Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.

Redistricting in Georgia after the 2020 census

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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 Georgia.


Georgia's 14 United States representatives and 236 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
Litigation over congressional redistricting in Georgia after the 2020 census is ongoing.

On December 30, 2021, a group of voters filed a lawsuit alleging that the congressional map drawn after the 2020 census violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and that the legislature should have created another majority-Black district in the Atlanta region.[1] A federal judge struck down the congressional map on October 26, 2023, ordering the state to draw a new map. On December 28, 2023, the judge upheld the state's remedial map, and plaintiffs appealed the judge's approval of the remedial map in January 2024. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in the case in January 2025.[2] The congressional and legislative map challenges were consolidated.

Click here for more information.

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

On December 30, 2021, a group of organizations and voters filed a lawsuit alleging that the legislative maps drawn after the 2020 census violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting the voting power of the state's Black voters.[3] A federal judge struck down the legislative maps on October 26, 2023, ordering the state to draw new maps. On December 28, 2023, the judge upheld the state's remedial maps, and plaintiffs appealed the judge's approval of the remedial map in January 2024. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in the case in January 2025.[4] The congressional and legislative map challenges were consolidated.

Click here for more information.

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 United States 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 Georgia 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

Congressional map enacted in 2023

Litigation over congressional redistricting in Georgia after the 2020 census is ongoing.

On December 8, 2023, Governor Brian Kemp (R) signed revised congressional maps into law. Legislators in the Georgia House of Representatives voted 98-71 to adopt the new congressional map on December 7. The Georgia State Senate voted 32-22 to adopt the congressional map on December 5.[5][6]

On October 26, 2023, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ruled that the state's congressional and legislative district boundaries violated the Voting Rights Act and enjoined the state from using them for future elections.[7] The court directed the Georgia General Assembly to develop new maps by December 8, 2023.[7]

On December 28, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District upheld the maps enacted on December 8, which were later used in the 2024 elections, and found them in compliance with the Voting Rights Act.[8]

“ The Court finds that the General Assembly fully complied with this Court’s order requiring the creation of a majority-Black congressional district in the region of the State where vote dilution was found. The Court further finds that the elimination of 2021 CD 7 did not violate the October 26, 2023 Order. Finally, the Court declines to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ new Section 2 claim based on a coalition of minority voters. Hence, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs’ objections ... and HEREBY APPROVES SB 3EX.[9][10] ”

The district court's approval of remedial state legislative maps was appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral argument was held on January 23, 2025.[11]

Reactions to 2023 congressional map

Several plaintiffs from the cases objecting to the congressional maps asked the court to draw new voting districts in time for the 2024 congressional and legislative elections:[12]

“

"The inescapable conclusion is that the proposed plans do not come close to following the court's order. Putting eyes on the 2023 proposed plans confirms the total failure of compliance. ...

The General Assembly's attempt to minimize and zero out minority voting opportunity in a purported 'remedy' to the state's Section 2 violation is precisely the sort of gamesmanship Section 2 was meant to stamp out. ...

The General Assembly's purported remedy makes a mockery of that process, the court's ruling and the Voting Rights Act, and reflects the state's continued refusal to afford minority voters equal opportunity to participate in electoral politics."[12][10]

”

Below are the congressional maps in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle. The map on the right was in effect for Georgia’s 2024 congressional elections.

Georgia Congressional Districts
before 2020 redistricting cycle

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Georgia Congressional Districts
after 2020 redistricting cycle

Click a district to compare boundaries.


Congressional map enacted in 2021

Georgia's congressional district boundaries were originally adopted on December 30, 2021, when Gov. Brian Kemp (R) signed Georgia's earlier congressional map into law. The Georgia General Assembly previously approved the map with the state Senate voting 32-21 in favor of the map on November 19, 2021, followed by the state House voting 96-68 on November 22, 2021.[13][14] This map took effect for Georgia's 2022 congressional elections.

Reactions to 2021 congressional map

House Minority Leader James Beverly (D) said, "The majority party had an opportunity — indeed, an obligation — to implement a fair and transparent participant process to work across party lines on maps that are equitable for all Georgians ... Instead, they chose the process of closed doors, locked gates, closed processes to deter participation in the democratic process."[13]

House Speaker David Ralston (R) said, "[W]e have released a proposed map that reflects Georgia’s growing, diverse population, respects jurisdictional lines and communities of interest, and conforms to applicable legal standards including the Voting Rights Act."[15]

