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

Redistricting in Idaho 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


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 Idaho.

On November 12, 2021, the Idaho Independent Redistricting Commission formally submitted its final congressional map to the secretary of state. On November 10, 2021, the commission voted 4-2 in favor of the final congressional map with Nels Mitchell and Dan Schmidt, both Democratic appointees, voting against the map.[1] The commission had earlier voted in favor of the map on November 5, 2021, but chose to recast their votes on November 10, 2021, due to concerns regarding Idaho's open meetings laws.[1][2][3]

On November 12, 2021, the Idaho Independent Redistricting Commission formally submitted its final legislative map to the secretary of state. On November 10, 2021, the commission voted 6-0 in favor of the final legislative map.[1] The commission had earlier voted in favor of the map on November 5, 2021, but chose to recast their votes on November 10, 2021, due to concerns regarding Idaho's open meetings laws.[1][2][3] Idaho has 35 legislative districts, each of which elects one senator and two representatives.

Click here for more information.

Idaho's two United States representatives and 105 state legislators are all elected from political divisions called districts. District lines are redrawn every 10 years following completion of the United States census. Federal law stipulates that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.

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

  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 Idaho is also provided.

Summary

This section lists major events in the post-2020 census redistricting cycle in reverse chronological order. Major events include the release of apportionment data, the release of census population data, the introduction of formal map proposals, the enactment of new maps, and noteworthy court challenges. Click the dates below for additional information.

  • Nov. 12, 2021: The commission formally submitted its final congressional and legislative map plans to the secretary of state.
  • Nov. 10, 2021: The commission met again to recast its votes in favor of the final congressional and legislative maps due to concerns over the state's open meeting laws. The same day, a lawsuit was filed against the approved state legislative map.
  • Nov. 5, 2021: The commission voted 4-2 in favor of adopting a final congressional map and 6-0 in favor of a final legislative map.
  • Sept. 16, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau released data from the 2020 census in an easier-to-use format to state redistricting authorities and the public.
  • Sept. 1, 2021: The Idaho Reapportionment Commission held its first meeting.
  • Aug. 12, 2021: Secretary of State Lawerence Denney (R) issued an executive order to form Idaho's Reapportionment Commission.
  • Aug. 12, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau delivered redistricting data to states in a legacy format.
  • April 26, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts.

Enactment

Enacted congressional district maps

See also: Congressional district maps implemented after the 2020 census

On November 12, 2021, the Idaho Independent Redistricting Commission formally submitted its final congressional map to the secretary of state. On November 10, 2021, the commission voted 4-2 in favor of the final congressional map with Nels Mitchell and Dan Schmidt, both Democratic appointees, voting against the map.[1] The commission had earlier voted in favor of the map on November 5, 2021, but chose to recast their votes on November 10, 2021, due to concerns regarding Idaho's open meetings laws.[1][2][3]

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

Idaho Congressional Districts
until January 2, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Idaho Congressional Districts
starting January 3, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.


Reactions

Disagreements over the final congressional map revolved around the splitting of Ada County, the state's most populous and home to its capital, Boise. The final map continued the practice of dividing the county into two districts, as was the case following the 2010 redistricting cycle.[4]

Commissioners Mitchell and Schmidt voted against the final congressional map due to the splitting of Ada County. Mitchell said he voted against the map because "there is a statute on the books that says we're not supposed to split counties if we don't have to, and I don't believe we had to. It's there, and I think we should have honored it.".[4]

Commissioner Davis said, "there were honest disagreements on the congressional plan ... and that's the reason we have a commission of six, is to allow us to think about it and challenge each other's thinking and hopefully come to a resolution."[4]

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.[5] This data was compiled by Daily Kos Elections.[6]

2020 presidential results by Congressional district, Idaho
District 2022 district Political predecessor district
Joe Biden Democratic Party Donald Trump Republican Party Joe Biden Democratic Party Donald Trump Republican Party
Idaho's 1st 29.5% 67.7% 30.1% 67.1%
Idaho's 2nd 36.9% 59.8% 36.6% 60.1%

