Redistricting in Montana after the 2020 census

Redistricting
State legislative and congressional redistricting after the 2020 census Select your state:AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingSubmit
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 Montana.

On November 12, 2021, the Montana Districting and Apportionment Commission (MDAC) enacted a new congressional map following the 2020 redistricting cycle. The commissioners voted 3-2 to approve the map and to transmit it to the Montana Secretary of State. Both Republican commissioners and Maylinn Smith, the nonpartisan tiebreaker, voted in favor of the map, and the two Democratic commissioners voted against the map. Montana was apportioned two U.S. House seats following the 2020 census. The state previously had one at-large congressional district. This map took effect for Montana's 2022 congressional elections.

Montana enacted new legislative district boundaries after the 2020 census on February 22, 2023, when the Montana Districting & Apportionment Commission (MDAC) submitted its final plan to the secretary of state. The commission had voted 3-2 to approve the final plan on February 11, 2023. The two Democratic-appointed commissioners and the commission's chairperson—that the state supreme court appointed—voted to approve the plan. The two Republican-appointed commissioners voted against it. These districts took effect for the 2024 elections. Click here for more information.

Montana's two 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:

1. Summary: This section provides summary information about the drafting and enacting processes.
2. Apportionment and release of census data: This section details the 2020 apportionment process, including data from the United States Census Bureau.
3. Drafting process: This section details the drafting process for new congressional and state legislative district maps.
4. Enactment: This section provides information about the enacted congressional and state legislative district maps.
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 Montana 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.

• February 22, 2023: Montana enacted new legislative district boundaries when the Montana Districting & Apportionment Commission submitted its final plan to the secretary of state.
• February 11, 2023: The Montana Districting and Apportionment Commission voted 3-2 to approve legislative district boundaries.
• February 2, 2023: The Montana legislature provided recommendations on the plan via a joint House-Senate resolution.
• January 6, 2023: The Montana Districting and Apportionment Commission submitted its final legislative district boundary proposal to the legislature.
• December 21, 2022: The Montana Districting and Apportionment Commission approved a final map proposal to submit to the legislature.
• August 2, 2022: The Montana Districting and Apportionment Commission released four draft legislative map proposals.
• November 12, 2021: The Montana Districting and Apportionment Commission enacted a congressional redistricting map.
• November 4, 2021: The Montana Districting and Apportionment Commission voted 3-2 to advance a congressional map proposal.
• October 29, 2021: The Montana Districting and Apportionment Commission released congressional map proposals.
• October 21, 2021: The Montana Districting and Apportionment Commission released congressional map proposals.
• October 5, 2021: The Montana Districting and Apportionment Commission released congressional map proposals.
• 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.
• August 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 Montana Districting and Apportionment Commission (MDAC) enacted a new congressional map following the 2020 redistricting cycle. The commissioners voted 3-2 to approve the map and to transmit it to the Montana Secretary of State. Both Republican commissioners and Maylinn Smith, the nonpartisan tiebreaker, voted in favor of the map, and the two Democratic commissioners voted against the map. Montana was apportioned two U.S. House seats following the 2020 census. The state previously had one at-large congressional district. This map took effect for Montana's 2022 congressional elections.

A version of the congressional map enacted by the commission had previously been approved on November 4, 2021. The map that received final approval on November 12, 2021, made a minor change in Pondera County, allocating a smaller portion of it to the Western district.

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

Montana Congressional Districts
until January 2, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Montana Congressional Districts
starting January 3, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Reactions

Following the approval of the congressional map, Democratic Commissioner Kendra Miller said: "Neither district on this plan is seriously competitive. The two districts together don't adequately represent the overall makeup of our state. And for that reason, this plan has been drawn to unduly favor one political party." Maylinn Smith, the nonpartisan chair of the commission, said: "In making my decision, I looked at what I thought was fair for all Montana. I had two maps that the information provided to me indicated that for the congressional seat, which is the seat this map is addressing, that the election results for the last five elections were the same. [...] I'm saying these maps are not going to make a difference in the election results. That's as competitive as I can get it under the maps that I'm given." Republican Commissioner Jeff Essmann said: "In terms of the Western district, you know, as it's drawn, this is not, whether it is represented in the future by a Democrat or Republican, it will never be considered a safe seat in the 10 years going forward that would permit any candidate to not listen to the voters of that district."