After Kemp signed the map into law, two lawsuits were filed against the congressional map alleging racial gerrymandering. Marina Jenkins, with the National Democratic Redistricting Committee's National Redistricting Foundation, said, "The congressional map signed into law by Gov. Brian Kemp is a shameless power grab that cheats Black voters out of proper representation."[16]

2020 presidential results using the 2021 congressional map

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.[17] This data was compiled by Daily Kos Elections.[18]

2020 presidential results by Congressional district, Georgia
District 2022 district Political predecessor district
Joe Biden Democratic Party Donald Trump Republican Party Joe Biden Democratic Party Donald Trump Republican Party
Georgia's 1st 42.6% 56.0% 43.1% 55.5%
Georgia's 2nd 54.7% 44.4% 55.7% 43.4%
Georgia's 3rd 34.4% 64.4% 36.8% 62.0%
Georgia's 4th 78.3% 20.6% 78.8% 20.2%
Georgia's 5th 82.6% 16.2% 86.2% 12.6%
Georgia's 6th 41.8% 56.7% 52.4% 46.1%
Georgia's 7th 62.3% 36.5% 54.8% 43.7%
Georgia's 8th 35.7% 63.3% 37.0% 62.0%
Georgia's 9th 30.4% 68.3% 22.4% 76.4%
Georgia's 10th 37.7% 61.1% 39.2% 59.6%
Georgia's 11th 41.5% 56.8% 41.5% 56.9%
Georgia's 12th 44.3% 54.5% 43.0% 55.8%
Georgia's 13th 79.7% 19.3% 75.6% 23.4%
Georgia's 14th 30.7% 68.1% 25.3% 73.4%

Enacted state legislative district maps

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

State legislative maps enacted in 2023

Litigation over state legislative redistricting in Georgia after the 2020 census is ongoing.

The district court's approval of remedial state legislative maps was appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral argument was held on January 23, 2025.[19]

Governor Kemp (R) signed revised legislative maps into law on December 8, 2023. Legislators in the Georgia House of Representatives voted 98-71 to adopt the new state legislative maps on December 5. The Georgia State Senate voted 32-23 to adopt the state legislative maps on December 1. For more information about the enacted legislative maps, click here.[5][6]

On October 26, 2023, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ruled that the state's congressional and legislative district boundaries violated the Voting Rights Act and enjoined the state from using them for future elections.[7] The court directed the Georgia General Assembly to develop new maps by December 8, 2023.[7]

On December 28, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District upheld the maps enacted on December 8 and found them in compliance with the Voting Rights Act.

“ The Court finds that the General Assembly fully complied with this Court’s order requiring the creation of Black-majority districts in the regions of the State where vote dilution was found. Hence, the Court overrules Plaintiffs’ objections (Doc. No. [354]) and hereby approves SB 1EX and HB 1EX.[20][10] ”
Reactions to 2023 state legislative maps

On December 20, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District decided to uphold the maps enacted on November 30 and found them in compliance with the Voting Rights Act.

The plaintiffs from the October 26 case objected to the maps and asked the court to draw new voting districts in time for the 2024 congressional and legislative elections:[12]

“

"The inescapable conclusion is that the proposed plans do not come close to following the court's order. Putting eyes on the 2023 proposed plans confirms the total failure of compliance. ...

The General Assembly's attempt to minimize and zero out minority voting opportunity in a purported 'remedy' to the state's Section 2 violation is precisely the sort of gamesmanship Section 2 was meant to stamp out. ...

The General Assembly's purported remedy makes a mockery of that process, the court's ruling and the Voting Rights Act, and reflects the state's continued refusal to afford minority voters equal opportunity to participate in electoral politics."[12][10]

”

State Senate maps

Below is the state Senate map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle. The map on the right was in effect for Georgia’s 2024 state legislative elections.

Georgia State Senate Districts
before 2020 redistricting cycle

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Georgia State Senate Districts
after 2020 redistricting cycle

Click a district to compare boundaries.

State House maps

Below is the state House map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle. The map on the right was in effect for Georgia’s 2024 state legislative elections.

Georgia State House Districts
before 2020 redistricting cycle

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Georgia State House Districts
after 2020 redistricting cycle

Click a district to compare boundaries.


State legislative maps enacted in 2021

On December 30, 2021, Governor Kemp (R) signed Georgia's Senate and House district maps into law. The state Senate approved its map on November 9, 2021, with a 34-21 vote followed by the state House voting 96-70 in favor on November 15, 2021.[21] The state House approved its map on Nov. 10 with a 99-79 vote followed by the state Senate voting 32-21 in favor on Nov. 12. These maps took effect for Georgia's 2022 state legislative elections.

