Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.
Redistricting in Iowa after the 2020 census
Redistricting is the process of enacting new district boundaries for elected offices, particularly for offices in the U.S. House of Representatives and state legislatures. This article chronicles the 2020 redistricting cycle in Iowa.
On November 4, 2021, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds (R) signed new congressional and state legislative maps into law after the state's Legislative Services Agency had proposed them on October 21, 2021. The Iowa legislature approved the maps on October 28, 2021, by a vote of 48-1 in the state Senate and 93-2 in the state House.[1] The legislature could only vote to approve or reject the maps and could not make any amendments. These maps took effect for Iowa's 2022 congressional and legislative elections.
Click here for more information.
Iowa's four United States representatives and 150 state legislators are all elected from political divisions called districts. District lines are redrawn every 10 years following completion of the United States census. Federal law stipulates that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.
See the sections below for further information on the following topics:
- Summary: This section provides summary information about the drafting and enacting processes.
- Apportionment and release of census data: This section details the 2020 apportionment process, including data from the United States Census Bureau.
- Drafting process: This section details the drafting process for new congressional and state legislative district maps.
- Enactment: This section provides information about the enacted congressional and state legislative district maps.
- Court challenges: This section details court challenges to the enacted congressional and state legislative district maps.
- Background: This section summarizes federal and state-based requirements for redistricting at both the congressional and state legislative levels. A summary of the 2010 redistricting cycle in Iowa 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.
- November 4, 2021: Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds (R) signed congressional and state legislative maps into law.
- October 28, 2021: The Iowa legislature approved the Legislative Services Agency's second congressional and state legislative maps.
- October 21, 2021: The Iowa Legislative Services Agency released its second draft of congressional and state legislative maps.
- October 5, 2021: The Iowa legislature rejected the Legislative Services Agency's first congressional and state legislative maps.
- September 16, 2021: The Iowa Legislative Services Agency released its first draft congressional and state legislative maps.
- September 16, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau released data from the 2020 census in an easier-to-use format to state redistricting authorities and the public.
- Aug. 12, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau delivered redistricting data to states in a legacy format.
- April 26, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts.
Enactment
On November 4, 2021, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds (R) signed new congressional and state legislative maps into law after the state's Legislative Services Agency had proposed them on October 21, 2021. The Iowa legislature approved the maps on October 28, 2021, by a vote of 48-1 in the state Senate and 93-2 in the state House.[1] The legislature could only vote to approve or reject the maps and could not make any amendments. These maps took effect for Iowa's 2022 congressional and legislative elections.
Enacted congressional district maps
Below are the congressional maps in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.
Iowa Congressional Districts
until January 2, 2023
Click a district to compare boundaries.
Iowa Congressional Districts
starting January 3, 2023
Click a district to compare boundaries.
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.[2] This data was compiled by Daily Kos Elections.[3]
| 2020 presidential results by Congressional district, Iowa | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| District | 2022 district | Political predecessor district | ||
Joe Biden 
|
Donald Trump 
|
Joe Biden
|
Donald Trump
| |
| Iowa's 1st | 47.6% | 50.5% | 47.1% | 51.1% |
| Iowa's 2nd | 46.9% | 51.3% | 47.4% | 50.8% |
| Iowa's 3rd | 48.9% | 49.3% | 49.0% | 49.1% |
| Iowa's 4th | 36.2% | 62.2% | 35.7% | 62.7% |
Enacted state legislative district maps
State Senate
Below is the state Senate map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.
Iowa State Senate Districts
until January 2, 2023
Click a district to compare boundaries.
Iowa State Senate Districts
starting January 3, 2023
Click a district to compare boundaries.
State House of Representatives
Below is the state House map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.
Iowa State House Districts
until December 31, 2022
Click a district to compare boundaries.
Iowa State House Districts
starting January 1, 2023
Click a district to compare boundaries.
