Court Judge Layne Smith's temporary hold on the map.[11][12] On May 11, Smith issued an order declaring Florida's enacted congressional map unconstitutional, saying, "The enacted map is unconstitutional under the Fair District amendment. It diminishes African-Americans’ ability to elect the representative of their choice." Smith also said a map drawn by a court-appointed special master should be substituted for the enacted map in the 2022 elections.[13] The plaintiffs in the case filed an emergency appeal with the Florida Supreme Court on May 23, 2022, seeking a hold on the enacted congressional map.[14]

DeSantis signed the original congressional map into law on April 22, 2022.[15] The map bill was proposed and approved by the Florida State Legislature during a special session called for the purposes of redistricting. The Florida State Senate voted 24-15 to approve the map on April 20, and the Florida House of Representatives voted 68-34 to approve the map on April 21.[16][17]

This was the second congressional map bill approved by the state legislature. DeSantis vetoed the first on March 29. Republican leaders in the legislature said on April 11 that they would wait to receive a map from DeSantis to support.[18] DeSantis submitted a map to the legislature on April 13, which became the enacted map.[19]

Below are the congressional maps in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.

Florida Congressional Districts
until January 2, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Florida Congressional Districts
starting January 3, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.


Reactions

When DeSantis vetoed the initial map bill he wrote in a memo that "Congressional District 5 [Lawson's district] in both the primary and secondary maps enacted by the Legislature violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because it assigns voters primarily on the basis of race but is not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest."[20] Florida Politics's Jacob Ogles wrote of the enacted map, "The most controversial change DeSantis made in his map, this new CD 4 really stands in as the replacement to the Lawson seat. [...] The Black population in Jacksonville gets cleaved in half by the St. Johns River after DeSantis vetoed a map drawn by the Florida House that created a Duval-only Black seat."[21]

State Rep. Tracie Davis (D) said "You hate when we use the word disenfranchisement. You turn your back. You look the other way. But you have to realize that is exactly what this is: Gutting, now-CD 4 … leaves us simply without representation. It simply means that the Black population in Florida that lives north of the I-4 corridor, their voices will be diluted. Their power in this process simply washed away."[22] State Rep. Dotie Joseph (D) criticized the partisan makeup of the map, saying, "They basically stacked the deck 20-8 in favor of Republicans, so this allows this power-hungry GOP to continue to ignore the needs of the people of Florida by cheating."[23]

Rep. Randy Fine (R) supported the enacted map, saying "When we guarantee that a group of people gets to select the candidate of their choice, what we’re saying is we are guaranteeing those who aren’t a part of that group gets no say."[24] Rep. Kaylee Tuck (R) said, "[DeSantis] publicly submitted maps, which is something that anybody can do. He’s allowed to do it. Every single member of the public was allowed to do it. And just because it’s different, doesn’t mean it’s bad. Just because it’s different, doesn’t mean it’s wrong. It’s just different. The process was thorough, it was transparent. It was open. It was complete. It was constitutional. And it was good."[22]

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.[25] This data was compiled by Daily Kos Elections.[26]