Drafting process

In Georgia, both congressional and state legislative district lines are drawn by the state legislature. A simple majority in each chamber is required to approve redistricting plans, which are subject to veto by the governor.[22]

The Georgia Constitution requires that state legislative districts be contiguous. There are no similar requirements for congressional districts.[22][23]

On August 30, 2021, the House reapportionment committee approved guidelines for congressional and legislative redistricting.[24] The guidelines were similar to those recommended in 2011, and included:[22]

  1. prohibition of multi-member districts
  2. consideration of county and precinct boundaries
  3. compactness
  4. consideration of communities of interest

The guidelines restricted public access to redistricting plans so that until they were submitted to the reapportionment committee, the plans would not be subject to public disclosure.[25] The committee also suggested that "efforts should be made to avoid the unnecessary pairing of incumbents." These are not legal requirements; as such, they may be altered at any time.[22]

To read all of the guidelines approved by the committee click here.

Timeline of 2021 map adoption

Georgia did not set a specific redistricting deadline for the 2020 redistricting cycle. The candidate filing deadline for the 2022 election cycle in Georgia was March 3, 2022, an inferred deadline.

On Sept. 23, 2021, Gov. Brian Kemp (R) called for a special session to begin on Nov. 3, 2021, for the purpose of considering and finalizing congressional and state legislative district maps.[26]

Redistricting committees and/or commissions in 2021

Senate

The following individuals were assigned to the Senate Reapportionment and Redistricting Committee in the 2020 cycle.[27]

Georgia Senate Reapportionment and Redistricting Committee membership, 2020 cycle
Name Position Partisan affiliation
John F Kennedy Chairman Ends.png Republican
Bill Cowsert Vice Chairman Ends.png Republican
Jeff Mullis Ex-Officio Ends.png Republican
Tonya Anderson Member Electiondot.png Democratic
Dean Burke Member Ends.png Republican
Gloria Butler Member Electiondot.png Democratic
Greg Dolezal Member Ends.png Republican
Mike Dugan Member Ends.png Republican
Steve Gooch Member Ends.png Republican
Marty Harbin Member Ends.png Republican
Ed Harbison Member Electiondot.png Democratic
Harold V. Jones II Member Electiondot.png Democratic
Butch Miller Member Ends.png Republican
Michael 'Doc' Rhett Member Electiondot.png Democratic
Blake Tillery Member Ends.png Republican

House of Representatives

The following individuals were assigned to the House Reapportionment and Redistricting Committee in the 2020 cycle.[28]

Georgia House Committee on Legislative and Congressional Reapportionment membership, 2020 cycle
Name Position Partisan affiliation
Bonnie Rich Chair Ends.png Republican
Darlene Taylor Vice chair Ends.png Republican
Susan Holmes Secretary Ends.png Republican
Richard H. Smith Member Ends.png Republican
Lynn Smith Member Ends.png Republican
Carl Gilliard Member Electiondot.png Democratic
Ed Setzler Member Ends.png Republican
Randy Nix Member Ends.png Republican
Jan Jones Member Ends.png Republican
Mack Jackson Member Electiondot.png Democratic
Barry Fleming Member Ends.png Republican
Chuck Efstration Member Ends.png Republican
Matt Dollar Member Ends.png Republican
Kimberly Alexander Member Electiondot.png Democratic
Buddy DeLoach Member Ends.png Republican
Mandi Ballinger Member Ends.png Republican
Sandra Scott Member Electiondot.png Democratic
Edward Stephens Member Electiondot.png Democratic

Drafts and proposals

Congressional district maps

2023 Approved congressional map
On Dec. 7, 2023, the Georgia House of Representatives voted 98-71 in favor of Senate Bill 3EX (SB 3EX). The Georgia State Senate approved SB 3EX with a 32-22 vote on Dec. 5. Gov. Brian Kemp (R) signed revised congressional and legislative maps into law on Dec. 8.[29][5][6] An image of the approved congressional district map is shown below. More detailed images can be found here.

Georgia congressional districts - adopted Dec. 8, 2023
SB 3EX.jpg



2023 Congressional map proposals

Click "Show more" to view previously proposed congressional and legislative maps.

Show more



2021 Approved congressional map
On Nov. 22, 2021, the Georgia House of Representatives voted 96-68 in favor of Senate Bill 2EX (SB 2EX), sending the bill redrawing the state's 14 congressional districts to Gov. Brian Kemp (R) for final approval. The Georgia State Senate previously approved SB 2EX on Nov. 19 with a 32-21 vote. An image of the proposed congressional district map is shown below. More detailed images can be found here.