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. This data was compiled by Daily Kos Elections.

2020 presidential results by Congressional district, Montana
District	2022 district		Political predecessor district
	Joe Biden	Donald Trump	Joe Biden	Donald Trump
Montana's 1st	45.3%	52.2%	---	---
Montana's 2nd	35.3%	62.2%	40.6%	56.9%

Enacted state legislative district maps

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

Montana enacted new legislative district boundaries after the 2020 census on February 22, 2023, when the Montana Districting & Apportionment Commission (MDAC) submitted its final plan to the secretary of state. The commission had voted 3-2 to approve the final plan on February 11, 2023. The two Democratic-appointed commissioners and the commission's chairperson—that the state supreme court appointed—voted to approve the plan. The two Republican-appointed commissioners voted against it. These districts took effect for the 2024 elections.

The MDAC voted 3-2 to submit its final legislative district boundary proposal to the legislature on December 21, 2022. The commission's nonpartisan chairperson, Maylinn Smith, and two Democratic-appointed commissioners voted to approve the map, and the two Republican-appointed commissioners voted against it. The legislature provided recommendations on the plan via a joint House-Senate resolution on February 2, 2023. The MDAC incorporated some, but not all, of the legislature's proposed amendments into the final plan.

Montana was the last state to enact legislative redistricting plans after the 2020 census. The state constitution requires that the redistricting commission submit legislative maps to the legislature so they can provide non-binding recommendations before they are enacted. Montana's legislature only meets in odd-numbered years and adjourned in April 2021, before U.S. Census data was delivered to the states on August 12, 2021.

Shaylee Ragar of Montana Public Radio wrote that "According to data compiled by Democrats on the commission, the map could give Republicans a 20-seat advantage in the House and an 8-seat advantage in the Senate. It projects Democrats picking up a few seats currently held by Republicans." Arren Kimbel-Sannit wrote in the Montana Free Press that, "In sum, the new maps could cost Republicans several seats while still leaving them a sizable majority that at least suggests the GOP’s dominance in recent elections."

Click here to read the Montana Districting & Apportionment Commission's final report on the enacted legislative redistricting plan, including population and demographic figures by county and district.

State Senate map

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

Montana State Senate Districts
until January 5, 2025

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Montana State Senate Districts
starting January 6, 2025

Click a district to compare boundaries.

State House map

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

Montana State House Districts
until January 5, 2025

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Montana State House Districts
starting January 6, 2025

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Drafting process

Montana uses a non-politician commission for congressional and state legislative redistricting. This commission comprises five members. The majority and minority leaders of each chamber of the state legislature select one member a piece. These four members then select a fifth to serve as the commission's chair. If the first four commissioners are unable to agree on an appointment, the Montana Supreme Court may select the fifth member.

The Montana Constitution requires that no commissioner be a public official. State statutes require that two of the first four commissioners "must be selected from certain counties (roughly, in the Montana Rockies to the west) and two must be selected from the rest of the state (to the east)."

The state's Districting and Apportionment Commission must complete congressional redistricting within 90 days of receiving federal census data. It must prepare a legislative redistricting plan "by the 10th legislative day of the first regular session after the federal census results are available. The Legislature then has 30 days to make recommendations to the commission. Within 30 days of receiving the Legislature's recommendations, the commission must file the redistricting plan with the Secretary of State, and it becomes law. Although the commission may modify the plan to accommodate the Legislature's recommendations, it is not required to do so."

The state constitution requires that districts be both contiguous and compact.

“	The ... commission has stated that it may gauge compactness by looking to a district's general appearance, and the degree to which it fosters "functional compactness" through "travel and transportation, communication, and geography." The commission has similarly determined that it will, in drawing legislative districts, consider the boundary lines of political subdivisions (counties, cities, towns, school districts, Indian reservations, neighborhood commissions, and others); follow geographic boundaries; and consider keeping intact communities of interest (based on "Indian reservations, urban[, suburban, or rural] interests, . . . neighborhoods, trade areas, geographic location, communication and transportation networks, media markets, social, cultural and economic interests, or occupations and lifestyles").	”
—All About Redistricting

Timeline

Congressional redistricting

On June 10, 2021, the Montana Districting and Apportionment Commission released these proposed timelines. The deadline for the commission to approve a congressional map was Nov. 14, 2021.