2020 presidential results by Congressional district, Florida
District 2022 district Political predecessor district
Joe Biden Democratic Party Donald Trump Republican Party Joe Biden Democratic Party Donald Trump Republican Party
Florida's 1st 33.0% 65.3% 32.4% 65.9%
Florida's 2nd 44.0% 55.0% FL-02: 32.0%
FL-05: 67.0%		 FL-02: 62.7%
FL-05: 36.2%
Florida's 3rd 42.4% 56.5% 42.8% 56.0%
Florida's 4th 46.0% 52.7% FL-02: 32.0%
FL-05: 67.0%		 FL-02: 62.7%
FL-05: 36.2%
Florida's 5th 41.5% 57.3% 38.9% 59.9%
Florida's 6th 37.7% 61.4% 40.8% 58.3%
Florida's 7th 46.7% 52.2% 54.6% 44.2%
Florida's 8th 40.6% 58.3% 40.6% 58.3%
Florida's 9th 58.2% 40.8% 53.0% 46.1%
Florida's 10th 65.3% 33.5% 62.0% 37.0%
Florida's 11th 44.1% 55.0% 33.8% 65.4%
Florida's 12th 35.1% 63.9% 41.0% 57.9%
Florida's 13th 46.1% 52.9% 51.5% 47.4%
Florida's 14th 59.0% 39.8% 57.2% 41.6%
Florida's 15th 47.9% 51.0% --- ---
Florida's 16th 45.1% 54.0% 45.5% 53.6%
Florida's 17th 41.6% 57.6% 35.9% 63.3%
Florida's 18th 38.1% 60.9% 45.2% 53.7%
Florida's 19th 39.1% 60.2% 39.6% 59.7%
Florida's 20th 75.9% 23.5% 77.3% 22.1%
Florida's 21st 45.0% 54.4% 45.5% 53.9%
Florida's 22nd 58.5% 40.9% 58.2% 41.2%
Florida's 23rd 56.3% 43.1% 57.1% 42.3%
Florida's 24th 74.3% 25.2% 75.4% 24.0%
Florida's 25th 59.7% 39.7% 58.3% 41.2%
Florida's 26th 40.6% 58.9% 38.2% 61.2%
Florida's 27th 49.6% 49.9% 51.3% 48.1%
Florida's 28th 46.5% 52.9% 46.9% 52.5%

Enacted state legislative district maps

See also: State legislative district maps implemented after the 2020 census

On March 3, 2022, the Florida Supreme Court approved new legislative maps drawn by the Florida State Legislature. These maps took effect for Florida's 2022 legislative elections.

The maps were passed by the legislature as a joint resolution. The Florida State Senate voted 34-3 to approve the bill on January 20, and the Florida House of Representatives voted 77-39 to approve the bill on February 2.[27] Since the maps were passed as a joint resolution, they did not require the signature of Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) to become law. After the legislature approved the maps, they submitted them to Attorney General Ashley B. Moody (R), who then petitioned the Florida Supreme Court to review the maps on February 9.[28][29]

State Senate map

Below is the state Senate map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.

Florida State Senate Districts
until November 7, 2022

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Florida State Senate Districts
starting November 8, 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.

Florida State House Districts
until November 7, 2022

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Florida State House Districts
starting November 8, 2022

Click a district to compare boundaries.


Reactions

Following the legislative approval of the maps, Senate President Wilton Simpson (R) said, "Thank you to this body for the professionalism we brought to the process this year with redistricting. We can and should be very proud of the work we’ve done here today and we’ll see if the courts are equally as proud." State Rep. Geraldine Thompson (D) criticized the House map, saying "While we won’t show retrogression in terms of fewer minority seats, at the same time, unfortunately we won’t show progression — progress in terms of the participation of minority populations in this chamber."[30]

Drafting process

In Florida, both congressional and state legislative district lines are drawn by the state legislature. Congressional lines are adopted as regular legislation and are subject to gubernatorial veto. State legislative lines are passed via joint resolution and are not subject to gubernatorial veto. State legislative district maps are automatically submitted to the Florida Supreme Court for approval. In the event that the court rejects the lines, the legislature is given a second chance to draft a plan. If the legislature cannot approve a state legislative redistricting plan, the state attorney general must ask the state supreme court to draft a plan. There are no similar procedures in place for congressional districts.[31]

The Florida Constitution requires that all districts, whether congressional or state legislative, be contiguous. Also, "where doing so does not conflict with minority rights, [districts] must be compact and utilize existing political and geographical boundaries where feasible." Districts cannot be drawn in such a way as to "favor or disfavor a political party or incumbent."[31][32]

Timeline

Florida did not set a specific redistricting deadline for the 2020 redistricting cycle. The congressional candidate filing deadline for the 2022 election cycle in Florida was April 29 and, for state legislative candidates, was June 17, both inferred redistricting deadlines. According to the Florida Constitution, legislators must complete redistricting during regular legislative session in the second year following the census.[33] As of Nov. 2021, the 2022 legislative session in Florida was scheduled to last from Jan. 11 to March 12, 2022.