Reactions to initial passage of maps
Upon signing the congressional and legislative maps, Gov. Reynolds issued the following statement:
| “ |
Today I signed the bipartisan redistricting maps into law. I am confident in how the process played out—just as the law intended, and I believe these new districts will fairly and accurately represent the citizens of Iowa for the next decade.[4][5] |
” |
Bloomberg Government's Greg Giroux said this about Iowa's congressional redistricting plan:
| “ |
The map, drafted by the state’s nonpartisan legislative agency, created three districts where Donald Trump would’ve narrowly defeated Joe Biden in the 2020 election and a fourth that’s heavily Republican...The map paired the homes of Reps. Cindy Axne (D) and Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R) in the politically competitive 3rd District, which takes most of its population from Axne’s current district in and around Des Moines.[6][5] |
” |
After the legislature approved the maps on October 28, 2021, Senate Majority Leader Jack Whitver (R) said the following:
| “ |
Despite years of fear-mongering about gerrymandering and claims the first map could not be improved, the Iowa Senate followed the process outlined in Iowa Code, and a more compact map with better population differences has been approved."[7][7][5] |
” |
Drafting process
The Legislative Services Agency prepares redistricting plans for approval by the Iowa State Legislature. According to All About Redistricting, the Legislative Services Agency (LSA) consists of "civil servants committed to nonpartisanship and otherwise charged with tasks like legal and fiscal analysis of state legislation and state government oversight." The LSA is assisted by an advisory commission, which consists of the following members:[8]
- one member selected by the majority leader of the Iowa State Senate
- one member selected by the majority leader of the Iowa House of Representatives
- one member selected by the minority leader of the Iowa State Senate
- one member selected by the minority leader of the Iowa House of Representatives
- one member selected by the first four members
The members of this commission cannot "hold partisan public office or an office in a political party, and none may be a relative or employee of a federal or state legislator (or the legislature as a whole)."[8]
Working with this independent commission, the LSA drafts congressional and state legislative district lines. The maps are presented as a single bill to the state legislature, which may approve or reject the bill without altering it (the legislature can provide feedback). If the legislature rejects the plan, the LSA must draft a second proposal. If the legislature rejects the second proposal, the LSA must draft a third, and final, set of maps. If the legislature rejects this plan, it may then approve its own maps. Since the implementation of this process in 1980, the state legislature has never chosen not to approve an LSA proposal. Redistricting plans are also subject to gubernatorial veto. In addition, the legislature may repeal or revise the maps at any time, though it has never done so.[8]
State law establishes the following criteria for both congressional and state legislative districts:[8]
- Districts must be "convenient and contiguous."
- Districts must "preserve the integrity of political subdivisions like counties and cities."
- Districts must "to the extent consistent with other requirements, [be] reasonably compact–defined in terms of regular polygons, comparisons of length and width, and overall boundary perimeter."
In addition, state House districts are required to be contained within state Senate districts "where possible, and where not in conflict with the criteria above." It is explicit in state law that district lines cannot be drawn "to favor a political party, incumbent, or other person or group."[8]
Drafts and proposals
Legislative Services Agency releases second draft maps
On October 21, 2021, the Iowa Legislative Services Agency (LSA) released its second proposed congressional and state legislative maps.[9] The Iowa legislature approved these maps on October 28, 2021.[1] The state Senate voted to approve them, 48-1, and the state House approved them, 93-2.[1]
The draft maps and redistricting plan report can be viewed below:
Congressional district maps
Map images
Legislative district maps
Map images
Proposed state Senate districts
Proposed state House districts
Redistricting plan report
Iowa State Senate rejects first proposed maps
On September 16, 2021, the Iowa Legislative Services Agency (LSA) released its first draft congressional and state legislative maps.[10][11] The Iowa State Senate voted on October 5, 2021, to reject the proposed district boundaries on a 32-18 party-line vote. Since this was the Agency's first proposal, the legislature could only vote to approve or reject it and could not make any amendments. Under state law, the LSA must send a second redistricting plan to the legislature within 35 days.[12]
After the vote, Senate Majority Leader Jack Whitver (R) said, "Senate Republicans believe LSA can improve the compactness and population deviation of several districts by developing a second redistricting plan. My colleagues and I look forward to reviewing that plan and its compliance with the criteria established in Iowa Code." Senate Minority Leader Zach Wahls (D) said, "This was a fair map drawn by the nonpartisan, independent commission. It met all the requirements laid out in state law. This is an outrageous use of political power to rig elections in their favor."[13]
Congressional district maps
LSA's first draft of proposed congressional maps:
Map images
Legislative district maps
LSA's first draft of proposed legislative maps:
Map images
Proposed state Senate districts
Proposed state House districts
Legislative Services Agency announces release date for second map proposal
On October 6, 2021, the Legislative Services Agency (LSA) announced that it would submit its second proposed congressional and legislative redistricting maps to the legislature by October 21.[14] Gov. Kim Reynolds (R) called a special session of the legislature beginning October 28, 2021, to consider the second redistricting proposal that the Iowa Legislative Services Agency had announced would be released on October 21.[15][16]
Timeline
On September 14, 2021, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that they were extending the deadline for state legislative redistricting to December 1, 2021. The last two paragraphs are quoted below:[17]
| “ | The LSA (Legislative Services Agency) has indicated that because of the delayed delivery of the 2020 decennial census data to the State of Iowa, the reapportionment process will not be concluded before September 1, 2021, and the apportionment will not become law before September 15, 2021. Because of this, the constitution now vests the supreme court with the responsibility and authority to “cause the state to be apportioned.” Iowa Const. art. III, § 35.