Enacted state legislative district maps

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

On November 12, 2021, the Idaho Independent Redistricting Commission formally submitted its final legislative map to the secretary of state. On November 10, 2021, the commission voted 6-0 in favor of the final legislative map.[1] The commission had earlier voted in favor of the map on November 5, 2021, but chose to recast their votes on November 10, 2021, due to concerns regarding Idaho's open meetings laws.[1][2][3] Idaho has 35 legislative districts, each of which elects one senator and two representatives.

State Senate map

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

Idaho State Senate Districts
until November 30, 2022

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Idaho State Senate Districts
starting December 1, 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.

Idaho State House Districts
until November 30, 2022

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Idaho State House Districts
starting December 1, 2022

Click a district to compare boundaries.


Reactions

House Speaker Scott Bedke (R) said, "The Idaho House Republican Caucus is not entirely thrilled with the new reapportionment of Idaho’s legislative map," adding that, "highly qualified and established legislators may be forced to campaign against equally skilled former colleagues. It’s an unfortunate situation and will result in the loss of considerable talent and dedication to service to the people of Idaho."[7]

Idaho Ed News' Kevin Richert estimated that the new maps could result in six House races and five Senate races where incumbents would face re-election against one another.[8]

Commissioner Dan Schmidt said, "We've tried to do our best to balance the interests and the needs of the communities we are working with and the law that is before us," adding, "We went into this process knowing that our task could not make everybody happy, and we don't expect it will."[9]

Drafting process

In Idaho, an independent commission is responsible for drawing both congressional and state legislative district lines. The commission is composed of six members.[10]

  1. One member is appointed by the majority leader of the Idaho State Senate.
  2. One member is appointed by the minority leader of the Idaho State Senate.
  3. One member is appointed by the majority leader of the Idaho House of Representatives.
  4. One member is appointed by the minority leader of the Idaho House of Representatives.
  5. The chairs of the state's two largest political parties each appoint one member.

According to the Idaho Constitution, no member may be an elected or appointed official while serving on the commission. The state constitution further requires that the commission produce draft congressional and state legislative maps within 90 days of the commission's formation. There is no explicit deadline for final plans.[10]

The state constitution requires that state legislative districts "be contiguous, and that counties be preserved intact where possible." State statutes require that both congressional and state legislative districts meet the following criteria:[10]

  • County lines must be maintained "to the extent possible."
  • Districts must "preserve traditional neighborhoods, communities of interest, and (if possible) voting precinct boundaries."
  • Districts should not be "oddly shaped."
  • In districts comprising more than one county or a portion thereof, "those constituent pieces must also be connected by a state or federal highway."

Timeline

On Aug. 12, 2021, Secretary of State Lawerence Denney (R) issued an executive order to form Idaho's Reapportionment Commission.[11] Upon issuing the order, Denney said, “While the delay will make the timelines of redistricting challenging, I have confidence that this Commission will be both thorough and expeditious in developing a fair and intelligent plan that adheres to constitutional and statutory requirements.”[11] The commission held its first meeting on Sept. 1, 2021, setting Nov. 30, 2021, as the deadline to complete the redistricting process.[12]

Committees and/or commissions involved in the process

The following individuals were appointed to serve on the state's redistricting commission.[13][14][15]

Idaho Independent Reapportionment Commission members, 2020 cycle
Name Role Appointing authority
Thomas Dayley Member House Speaker Scott Bedke Republican Party
Bart Davis Member Senate Pro Tempore Chuck Winder Republican Party
Nels Mitchell Member Idaho Democratic Party Chair Fred Cornforth Democratic Party
Amber Pence Member House Minority Leader Ilana Rubel Democratic Party
Eric Redman Member GOP Chairman Tom Luna Republican Party
Dan Schmidt Member Senate Minority Leader Michelle Stennett Democratic Party


Drafts and proposals

Congressional district maps

The Idaho Reapportionment Commission prepared and released three draft congressional maps.[16][17] Members of the public prepared 33 additional congressional maps. Commission-drawn maps are included in the headers below. All maps can be viewed here.