Committees and/or commissions involved in the process

Senate President Wilton Simpson (R) appointed Sen. Ray Rodrigues (R) as chair of the Senate Committee on Reapportionment on July 2, 2021.[34] On September 3, 2021, reapportionment committee and subcommittee assignments for the 2022 session were released.[35] The following tables detail the House and Senate committee members. Click [show] to expand the tables.




Drafts and proposals

All proposed map plans for congressional, Senate, and House districts, including those prepared by members of the public, can be found here. Use the "Plan type:" dropdown to specify whether you want to view U.S. House, state House, or state Senate maps. Use the "From:" dropdown to specify whether you want to view maps proposed by the House or Senate Redistricting Committees, the courts, or the public.

Click [show] on the table below to view a list of links to plans developed by the House and Senate Committees on Reapportionment as of March 2, 2022.

Congressional

On Jan. 20, the Florida State Senate voted 31-4 in favor of a new congressional map first introduced by Sen. Shevrin Jones (D) on Jan. 18. Four Democratic senators—Sens. Janet Cruz, Gary Farmer, Audry Gibson, and Victor Torres—voted against the proposal.[38] View the approved map here.

On March 4, both chambers of the Florida State Legislature approved SB 102, a bill containing two congressional maps.[39] The primary map can be viewed here, and the secondary map, which would take effect if the primary map was found to be unconstitutional, can be viewed here. The Florida House of Representatives voted 67-47 to approve the maps, and the state Senate voted 24-15 to approve.[40]

On March 29, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) vetoed the map bill and said he planned to call the legislature into a special session to address redistricting in April.[41] Republican leaders in the legislature said on April 11 that they would wait to receive a map from DeSantis to support, rather than have the legislature draft its own map.[42] DeSantis submitted a map to the legislature on April 13, which can be viewed here.[43]

A special session on redistricting began on April 19.[44] On April 20, the Florida State Senate approved a map bill containing DeSantis' proposed map 24-15.[45] The Florida House of Representatives approved the map bill 68-34 on April 21.[46]

State Senate

On Jan. 20, the Florida State Senate voted 34-3 in favor of a new Senate map first introduced by Sen. Ray Rodrigues (R) on Jan. 13. Three Democratic senators—Sens. Gary Farmer, Audry Gibson, and Victor Torres—voted against the proposal.[47] On Feb. 3, the Florida House of Representatives voted 77-39 to approve a joint bill containing the Senate map and the House map.[48]

View the approved map here.

State House

On Feb. 2, the Florida House of Representatives voted 77-39 in favor of a new state House map first introduced by the House Redistricting Committee on Jan. 24.[49] On Feb. 3, the Florida State Senate voted 37-0 to approve a joint bill containing the Senate map and the House map.[50]

View the approved map here.

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.[51]

Apportionment following the 2020 census

The U.S. Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts on April 26, 2021. Florida was apportioned 28 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. This represented a net gain of one seat as compared to apportionment after the 2010 census.[52]

See the table below for additional details.

2020 and 2010 census information for Florida
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
Florida 18,900,773 27 21,570,527 28 2,669,754 14.13% 1


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.[53][54][55][56] 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.[57][58]

Court challenges

If you are aware of any relevant lawsuits that are not listed here, please email us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

Cubanos Pa'Lante, et al. v. Florida House of Representatives, et al.