Georgia congressional districts - adopted Nov. 30, 2021
GA CD Rchair draft 1.jpeg



2021 Congressional map proposals

Click "Show more" to view previously proposed congressional and legislative maps.

Show more



Legislative district maps

Click on the headers below to view information, images, and reactions to draft state legislative district maps released in Georgia.

State Senate

2023 Approved State Senate map
On Dec. 5, 2023, the Georgia House of Representatives voted 98-71 in favor of Senate Bill 1EX (SB 1EX). The Georgia State Senate approved SB 1EX with a 32-23 vote on Dec. 1. Gov. Brian Kemp (R) signed revised congressional and legislative maps into law on Dec. 8.[33][5][6] An image of the approved congressional district map is shown below. More detailed images can be found here.

Georgia Senate districts – approved Dec. 8, 2023
GA SB 1EX Dec 8 2023.jpg



2023 State Senate map proposals

Click "Show more" to view previously proposed Senate district maps.

Show more



2021 Approved State Senate map
On Nov. 15, 2021, the Georgia House of Representatives voted 96-70 in favor of Senate Bill 1EX (SB 1EX), sending the bill redrawing the state's 56 Senate districts to Gov. Brian Kemp (R) for final approval. The Georgia State Senate had previously approved SB 1EX on Nov. 9 with a 34-21 vote.[34] An image of the approved Senate district map is shown below. More detailed images can be found here and an interactive version is available here.

Georgia Senate districts – approved Nov. 30, 2021
GA SB 1EX.jpeg



2021 State Senate map proposals

Click "Show more" to view previously proposed state Senate district maps.

Show more



State House

2023 Approved State House map
On Dec. 5, 2023, the Georgia State Senate voted 32-21 in favor of House Bill 1EX (HB 1EX). The Georgia House of Representatives approved HB 1EX with a 101-76 vote on Dec. 1. Gov. Brian Kemp (R) signed revised congressional and legislative maps into law on Dec. 8.[41][5][6] An image of the approved congressional district map is shown below. More detailed images can be found here.

Georgia House districts – approved Dec. 8, 2023
GA SB 1EX Dec 8 2023.jpg



2023 State House proposals
Click "Show more" to view previously proposed House district maps.

Show more



2021 Approved State House map
On Nov. 12, 2021, the Georgia State Senate voted 32-21 in favor of House Bill 1EX (HB 1EX), sending the bill redrawing the state's 180 House districts to Gov. Brian Kemp (R) for final approval. The Georgia House of Representatives had previously approved HB 1EX on Nov. 10 with a 99-79 vote.[42] An image of the approved House district map is shown below. More detailed images can be found here and an interactive version is available here.

Georgia House districts – approved Nov. 30, 2021
GA HB 1EX.jpeg



2021 State House proposals
Click "Show more" to view previously proposed State House district maps.

Show more

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.[48]

Apportionment following the 2020 census

The U.S. Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts on April 26, 2021. Georgia was apportioned 14 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. This represented neither a gain nor a loss of seats as compared to apportionment after the 2010 census.[49]

See the table below for additional details.

2020 and 2010 census information for Georgia
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
Georgia 9,727,566 14 10,725,274 14 997,708 10.26% 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.[50][51][52][53] 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.[54][55]

Court challenges

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

Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Inc., Grant, and Pendergrass v. Raffensperger

In January 2025, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in an appeal of a district court's December 28, 2023, approval of remedial congressional and legislative maps.[56]

On October 26, 2023, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ruled that the state's congressional and legislative district boundaries violated the Voting Rights Act and enjoined the state from using them for future elections.[7] The court directed the Georgia General Assembly to develop new maps by December 8, 2023.[7]

The court combined three cases that lower courts heard separately: Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Inc. v. Raffensperger, Grant v. Raffensperger, and Pendergrass v. Raffensperger.[57]

Federal District Court Judge Steve C. Jones wrote in his order, "After conducting a thorough and sifting review of the evidence in this case, the Court finds that the State of Georgia violated the Voting Rights Act when it enacted its congressional and legislative maps. The Court commends Georgia for the great strides that it has made to increase the political opportunities of Black voters in the 58 years since the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Despite these great gains, the Court determines that in certain areas of the State, the political process is not equally open to Black voters. . For example, in the past decade, all of Georgia’s population growth was attributable to the minority population, however, the number of majority-Black congressional and legislative districts remained the same. In light of this fact and in conjunction with all of the evidence and testimony in this case, the Court determines that Georgia’s congressional and legislative maps violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and enjoins their use in any future elections."[57]