|
” |
On April 8, 2021, the Iowa Supreme Court released the following statement on its role in the post-2020 census redistricting cycle:[18]
| “ | If the general assembly is not able to meet the constitutional deadline, the supreme court tentatively plans to meet its constitutional responsibility by implementing a process which permits, to the extent possible, the redistricting framework presently set forth in Iowa Code chapter 42 to proceed after September 15. Under such a process, the supreme court would “cause the state to be apportioned into senatorial and representative districts to comply with the requirements of the constitution prior to December 31."[5] | ” |
The court added, "Legally and constitutionally, the supreme court cannot commit to a future course of action beforehand. Thus, the statement herein should not be considered legally binding."[18]
Committees and/or commissions involved in the process
The four appointed members of the Iowa Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission selected former state Legislative Services Agency analyst Sue Lerdal as the commission's chairperson and fifth member on August 17, 2021.[19]
| Iowa Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission membership, 2020 cycle[20] | ||
|---|---|---|
| Name | Appointed by | |
| Sue Lerdal | Elected by commission | |
| Chris Hagenow | Senate Majority Leader Jack Whitver (R) | |
| Jazmin Newton | Senate Minority Leader Zach Wahls (D) | |
| David Roederer | House Speaker Pat Grassley (R)) | |
| Ian Russell | House Minority Leader Todd Prichard (D) | |
Senate Minority Leader Zach Wahls (D) announced Jazmin Newton, a Davenport attorney, as the replacement for former Iowa secretary of state candidate Deidre DeJear (D) on the Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission on July 6, 2021. The Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission is responsible for gathering feedback from residents and holding public hearings. Other members of the commission are attorney Ian Russell (who was appointed by House Minority Leader Todd Prichard (D)), former Iowa State Budget Director David Roederer (who was appointed by House Speaker Pat Grassley (R)), and former State Rep. Chris Hagenow (R) (who was appointed by Senate Majority Leader Jack Whitver (R)).[21][22][23]
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.[24]
Apportionment following the 2020 census
The U.S. Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts on April 26, 2021. Iowa was apportioned four seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. This represented neither a gain nor a loss of seats as compared to apportionment after the 2010 census.[25]
See the table below for additional details.
| 2020 and 2010 census information for Iowa | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | |
| Iowa | 3,053,787 | 4 | 3,192,406 | 4 | 138,619 | 4.54% | 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.[26][27][28][29] 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.[30][31]
Court challenges
- If you are aware of any relevant lawsuits that are not listed here, please email us at editor@ballotpedia.org.
This section will include information regarding legal challenges to enacted maps.
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.[32][33]
| “ | 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.[5] | ” |
| —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."[34][35][36]
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."[36]
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."[36]
State-based requirements
In addition to the federal criteria noted above, individual states may impose additional requirements on redistricting. Common state-level redistricting criteria are listed below.
- Contiguity refers to the principle that all areas within a district should be physically adjacent. A total of 49 states require that districts of at least one state legislative chamber be contiguous (Nevada has no such requirement, imposing no requirements on redistricting beyond those enforced at the federal level). A total of 23 states require that congressional districts meet contiguity requirements.[36][37]
- 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.[36][37]
- 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.[36][37]
- 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.[36][37]
Methods
In general, a state's redistricting authority can be classified as one of the following:[38]
- Legislature-dominant: In a legislature-dominant state, the legislature retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. Maps enacted by the legislature may or may not be subject to gubernatorial veto. Advisory commissions may also be involved in the redistricting process, although the legislature is not bound to adopt an advisory commission's recommendations.