On May 23, 2024, a group of community organizations and voters filed a lawsuit arguing that three congressional districts and seven state house districts were unconstitutional racial gerrymanders. On February 13, 2025, a three-judge panel allowed a challenge against eight of the 10 districts to continue, allowing a challenge against all state house districts and Florida's 26th Congressional District, but not Florida's 27th or 28th.[2] The three-judge panel wrote:

“ In this case, Plaintiffs allege that the Florida Legislature racially gerrymandered three Congressional Districts—26, 27, and 28—and seven State House districts—112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 118, and 119—in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. ... Plaintiffs present insufficient factual allegations to state a plausible claim that the Florida Legislature racially gerrymandered Congressional Districts 27 and 28, but their claims survive in all other respects at the pleading stage.[59][6] ”

Common Cause Florida v. Byrd

On March 27, 2024, the U.S. District Court for Northern Florida upheld the state's congressional map after it was struck down by a lower court on Sep. 2, 2023. As a result, this map was used for Florida's 2024 congressional elections. According to the U.S. District Court for Northern Florida's order:

“ This case involves constitutional challenges to the congressional districting map proposed by Governor Ron DeSantis and enacted by the Florida Legislature in 2022 ... Plaintiffs had to prove both discriminatory effects and a discriminatory purpose.

They proved neither. Thus, I concur in the decision to grant judgment in the Secretary’s favor.[5][6]

”

Black Voters Matter Capacity Building Inst., Inc. v. Lee

On April 22, 2022, several voting rights groups and Florida voters filed a lawsuit before the Leon County Circuit Court challenging the state's enacted congressional map.[60] The plaintiffs said the map violated the state constitution's Fair Districts Amendment, specifically "by intentionally diminishing the ability of Black voters to elect representatives of their choice" and "by intentionally favoring the Republican Party and disfavoring the Democratic Party." In the suit, the plaintiffs requested the court declare the enacted map invalid and prevent it from being used in U.S. House elections, and order a new map be drawn.[61]

On May 11, Leon County Circuit Judge J. Layne Smith said he would rule against the enacted congressional map. Smith said he would order a new map based on a draft map drawn by Harvard Professor Stephen Ansolabehere be used for the 2022 elections. Ansolabehere's draft map can be viewed here.[62]

On May 12, Secretary of State Laurel Lee (R) appealed the decision to the First District Court of Appeal, triggering an automatic stay on Smith's decision.[63] Smith issued a ruling on May 16 lifting the stay.[64] On May 20, the Florida First District Court of Appeal issued a ruling reinstating the stay.[60]

On May 23, the plaintiffs filed a request asking the Florida Supreme Court to enact a stay on the enacted congressional map.[60] The Florida Supreme Court declined to block Florida's enacted congressional map on June 2.[10]

The First District Court of Appeal issued a ruling striking down Smith's decision to implement a court-drawn congressional map on May 30, 2022.[65]

On October 27, 2022, the plaintiffs dismissed two claims without prejudice that they had originally asserted—that the enacted boundaries are a) not compact and b) do not use existing political and geographic boundaries. They did not dismiss any other counts and claims made in their original complaint.[66]

On September 2, 2023, Leon County Circuit Court Judge J. Lee Marsh overturned Florida's congressional district boundaries in North Florida and enjoined the state from using the current districts in future elections. Marsh declared the current map in violation of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment and directed the legislature to enact new district boundaries. In his order, Marsh wrote, "This case is about whether the Legislature, in enacting its most recent congressional redistricting plan, violated the Florida Constitution by diminishing the ability of Black voters in North Florida to elect representatives of their choice. It is also about whether that provision of the Florida Constitution violates the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In short, the answers are yes and no, respectively. For those reasons, this Court will declare the enacted map unconstitutional and enjoin the Secretary of State from using that map in future congressional elections. This Court will return the matter to the Legislature to enact a new map which complies with the Florida Constitution."[67]

On September 4, 2023, Florida Secretary of State Cord Byrd filed notice that he and the legislature would appeal Marsh's decision to the Florida First District Court of Appeal.[68] Byrd said, "We disagree with the trial court’s decision. This is why the stipulation contemplates an appeal with pass through jurisdiction to the Florida Supreme Court which we will be pursuing.”[69]

On December 1, 2023, the appeals court ruled 8-2 that the redistricting plan did not unconstitutionally limit black voting power.[70] The plaintiffs appealed to the Florida Supreme Court, which heard arguments on September 12, 2024.[71] On July 17, 2025, the Court upheld the state's congressional map.[72]

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.[73][74]

“ 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.[6] ”
—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."[75][76][77]

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."[77]

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."[77]

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.

