State Legislative and Congressional Redistricting after the 2010 Census

	Redistricting in the United States
	; This map displays what type of redistricting each state uses.

Redistricting

State-by-state redistricting procedures
Majority-minority districts
Congressional district demographics
United States census, 2020

Redistricting is the process by which new congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn. All United States Representatives and state legislators are elected from political divisions called districts. District lines are redrawn every 10 years following completion of the United States census. The federal government stipulates that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.^[1]

This article deals with the redistricting efforts undertaken by the states after the 2010 census. See the sections below for further information on the following topics:

Timeline of initial map enactments: This section details initial enactment dates for new congressional and state legislative district maps in the 2010 redistricting cycle.
On the ballot: This section summarizes ballot measures approved in 2010, 2011, and 2012 that made a significant impact on redistricting processes in the states.
Types of redistricting: This section briefly outlines the three dominant methods of redistricting in the 2010 cycle.
2010 census: This section outlines apportionment outcomes after the 2010 census and other contextual information that is useful in understanding the 2010 redistricting cycle.
Redistricting in previous cycles: This section summarizes the success rates (i.e., whether maps withstood court challenges) of legislature-dominant and commission-dominant redistricting in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s.
State-by-state summaries: This section provides narrative summaries of the 2010 redistricting cycle in each state and major subsequent developments.

Timeline of initial map enactments

See also: State redistricting timelines following the 2010 census

In the 2010 redistricting cycle, redistricting authorities enacted 43 new congressional district maps and 50 new state legislative district maps. The majority of these – 63 maps (31 congressional and 32 state legislative), 67.74 percent of the total– were enacted in 2011. In 2012, 28 maps (12 congressional and 16 state legislative) were enacted, 30.11 percent of the total. The remaining maps were enacted in the first six months of 2013.

The table and bar charts below list initial congressional and state legislative district map enactment dates for all 50 states in the 2010 cycle. These graphics do not take into account maps that were subsequently redrawn.

Enactment dates for district maps, 2010 cycle
State	Congressional		State legislative
State	Month and date	Year	Month and date	Year
Alabama	June 8	2011	May 31	2012
Alaska	N/A	N/A	June 13	2011
Arizona	January 17	2012	January 17	2012
Arkansas	April 13	2011	July 29	2011
California	August 15	2011	August 15	2011
Colorado	November 10	2011	September 19	2011
Connecticut	February 10	2012	November 30	2011
Delaware	N/A	N/A	July 8	2011
Florida	February 16	2012	February 9	2012
Georgia	September 6	2011	August 24	2011
Hawaii	September 26	2011	September 26	2011
Idaho	October 17	2011	October 14	2011
Illinois	June 24	2011	June 3	2011
Indiana	May 10	2011	May 10	2011
Iowa	April 19	2011	April 19	2011
Kansas	June 7	2012	June 7	2012
Kentucky	February 10	2012	January 20	2012
Louisiana	April 14	2011	April 14	2011
Maine	September 28	2011	June 14	2013
Maryland	October 20	2011	February 24	2012
Massachusetts	November 21	2011	November 3	2011
Michigan	August 9	2011	August 9	2011
Minnesota	February 21	2012	February 21	2012
Mississippi	December 30	2011	May 3	2012
Missouri	May 4	2011	December 9	2011
Montana	N/A	N/A	February 12	2013
Nebraska	May 26	2011	May 26	2011
Nevada	October 27	2011	October 27	2011
New Hampshire	April 23	2012	March 28	2012
New Jersey	December 23	2011	April 3	2011
New Mexico	December 29	2011	February 27	2012
New York	March 19	2012	March 15	2012
North Carolina	July 27	2011	July 27	2011
North Dakota	N/A	N/A	November 9	2011
Ohio	September 26	2011	September 28	2011
Oklahoma	May 10	2011	May 20	2011
Oregon	June 30	2011	June 10	2011
Pennsylvania	December 22	2011	December 12	2011
Rhode Island	February 8	2012	February 8	2012
South Carolina	August 1	2011	June 28	2011
South Dakota	N/A	N/A	October 25	2011
Tennessee	January 26	2012	January 26	2012
Texas	July 18	2011	June 17	2011
Utah	October 20	2011	October 20	2011
Vermont	N/A	N/A	May 1	2012
Virginia	January 25	2012	April 29	2011
Washington	February 1	2012	February 1	2012
West Virginia	August 18	2011	August 18	2011
Wisconsin	August 9	2011	August 9	2011
Wyoming	N/A	N/A	March 6	2012

On the ballot

2012

In 2012, voters approved two ballot measures that impacted the redistricting process:

2011

In 2011, voters approved one ballot measure (in Maine) that impacted the redistricting process.

2010

In 2010, voters approved four redistricting ballot measures: one in California, two in Florida, and one in Oklahoma. These measures either created or expanded a redistricting commissions' jurisdiction over the process (or reduced legislative authority). Additionally, California voters rejected a measure that would have eliminated the California Citizens Redistricting Commission.

Types of redistricting

In the 2010 cycle, there were three general processes by which districts were re-drawn.

By legislative authority
By commission
By a hybrid of both legislative and commission

2010 census

Apportionment

The breakdown of states that won and lost new seats as a result of congressional reapportionment are as follows:^[2]

States that added congressional seats after 2010 census
State	Before 2010 census	After 2010 census^[3]
Arizona	8	9 (+1)
Florida	25	27 (+2)
Georgia	13	14 (+1)
Nevada	3	4 (+1)
South Carolina	6	7 (+1)
Texas	32	36 (+4)
Utah	3	4 (+1)
Washington	9	10 (+1)

States that lost congressional seats after 2010 census
State	Before 2010 census	After 2010 census^[4]
Illinois	19	18 (-1)
Iowa	5	4 (-1)
Louisiana	7	6 (-1)
Massachusetts	10	9 (-1)
Michigan	15	14 (-1)
Missouri	9	8 (-1)
New Jersey	13	12 (-1)
New York	29	27 (-2)
Ohio	18	16 (-2)
Pennsylvania	19	18 (-1)

Population deviations for state legislative districts

Michael McDonald, of George Mason University, used census data to determine which state legislative districts were most underpopulated and most overpopulated as of the 2010 census. Key findings from McDonald's work are presented below.^[5]

Most underpopulated state legislative districts after 2010 census
State^[5]	District^[5]	Total population^[5]	2010 ideal population^[5]	Deviation^[5]	Percent deviation^[5]	% Black voting-age population^[5]	% Hispanic voting-age population^[5]
Louisiana	State House District 99	16,419	43,175	-26,756	-62.0%	79.40%	2.90%
Louisiana	State House District 104	21,315	43,175	-21,860	-50.6%	18.30%	8.30%
Louisiana	State House District 103	23,643	43,175	-19,532	-45.2%	22.10%	9.80%
Mississippi	State House District 115	13,505	24,322	-10,817	-44.5%	24.30%	11.60%
Louisiana	State Senate District 2	65,868	116,240	-50,372	-43.3%	84.30%	3.40%

Most overpopulated state legislative districts after 2010 census
State^[5]	District^[5]	Total population^[5]	2010 ideal population^[5]	Deviation^[5]	Percent deviation^[5]	% Black voting-age population^[5]	% Hispanic voting-age population^[5]
Virginia	State House District 13	190,620	80,010	110,610	138.2%	10.80%	11.00%
Utah	State House District 56	90,503	36,852	53,651	145.6%	0.50%	6.50%
Nevada	State Senate Clark District 9	354,064	128,598	225,466	175.3%	8.40%	13.50%
Nevada	State Assembly District 22	222,912	64,299	158,613	246.7%	6.60%	12.80%
Nevada	Nevada Assembly District 13	256,407	64,299	192,108	298.8%	10.60%	13.40%

Voting Rights Act

See also: Voting Rights Act

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race. At the time of the 2010 census, Section 4 provided a formula for identifying which jurisdictions had engaged in racial discrimination and remedies to alleviate the discrimination. The first element in the formula was whether, as of November 1, 1964, the jurisdiction maintained a "test or device," such as a literacy test restricting the opportunity to register and vote. The second element was whether less than 50 percent of persons of voting age were registered to vote on November 1, 1964, or that less than 50 percent of persons of voting age voted in the presidential election of November 1964. Jurisdictions identified under Section 4 were subject to Section 5. Section 5 provides that the jurisdictions identified in Section 4 be subject to preclearance, which means that they must seek approval from the United States Attorney General of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia prior to making changes to their voting laws.