Georgia State Conference of the NAACP v. Raffensperger

On February 3, 2022, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia consolidated all the cases challenging the state's congressional district boundaries.[58] The federal district court held hearings regarding challenges to the state's congressional and legislative district boundaries beginning on September 5, 2023.[59] The consolidated case included the following filed lawsuits:

Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Inc. v. Raffensperger

On Dec. 30, 2021, the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc., Sixth District of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, and a group of voters filed a lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) challenging the enacted state Senate and House maps.[60] The plaintiffs alleged that the legislative maps diluted the voting power of Black Georgians in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.[61] As relief, plaintiffs asked the court to reject the enacted maps and order the creation of new maps.[61]

In their complaint, plaintiffs wrote:

“

[Georgia's population] growth has been driven entirely by Black Georgians and other Georgians of color ... Yet the new legislative maps for Georgia's General Assembly, which were rushed through the legislative process in a week and a half, do not account for the growth of Georgia's Black population. Rather, the new maps systematically minimize the political power of Black Georgians in violation of federal law.[61][10]

”
  • Read the plaintiffs' complaint here

On Jan. 3, 2022, Raffensperger responded to lawsuits filed against the enacted maps, saying:

“

Georgia's maps are fair and adhere to traditional principles of redistricting ... These lawsuits are nothing but politically motivated actions from politically motivated groups seeking to further their partisan preferences ... The plaintiffs hide behind lofty rhetoric, but all they care about is entrenching the failed politics of the Biden Administration that are making everything more expensive for Georgia families.[62][10]

”

This case was combined with two other cases, Grant v. Raffensperger and Pendergrass v. Raffensperger, and decided by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on October 26, 2023.[57]

Common Cause v. Raffensperger

On Jan. 7, 2022, Common Cause, the League of Women Voters of Georgia, and several registered voters filed a lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) and the chairs of the Senate and House redistricting committees—Sen. John F. Kennedy (R) and Rep. Bonnie Rich (R)—challenging the state's enacted congressional map.[63] The plaintiffs alleged that the map constituted a racial gerrymander in violation of the Voting Rights Act.[63] As relief, plaintiffs asked the court to block three challenged districts—the 6th, 13th, and 14th—and order a new map.[63]

  • Read the plaintiffs' complaint here.

Georgia State Conference of the NAACP v. Raffensperger

On Dec. 30, 2021, the Georgia State Conference of the NAACP, the Georgia Coalition for the People's Agenda, Inc., and Galeo Latino Community Development Fund, Inc., filed a lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Governor Brian Kemp (R) and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) challenging the state's enacted legislative and congressional maps.[64] The plaintiffs alleged that the map constituted a racial gerrymander in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.[64] As relief, plaintiffs asked the court to reject a series of identified districts and order the development of new maps.[64]

In their complaint, plaintiffs wrote:

“

[T]he Controlling Party deliberately targeted Black, Latinx, and AAPI Georgians and moved them into and out of districts to deny them equal opportunities to elect candidates of their choice, splitting communities of interest, and ensuring safe districts where White voters can elect their candidates of choice.[64][10]

”
  • Read the plaintiffs' complaint here.

On Jan. 3, 2022, Raffensperger responded to lawsuits filed against the enacted maps, saying:

“

Georgia's maps are fair and adhere to traditional principles of redistricting ... These lawsuits are nothing but politically motivated actions from politically motivated groups seeking to further their partisan preferences ... The plaintiffs hide behind lofty rhetoric, but all they care about is entrenching the failed politics of the Biden Administration that are making everything more expensive for Georgia families.[62][10]

”

Grant v. Raffensperger

On. Jan. 11, 2022, a group of voters led by Annie Lois Grant filed a lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) and four members of the Georgia State Election Board challenging the state's enacted legislative maps.[65] The plaintiffs alleged that the legislative maps diluted the voting power of Black Georgians in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The complaint also alleged that legislators could have created eight additional minority-opportunity districts.[65] As relief, plaintiffs asked the court to block the maps and order them redrawn.[65]

  • Read the plaintiffs' complaint here.

This case was combined with two other cases, Grant v. Raffensperger and Pendergrass v. Raffensperger, and decided by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on October 26, 2023.[57] The case is on appeal at the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Oral argument was held on January 23, 2025.[66]

Pendergrass v. Raffensperger

On Dec. 30, 2021, a group of voters led by Rev. Coakley Pendergrass filed a lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) and four members of the Georgia State Election Board challenging the state's enacted congressional map.[67] The plaintiffs alleged that the legislative maps diluted the voting power of Black Georgians in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.[67] As relief, plaintiffs asked the court to reject the enacted map and order the creation of a new map with an additional majority-Black district.[67]

In their complaint, plaintiffs wrote:

“

Rather than create an additional congressional district i the western Atlanta metropolitan area in which Georgia's growing Black population would have the opportunity to elect candidates of its choice, the General Assembly did just the opposite: it paced and cracked Georgia's Black voters to dilute their influence.[67][10]

”
  • Read the plaintiffs' complaint here.