Projected congressional redistricting timeline for Montana, 2020 cycle
Date	Event
April 1, 2020	Federal decennial census
May 25, 2021	Commission meeting
June 10, 2021	Commission meeting
July 8-9, 2021	Commission meeting
August 16, 2021	P.L. 94‐171 Legacy Format Summary Files released to states by this date
August 17, 2021	Commission meeting
September 30, 2021	P.L. 94‐171 User‐Friendly Format Summary Files delivered to official state recipients (governors, legislative leaders, redistricting commissions, state liaisons) by this date
90 days from receipt of data (Autumn/Winter 2021)	By this time, the Commission will draft/consider congressional plans, hold at least one public hearing and adopt congressional plan (5‐1‐108(1), MCA), vote on the final plan, and file plan with Secretary of State

Legislative redistricting

The Montana Districting and Apportionment Commission released an overview of the state legislative redistricting process, which can be viewed here. A summary of that process is presented below:

Phases of the Montana State Legislative Redistricting Process
Phase	Timeframe	Key milestone
Phase 1	May - June, 2022	Set tentative timeline and process for state legislative redistricting
Phase 2	July - Aug., 2022	Begin public hearings on draft state legislative maps
Phase 3	Sept. - Oct., 2022	Complete initial public hearings by late September
Phase 4	Nov. - Dec., 2022	Vote to submit proposed state legislative plan to the 2023 Legislature
Phase 5	Jan. - Mar., 2023	Submit state legislative redistricting plan to 2023 Legislature by the 10th Legislative Day

The Montana Districting and Apportionment Commission also announced a schedule of nine hearings in August and September 2022 to review draft proposals for state House district boundaries. The schedule of public hearing dates and locations is below:

Montana Districting and Apportionment Commission public hearings, 2022-23
Date	City
August 25, 2022	Pablo (cancelled)
August 26, 2022	Missoula
August 30, 2022	Zoom
September 1, 2022	Bozeman
September 7, 2022	Great Falls
September 9, 2022	Zoom
September 15, 2022	Crow Agency
September 16, 2022	Billings
September 19, 2022	Zoom

The Montana Districting and Apportionment Commission announced a schedule of meetings and work sessions in November and December 2022 to discuss draft proposals for state House districts and select a final commission-approved legislative map. The schedule of these meetings is listed below:

Montana Districting and Apportionment Commission public hearings, 2022
Date	Meeting Type
November 10, 2022	Zoom only
November 28 - December 1, 2022	Work Session
December 10, 2022	Public Hearing
December 15, 2022	Work Session
December 21, 2022

Committees and/or commissions involved in the process

The Montana Districting and Apportionment Commission is responsible for redistricting. As of December 2022, this commission had the following members:

Montana Districting and Apportionment Commission membership, 2020 cycle
Name	Appointed by
Maylinn Smith	Montana Supreme Court
Jeff Essmann	Senate Majority Leader Fred Thomas
Denise Juneau	Senate Minority Leader Jill Cohenour
Dan Stusek	House Majority Leader Brad Tschida
Kendra Miller	House Minority Leader Casey Schreiner

Then-Senate Minority Leader Jon Sesso (D) appointed Joe Lamson to the commission in 2021, but Lamson resigned on October 3, 2022, citing heath reasons

Criteria

Congressional districts

On July 9, the Montana Districting and Apportionment Commission released its congressional redistricting criteria. The criteria can be found here.