  1. Contiguity refers to the principle that all areas within a district should be physically adjacent. A total of 49 states require that districts of at least one state legislative chamber be contiguous (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.[77][78]
  2. 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.[77][78]
  3. 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.[77][78]
  4. A total of 42 states require that state legislative district lines be drawn to account for political boundaries (e.g., the limits of counties, cities, and towns). A total of 19 states require that similar considerations be made in the drawing of congressional districts.[77][78]

Methods

In general, a state's redistricting authority can be classified as one of the following:[79]

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Hybrid: In a hybrid state, the legislature shares redistricting authority with a commission.

Gerrymandering

In 1812, Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry signed into law a state Senate district map that, according to the Encyclopædia Britannica, "consolidated the Federalist Party vote in a few districts and thus gave disproportionate representation to Democratic-Republicans." The word gerrymander was coined by The Boston Gazette to describe the district.
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.[80][81]

For additional background information about gerrymandering, click "[Show more]" below.

Show more

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.[82]

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.[83][84]

Recent court decisions

See also: Redistricting cases heard by the Supreme Court of the United States

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.

Show more

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (2024)

See also: Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP

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."[85] 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.[86] The U.S. Supreme Court scheduled oral argument on this case for October 11, 2023.[87]

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.[88] 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.[89]

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.[90]

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.[91]

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.[92][93][94]

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.[95][96][97][98]

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2016)

Justice Stephen Breyer penned the majority opinion in Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.
See also: Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

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.[99][100][101]

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015)

See also: Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
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.[102][103][104][105]

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.

The 12 legislature-redistricting states that saw trifecta shifts in 2010 – subsequent trifecta status
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

Redistricting in Florida after the 2010 census

Congressional redistricting, 2010

Following the 2010 United States Census, Florida gained two congressional seats. In November 2010, voters approved two separate constitutional amendments establishing that congressional and state legislative districts must meet the following criteria (Amendment 6 applied to congressional districts; Amendment 5 applied to legislative districts):[106][107]

“ [Districts] may not be drawn to favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party. Districts shall not be drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice. Districts must be contiguous. Unless otherwise required, districts must be compact, as equal in population as feasible, and where feasible must make use of existing city, county and geographical boundaries.[6] ”
—Florida Division of Elections

On February 9, 2012, the Republican-controlled state legislature approved new congressional lines. On February 16, 2012, the plan was signed into law. That plan was subject to legal challenges, which culminated with a 2015 decision by the state supreme court striking down the original district plan. The state legislature proved unable to adopts it own remedial plan. Consequently, the state supreme court approved a new map, which was implemented beginning with the 2016 election cycle.[108]

State legislative redistricting, 2010

On February 9, 2012, the state legislature approved a state legislative redistricting plan via joint resolution. The Florida Supreme Court approved the state House map, but rejected the state Senate map. The legislature revised the state Senate map on March 27, 2012, and it was approved by the state supreme court.

On September 5, 2012, the League of Women Voters of Florida filed suit challenging the state Senate district map "on state constitutional grounds, including violations of state prohibitions on partisan gerrymandering, and requirements of compactness and adherence to political boundaries." The state filed a series of motions to dismiss in 2012 and 2013, but these were ultimately denied. In 2015, a state judge approved a new state Senate district map, after having found that the original violated state law.[109][110][111][112]