As of the 2010 census, there were 16 states whose redistricting plans were subject to preclearance requirements under the Voting Rights Act.^[6]

This map shows the jurisdictions subject to the preclearance mechanism of Voting Rights Act as of the 2010 census.

States whose redistricting plans were subject to the preclearance mechanism of Voting Rights Act in the 2010 redistricting cycle
State	Entire state	Counties only	Townships only
Alabama	a
Alaska	a
Arizona	a
California		a
Florida		a
Georgia	a
Louisiana	a
Michigan			a
Mississippi	a
New Hampshire		a	a
New York		a
North Carolina		a
South Carolina	a
South Dakota		a
Texas	a
Virginia	a

Shelby County v. Holder

See also: Shelby County v. Holder

See also: Arguments for and against restoring Section 5 preclearance under the Voting Rights Act

Chief Justice John Roberts

In 2010, Shelby County, Alabama, a jurisdiction subject to preclearance, sued the United States Attorney General, challenging Section 4(b) and 5 as unconstitutional. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in 2011 that the evidence before Congress in 2006 was sufficient to justify the re-authorization of Section 5 and the continued use of the formula in Section 4(b). Shelby County appealed. On May 18, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed the previous decision, concluding that the use of Section 5 was still justified and that the coverage formula was still acceptable. Shelby County appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case on the question of "whether Congress' decision in 2006 to reauthorize Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act under the pre-existing coverage formula of Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act exceeded its authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and thus violated the Tenth Amendment and Article IV of the United States Constitution."^[7]^[8]^[9]

On June 25, 2013, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down Section 4(b) as unconstitutional, as it exceeded Congress' power to enforce the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The majority, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, reasoned that the disparate treatment of the states was "based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day" and that a state cannot be subject to preclearance because of past discrimination. The court did not determine whether Section 5 is also unconstitutional. However, because Section 5 only applies to jurisdictions covered by 4(b), Section 5 is effectively rendered inoperable unless Section 4(b) is replaced.^[10]

Trifectas

A trifecta occurs when one political party occupies these three positions in a state government:

The governorship
A majority in the state senate
A majority in the state house.

In states where legislatures and governors dominate the redistricting process, a party's trifecta status can be determinative. After the 2010 elections, Republicans picked up 12 new trifectas. Democrats lost five.

Trifectas before and after the 2010 election
Party	Before election	Congressional seats	After election	Congressional seats	Gain/loss states	Gain/loss congressional seats
Democratic	16	131	11	115	-5	-16
Republican	8	66	20	198	+12	+132

Timeline

All 50 states received their local population datasets before the required April 1, 2011. deadline.

How incarcerated persons are counted for redistricting

States differ on how they count incarcerated persons for the purposes of redistricting. During the 2010 redistricting cycle, three states (Delaware, Maryland, and New York), had passed policies to count prison inmates at their pre-incarceration addresses, rather than in the communities where their detention facilities were located. Maryland and New York implemented their policies during the 2010 redistricting cycle, while Delaware implemented its policy in the 2020 cycle.^[11]

Under the policies, inmates who were in-state residents prior to incarceration were to be counted in their last known residence's district population. Out-of-state residents and inmates with unknown previous residences were excluded from all district population counts under the three policies. In Delaware and Maryland, federal inmates were to be counted using the same standard as state inmates, and in New York, they were excluded from all district population counts.^[11]

Redistricting in previous cycles

2000 census

The tables below compares the success rates of legislatures and commissions at having redistricting plans approved, either without court challenges or withstanding court challenges.

Redistricting success rate for commissions
Decade	House	Senate	U.S. House
2000s	71% (10 of 14)	71% (10 of 14)	100% (5 of 5)
1990s	80% (8 of 10)	91% (10 of 11)	100% (4 of 4)
1980s	67% (6 of 9)	67% (6 of 9)	NA
1970s	63% (5 of 8)	75% (6 of 8)	NA
1970s-2000s	71% (29 of 41)	76% (32 of 42)	100% (9 of 9)

Redistricting success rate for legislatures
Decade	House	Senate	U.S. House
2000s	68% (23 of 34)	77% (27 of 35)	74% (28 of 38)
1990s	57% (21 of 37)	62% (23 of 37)	59% (23 of 39)
1980s	68% (25 of 38)	62% (24 of 39)	NA
1970s	67% (26 of 39)	63% (25 of 34)	NA
1970s-2000s	64% (95 of 148)	66% (99 of 151)	66% (51 of 77)

State-by-state summaries

Alabama

For more information, click "[Show more]" below.

See also: Redistricting in Alabama after the 2010 census

Congressional districts

Following the 2010 United States Census, Alabama neither gained nor lost congressional seats. On June 2, 2011, the Alabama State Legislature approved a congressional district map. On November 21, 2011, the United States Justice Department granted preclearance to Alabama's congressional district map. On June 8, 2011, Governor Robert Bentley (R) signed the map into law.

State legislative districts

2011 was the first year in which a GIS online platform was used during the redistricting process. On May 24, 2012, the Republican-controlled legislature approved state legislative redistricting maps. Maps for both chambers were passed during a special session. Soon after the plan passed in the Senate, the House approved the new plan. It next went to Gov. Robert Bentley (R) for his signature, then to the U.S. Department of Justice for preclearance. The Justice Department cleared the state legislative maps on October 5, 2012.^[12]^[13]^[14]^[15]

Shelby County v. Holder

See also: Shelby County v. Holder

In April 2010, Shelby County, Alabama, filed suit against the federal government "seeking to have Section 5 [of the Voting Rights Act] declared unconstitutional." Under Section 5, certain states and jurisdictions were required to submit to the federal government proposed changes in election laws prior to enactment to ensure that the alterations were not discriminatory. This process was known as preclearance. On June 25, 2013, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Shelby County v. Holder that "the coverage formula ... used to determine the states and political subdivisions subject to Section 5 preclearance was unconstitutional." Although the court did not directly address the constitutionality of preclearance itself, "it effectively halted" the use of the preclearance mechanism, according to The Leadership Conference.^[16]

Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama

On August 10, 2012, state Democrats, black lawmakers, and others filed suit to block implementation of state legislative redistricting plans. According to the lawsuit, the plans diluted minority voting strength, violated the "one person, one vote" principle, and illegally split counties in order to consolidate Republican dominance in other districts. Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers argued that "they were complying with the Voting Rights Act in moving black voters to existing majority-minority districts."^[17]^[18]