The commission ultimately voted 4-2 in favor of the draft map titled C03 on Nov. 10, 2021.[1]

Legislative district maps

The Idaho Reapportionment Commission prepared and released three draft legislative maps.[16][17] Members of the public prepared 83 additional legislative maps. Commission-drawn maps are included in the headers below. All maps can be viewed here. Idaho has 35 legislative districts, each of which elects one senator and two representatives.

The commission ultimately voted 6-0 in favor of the draft map titled L03 on Nov. 10, 2021.[1]

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.[20]

Apportionment following the 2020 census

The U.S. Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts on April 26, 2021. Idaho was apportioned two 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.[21]

See the table below for additional details.

2020 and 2010 census information for Idaho
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
Idaho 1,573,499 2 1,841,377 2 267,878 17.02% 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.[22][23][24][25] 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.[26][27]

Court challenges

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

Consolidated lawsuit

On Nov. 23, 2021, the Idaho Supreme Court approved a request from the Idaho Commission for Reapportionment to consolidate two lawsuits filed against the state legislative maps enacted by the commission on Nov. 12.[28] On Dec. 17, 2021, the supreme court consolidated a third lawsuit, Allan v. Idaho Commission for Reapportionment, and designated Durst v. Idaho Commission for Reapportionment as the lead case.[29] The three lawsuits alleged that the commission violated Idaho state law regarding the division of counties during redistricting. The individual lawsuits are described below.

Allan v. Idaho Commission for Reapportionment

On Dec. 16, 2021, Chief Allan and Devon Boyer, chairmen of the Coeur d'Alene and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, respectively, filed a petition on behalf of their tribes with the Idaho Supreme Court against the Reapportionment Commission and Secretary of State Lawerence Denney (R) challenging the enacted state legislative map (L03).[30] The petitioners alleged that the legislative maps focused too heavily on maintaining equal population, which resulted in maps that divided more counties than was necessary in violation of Article III, Section 5 of the Idaho Constitution and Idaho Code § 72-1506.[30] Plaintiffs also alleged that commissioners did not consider communities of interest and that the adopted map divided their tribes into multiple districts in a way that diluted their voting power. They said their were other proposed maps that divided fewer counties and the tribes, specifically citing L078 and L079, both submitted by Idaho Wheat Commissioner Wayne Hurst.[30] As relief, petitioners requested that the court declare the enacted legislative map unconstitutional and remand the matter back to the commission to develop a new map.[30]

  • View the plaintiffs' petition here.

Ada County v. Idaho Commission for Reapportionment

On Nov. 17, 2021, Ada County Commissioners filed a petition with the Idaho Supreme Court against the Reapportionment Commission and Secretary of State Lawerence Denney (R) challenging the enacted state legislative map (L03).[31] The commissioners, petitioning on behalf of Ada County, alleged that the legislative maps divided more counties than was necessary in violation of Article III, Section 5 of the Idaho Constitution and Idaho Code § 72-1506.[32] Ada County, the state's most populous, was one of eight counties divided into multiple districts. The petitioners said that there were other proposed maps that divided only seven counties, specifically citing L075 and L076, proposed by former Idaho Democratic Party chairman Larry Grant, and L079, proposed by Idaho Wheat Commissioner Wayne Hurst.[32] As relief, petitioners requested that the court declare the enacted legislative map unconstitutional and remand the matter back to the commission to develop a new map.[32]

  • View the plaintiffs' petition here.