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named florida
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Florida Politics, "Legal challenge to South Florida congressional and House districts moves forward," February 19, 2025
  3. ↑ Tampa Bay Times, "Florida House speaker puts together Congressional redistricting committee," August 7, 2025
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 X, "Interactive Polls on August 7, 2025," accessed August 8, 2025
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, "Common Cause Florida v. Byrd," March 27, 2024
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  7. ↑ CBS News, "Florida appeals court upholds congressional redistricting plan backed by Gov. Ron DeSantis," December 1, 2023
  8. ↑ Politico, "Florida’s high court poised to protect DeSantis’ congressional map that helps GOP," September 12, 2024
  9. ↑ Tampa Bay Times, "Judge rules against DeSantis in challenge to congressional map," September 2, 2023
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 Florida Politics, "Florida Supreme Court declines to hear challenge to congressional map ahead of Midterms," June 2, 2022
  11. ↑ Orlando Sentinel, "Florida appeals court reinstates DeSantis’ congressional map," May 20, 2022
  12. ↑ Florida District Court of Appeal, First District, "Secretary of State Laurel Lee v. Black Voters Matter, et al.," May 20, 2022
  13. ↑ NBC News, "Florida judge says he’ll block DeSantis' congressional redistricting map," May 11, 2022
  14. ↑ Florida Supreme Court, "Black Voters Matter, et al. v. Cord Byrd, Florida Secretary of State," May 23, 2022
  15. ↑ Florida Politics, "Gov. DeSantis signs his congressional map into law," April 22, 2022
  16. ↑ Florida Politics, "Florida Senate passes Gov. DeSantis’ congressional map," April 20, 2022
  17. ↑ Florida Politics, "Legislature approves Gov. DeSantis’ controversial congressional redistricting map," April 21, 2022
  18. ↑ Tampa Bay Times, "Florida Legislature won’t draft new redistricting map, deferring to DeSantis," April 11, 2022
  19. ↑ Florida Politics, "Gov. DeSantis submits congressional redistristing plan critics contend is ‘partisan gerrymandering’," April 14, 2022
  20. ↑ Florida Office of the Governor, "Memorandum Re: Constitutionality of CS/SB 102, An Act Relating to Establishing the Congressional Districts of the State," March 29, 2022
  21. ↑ Florida Politics, "Tour every congressional district on Florida’s new congressional map," April 25, 2022
  22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 CBS Miami, "Florida House Redistricting Plan Passes As Democrats Protest," April 21, 2022
  23. ↑ CBS Miami, "Florida Legislative Black Caucus Fights Back Against Gov. DeSantis’ Redistricting Map," April 22, 2022
  24. ↑ Click Orlando, "Central Florida lawmakers protest governor’s redistricting map before it passes in House," April 21, 2022
  25. ↑ Political predecessor districts are determined primarily based on incumbents and where each chose to seek re-election.
  26. ↑ Daily Kos Elections, "Daily Kos Elections 2020 presidential results by congressional district (old CDs vs. new CDs)," accessed May 12, 2022
  27. ↑ Florida State Senate, "CS/SJR 100: Joint Resolution of Apportionment," accessed March 3, 2022
  28. ↑ Florida Politics, "Florida Legislature approves redistricting maps for Senate and House," February 3, 2022
  29. ↑ Florida Politics, "Ashley Moody petitions court on legislative maps as congressional redistricting continues to pitter," February 9, 2022
  30. ↑ The Derrick, "Florida Legislature approves its own redistricting maps as DeSantis seeks court ruling," February 3, 2022
  31. ↑ 31.0 31.1 All About Redistricting, "Florida," accessed April 22, 2015
  32. ↑ Florida Constitution, "Article III, Sections 20-21," accessed April 22, 2015
  33. ↑ Online Sunshine, "The Florida Constitution," accessed Nov. 23, 2021
  34. ↑ Florida Politics, "Ray Rodrigues to lead Florida Senate redistricting committee," July 3, 2021
  35. ↑ Florida Politics, "Chris Sprowls rolls out updated House committee assignments," accessed September 8, 2021
  36. ↑ Twitter, "The Redistrict Network," Jan. 16, 2022
  37. ↑ Florida Politics, "Gov. DeSantis submits another heavily GOP-favored congressional map," February 15, 2022
  38. ↑ Twitter, "Florida Data Geek," Jan. 20, 2022