- Commission: In a commission state, an extra-legislative commission retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. A non-politician commission is one whose members cannot hold elective office. A politician commission is one whose members can hold elective office.
- Hybrid: In a hybrid state, the legislature shares redistricting authority with a commission.
Gerrymandering
- See also: Gerrymandering
The term gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to favor one political party, individual, or constituency over another. When used in a rhetorical manner by opponents of a particular district map, the term has a negative connotation but does not necessarily address the legality of a challenged map. The term can also be used in legal documents; in this context, the term describes redistricting practices that violate federal or state laws.[39][40]
For additional background information about gerrymandering, click "[Show more]" below.
The phrase racial gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to dilute the voting power of racial minority groups. Federal law prohibits racial gerrymandering and establishes that, to combat this practice and to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act, states and jurisdictions can create majority-minority electoral districts. A majority-minority district is one in which a racial group or groups comprise a majority of the district's populations. Racial gerrymandering and majority-minority districts are discussed in greater detail in this article.[41]
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.[42][43]Recent court decisions
The Supreme Court of the United States has, in recent years, issued several decisions dealing with redistricting policy, including rulings relating to the consideration of race in drawing district maps, the use of total population tallies in apportionment, and the constitutionality of redistricting commissions. The rulings in these cases, which originated in a variety of states, impact redistricting processes across the nation.
For additional background information about these cases, click "[Show more]" below.
Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (2024)
Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP — This case concerns a challenge to the congressional redistricting plan that the South Carolina legislature enacted after the 2020 census. In January 2023, a federal three-judge panel ruled that the state's 1st Congressional District was unconstitutional and enjoined the state from conducting future elections using its district boundaries. The panel's opinion said, "The Court finds that race was the predominant factor motivating the General Assembly’s adoption of Congressional District No. 1...Defendants have made no showing that they had a compelling state interest in the use of race in the design of Congressional District No. 1 and thus cannot survive a strict scrutiny review."[44] 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.[45] The U.S. Supreme Court scheduled oral argument on this case for October 11, 2023.[46]
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.[47] 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.[48]
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.[49]
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.[50]
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.[51][52][53]
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.[54][55][56][57]
Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2016)
Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts that were created by the commission in 2012. The plaintiffs, a group of Republican voters, alleged that "the commission diluted or inflated the votes of almost two million Arizona citizens when the commission intentionally and systematically overpopulated 16 Republican districts while under-populating 11 Democrat districts." This, the plaintiffs argued, constituted a partisan gerrymander. The plaintiffs claimed that the commission placed a disproportionately large number of non-minority voters in districts dominated by Republicans; meanwhile, the commission allegedly placed many minority voters in smaller districts that tended to vote Democratic. As a result, the plaintiffs argued, more voters overall were placed in districts favoring Republicans than in those favoring Democrats, thereby diluting the votes of citizens in the Republican-dominated districts. The defendants countered that the population deviations resulted from legally defensible efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act and obtain approval from the United States Department of Justice. At the time of redistricting, certain states were required to obtain preclearance from the U.S. Department of Justice before adopting redistricting plans or making other changes to their election laws—a requirement struck down by the United States Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder (2013). On April 20, 2016, the court ruled unanimously that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that a partisan gerrymander had taken place. Instead, the court found that the commission had acted in good faith to comply with the Voting Rights Act. The court's majority opinion was penned by Justice Stephen Breyer.[58][59][60]
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015)
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2015. At issue was the constitutionality of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, which was established by state constitutional amendment in 2000. According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, "the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." The state legislature argued that the use of the word "legislature" in this context is literal; therefore, only a state legislature may draw congressional district lines. Meanwhile, the commission contended that the word "legislature" ought to be interpreted to mean "the legislative powers of the state," including voter initiatives and referenda. On June 29, 2015, the court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, finding that "redistricting is a legislative function, to be performed in accordance with the state's prescriptions for lawmaking, which may include the referendum and the governor's veto." The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito dissented.[61][62][63][64]Trifectas and redistricting
In 34 of the states that conducted legislative elections in 2020, the legislatures themselves played a significant part in the subsequent redistricting process. The winner of eight of 2020's gubernatorial elections had veto authority over state legislative or congressional district plans approved by legislatures. The party that won trifecta control of a state in which redistricting authority rests with the legislature directed the process that produces the maps that will be used for the remainder of the decade. Trifecta shifts in the 2010 election cycle illustrate this point. In 2010, 12 states in which legislatures had authority over redistricting saw shifts in trifecta status. Prior to the 2010 elections, seven of these states were Democratic trifectas; the rest were divided governments. After the 2010 elections, seven of these states became Republican trifectas; the remainder either remained or became divided governments. The table below details these shifts and charts trifecta status heading into the 2020 election cycle.