A three-judge federal district court panel rejected the challenge, but the case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court. On March 25, 2015, the court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the lower court's initial ruling was legally erroneous. In the court's majority opinion, Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote, "That Alabama expressly adopted and applied a policy of prioritizing mechanical racial targets above all other districting criteria (save one-person, one-vote) provides evidence that race motivated the drawing of particular lines in multiple districts in the State." The court stopped short of deeming the district lines unconstitutional, however. Instead, the court sent the case back to federal district court for further review.^[18]^[19]

On August 25, 2015, a federal court heard oral arguments in the case. The court ordered the plaintiffs, the Alabama Legislative Black Caucus and the Alabama Democratic Conference, to submit redistricting proposals by September 25, 2015. James Blacksher, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, said, "It’s an exercise, as we understand it, to help show whether the state was trying to target black percentages in each district, and thus sorting white and black voters by race. We believe our maps will show they could have accomplished all their objectives in a way that would not have split any precincts or sorted black voters from white voters." Meanwhile, Mike Lewis, a spokesperson for the state attorney general, said, "We continue to hold the position we raised in court that the plaintiffs have had more than enough time to offer alternative redistricting maps and have failed to do so."^[20]^[21]

On January 20, 2017, a three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama ruled that 12 challenged state legislative districts had been subject to an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The court ordered state lawmakers to redraw the lines for the following districts:^[22]^[23]

New state legislative district maps were adopted in May 2017.^[24]^[25]

Lawsuits backed by National Redistricting Commission

On June 13, 2018, attorneys for Democratic voters in three states (Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana) filed three separate lawsuits in federal court, alleging in each that existing congressional district maps prevented black voters from electing candidates of their choosing, in violation of the Voting Rights Act. The suits were backed by the National Redistricting Commission, a nonprofit affiliate of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, chaired by Eric Holder, former U.S. Attorney General. In a statement, Holder said, "The creation of additional districts in which African Americans have the opportunity to elect their preferred candidates in each of these states will be an important step toward making the voting power of African Americans more equal and moving us closer to the ideals of representative democracy." Matt Walter, president of the Republican State Leadership Committee, denounced the suits: "The cynical lawsuits filed today by Holder and the Democrats are crass attempts to rally the left-wing base and to elect more Democrats through litigation, instead of running winning campaigns on policies and ideas that voters actually want."^[26]

The trial involving Alabama's congressional district plan began on November 4, 2019, with Judge Karon Bowdre, of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, presiding.^[27]

Alaska

For more information, click "[Show more]" below.

See also: Redistricting in Alaska after the 2010 census

Alaska's redistricting commission published its state legislative district map on June 13, 2011. This plan was precleared by the United States Department of Justice on October 11, 2011. Ultimately, however, the Alaska Supreme Court ordered the board to draw new lines "first under [the requirements of] the state constitution and only then adjusting for Voting Rights Act compliance where necessary." On April 5, 2011, the commission published a new map, but this too was the subject of a series of court challenges. The state supreme court permitted the use of this map for 2012 elections only. The redistricting commission adopted another state legislative map on July 14, 2013. Lawsuits were filed against the map, but a court ultimately dismissed the challenges, allowing the newly drawn map to stand.^[28]

Arizona

For more information, click "[Show more]" below.

See also: Redistricting in Arizona after the 2010 census

Following completion of the 2010 United States Census, Arizona gained one congressional seat. On October 3, 2011, the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission released draft congressional and state legislative district maps. The commission approved the final maps on January 17, 2012. The United States Department of Justice granted preclearance to the congressional maps on April 9, 2012. The state legislative maps were precleared on April 26, 2012. A number of lawsuits followed, including Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. Further details about this case are provided below.^[29]

On November 1, 2011, the chair of the redistricting commission, Colleen Mathis, was impeached for alleged violations of the state's Open Meetings Law. Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett, acting on behalf of Governor Jan Brewer (R), wrote to Mathis, "I have determined that you have failed to conduct the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission's business in meetings open to the public, and failed to adjust the grid map as necessary to accommodate all of the goals set forth [in the Arizona Constitution]." Mathis' removal was confirmed by a two-thirds vote in the Arizona State Senate. On November 17, 2011, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the impeachment was improper and reinstated Mathis as chair of the commission.^[29]^[30]

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

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 1, 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 more broadly to mean "the legislative powers of the state," including voter initiatives and referenda.^[31]^[32]

On June 29, 2015, the United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. The court ruled 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."^[33]^[34]

Arkansas

For more information, click "[Show more]" below.

See also: Redistricting in Arkansas after the 2010 census

Following the 2010 United States Census, Arkansas neither gained nor lost congressional seats. At the time of redistricting, Democrats controlled the state Senate, the state House, and the governorship. In the wake of the 2010 election, however, Republicans held three congressional seats.^[35]

On April 14, 2011, Governor Mike Beebe signed the new congressional district map into law. That same year, Ross announced his retirement from the United States House of Representatives. In the election that followed, Democrats lost District 4, marking the first time since Reconstruction that Democrats had not held at least one of the state's congressional seats.^[35]

On July 29, 2011, the Arkansas Board of Apportionment approved new state legislative district maps. Governor Mike Beebe and Attorney General Dustin McDaniel, both Democrats, voted to approve the maps. Secretary of State Mark Martin, a Republican, dissented. The new state House map reduced the number of majority-minority districts from 13 to 11.^[36]

On January 23, 2012, state senator Jack Crumbly and a group of residents from eastern Arkansas filed suit against the Arkansas Board of Apportionment. The plaintiffs alleged that the new district lines constituted a racial gerrymander by diluting the black vote in Crumbly's district. On September 17, 2012, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas "rejected the plaintiff's challenges, upholding the state plan against racial gerrymandering and Voting Rights Act claims."^[37]

California

For more information, click "[Show more]" below.

See also: Redistricting in California after the 2010 census

Following the 2010 United States Census, California neither gained nor lost congressional seats. On August 15, 2011, the state's redistricting commission voted to approve new congressional and state legislative district maps. The commission voted 12-2 to approve the congressional map and 13-1 to approve the state legislative map. The newly-approved state Senate districts were subject to a popular referendum on November 6, 2010. The district lines were maintained as a result of the referendum. Suits challenging the congressional and state legislative district lines were ultimately rejected.^[38]^[39]

Colorado

For more information, click "[Show more]" below.

See also: Redistricting in Colorado after the 2010 census

Congressional redistricting

Following the 2010 United States, Colorado neither gained nor lost congressional seats. At the time, partisan control of the legislature was divided; Democrats held the state Senate while Republicans held the state House. Upon adjournment of the 2011 legislative session, the state legislature had failed to approve a congressional redistricting plan. Consequently, the state's courts were asked to intervene and adopt a new congressional map. Two separate suits were filed in Denver District Court. These were ultimately consolidated into one suit: Moreno et al. v. Gessler. According to All About Redistricting, Moreno and the other plaintiffs were "aligned with the interest of Colorado Democrats."^[40]^[41]

On November 10, 2011, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and ordered that the "Moreno" congressional map be implemented. On December 5, 2011, the Colorado Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision.^[40]^[41]

State legislative redistricting

On September 19, 2011, the commission charged with state legislative redistricting approved final district maps. On November 15, 2011, these were rejected by the Colorado Supreme Court, which "found them insufficiently attuned to county boundaries." On December 5, 2011, the commission submitted new state legislative district maps. These were approved by the state supreme court on December 12, 2011.^[40]

Connecticut

For more information, click "[Show more]" below.