On Jan. 3, 2022, Raffensperger responded to lawsuits filed against the enacted maps, saying:

“

Georgia's maps are fair and adhere to traditional principles of redistricting ... These lawsuits are nothing but politically motivated actions from politically motivated groups seeking to further their partisan preferences ... The plaintiffs hide behind lofty rhetoric, but all they care about is entrenching the failed politics of the Biden Administration that are making everything more expensive for Georgia families.[62][10]

”

This case was combined with two other cases, Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Inc. v. Raffensperger and Grant v. Raffensperger, and decided by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on October 26, 2023.[57]

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.[68][69]

“ 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.[10] ”
—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."[70][71][72]

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."[72]

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."[72]

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.[72][73]
  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.[72][73]
  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.[72][73]
  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.[72][73]

Methods

In general, a state's redistricting authority can be classified as one of the following:[74]

  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.[75][76]

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.[77]

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.[78][79]

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."[80] 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.[81] The U.S. Supreme Court scheduled oral argument on this case for October 11, 2023.[82]

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.[83] 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.[84]

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.[85]

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.[86]

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.[87][88][89]

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.[90][91][92][93]

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.[94][95][96]

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.[97][98][99][100]

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 Georgia after the 2010 census

Congressional redistricting, 2010

Following the 2010 United States Census, Georgia gained one congressional seat. At the time of redistricting, Republicans controlled both chambers of the state legislature. On August 13, 2011, the legislature approved a new congressional map. It was signed into law on September 6, 2011.[22][101]

State legislative redistricting, 2010

On August 23, 2010, the state legislature approved new state legislative district lines. The maps were signed into law on August 24, 2011. On February 23, 2012, the legislature approved amended House district lines, which were in turn signed by the governor. On March 21, 2012, the legislature passed revised Senate district lines, which the governor signed into law on April 13, 2012.[22]

The revised Senate maps did not take effect until 2014.[22]