“

Mandatory Criteria for Congressional Districts Districts must be as equal in population as is practicable (Article 1, Section 2, U.S. Constitution). Protection of minority voting rights are guaranteed in Article II, Section 4 of the Montana Constitution and through compliance with the Voting Rights Act. No district, plan, or proposal for a plan is acceptable if it affords members of a racial or language minority group “less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.” (42 U.S.C. 1973). Race cannot be the predominant factor to which traditional redistricting criteria are subordinated. (Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 1993). Each district shall consist of compact territory. (Article 5, Section 14 of the Montana Constitution). The Commission shall consider the district’s functional compactness in terms of travel and transportation, communication, and geography. Each district shall be contiguous, meaning that a district must be in one piece. (Article 5, Section 14 of the Montana Constitution). Areas that meet only at points of adjoining corners shall not be considered contiguous. Areas separated by natural geographical or artificial barriers that prevent transportation by vehicle on a maintained road shall be avoided when not in conflict with the commission's adopted criteria. Goals for Congressional Districts No plan may be drawn to unduly favor a political party. The commission shall attempt to minimize dividing cities, towns, counties and federal reservations between two districts when possible. Keeping communities of interest intact. The Commission may consider keeping communities of interest intact. Communities of interest can be based on Indian reservations, urban interests, suburban interests, rural interests, tribal interests, neighborhoods, trade areas, geographic location, demographics, communication and transportation networks, social, cultural, historic, and economic interests and connections, or occupations and lifestyles. The commission may consider competitiveness of districts when drawing plans.

”

Legislative districts

On July 20, the Montana Districting and Apportionment Commission passed its legislative redistricting criteria. The criteria can be found here.

“

Mandatory Criteria for State Legislative Districts Legislative districts must be as equal in population as is practicable. The commission shall remain within plus or minus 1% deviation, to be exceeded within federally allowable standards only for purposes of complying with the Voting Rights Act, maintaining political subdivisions, or other constitutionally mandatory criteria. The maximum average deviation of all House districts shall be no more than plus or minus 1% deviation. The commission may adjust this deviation if undercount analysis from the U.S. Census Bureau demonstrates that systematic undercounting occurred among identified geographic or demographic groups. Protection of minority voting rights are guaranteed in Article II, Section 4 of the Montana Constitution and through compliance with the Voting Rights Act. No district, plan, or proposal for a plan is acceptable if it affords members of a racial or language minority group “less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.” (42 U.S.C. 1973). Race cannot be the predominant factor to which traditional redistricting criteria are subordinated. (Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 1993). Each district shall consist of compact territory. (Article 5, Section 14 of the Montana Constitution). The Commission shall consider the district’s functional compactness in terms of travel and transportation, communication, and geography. Each district shall be contiguous, meaning that a district must be in one piece. (Article 5, Section 14 of the Montana Constitution). Areas that meet only at points of adjoining corners shall not be considered contiguous. Areas separated by natural geographical or artificial barriers that prevent transportation by vehicle on a maintained road shall be avoided when not in conflict with the commission's adopted criteria and goals. Goals for State Legislative Districts No plan may be drawn to unduly favor a political party. The commission shall attempt to minimize dividing cities, towns, counties and federal reservations when possible. Keeping communities of interest intact. The Commission may consider keeping communities of interest intact. Communities of interest can be based on Indian reservations; urban interests, suburban interests, rural interests, including elementary and high school districts; tribal interests; neighborhoods; trade areas; geographic location; demographics; communication and transportation networks; social, cultural, historic, and economic interests and connections; or occupations and lifestyles. The commission may consider competitiveness of districts when drawing plans. The commission shall consider assigning holdover senators to the Senate District which contains the greatest number of residents of the district from which they were previously elected when possible.

”

Proposed maps

Congressional

On Oct. 5, the Montana Districting and Apportionment Commission released proposed draft maps for congressional redistricting. On Oct. 21, commissioners proposed two additional maps, after Commission Chair Maylinn Smith expressed disapproval of the nine original proposals. Republican members of the commission proposed map 11, and Democratic members proposed map 10. On Oct. 29, commissioners submitted two additional map proposals. During an Oct. 30 meeting, the commissioners did not vote to choose a congressional map proposal. On Nov. 4, the commission voted 3-2 to advance proposed map 12. The two Republican commissioners and Chairwoman Maylinn Smith voted to advance the maps, and the two Democratic commissioners voted against it. Smith said changes could be made to the map before enactment.