See also: Redistricting in Connecticut after the 2010 census

Congressional redistricting, 2010

Following the 2010 United States Census, Connecticut neither gained nor lost congressional seats. Although Democrats controlled both chambers of the state legislature, Republican opposition prevented the legislature from achieving the two-thirds vote necessary to approve a congressional redistricting plan. The redistricting backup commission was convened to draw the map.^[42]^[35]

The backup commission ultimately failed to reach an agreement and petitioned the Connecticut Supreme Court to appoint a special master to draw the lines. The court appointed Columbia University law professor Nathaniel Persily. Persily, at the direction of the court, made minimal changes, shifting 28,975 people between districts. Persily released his draft congressional district map on January 13, 2012. The state supreme court approved the plan on February 10, 2012. In November's election, Democrats retained all five of Connecticut's congressional seats.^[42]^[35]

State legislative redistricting, 2010

Although the state legislature failed to achieve the two-thirds vote necessary to approve a state legislative redistricting plan, the state's backup commission approved new maps on November 30, 2011.^[42]

Delaware

For more information, click "[Show more]" below.

See also: Redistricting in Delaware after the 2010 census

Following the 2010 United States Census, Delaware did not add to its single congressional seat, rendering congressional districting unnecessary. At the time of redistricting, Democrats held the governorship and majorities in both the state Senate and the state House. The state legislature voted to approve new state legislative maps on June 30, 2011. On July 8, 2011, Governor Jack Markell signed the redistricting plan into law.^[43]

Florida

For more information, click "[Show more]" below.

See also: Redistricting in Florida after the 2010 census

Congressional redistricting, 2010

Following the 2010 United States Census, Florida gained two congressional seats. In November 2010, voters approved two separate constitutional amendments establishing that congressional and state legislative districts must meet the following criteria (Amendment 6 applied to congressional districts; Amendment 5 applied to legislative districts):^[44]^[45]

“	[Districts] may not be drawn to favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party. Districts shall not be drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice. Districts must be contiguous. Unless otherwise required, districts must be compact, as equal in population as feasible, and where feasible must make use of existing city, county and geographical boundaries.^[46]	”
—Florida Division of Elections

On February 9, 2012, the Republican-controlled state legislature approved new congressional lines. On February 16, 2012, the plan was signed into law.

Legal challenges

See also: Florida Congressional District Boundaries, Amendment 6 (2010)

On February 9, 2012, the map's opponents filed suit "challenging the congressional plan on state constitutional grounds, including violations of state prohibitions on partisan and racial gerrymandering, and requirements of compactness and adherence to political boundaries."

On July 10, 2014, Florida Circuit Court Judge Terry P. Lewis found that "districts 5 and 10 were drawn in contravention" of the state constitution, "thus making the redistricting map unconstitutional as drawn." Lewis specified that Districts 5 and 10 "were the product of [prohibited] intent to benefit a political party or incumbent." Lewis required that these two districts be redrawn (as well as any districts impacted by the redrawing of the aforementioned). The court ordered that the state legislature convene a special session to draft a new map.^[47]^[48]

“	Republican political consultants or operatives did, in fact, conspire to manipulate and influence the redistricting process...They made a mockery of the Legislature’s proclaimed transparency and open process of redistricting by doing all of this in the shadow of that process, utilizing the access it gave them to the decision makers, but going to great lengths to conceal from the public their plan and their participation in it.^[46]	”
—Judge Terry P. Lewis^[49]

Florida Supreme Court

On August 22, 2014, Lewis approved the new map. The map's challengers, "a group of individual voters and groups including the League of Women Voters of Florida and Common Cause Florida," appealed the newly approved map to the Florida Supreme Court, arguing that "the changes made by the legislature ... were superficial and did not cure the fundamental flaws" in the original map.^[47]^[50]

On July 9, 2015, the Florida Supreme Court overturned the circuit court's decision to approve the remedial map, ruling that the trial court's "finding of unconstitutional intent" called for "a more meaningful remedy commensurate with the constitutional violations it found." The court specified that at least eight districts must be redrawn. The districts identified by the state supreme court included the following: District 5, District 13, District 14, District 21, District 22, District 25, District 26, and District 27. The court ruled 5-2 on the matter. Justice Barbara Pariente wrote the court's majority opinion.^[51]^[52]^[53]^[54] Richard Pildes, a professor of constitutional law at New York University, wrote the following in an analysis for Election Law Blog:^[55]

“	A major basis for today’s Florida Supreme Court decision is that the Florida legislature wrongly believed or purported to believe that the Voting Rights Act required raising the population of black voters to certain high levels. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision this Term in the Alabama racial-gerrymandering cases, the Florida court found that the VRA did not require raising the black populations to these levels. The Florida court concluded that the Republican legislature had done this for partisan political purposes, i.e., as a way to pack Democratic voters into a few districts and limit their power elsewhere. Because Florida’s Constitution now bans partisan gerrymandering, as a result of a voter initiative, these districts therefore were in violation of Florida law.^[46]	”
—Richard Pildes

Congressional elections in 2012 and 2014 took place under the congressional map approved in 2012. The state supreme court ordered that a new map be adopted and implemented for the 2016 election.^[47]^[56]

On August 21, 2015, the Florida State Legislature adjourned a special two-week session without adopting a new congressional district map. This marked the legislature's third redistricting attempt. Governor Rick Scott (R) said that he would not convene another special session. As a result, it fell to a Florida trial judge to "choose a House or Senate [proposed] map, solicit other options, or create his own."^[57]^[58]

On December 2, 2015, the Florida Supreme Court granted final approval to a new congressional district map. The map was "drawn by a coalition led by the League of Women Voters, Common Cause of Florida, and several Democrat-leaning individuals, and approved by Leon County Circuit Court Judge Terry Lewis." The state supreme court upheld the remedial map by a 5-2 decision. An image of this map can be accessed here.^[59]

State legislative redistricting, 2010

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

Legal challenges

On September 5, 2012, the League of Women Voters of Florida filed suit challenging the state Senate district map "on state constitutional grounds, including violations of state prohibitions on partisan gerrymandering, and requirements of compactness and adherence to political boundaries." The state filed a series of motions to dismiss in 2012 and 2013, but these were ultimately denied. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 15, 2015.^[47]^[60]

In autumn 2015, the Florida State Senate requested that the trial court appoint a redistricting expert to draw new state Senate district maps. On November 13, 2015, circuit court judge George Reynolds rejected this request, saying, "It appears to me that we just don't have enough time left to engage in any process, other than the one we are currently on. I do that with some reluctance because I could use all the help that I can get in making this decision." Reynolds ordered that the trial, scheduled to begin on December 14, 2015, go on as scheduled. In addition, Reynolds ordered that proposed district maps be submitted to the court by November 18, 2015.^[61]^[62]

On December 21, 2015, Reynolds approved a new state Senate district map. The adopted remedial map was proposed by "a coalition of voting rights groups, including the League of Women Voters of Florida." The remedial map can be accessed here.^[63]^[64]

Georgia

For more information, click "[Show more]" below.