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Atlanta Division, "Case 1:21-cv-05339-SCJ Document 1," December 30, 2021
  2. ↑ Democracy Docket, "11th Circuit Considers Fate of Georgia Maps in High-Stakes Redistricting Case," January 21, 2025
  3. ↑ In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Atlanta Division, "Case 1:21-cv-05337-SCJ Document 1," December 30, 2021
  4. ↑ Democracy Docket, "11th Circuit Considers Fate of Georgia Maps in High-Stakes Redistricting Case," January 21, 2025
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 Georgia General Assembly, "Legislative and Congressional Reapportionment Office - Proposed Plans," accessed December 11, 2023
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 Twitter, "RedistrictNet," December 7, 2023
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 Reuters, "US judge orders new congressional map in Georgia, citing harm to Black voters," October 27, 2023 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Reuters" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Reuters" defined multiple times with different content
  8. ↑ Atlanta Journal-Constitution, "Federal judge upholds Georgia’s Republican redistricting plan," December 8, 2023
  9. ↑ United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, "Case 1:21-cv-05339-SCJ, Document 334" December 28, 2023
  10. ↑ 10.00 10.01 10.02 10.03 10.04 10.05 10.06 10.07 10.08 10.09 10.10 10.11 10.12 10.13 10.14 10.15 10.16 10.17 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  11. ↑ Democracy Docket, "11th Circuit Considers Fate of Georgia Maps in High-Stakes Redistricting Case," January 21, 2025
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 Georgia Public Broadcasting, "Plaintiffs in a Georgia redistricting case are asking a judge to reject new Republican-proposed maps," December 13, 2023
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 Georgia Public Broadcasting, "Georgia House OKs congressional map that adds to Republican advantage," Nov. 22, 2021
  14. ↑ Georgia Recorder, "State Senate advances Congressional map increasing GOP edge near finish line," Nov. 19, 2021
  15. ↑ The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, "New Georgia congressional map aims to increase Republican seats," Nov. 17, 2021
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, "Georgia redistricting signed into law and lawsuits quickly follow," Dec. 30, 2021
  17. ↑ Political predecessor districts are determined primarily based on incumbents and where each chose to seek re-election.
  18. ↑ Daily Kos Elections, "Daily Kos Elections 2020 presidential results by congressional district (old CDs vs. new CDs)," accessed May 12, 2022
  19. ↑ Democracy Docket, "11th Circuit Considers Fate of Georgia Maps in High-Stakes Redistricting Case," January 21, 2025
  20. ↑ United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, "Case 1:21-cv-05337-SCJ, Document 375" December 28, 2023
  21. ↑ Georgia General Assembly, "SB 1EX," accessed Nov. 16, 2021
  22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 22.2 22.3 22.4 22.5 22.6 All About Redistricting, "Georgia," accessed April 23, 2015
  23. ↑ Georgia Constitution, "Article 3, Section 2," accessed April 23, 2015
  24. ↑ The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, "Georgia legislators set guidelines for upcoming redistricting," accessed August 31, 2021
  25. ↑ Georgia House of Representatives, "2021-2022 Guidelines for the House Legislative and Congressional Reapportionment Committee," accessed August 31, 2021
  26. ↑ 11Alive, "Gov. Kemp calls for General Assembly special session on redistricting, other matters," Sept. 23, 2021
  27. ↑ Georgia State Senate Committees, "Senate Reapportionment and Redistricting," accessed June 15, 2021
  28. ↑ Georgia General Assembly, "House Committee on Legislative & Congressional Reapportionment," accessed June 15, 2021
  29. ↑ Georgia General Assembly, "SB 3EX," accessed December 11, 2023
  30. ↑ 30.0 30.1 The Current, "Democrats release their own Congressional map ahead of special session," Oct. 22, 2021
  31. ↑ Atlanta Journal-Constitution, "Georgia Democrats propose congressional map that creates 50/50 partisan split," Oct. 21, 2021
  32. ↑ 32.0 32.1 Atlanta Civic Circle, "Redistricting activists, politicians blindsided by proposed Congressional map," Sept. 29, 2021
  33. ↑ Georgia General Assembly, "SB 1EX," accessed December 11, 2023
  34. ↑ Georgia General Assembly, "SB 1EX," accessed Nov. 16, 2021
  35. ↑ Georgia General Assembly, "SB 1EX," accessed Nov. 16, 2021
  36. ↑ Savannah Morning News, "Rep. Ron Stephens: Redistricting upheld values of fairness and community," Dec. 6, 2021
  37. ↑ WABE, "Georgia House OKs Senate districts; Congress map to come," Nov. 15, 2021
  38. ↑ Fox 5 Atlanta, "Georgia House gives final approval to Senate redistricting map," Nov. 15, 2021
  39. ↑ 39.0 39.1 39.2 39.3 39.4 39.5 39.6 39.7 39.8 Georgia Public Broadcasting, "Here are all of the proposed redistricting maps for Georgia," updated Nov. 9, 2021
  40. ↑ Georgia Democrats, "Georgia Senate Democratic Caucus Releases Proposed Legislative Map," Oct. 27, 2021
  41. ↑ Georgia General Assembly, "HB 1EX," accessed December 11, 2023
  42. ↑ Georgia General Assembly, "HB 1EX," accessed Nov. 16, 2021
  43. ↑ Georgia General Assembly, "SB 1EX," accessed Nov. 16, 2021
  44. ↑ Georgia Public Broadcasting, "Here are all of the proposed redistricting maps for Georgia," updated Nov. 9, 2021
  45. ↑ 45.0 45.1 The Center Square, "New Georgia House legislative map garners Senate approval," Nov. 12, 2021
  46. ↑ Capitol Beat, "Republicans release proposed Georgia House map on eve of redistricting session," Nov. 2, 2021
  47. ↑ Georgia Democrats, "Georgia House Democratic Caucus Releases Proposed Legislative Map," Oct. 29, 2021
  48. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "Apportionment," accessed July 11, 2018
  49. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "2020 Census Apportionment Results Delivered to the President," April 26, 2021