  39. ↑ Florida Politics, "Florida Legislature approves congressional redistricting plan despite Gov. DeSantis veto threat," March 4, 2022
  40. ↑ Florida State Senate, "CS/SB 102: Establishing the Congressional Districts of the State," accessed March 7, 2022
  41. ↑ 10 Tampa Bay, "Gov. DeSantis vetoes congressional redistricting maps passed by Florida lawmakers," March 29, 2022
  42. ↑ Tampa Bay Times, "Florida Legislature won’t draft new redistricting map, deferring to DeSantis," April 11, 2022
  43. ↑ Florida Politics, "Gov. DeSantis submits congressional redistristing plan critics contend is ‘partisan gerrymandering’," April 14, 2022
  44. ↑ WTSP, "Special Florida session over redistricting starts Tuesday," April 18, 2022
  45. ↑ Florida Politics, "Florida Senate passes Gov. DeSantis’ congressional map," April 20, 2022
  46. ↑ Florida Politics, "Legislature approves Gov. DeSantis’ controversial congressional redistricting map," April 21, 2022
  47. ↑ Twitter, "Andre Pantazi," Jan. 20, 2022
  48. ↑ Florida Politics, "Florida Legislature approves redistricting maps for Senate and House," February 3, 2022
  49. ↑ Florida Politics, "Florida House passes state House map for 2022 and coming decade," February 2, 2022
  50. ↑ Florida Politics, "Florida Legislature approves redistricting maps for Senate and House," February 3, 2022
  51. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "Apportionment," accessed July 11, 2018
  52. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "2020 Census Apportionment Results Delivered to the President," April 26, 2021
  53. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "2020 Census Operational Plan: Executive Summary," December 2015
  54. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "Census Bureau Statement on Redistricting Data Timeline," February 12, 2021
  55. ↑ Office of the Attorney General of Ohio, "AG Yost Secures Victory for Ohioans in Settlement with Census Bureau Data Lawsuit," May 25, 2021
  56. ↑ U.S. Census Bureau, "U.S. Census Bureau Statement on Release of Legacy Format Summary Redistricting Data File," March 15, 2021
  57. ↑ U.S. Census Bureau, "Decennial Census P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data," accessed August 12, 2021
  58. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "Census Bureau Delivers 2020 Census Redistricting Data in Easier-to-Use Format," September 16, 2021
  59. ↑ United States District Court Southern District of Florida, "Case 1:24-cv-21983-JB, Document 88," accessed February 27, 2025
  60. ↑ 60.0 60.1 60.2 The American Redistricting Project, "Black Voters Matter Capacity Building Inst., Inc. v. Lee," accessed May 11, 2022
  61. ↑ The American Redistricting Project," "Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief," accessed May 11, 2022
  62. ↑ Florida Politics, "Judge says Gov. DeSantis’ congressional map violates state constitution," May 11, 2022
  63. ↑ Florida Politics, "Florida officials appeal redistricting decision, putting judge’s call for a new map on hold," May 13, 2022
  64. ↑ News 4 Jax, "Judge lifts stay on Florida redistricting ruling," May 16, 2022
  65. ↑ Florida Politics, "Appellate court strikes down decision to replace Gov. DeSantis’ congressional map," May 30, 2022
  66. ↑ In the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, In and for Leon County, Florida, "Black Voters Matter Capacity Building Inst., Inc., et al v. Byrd," October 27, 2022
  67. ↑ In the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, In and for Leon County, Florida, "Black Voters Matter Capacity Building Inst., Inc., et al v. Byrd," September 2, 2023
  68. ↑ In the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, In and for Leon County, Florida, "Black Voters Matter Capacity Building Inst., Inc., et al v. Byrd," September 4, 2023
  69. ↑ Florida Politics, "Florida appeals court ruling tossing congressional map," September 5, 2023
  70. ↑ CBS News, "Florida appeals court upholds congressional redistricting plan backed by Gov. Ron DeSantis," December 1, 2023
  71. ↑ Politico, "Florida’s high court poised to protect DeSantis’ congressional map that helps GOP," September 12, 2024
  72. ↑ Associated Press, "Florida congressional districts that eliminated a majority-Black seat upheld by state Supreme Court," July 17, 2025
  73. ↑ The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, "Election Regulations," accessed April 13, 2015