See also: Redistricting in Georgia after the 2010 census

Congressional redistricting, 2010

Following the 2010 United States Census, Georgia gained one congressional seat. At the time of redistricting, Republicans controlled both chambers of the state legislature. On August 13, 2011, the legislature approved a new congressional map. It was signed into law on September 6, 2011.^[65]^[35]

State legislative redistricting, 2010

On August 23, 2010, the state legislature approved new state legislative district lines. The maps were signed into law on August 24, 2011. On February 23, 2012, the legislature approved amended House district lines, which were in turn signed by the governor. On March 21, 2012, the legislature passed revised Senate district lines, which the governor signed into law on April 13, 2012.^[65]

The revised Senate maps did not take effect until 2014.^[65]

Lawsuits backed by National Redistricting Commission

On June 13, 2018, attorneys for Democratic voters in three states (Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana) filed three separate lawsuits in federal court, alleging in each that existing congressional district maps prevented black voters from electing candidates of their choosing, in violation of the Voting Rights Act. The suits were backed by the National Redistricting Commission, a nonprofit affiliate of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, chaired by Eric Holder, former U.S. Attorney General. In a statement, Holder said, "The creation of additional districts in which African Americans have the opportunity to elect their preferred candidates in each of these states will be an important step toward making the voting power of African Americans more equal and moving us closer to the ideals of representative democracy." Matt Walter, president of the Republican State Leadership Committee, denounced the suits: "The cynical lawsuits filed today by Holder and the Democrats are crass attempts to rally the left-wing base and to elect more Democrats through litigation, instead of running winning campaigns on policies and ideas that voters actually want."^[66]

The trial involving Alabama's congressional district plan began on November 4, 2019, with Judge Karon Bowdre, of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, presiding.^[67]

Hawaii

For more information, click "[Show more]" below.

See also: Redistricting in Hawaii after the 2010 census

On August 3, 2011, the redistricting commission released draft proposals for congressional and state legislative district maps. Final plans were released on September 26, 2011. On January 6, 2012, a state court ruled in Solomon v. Abercrombie that the state legislative maps "failed to properly exclude nonresident population." On March 8, 2012, the redistricting commission submitted revised state legislative district maps to comply with the court's ruling. The revised lines were challenged in federal court. The court rejected this latter challenge, filed as Kostick v. Nago, on July 11, 2013, permitting the redrawn lines to stand.^[68]

Idaho

For more information, click "[Show more]" below.

See also: Redistricting in Idaho after the 2010 census

Following the 2010 United States Census, Idaho neither gained nor lost congressional seats. On October 17, 2011, Idaho's redistricting commission approved a new congressional district map. Three Republicans and one Democrat voted to approve the map; two Democrats dissented.^[69]

The commission approved a state legislative district map on October 14, 2011. On November 16, 2011, Twin Falls County filed suit against the state redistricting commission. The plaintiffs alleged that the state legislative districts approved by the commission were "based on ... insufficient attention to county boundaries." The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on January 18, 2012, and ordered the commission to draft a new map. Lawrence Denney, Speaker of the Idaho House of Representatives, and Norm Semanko, chair of the state Republican Party, filed suit against Secretary of State Ben Ysursa on January 20, 2012. Denney and Semanko challenged Ysursa's "refusal to replace commissioners nominated by [Denney] and [Semanko], at the request of those two officials." The Idaho Supreme Court dismissed the challenge on January 25, 2012. On January 27, 2012, the redistricting commission unanimously approved a new state legislative district map.^[70]^[71]

Illinois

For more information, click "[Show more]" below.

See also: Redistricting in Illinois after the 2010 census

Following the completion of the 2010 United States Census, Illinois lost one congressional seat. At the time of redistricting, Democrats held majorities in both chambers of the state legislature. On May 30, 2011, the Illinois House of Representatives approved a congressional redistricting plan. The Illinois State Senate approved the plan on May 31, 2011, and Governor Pat Quinn (D) signed it into law on June 24, 2011. Legal suits were filed challenging the new congressional district map, but these were all ultimately dismissed.^[72]^[73]^[74]

The state legislative redistricting plan was passed by the legislature on May 27, 2011. Quinn signed the map into law on June 3, 2011. As with the congressional map, lawsuits were filed challenging the new state legislative districts. These suits were ultimately dismissed.^[72]

Indiana

For more information, click "[Show more]" below.

See also: Redistricting in Indiana after the 2010 census

Following the 2010 United States Census, Indiana neither gained nor lost congressional seats. The Indiana State Legislature released proposed district maps on April 11, 2011. At the time, Republicans held majorities in both chambers of the legislature. On April 20, 2011, both the Indiana State Senate and the Indiana House of Representatives approved their respective redistricting proposals. Concurrence votes followed, and on May 10, 2011, Governor Mitch Daniels (R) signed the legislature's redistricting plan into law. Indiana completed its redistricting process sooner than the majority of states (Iowa and Louisiana completed their maps before Indiana).^[75]^[76]^[77]

Iowa

For more information, click "[Show more]" below.

See also: Redistricting in Iowa after the 2010 census

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.^[78]^[35]

Kansas

For more information, click "[Show more]" below.

See also: Redistricting in Kansas after the 2010 census

Following the 2010 United States Census, Kansas neither gained nor lost congressional seats. The legislature was unable to adopt a new district map. The United States District Court for the District of Kansas was asked to intervene and draw congressional and state legislative district lines. On June 7, 2012, the court approved the new district maps.^[79]^[35]

Kentucky

For more information, click "[Show more]" below.

See also: Redistricting in Kentucky after the 2010 census

Congressional redistricting

At the time of the 2010 redistricting cycle, Republicans controlled the state Senate and Democrats held the state House and the governorship. On February 10, 2012, the state legislature approved new congressional district boundaries, which were signed into law on the same day. The congressional district plan was not subject to litigation.^[80]

State legislative redistricting

On January 19, 2012, the state legislature approved new state legislative district boundaries. The governor signed these into law on January 20, 2012. On February 7, 2012, a state court ruled in Fischer v. Grimes that the new maps violated equal population guarantees and unnecessarily divided counties. The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's ruling on February 24, 2012. As a result, the state legislative maps adopted in 2002 were in place for the 2012 election.^[80]

On August 23, 2013, the state legislature approved revised state legislative district maps, which were signed into law by the governor on the same day.^[80]

Louisiana

For more information, click "[Show more]" below.

See also: Redistricting in Louisiana after the 2010 census

Congressional redistricting, 2010

Following the 2010 United States Census, Louisiana lost one congressional seat. The new congressional district map was signed into law by Governor Bobby Jindal on April 14, 2011.^[81]^[35]

Lawsuits backed by National Redistricting Commission

On June 13, 2018, attorneys for Democratic voters in three states (Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana) filed three separate lawsuits in federal court, alleging in each that existing congressional district maps prevented black voters from electing candidates of their choosing, in violation of the Voting Rights Act. The suits were backed by the National Redistricting Commission, a nonprofit affiliate of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, chaired by Eric Holder, former U.S. Attorney General. In a statement, Holder said, "The creation of additional districts in which African Americans have the opportunity to elect their preferred candidates in each of these states will be an important step toward making the voting power of African Americans more equal and moving us closer to the ideals of representative democracy." Matt Walter, president of the Republican State Leadership Committee, denounced the suits: "The cynical lawsuits filed today by Holder and the Democrats are crass attempts to rally the left-wing base and to elect more Democrats through litigation, instead of running winning campaigns on policies and ideas that voters actually want."^[82]

The trial involving Alabama's congressional district plan began on November 4, 2019, with Judge Karon Bowdre, of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, presiding.^[83]

Maine

For more information, click "[Show more]" below.