  50. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "2020 Census Operational Plan: Executive Summary," December 2015
  51. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "Census Bureau Statement on Redistricting Data Timeline," February 12, 2021
  52. ↑ Office of the Attorney General of Ohio, "AG Yost Secures Victory for Ohioans in Settlement with Census Bureau Data Lawsuit," May 25, 2021
  53. ↑ U.S. Census Bureau, "U.S. Census Bureau Statement on Release of Legacy Format Summary Redistricting Data File," March 15, 2021
  54. ↑ U.S. Census Bureau, "Decennial Census P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data," accessed August 12, 2021
  55. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "Census Bureau Delivers 2020 Census Redistricting Data in Easier-to-Use Format," September 16, 2021
  56. ↑ Democracy Docket, "Georgia Congressional Redistricting Challenge (Pendergrass)," accessed March 31, 2025
  57. ↑ 57.0 57.1 57.2 57.3 57.4 United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, "Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Inc., et al. v. Raffensperger," October 26, 2023
  58. ↑ The American Redistricting Project, "Georgia State Conf. of the NAACP v. Georgia," accessed October 27, 2023
  59. ↑ AP News, "A Georgia trial arguing redistricting harmed Black voters could decide control of a US House seat," September 4, 2023
  60. ↑ Democracy Docket, "Complaint," Dec. 30, 2021
  61. ↑ 61.0 61.1 61.2 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named apacomp
  62. ↑ 62.0 62.1 62.2 AllOnGeorgia, "Secretary of State Raffensperger’s Response to Partisan Redistricting Lawsuits," Jan. 3, 2022
  63. ↑ 63.0 63.1 63.2 Democracy Docket, "Complaint," Jan. 7, 2022
  64. ↑ 64.0 64.1 64.2 64.3 Democracy Docket, "Complaint," Dec. 30, 2021
  65. ↑ 65.0 65.1 65.2 Democracy Docket, "Complaint," Jan. 11, 2022
  66. ↑ Democracy Docket, "Georgia Congressional Redistricting Challenge (Pendergrass)," accessed January 21, 2025
  67. ↑ 67.0 67.1 67.2 67.3 Democracy Docket, "Complaint," Dec. 30, 2021
  68. ↑ The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, "Election Regulations," accessed April 13, 2015
  69. ↑ Brookings, "Redistricting and the United States Constitution," March 22, 2011
  70. ↑ Brennan Center for Justice, "A Citizen's Guide to Redistricting," accessed March 25, 2015
  71. ↑ The Constitution of the United States of America, "Article 1, Section 2," accessed March 25, 2015
  72. ↑ 72.0 72.1 72.2 72.3 72.4 72.5 72.6 All About Redistricting, "Where are the lines drawn?" accessed April 9, 2015
  73. ↑ 73.0 73.1 73.2 73.3 FairVote, "Redistricting Glossary," accessed April 9, 2015
  74. ↑ All About Redistricting, "Who draws the lines?" accessed June 19, 2017
  75. ↑ All About Redistricting, "Why does it matter?" accessed April 8, 2015
  76. ↑ Encyclopædia Britannica, "Gerrymandering," November 4, 2014
  77. ↑ Congressional Research Service, "Congressional Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A Legal Overview," April 13, 2015
  78. ↑ The Wall Street Journal, "Supreme Court to Consider Limits on Partisan Drawing of Election Maps," June 19, 2017
  79. ↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear potentially landmark case on partisan gerrymandering," June 19, 2017
  80. ↑ 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
  81. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Alexander, et al. v. The South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, et al.," February 17, 2023
  82. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP," accessed July 21, 2023
  83. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Justices will hear case that tests power of state legislatures to set rules for federal elections," June 30, 2022
  84. ↑ 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
  85. ↑ SCOTUSblog.org, "Supreme Court upholds Section 2 of Voting Rights Act," June 8, 2023
  86. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Gill v. Whitford: Decision," June 18, 2018
  87. ↑ Election Law Blog, "Breaking: SCOTUS to Hear NC Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 27, 2016
  88. ↑ Ballot Access News, "U.S. Supreme Court Accepts Another Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 28, 2016
  89. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Cooper v. Harris: Decision," May 22, 2017
  90. ↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear challenge to Texas redistricting plan," May 26, 2015
  91. ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Agrees to Settle Meaning of ‘One Person One Vote,'" May 26, 2015
  92. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Evenwel v. Abbott," accessed May 27, 2015
  93. ↑ Associated Press, "Supreme Court to hear Texas Senate districts case," May 26, 2015
  94. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "The new look at 'one person, one vote,' made simple," July 27, 2015
  95. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Brief for Appellants," accessed December 14, 2015
  96. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission," April 20, 2016
  97. ↑ The New York Times, "Court Skeptical of Arizona Plan for Less-Partisan Congressional Redistricting," March 2, 2015
  98. ↑ The Atlantic, "Will the Supreme Court Let Arizona Fight Gerrymandering?" September 15, 2014
  99. ↑ United States Supreme Court, "Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Opinion of the Court," June 29, 2015
  100. ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Upholds Creation of Arizona Redistricting Commission," June 29, 2015
  101. ↑ Barone, M. & McCutcheon, C. (2013). The almanac of American politics 2014 : the senators, the representatives and the governors : their records and election results, their states and districts. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
v • e
Redistricting after the 2020 census
State-by-state
Overviews
Flag of Georgia
v • e
State of Georgia
Atlanta (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_Georgia_after_the_2020_census&oldid=10419307"