  74. ↑ Brookings, "Redistricting and the United States Constitution," March 22, 2011
  75. ↑ Brennan Center for Justice, "A Citizen's Guide to Redistricting," accessed March 25, 2015
  76. ↑ The Constitution of the United States of America, "Article 1, Section 2," accessed March 25, 2015
  77. ↑ 77.0 77.1 77.2 77.3 77.4 77.5 77.6 All About Redistricting, "Where are the lines drawn?" accessed April 9, 2015
  78. ↑ 78.0 78.1 78.2 78.3 FairVote, "Redistricting Glossary," accessed April 9, 2015
  79. ↑ All About Redistricting, "Who draws the lines?" accessed June 19, 2017
  80. ↑ All About Redistricting, "Why does it matter?" accessed April 8, 2015
  81. ↑ Encyclopædia Britannica, "Gerrymandering," November 4, 2014
  82. ↑ Congressional Research Service, "Congressional Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A Legal Overview," April 13, 2015
  83. ↑ The Wall Street Journal, "Supreme Court to Consider Limits on Partisan Drawing of Election Maps," June 19, 2017
  84. ↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear potentially landmark case on partisan gerrymandering," June 19, 2017
  85. ↑ 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
  86. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Alexander, et al. v. The South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, et al.," February 17, 2023
  87. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP," accessed July 21, 2023
  88. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Justices will hear case that tests power of state legislatures to set rules for federal elections," June 30, 2022
  89. ↑ 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
  90. ↑ SCOTUSblog.org, "Supreme Court upholds Section 2 of Voting Rights Act," June 8, 2023
  91. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Gill v. Whitford: Decision," June 18, 2018
  92. ↑ Election Law Blog, "Breaking: SCOTUS to Hear NC Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 27, 2016
  93. ↑ Ballot Access News, "U.S. Supreme Court Accepts Another Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 28, 2016
  94. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Cooper v. Harris: Decision," May 22, 2017
  95. ↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear challenge to Texas redistricting plan," May 26, 2015
  96. ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Agrees to Settle Meaning of ‘One Person One Vote,'" May 26, 2015
  97. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Evenwel v. Abbott," accessed May 27, 2015
  98. ↑ Associated Press, "Supreme Court to hear Texas Senate districts case," May 26, 2015
  99. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "The new look at 'one person, one vote,' made simple," July 27, 2015
  100. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Brief for Appellants," accessed December 14, 2015
  101. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission," April 20, 2016
  102. ↑ The New York Times, "Court Skeptical of Arizona Plan for Less-Partisan Congressional Redistricting," March 2, 2015
  103. ↑ The Atlantic, "Will the Supreme Court Let Arizona Fight Gerrymandering?" September 15, 2014
  104. ↑ United States Supreme Court, "Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Opinion of the Court," June 29, 2015
  105. ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Upholds Creation of Arizona Redistricting Commission," June 29, 2015
  106. ↑ Florida Division of Elections, "Standards for Legislature to Follow in Legislative Redistricting," accessed April 22, 2015
  107. ↑ Florida Division of Elections, "Standards for Legislature to Follow in Congressional Redistricting," accessed April 22, 2015
  108. ↑ Miami Herald, "Florida Supreme Court approves congressional map drawn by challengers," December 2, 2015
  109. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named litigation
  110. ↑ CBS Miami, "Senate Redistricting Battle Looms," July 8, 2015
  111. ↑ Florida Politics, "Judge selects plaintiffs’ map in Senate redistricting case," December 21, 2015
  112. ↑ Florida Politics, "New state Senate seats renumbered," January 5, 2016
v • e
Redistricting after the 2020 census
State-by-state
Overviews
Flag of Florida
v • e
State of Florida
Tallahassee (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

Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Redistricting_in_Florida_after_the_2020_census&oldid=10486586"