See also: Redistricting in Maine after the 2010 census

Congressional redistricting, 2010

Following the 2010 United States Census, Maine neither gained nor lost congressional seats. State statutes mandated that redistricting take place in the third year following the United States Census. For the 2010 redistricting cycle, this law established a 2013 deadline, meaning that the 2012 election would have taken place under district maps drawn in the 2000 redistricting cycle. In March 2011, two citizens challenged this provision in federal court, arguing that the delay "violated the Constitution since it left in place for one election districts that were not of equal population." In June 2012, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and ordered that new maps be approved by January 2012.^[84]^[85]

On August 30, 2011, the advisory redistricting commission submitted its recommendation for new congressional districts. On September 27, 2011, the Maine State Legislature approved what All About Redistricting called a "substantially modified version of this plan." The plan was signed into law by the governor the following day.^[84]

State legislative redistricting, 2010

On May 23, 2013, the advisory redistricting commission submitted its recommendation for new state Senate districts. A recommendation for new state House districts followed on May 24, 2013. The legislature approved a version of the commission's recommended plan on June 5, 2013. The new maps were signed into law by the governor on June 14, 2013.^[84]

Maryland

For more information, click "[Show more]" below.

See also: Redistricting in Maryland after the 2010 census

Congressional redistricting, 2010

See also: Maryland Redistricting Referendum, Question 5 (2012), Benisek v. Lamone, and Lamone v. Benisek

On October 4, 2011, the governor's advisory redistricting commission released a proposal for new congressional districts. Governor Martin O'Malley (D) amended this plan and submitted his final proposal to the state legislature on October 15, 2011. The state legislature made further amendments and approved a final congressional map with a three-fifths majority vote. On October 20, 2011, O'Malley signed the map into law. The map was subject to a series of court challenges.^[86]

A referendum on the new maps was added to the November 6, 2012, ballot in Maryland. Voters approved the maps as drawn by the legislature.^[86]

On November 5, 2013, opponents of the state's newly approved congressional district map filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The plaintiffs alleged that the new district lines constituted a partisan gerrymander in favor of Democrats. The plaintiffs further requested that a three-judge panel be convened to hear the case. On April 8, 2014, Judge James Bredar rejected the plaintiffs' claim. The United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit affirmed Bredar's decision on November 12, 2014.^[86]^[87]

On February 10, 2015, the case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. The plaintiffs argued that Bredar's decision violated the Three Judge Court Act (28 U.S.C. § 2284), which requires a three-judge district court panel to be convened for cases challenging the constitutionality of congressional or state legislative redistricting plans. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Goosby v. Osser that a single-judge panel will suffice if the claim presented to the court is considered to be "insubstantial."^[86]^[87]^[88]^[89]

On June 8, 2015, the high court agreed to hear the case. The following was the question before the court:^[90]

“	Whether a single-judge district court may determine that a complaint covered by 28 U.S.C. § 2284 is insubstantial, and that three judges therefore are not required, not because it concludes that the complaint is wholly frivolous, but because it concludes that the complaint fails to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).^[46]	”
—SCOTUSblog

On December 8, 2015, the court issued its ruling in the case, reversing the decision of the Fourth Circuit and remanding the case for further proceedings. The unanimous opinion of the court was delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the following:^[91]

“	Because the present suit is indisputably 'an action ... challenging the constitutionality of the apportionment of congressional districts,' the District Judge was required to refer the case to a three-judge court. ... Respondents' alternative argument, that the District Judge should have dismissed the petitioners' claim as 'constitutionally insubstantial' under Goosby v. Osser is unpersuasive.^[46]	”
—Justice Antonin Scalia

In February 2017, a three-judge panel was named to hear the case. On August 24, 2017, the panel voted 2-1 to deny the plaintiffs' request for an injunction against the maps. The panel also ordered a stay on the proceedings pending a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in Gill v. Whitford. The plaintiffs petitioned the Supreme Court to expedite the case. On September 13, 2017, the high court denied this request. However, on December 8, 2017, the high court announced that it would hear the case during the 2017-2018 term.^[92]^[93]^[94]^[95]^[96]

On June 18, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a per curiam ruling in Benisek v. Lamone, affirming the district court decision that had denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of a challenged congressional district map. The court determined that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that they would suffer irreparable harm if an injunction were not granted. The court wrote the following in its unsigned opinion:^[97]

“

We now note our jurisdiction and review the District Court's decision for an abuse of discretion, keeping in mind that a preliminary injunction, as 'an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.' As a matter of equitable discretion, a preliminary injunction does not follow as a matter of course from a plaintiff's showing of a likelihood of success on the merits. Rather, a court must also consider whether the movant has shown 'that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.'

Plaintiffs made no such showing below. Even if we assume—contrary to the findings of the District Court—that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims, the balance of equities and the public interest tilted against their request for a preliminary injunction.^[46]

”

On November 7, 2018, a three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland struck down the congressional after finding that it constituted an illegal partisan gerrymander against Republicans. The court ruled unanimously that Maryland's congressional map "violates the First Amendment by burdening both the plaintiffs' representational rights and associational rights based on their party affiliation and voting history." The court prohibited the state from using the map in future congressional elections. The defendants appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of the United States, which agreed to take up the case and scheduled oral argument for March 26, 2019. On June 27, 2019, the high court issued a joint ruling in this case and Rucho v. Common Cause, finding that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions that fall beyond the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary. The high court ruled 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts penning the majority opinion, joined by Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh. Associate Justice Elena Kagan penned a dissent, joined by Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor. The high court remanded the case to the lower court with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.^[98]^[99]

State legislative redistricting, 2010

The governor's advisory redistricting commission released its proposal for new state legislative districts on December 16, 2011. Governor Martin O'Malley (D) amended this plan and submitted his final proposal to the state legislature on January 11, 2012. The state legislature failed to take further action; consequently, the governor's proposal became law on February 24, 2012. The maps were subject to court challenges, but these were ultimately rejected and the maps stood.^[86]

Massachusetts

For more information, click "[Show more]" below.

See also: Redistricting in Massachusetts after the 2010 census

Congressional redistricting, 2010

Following the 2010 United States Census, Massachusetts lost one congressional seat. In the subsequent redistricting cycle, Democrats controlled both chambers of the state legislature and the governorship. On November 16, 2011, the legislature approved new congressional district boundaries, which were signed into law by the governor on November 21, 2011.^[100]^[35]

State legislative redistricting, 2010

On November 1, 2011, the state legislature approved new state legislative district maps, which were signed into law by the governor on November 3, 2011.^[100]

Michigan

For more information, click "[Show more]" below.

See also: Redistricting in Michigan after the 2010 census

League of Women Voters of Michigan v. Benson

On December 22, 2017, the League of Women Voters of Michigan, along with a group of Michigan Democrats, filed suit in federal court alleging that Michigan's congressional and state legislative district plans represented unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders (i.e., the plaintiffs argued that the state's district maps gave an unfair advantage to Republicans over Democrats). On December 27, 2017, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan issued an order that a three-judge panel be convened to hear the case.^[101]^[102]

On February 1, 2019, the court rejected a proposed settlement in which maps for some state House districts would be redrawn in advance of the 2020 election. State Republicans petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to delay lower court proceedings pending the high court's rulings in Lamone v. Benisek and Rucho v. Common Cause. On February 4, 2019, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor denied this request, clearing the way for a trial to commence on February 5, 2019.^[103]

On April 25, 2019, the court ruled unanimously that 34 congressional and state legislative districts had been subject to unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering, violating the plaintiffs' First Amendment associational rights. The court also found that 27 of the 34 challenged districts violated the plaintiffs' First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by diluting the impact of their votes. The challenged districts are listed below:^[104]

Congressional districts 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12
State Senate districts 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 18, 22, 27, 32, and 36
State House districts 24, 32, 51, 52, 55, 60, 62, 63, 75, 76, 83, 91, 92, 94, and 95