Durst v. Idaho Commission for Reapportionment

On Nov. 10, 2021, Branden Durst, a Republican candidate for Superintendent of Public Instruction, filed a petition with the Idaho Supreme Court against the Reapportionment Commission and Secretary of State Lawerence Denney (R) challenging the state legislative map approved by the commission.[33] Durst alleged that the legislative maps divided more counties than was necessary in violation of Article III, Section 5 of the Idaho Constitution.[34] Durst said the commission-drawn L03 map had 13 total divisions whereas the citizen-drawn L084 map, which Durst submitted to the commission, had nine total divisions. As relief, Durst requested that the court declare the legislative map adopted by the commission unconstitutional and either adopt his L084 map or require the commission to redo the map with fewer divisions.[34]

  • View the plaintiff's petition here.

Pentico v. Idaho Commission for Reapportionment

On Dec. 15, 2021, Christopher Pentico, a registered voter in Elmore County, filed a petition with the Idaho Supreme Court against the Reapportionment Commission and Secretary of State Lawerence Denney (R) challenging the enacted congressional map (C03).[35] Pentico alleged that the commission failed to meet its deadline to submit the final congressional map. He also alleged that the congressional map unnecessarily split six precincts in Ada County.[35] Pentico requested that the court block the enacted congressional map and either order the commission to develop a new map or adopt a congressional map that he had submitted, C039.[35]

  • View the plaintiff's petition here.

Stucki v. Idaho Commission for Reapportionment

On Dec. 1, 2021, Spencer Stucki, a resident of Chubbuck and co-chair of the Committee for Fair Elections, filed a petition with the Idaho Supreme Court against the Reapportionment Commission and Secretary of State Lawerence Denney (R) challenging the enacted state legislative map (L03).[36] Stucki alleged that the approved legislative maps did not give equal consideration to counties, districts, and voters. He also alleged that the commission incorrectly dismissed submitted maps that split more than eight counties.[36] Stucki requested that the court declare L03 inadequate and have the commission consider L074, which Stucki submitted, saying it would better represent the needs of southeastern Idaho.[36] He also requested that the court declare that splitting nine counties would not violate Idaho's constitutional requirements to avoid splitting counties while redistricting.[36]

  • View the plaintiff's petition here.

Background

This section includes background information on federal requirements for congressional redistricting, state legislative redistricting, state-based requirements, redistricting methods used in the 50 states, gerrymandering, and recent court decisions.

Federal requirements for congressional redistricting

According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, the states and their legislatures have primary authority in determining the "times, places, and manner" of congressional elections. Congress may also pass laws regulating congressional elections.[37][38]

“ 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.[39] ”
—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."[40][41][42]

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."[42]

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."[42]

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.[42][43]
  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.[42][43]
  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.[42][43]
  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.[42][43]

Methods

In general, a state's redistricting authority can be classified as one of the following:[44]

  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.[45][46]

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.[47]

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.[48][49]

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."[50] 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.[51] The U.S. Supreme Court scheduled oral argument on this case for October 11, 2023.[52]

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.[53] 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.[54]

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.[55]

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.[56]

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.[57][58][59]

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.[60][61][62][63]

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.[64][65][66]

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.[67][68][69][70]

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 Idaho after the 2010 census

Following the 2010 United States Census, Idaho neither gained nor lost congressional seats. On October 17, 2011, Idaho's redistricting commission approved a new congressional district map. Three Republicans and one Democrat voted to approve the map; two Democrats dissented.[71]

The commission approved a state legislative district map on October 14, 2011. On November 16, 2011, Twin Falls County filed suit against the state redistricting commission. The plaintiffs alleged that the state legislative districts approved by the commission were "based on ... insufficient attention to county boundaries." The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on January 18, 2012, and ordered the commission to draft a new map. Lawrence Denney, Speaker of the Idaho House of Representatives, and Norm Semanko, chair of the state Republican Party, filed suit against Secretary of State Ben Ysursa on January 20, 2012. Denney and Semanko challenged Ysursa's "refusal to replace commissioners nominated by [Denney] and [Semanko], at the request of those two officials." The Idaho Supreme Court dismissed the challenge on January 25, 2012. On January 27, 2012, the redistricting commission unanimously approved a new state legislative district map.[10][72]