| State | Primary redistricting authority | Pre-2010 trifecta status | Post-2010 trifecta status | Post-2018 trifecta status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Legislature | Divided | Republican | Republican |
| Colorado | Congressional maps: legislature State legislative maps: politician commission |
Democratic | Divided | Democratic |
| Indiana | Legislature | Divided | Republican | Republican |
| Iowa | Legislature | Democratic | Divided | Republican |
| Maine | Legislature | Democratic | Republican | Democratic |
| Michigan | Legislature | Divided | Republican | Divided |
| New Hampshire | Legislature | Democratic | Divided | Divided |
| North Carolina | Legislature | Democratic | Divided | Divided |
| Ohio | Congressional maps: legislature State legislative maps: politician commission |
Divided | Republican | Republican |
| Oregon | Legislature | Democratic | Divided | Democratic |
| Pennsylvania | Congressional maps: legislature State legislative maps: politician commission |
Divided | Republican | Divided |
| Wisconsin | Legislature | Democratic | Republican | Divided |
2010 redistricting cycle
Following the 2010 United States Census, Iowa lost one congressional seat. The Legislative Services Agency released its proposed congressional and state legislative maps on March 31, 2011. The maps were approved in both the Democratic Iowa State Senate and the Republican Iowa House of Representatives. On April 19, 2011, Governor Terry Branstad (R) signed the maps into law.[8][65]
See also
- Redistricting in Iowa after the 2010 census
- Redistricting in Iowa
- State-by-state redistricting procedures
- Majority-minority districts
External links
- Search Google News for this topic
- All About Redistricting
- Dave's Redistricting
- FiveThirtyEight, "What Redistricting Looks Like In Every State"
- National Conference of State Legislatures, "Redistricting Process"
- FairVote, "Redistricting"
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Des Moines Register, "Iowa lawmakers accept second redistricting plan, setting up next decade of politics," October 28, 2021
- ↑ Political predecessor districts are determined primarily based on incumbents and where each chose to seek re-election.
- ↑ Daily Kos Elections, "Daily Kos Elections 2020 presidential results by congressional district (old CDs vs. new CDs)," accessed May 12, 2022
- ↑ Office of the Governor of Iowa, "Governor Reynolds signs bipartisan redistricting bill into law," November 4, 2021
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Bloomberg Government, "Iowa Legislature Approves Congressional Map Giving Edge to GOP," October 29, 2021
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 Des Moines Register, "Gov. Kim Reynolds signs Iowa's new redistricting maps into law," November 4, 2021
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 All About Redistricting, "Iowa," accessed April 21, 2015
- ↑ Des Moines Register, "Iowa's 2nd redistricting maps could mean a 2022 election race between US Reps. Cindy Axne, Mariannette Miller-Meeks," October 21, 2021
- ↑ Des Moines Register, "Find your proposed legislative districts, how party advantage shifts and more from Iowa's new political maps," September 16, 2021
- ↑ The Iowa Legislature, "Iowa Redistricting," accessed September 16, 2021
- ↑ Quad-City Times, "Iowa Republicans reject first redistricting maps," October 5, 2021
- ↑ Iowa's News Now, "Iowa Senate rejects first set of redistricting maps," October 5, 2021
- ↑ Des Moines Register, "Iowa agency that draws redistricting maps says second proposed boundaries will go to the Legislature by Oct. 21," October 6, 2021
- ↑ We Are Iowa, "Special session set for Oct. 28 to review 2nd set of redistricting maps," October 8, 2021
- ↑ KNIA-KRLS, "Iowa Lawmakers To Consider Next Redistricting Maps By October 28th," October 14, 2021
- ↑ Iowa Supreme Court, In the Matter of Reapportionment of State Senatorial and Representative Districts, September 14, 2021
- ↑ 18.0 18.1 Iowa Judicial Branch, "Iowa Supreme Court Statement on Redistricting," April 8, 2021
- ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedchair - ↑ The Iowa Legislature, "Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission (J)," accessed October 13, 2021
- ↑ The Gazette, "Davenport lawyer replaces DeJear on redistricting commission," July 6, 2021
- ↑ The Courier, "Despite census delays, Iowa Legislature leaders begin redistricting process," August 19, 2021
- ↑ The Gazette, "Despite census delays, Iowa Legislature leaders begin redistricting process," February 15, 2021
- ↑ United States Census Bureau, "Apportionment," accessed July 11, 2018