The court enjoined the use of any challenged districts in future elections. The court also ordered that special elections be conducted in 2020 for the challenged state Senate districts and any adjoining districts whose boundaries might be affected by remedial maps. The court directed the state legislature to adopt remedial maps for the challenged districts on or before August 1, 2019.^[104]

Judge Eric Clay, appointed to the bench by President Bill Clinton (D), wrote the following in the court's opinion and order: "Today, this Court joins the growing chorus of federal courts that have, in recent years, held that partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional. We find that the Enacted Plan violates Plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights because it deliberately dilutes the power of their votes by placing them in districts that were intentionally drawn to ensure a particular partisan outcome in each district. The Enacted Plan also injures Plaintiffs’ First Amendment right to association by discriminating against them and their political party and subjecting them to 'disfavored treatment by reason of their views.'" Judges Denise Hood and Gordon Quist, appointed to the bench by Presidents Clinton and George H. W. Bush (R), respectively, joined Clay's opinion.^[104]

Charlie Spies, an attorney representing Michigan Republicans, told the following to The Detroit News: "We will likely see a stay and urge caution in drawing conclusions from this opinion, which we believe is at odds with where the Supreme Court will end up." On April 30, 2019, attorneys for Republican lawmakers appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of the United States. On May 3, 2019, Republicans filed a request with the three-judge panel for an emergency stay of its ruling.^[105]^[106]^[107]

On May 10, 2019, state officials petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to stay the lower court's ruling. The high court granted the stay on May 24, 2019. On October 21, 2019, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court's ruling, allowing the district maps as drawn to stand.^[108]^[109]^[110]

Congressional redistricting, 2010

Following the 2010 United States Census, Michigan lost one congressional seat. At the time of redistricting, Republicans controlled both chambers of the state legislature and the governorship. On June 29, 2011, the state legislature approved new congressional district boundaries, which were signed into law by the governor on August 9, 2011.^[111]^[35]

State legislative redistricting, 2010

The state legislature approved new state legislative district boundaries on June 29, 2011. These were signed into law by the governor on August 9, 2011. On December 8, 2011, opponents filed suit, alleging that the newly drawn state House map violated the Voting Rights Act and the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution by "targeting African-American incumbents for pairing, and 'cracking' the Latino community of southwest Detroit." On April 6, 2012, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed the case.^[111]

Minnesota

For more information, click "[Show more]" below.

See also: Redistricting in Minnesota after the 2010 census

Congressional redistricting, 2010

Following the 2010 United States Census, Minnesota neither gained nor lost congressional seats. At the time of redistricting, Republicans controlled both chambers of the state legislature but a Democrat, Mark Dayton, was governor. On May 19, 2011, Dayton vetoed the legislature's plan. The Minnesota Supreme Court appointed a judicial panel to draw the lines. The panel issued its map on February 21, 2012.^[112]^[35]

State legislative redistricting, 2010

On May 19, 2011, Governor Mark Dayton (D) vetoed the state legislative district map approved by the state legislature, which at the time was dominated by Republicans. Consequently, the Minnesota Supreme Court appointed a judicial panel to draw the lines. The panel issued its map on February 21, 2012.^[112]^[35]

Missouri

For more information, click "[Show more]" below.

See also: Redistricting in Missouri after the 2010 census

Congressional redistricting, 2010

Following the 2010 United States Census, Missouri lost one congressional seat. At the time of redistricting, Republicans held majorities in both chambers of the Missouri General Assembly. Democratic Governor Jay Nixon vetoed the legislature's congressional redistricting plan, but on May 4, 2011, the legislature overrode the veto and the new map became law.^[113]^[114]

Pearson v. Koster

On September 23, 2011, opponents of the newly approved congressional district map filed suit in the Missouri 19th Judicial Circuit Court, alleging "partisan gerrymandering and deviations from state constitutional compactness requirements." On December 12, 2011, the court dismissed the case. The plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Missouri Supreme Court, which ordered the trial court to reconsider the case. The Missouri Supreme Court "agreed with the trial court's decision to dismiss several counts (including partisan gerrymandering claims), but remanded for a determination of whether the congressional districts (particularly districts 3 and 5) were sufficiently compact under state constitutional law." On February 3, 2012, the trial court again rejected the plaintiff's compactness claims, and the Missouri Supreme Court affirmed that decision on May 25, 2012.^[115]

State legislative redistricting, 2010

The two politician commissions charged with state legislative redistricting failed to approve plans of their own. The Missouri Supreme Court appointed a six-member panel to draw the boundaries instead. This panel issued state Senate and House district maps on November 30, 2011.^[113]

The panel's original state Senate district map was ultimately struck down in court. It was also determined that the panel lacked the authority to draw a second map. A new politician commission was convened to make a second attempt. The new commission issued a final state Senate district map on March 12, 2012.^[113]

Montana

For more information, click "[Show more]" below.

See also: 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 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.^[116]

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.^[116]

Nebraska

For more information, click "[Show more]" below.

See also: Redistricting in Nebraska after the 2010 census

On May 26, 2011, the state legislature approved congressional and state legislative district maps. These were signed into law by the governor on the same day.^[117]

Nevada

For more information, click "[Show more]" below.

See also: Redistricting in Nevada after the 2010 census

Congressional redistricting, 2010

Following the 2010 United States Census, Nevada gained one congressional seat. At the time of redistricting, Democrats controlled both chambers of the state legislature; a Republican held the governorship. On May 10, 2011, the legislature approved a congressional redistricting plan, but this proposal was vetoed by the governor. The legislature passed another congressional district map on May 25, 2011, which was also vetoed by the governor.^[118]^[35]

Due to the stalemate between the governor and the state legislature, it fell to the courts to the draw the district boundaries. On August 3, 2011, the Nevada First Judicial District Court appointed a three-member panel to draft a new congressional district map. This panel comprised a county elections administrator, a former state legislative research director, and an attorney. On October 14, 2011, the panel issued its redistricting plan, which was approved by the court on October 27, 2011.^[118]^[35]

State legislative redistricting, 2010

At the time of redistricting, Democrats controlled both chambers of the state legislature; a Republican held the governorship. On May 10, 2011, the legislature approved a state legislative redistricting plan, but this proposal was vetoed by the governor. The legislature passed another set of legislative district maps on May 25, 2011, which were also vetoed by the governor. Due to the stalemate between the governor and the state legislature, it fell to the courts to draw the district boundaries. On August 3, 2011, the Nevada First Judicial District Court appointed a three-member panel to draft a new state legislative district maps. This panel comprised a county elections administrator, a former state legislative research director, and an attorney. On October 14, 2011, the panel issued its redistricting plan, which was approved by the court on October 27, 2011.^[118]^[35]

New Hampshire

For more information, click "[Show more]" below.

See also: Redistricting in New Hampshire after the 2010 census

Congressional redistricting, 2010

Following the 2010 United States Census, New Hampshire neither gained nor lost congressional seats. At the time of redistricting, Republicans controlled both chambers of the state legislature, but a Democrat held the governorship. On April 11, 2012, the state legislature approved a congressional redistricting plan, which was signed into law by the governor on April 23, 2012.^[119]^[120]

State legislative redistricting, 2010

On March 7, 2012, the state legislature approved new state legislative district boundaries. On March 23, 2012, the governor signed the new state Senate lines into law, but vetoed the new state House boundaries. On March 28, 2012, the legislature overrode the governor's veto. A series of legal challenges to the new boundaries were ultimately dismissed by state courts.^[119]

New Jersey

For more information, click "[Show more]" below.