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 Boise State Public Radio, "Commission for reappointment recasts votes on Idaho’s new political district maps," Nov. 11, 2021
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 FiveThirtyEight, "The partisan breakdown of Idaho’s new map," accessed Nov. 16, 2021
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 Boise State Public Radio, "Final iterations of Idaho's districting maps are proposed," Nov. 7, 2021
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Idaho Press, "Commission votes to adopt new legislative, congressional district maps for state," Nov. 5, 2021
  5. ↑ Political predecessor districts are determined primarily based on incumbents and where each chose to seek re-election.
  6. ↑ Daily Kos Elections, "Daily Kos Elections 2020 presidential results by congressional district (old CDs vs. new CDs)," accessed May 12, 2022
  7. ↑ Idaho State Journal, "Southeast Idaho lawmakers, officials react to newly approved legislative districts," Nov. 5, 2021
  8. ↑ Idaho Ed News, "A new political map charts a course for high-profile Statehouse showdowns," Nov. 10, 2021
  9. ↑ Cour d'Alene/Post Falls Press, "CDA Tribe objects to redistricting plan," Nov. 10, 2021
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 All About Redistricting, "Idaho," accessed April 20, 2015
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 Associated Press, "Denney issues order forming Idaho redistricting committee," accessed August 18, 2021
  12. ↑ Post Register, "‘We will never make everyone happy:’ Idaho redistricting process begins Wednesday," accessed August 31, 2021
  13. ↑ AP, "Idaho redistricting commission has 5 of 6 members," accessed July 29, 2021
  14. ↑ Idaho Capital Sun, "Idaho House speaker appoints replacement for redistricting commission," accessed August 3, 2021
  15. ↑ The Lewiston Tribune, "Idaho Democratic leaders announce appointees for reapportionment commission," accessed July 29, 2021
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 Idaho Capital Sun, "Idaho redistricting commission finalizing first proposed maps," accessed September 14, 2021
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 Idaho Legislature, "2021 Commission for Reapportionment," accessed September 16, 2021
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 Big Country News, "Idaho Redistricting Commission Finalizing First Proposed Maps," accessed September 16, 2021
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 Idaho News 6, "Idaho Commission on Reapportionment gathering feedback as public hearings start," accessed September 16, 2021
  20. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "Apportionment," accessed July 11, 2018
  21. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "2020 Census Apportionment Results Delivered to the President," April 26, 2021
  22. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "2020 Census Operational Plan: Executive Summary," December 2015
  23. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "Census Bureau Statement on Redistricting Data Timeline," February 12, 2021
  24. ↑ Office of the Attorney General of Ohio, "AG Yost Secures Victory for Ohioans in Settlement with Census Bureau Data Lawsuit," May 25, 2021
  25. ↑ U.S. Census Bureau, "U.S. Census Bureau Statement on Release of Legacy Format Summary Redistricting Data File," March 15, 2021
  26. ↑ U.S. Census Bureau, "Decennial Census P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data," accessed August 12, 2021
  27. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "Census Bureau Delivers 2020 Census Redistricting Data in Easier-to-Use Format," September 16, 2021
  28. ↑ Associated Press, "Idaho Supreme Court consolidates redistricting map lawsuits," Nov. 26, 2021
  29. ↑ Democracy Docket, "Idaho Legislative Redistricting Challenge (Allan)," accessed Dec. 22, 2021
  30. ↑ 30.0 30.1 30.2 30.3 Democracy Docket, "Verified Petition for Review of the Idaho Commission for Reappoartionment's Plan L03 and for a Writ of Prohibition," Dec. 16, 2021
  31. ↑ The Associated Press, "Idaho’s new redistricting map faces second legal challenge," Nov. 18, 2021
  32. ↑ 32.0 32.1 32.2 Idaho Supreme Court, "Ada County petition," Nov. 17, 2021