Advanced map

• Proposal 12 (click to expand)
  

Other map proposals

• Proposal 1 (click to expand)
  

• Proposal 2 (click to expand)
  

• Proposal 3 (click to expand)
  

• Proposal 4 (click to expand)
  

• Proposal 5 (click to expand)
  

• Proposal 6 (click to expand)
  

• Proposal 7 (click to expand)
  

• Proposal 8 (click to expand)
  

• Proposal 9 (click to expand)
  

• Proposal 10 (click to expand)
  

• Proposal 11 (click to expand)
  

• Proposal 13 (click to expand)
  

Legislative

On December 21, 2022, the Montana Districting and Apportionment Commission (MDAC) voted 3-2 to submit its final legislative district boundary proposal to the legislature. The commission's nonpartisan chairperson, Maylinn Smith, and two Democratic-appointed commissioners voted to approve the map, and the two Republican-appointed commissioners voted against it. According to Nicole Girten of the Daily Montanan, "The legislature will have 30 days after submission on Jan. 6 to comment on the map before it gets kicked back to the commission, which will...meet again in February to receive recommendations from the legislature and will then have 30 days to submit the final map to the Secretary of State’s Office."

More information about the final map proposal—named "Tentative Commission Plan-3"—along with population and statistical reports and GIS shapefiles, can be viewed by clicking this link to the MDAC's website.

MDAC Commissioner Jeff Essmann, who was appointed by Senate Majority Leader Fred Thomas (R), stated his opposition to the final proposal: "This map does have compromises, but I would not call it a compromise map. There are still significant differences that we have in viewing this map, as was evidenced even today.” Commissioner Kendra Miller, who was appointed to the MDAC by House Minority Leader Casey Schreiner (D), said that both the Republican and Democratic commissioners knew Smith, who was appointed to the MDAC by the Montana Supreme Court, would cast the tie-breaking vote: "They needed to put up what they thought was the very best map they had, that met the criteria and could get her vote...We had to put up a map that we knew was going to be superior on criteria, and that’s what we did."

The MDAC had originally voted 3-2 to advance the proposal on December 1, 2022, for consideration at a public hearing. That map can be viewed on the commission's website here. As with the final vote, the commission's nonpartisan member, Maylinn Smith, and two Democratic-appointed commissioners voted to approve the map and the two Republican-appointed commissioners voted against it.

Arren Kimbel-Sannit of the Montana Free Press wrote that the proposed map "yields 60 House seats that, to varying degrees, favor Republicans, and 40 that favor Democrats. Ten of the seats are considered competitive based on metrics the commission adopted earlier in the process, with five that lean Republican and five that lean Democratic."

The MDAC had initially released four initial legislative map proposals on August 2, 2022. Members of the public were invited both to comment on these drafts as well as submit their own proposals. Links to all four draft maps can be found on this page.

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.

Apportionment following the 2020 census

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

See the table below for additional details.

2020 and 2010 census information for Montana
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
Montana	994,416	1	1,085,407	2	90,991	9.15%	1

Redistricting data from the Census Bureau

On February 12, 2021, the Census Bureau announced that it would deliver redistricting data to the states by September 30, 2021. On March 15, 2021, the Census Bureau released a statement indicating it would make redistricting data available to the states in a legacy format in mid-to-late August 2021. A legacy format presents the data in raw form, without data tables and other access tools. On May 25, 2021, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (R) announced that the state had reached a settlement agreement with the Census Bureau in its lawsuit over the Census Bureau's timetable for delivering redistricting data. Under the terms of the settlement, the Census Bureau agreed to deliver redistricting data, in a legacy format, by August 16, 2021. 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.

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.

“	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.	”
—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."

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."

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."

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.
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.
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.
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.

Methods

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

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.

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.

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.

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." 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. The U.S. Supreme Court scheduled oral argument on this case for October 11, 2023.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 Montana after the 2010 census

Following the 2010 United States Census, Montana did not add to its single congressional district, making congressional redistricting unnecessary. On August 17, 2012, the independent redistricting commission released a tentative state legislative district proposal. The commission submitted its final recommendations to the state legislature on January 8, 2013. After considering responses from the legislature, the commission produced its final redistricting plan on February 12, 2013.

Willems v. Montana

On March 14, 2013, a suit was filed in state court challenging "the way in which a district was designated a 'holdover' district for state Senate representation in a staggered election system; the challenge [was] based on the decision that the district [would] next elect a state Senator in 2016, rather than 2014." On December 6, 2013, the court rejected this challenge and ruled in favor of the state. The decision was appealed to the Montana Supreme Court, which upheld the lower court's decision.

See also

• Redistricting in Montana after the 2010 census
• Redistricting in Montana
• 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"