- ↑ United States Census Bureau, "2020 Census Apportionment Results Delivered to the President," April 26, 2021
- ↑ United States Census Bureau, "2020 Census Operational Plan: Executive Summary," December 2015
- ↑ United States Census Bureau, "Census Bureau Statement on Redistricting Data Timeline," February 12, 2021
- ↑ Office of the Attorney General of Ohio, "AG Yost Secures Victory for Ohioans in Settlement with Census Bureau Data Lawsuit," May 25, 2021
- ↑ U.S. Census Bureau, "U.S. Census Bureau Statement on Release of Legacy Format Summary Redistricting Data File," March 15, 2021
- ↑ U.S. Census Bureau, "Decennial Census P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data," accessed August 12, 2021
- ↑ United States Census Bureau, "Census Bureau Delivers 2020 Census Redistricting Data in Easier-to-Use Format," September 16, 2021
- ↑ The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, "Election Regulations," accessed April 13, 2015
- ↑ Brookings, "Redistricting and the United States Constitution," March 22, 2011
- ↑ Brennan Center for Justice, "A Citizen's Guide to Redistricting," accessed March 25, 2015
- ↑ The Constitution of the United States of America, "Article 1, Section 2," accessed March 25, 2015
- ↑ 36.0 36.1 36.2 36.3 36.4 36.5 36.6 All About Redistricting, "Where are the lines drawn?" accessed April 9, 2015
- ↑ 37.0 37.1 37.2 37.3 FairVote, "Redistricting Glossary," accessed April 9, 2015
- ↑ All About Redistricting, "Who draws the lines?" accessed June 19, 2017
- ↑ All About Redistricting, "Why does it matter?" accessed April 8, 2015
- ↑ Encyclopædia Britannica, "Gerrymandering," November 4, 2014
- ↑ Congressional Research Service, "Congressional Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A Legal Overview," April 13, 2015
- ↑ The Wall Street Journal, "Supreme Court to Consider Limits on Partisan Drawing of Election Maps," June 19, 2017
- ↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear potentially landmark case on partisan gerrymandering," June 19, 2017
- ↑ United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Columbia Division, "South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, et al. v. Alexander," January 6, 2023
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Alexander, et al. v. The South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, et al.," February 17, 2023
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP," accessed July 21, 2023
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Justices will hear case that tests power of state legislatures to set rules for federal elections," June 30, 2022
- ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, “Moore, in his Official Capacity as Speaker of The North Carolina House of Representatives, et al. v. Harper et al.," "Certiorari to the Supreme Court of North Carolina,” accessed June 16, 2023
- ↑ SCOTUSblog.org, "Supreme Court upholds Section 2 of Voting Rights Act," June 8, 2023
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Gill v. Whitford: Decision," June 18, 2018
- ↑ Election Law Blog, "Breaking: SCOTUS to Hear NC Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 27, 2016
- ↑ Ballot Access News, "U.S. Supreme Court Accepts Another Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 28, 2016
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Cooper v. Harris: Decision," May 22, 2017
- ↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear challenge to Texas redistricting plan," May 26, 2015
- ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Agrees to Settle Meaning of ‘One Person One Vote,'" May 26, 2015
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Evenwel v. Abbott," accessed May 27, 2015
- ↑ Associated Press, "Supreme Court to hear Texas Senate districts case," May 26, 2015
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "The new look at 'one person, one vote,' made simple," July 27, 2015
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Brief for Appellants," accessed December 14, 2015
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission," April 20, 2016
- ↑ The New York Times, "Court Skeptical of Arizona Plan for Less-Partisan Congressional Redistricting," March 2, 2015
- ↑ The Atlantic, "Will the Supreme Court Let Arizona Fight Gerrymandering?" September 15, 2014
- ↑ United States Supreme Court, "Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Opinion of the Court," June 29, 2015
- ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Upholds Creation of Arizona Redistricting Commission," June 29, 2015
- ↑ 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.
 |
State of Iowa Des Moines (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 |