  33. ↑ Democracy Docket, "Idaho Legislative Redistricting," accessed Nov. 18, 2021
  34. ↑ 34.0 34.1 Democracy Docket, "Durst petition," Nov. 10, 2021
  35. ↑ 35.0 35.1 35.2 Democracy Docket, "Verified Petition for Review," Dec. 15, 2021
  36. ↑ 36.0 36.1 36.2 36.3 Democracy Docket, "Petition Challenging Adopted Redistricting Plan L03," Dec. 1, 2021
  37. ↑ The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, "Election Regulations," accessed April 13, 2015
  38. ↑ Brookings, "Redistricting and the United States Constitution," March 22, 2011
  39. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  40. ↑ Brennan Center for Justice, "A Citizen's Guide to Redistricting," accessed March 25, 2015
  41. ↑ The Constitution of the United States of America, "Article 1, Section 2," accessed March 25, 2015
  42. ↑ 42.0 42.1 42.2 42.3 42.4 42.5 42.6 All About Redistricting, "Where are the lines drawn?" accessed April 9, 2015
  43. ↑ 43.0 43.1 43.2 43.3 FairVote, "Redistricting Glossary," accessed April 9, 2015
  44. ↑ All About Redistricting, "Who draws the lines?" accessed June 19, 2017
  45. ↑ All About Redistricting, "Why does it matter?" accessed April 8, 2015
  46. ↑ Encyclopædia Britannica, "Gerrymandering," November 4, 2014
  47. ↑ Congressional Research Service, "Congressional Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A Legal Overview," April 13, 2015
  48. ↑ The Wall Street Journal, "Supreme Court to Consider Limits on Partisan Drawing of Election Maps," June 19, 2017
  49. ↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear potentially landmark case on partisan gerrymandering," June 19, 2017
  50. ↑ 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
  51. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Alexander, et al. v. The South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, et al.," February 17, 2023
  52. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP," accessed July 21, 2023
  53. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Justices will hear case that tests power of state legislatures to set rules for federal elections," June 30, 2022
  54. ↑ 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
  55. ↑ SCOTUSblog.org, "Supreme Court upholds Section 2 of Voting Rights Act," June 8, 2023
  56. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Gill v. Whitford: Decision," June 18, 2018
  57. ↑ Election Law Blog, "Breaking: SCOTUS to Hear NC Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 27, 2016
  58. ↑ Ballot Access News, "U.S. Supreme Court Accepts Another Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 28, 2016
  59. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Cooper v. Harris: Decision," May 22, 2017
  60. ↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear challenge to Texas redistricting plan," May 26, 2015
  61. ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Agrees to Settle Meaning of ‘One Person One Vote,'" May 26, 2015
  62. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Evenwel v. Abbott," accessed May 27, 2015
  63. ↑ Associated Press, "Supreme Court to hear Texas Senate districts case," May 26, 2015
  64. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "The new look at 'one person, one vote,' made simple," July 27, 2015
  65. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Brief for Appellants," accessed December 14, 2015
  66. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission," April 20, 2016
  67. ↑ The New York Times, "Court Skeptical of Arizona Plan for Less-Partisan Congressional Redistricting," March 2, 2015
  68. ↑ The Atlantic, "Will the Supreme Court Let Arizona Fight Gerrymandering?" September 15, 2014
  69. ↑ United States Supreme Court, "Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Opinion of the Court," June 29, 2015
  70. ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Upholds Creation of Arizona Redistricting Commission," June 29, 2015
  71. ↑ Idaho Press-Tribune, "Idaho redistricters vote 4-2 for congressional map," October 17, 2011
  72. ↑ Idaho Supreme Court, "Denney v. Ysursa," January 25, 2012
v • e
Redistricting after the 2020 census
State-by-state
Overviews
Flag of Idaho
v • e
State of Idaho
Boise (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_Idaho_after_the_2020_census&oldid=10354810"