See also: Redistricting in New Jersey after the 2010 census

Congressional redistricting, 2010

Following the 2010 United States Census, New Jersey lost one congressional seat. On December 23, 2011, the congressional redistricting commission approved its plan for new congressional district boundaries.^[121]^[122]

State legislative redistricting, 2010

When the state legislative redistricting commission failed to adopt a final redistricting plan by the March 3, 2011, deadline, the New Jersey Supreme Court appointed a tie-breaking member to the commission. On April 3, 2011, the commission approved final state legislative district maps.^[121]

New Mexico

For more information, click "[Show more]" below.

See also: Redistricting in New Mexico after the 2010 census

Congressional redistricting, 2010

Following the 2010 United States Census, New Mexico neither gained nor lost congressional seats. At the time of redistricting, Democrats controlled both chambers of the state legislature, but a Republican held the governorship. On September 19, 2011, the Senate approved a congressional redistricting plan, but the legislature adjourned before the map could be taken up for a vote in the House. The New Mexico Supreme Court assigned a retired judge, James Hall, to draw the final congressional map. On December 29, 2011, the final map was issued.^[123]^[124]

State legislative redistricting, 2010

On September 23, 2011, the legislature approved redistricting plans for the state Senate and House, but these were vetoed by the governor on October 7, 2011. The matter was brought before the New Mexico First Judicial District Court, which issued an opinion establishing new state House district lines on January 3, 2012. On February 10, 2012, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that the state House maps must be redrawn, "with instructions for the trial court to reconsider the extent to which mildly larger population deviations would satisfy other state redistricting criteria, to reconsider the partisan impact and incumbent pairings of a court-ordered plan, and to recognize a district protecting Hispanic voters in the Clovis area under the Voting Rights Act." On February 27, 2012, the New Mexico First Judicial District Court issued its second state House redistricting plan, which stood.^[123]

On January 16, 2012, the New Mexico First Judicial District Court established new state Senate district lines. The court-issued redistricting plan "focused on minimizing population deviation, and drawing districts to allow Native Americans an effective opportunity to elect candidates of choice under the Voting Rights Act. The court found no need, under the totality of circumstances, to draw maps specifically protecting Hispanic voters under the Voting Rights Act."^[123]

New York

For more information, click "[Show more]" below.

See also: Redistricting in New York after the 2010 census

Congressional redistricting, 2010

Following the 2010 United States Census, New York lost two congressional seats. At the time of redistricting, Democrats controlled the governor's mansion and the New York State Assembly, but Republicans held a majority in the New York State Senate. The legislature proved unable to pass its own congressional redistricting plan. A panel of three federal judges appointed federal magistrate judge Roanne Mann to implement a map. On March 7, 2012, Mann issued her map, which was drawn by Nathaniel Persily, a professor at Columbia Law School.^[125]^[126]

State legislative redistricting, 2010

The advisory redistricting commission issued its state legislative district proposal on January 26, 2012. On March 11, 2012, the state legislature approved a revised version of this proposal, which was signed into law by the governor on the same day. Technical corrections to the maps were approved by the legislature on March 15, 2012, and signed into law on March 27, 2012. The maps were subject to litigation; ultimately, however, the maps were upheld.^[125]

North Carolina

For more information, click "[Show more]" below.

See also: Redistricting in North Carolina after the 2010 census

Following the 2010 United States Census, North Carolina neither gained nor lost congressional seats. In 2010, Republicans won control of both chambers of the state legislature. Consequently, Republicans dominated the 2010 redistricting process.^[35]

On July 27, 2011, the General Assembly of North Carolina approved congressional and state legislative redistricting plans.^[35]

On November 1, 2011, the United States Department of Justice precleared these plans. The legislature made technical corrections to the new congressional and state legislative district maps on November 7, 2011. The U.S. Department of Justice precleared the amended maps on December 8, 2011.^[127]

According to The Almanac of American Politics, following the 2012 election, the first to take place under the new maps, Democrats won four of the state's 13 congressional seats, although they "won a majority of the state's votes in House races."^[35]

Congressional district map challenges

Federal court challenges

Cooper v. Harris

See also: Cooper v. Harris

On June 27, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would hear the state's appeal of a U.S. District Court ruling that struck down two of the state's congressional district maps as racial gerrymanders. On May 22, 2017, the court upheld the lower court's determination that Districts 1 and 12 constituted an illegal racial gerrymander. Associate Justice Elena Kagan wrote the court's majority opinion, which was joined by Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor (Thomas also filed a separate concurring opinion).^[128]^[129]^[130]

“	We uphold the District Court's conclusions that racial considerations predominated in designing both District 1 and District 12. For District 12, that is all we must do, because North Carolina has made no attempt to justify race-based districting there. For District 1, we further uphold the District Court's decision that [Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act] gave North Carolina no good reason to reshuffle voters because of their race. We accordingly affirm the judgment of the District Court.^[46]	”
—Associate Justice Elena Kagan

Associate Justice Samuel Alito wrote an opinion that concurred with the majority opinion in part and dissented in part. This opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy.^[130]

“	Reviewing the evidence outlined above, two themes emerge. First, District 12's borders and racial composition are readily explained by political considerations and the effects of the legislature's political strategy on the demographics of District 12. Second, the majority largely ignores this explanation, as did the court below, and instead adopts the most damning interpretation of all available evidence.^[46]	”
—Associate Justice Samuel Alito

Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch did not participate in the case.^[130]

For full details on this case, see this article.

Common Cause v. Rucho

See also: Common Cause v. Rucho and Rucho v. Common Cause

On August 27, 2018, a three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina ruled that North Carolina's congressional district map constituted an illegal partisan gerrymander. The court ruled 2-1 on the matter, with Judges James Wynn and Earl Britt forming the majority. Wynn wrote the majority opinion. Judge William Osteen wrote an opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part.^[131]

The court ruled that no elections occurring after November 6, 2018, could be conducted using the congressional map it struck down. The court did not, however, order an immediate remedy. Instead, it asked the parties to the suit to submit briefs by August 31, 2018, "addressing whether this Court should allow the State to conduct any future elections using the 2016 Plan."^[131]

On September 4, 2018, the district court announced it would not order changes to the map before November’s election, finding that “imposing a new schedule for North Carolina's congressional elections would, at this late juncture, unduly interfere with the State's electoral machinery and likely confuse voters and depress turnout.” On October 1, 2018, the defendants appealed the district court's decision to the United States Supreme Court, which agreed to take up the case and scheduled oral argument for March 26, 2019. On June 27, 2019, the high court issued a joint ruling in this case and Lamone v. Benisek, finding that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions that fall beyond the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary. The high court ruled 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts penning the majority opinion, joined by Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh. Associate Justice Elena Kagan penned a dissent, joined by Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor. The high court remanded the case to the lower court with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. See Rucho v. Common Cause for more information.^[132]^[99]

State court challenges

The congressional district map approved by the General Assembly of North Carolina in November 2019.
Click the image to enlarge.

On September 27, 2019, opponents of the state's congressional district plan filed suit in state superior court, alleging that the district plan enacted by the state legislature in 2016 constituted a partisan gerrymander in violation of state law. The plaintiffs asked that the court bar the state from using the maps in the 2020 election cycle. On October 28, 2019, a three-judge panel of the state superior court granted this request, enjoining further application of the 2016 maps. In its order, the court wrote, "The loss to Plaintiffs' fundamental rights guaranteed by the North Carolina Constitution will undoubtedly be irreparable if congressional elections are allowed to proceed under the 2016 congressional districts." The court did not issue a full decision on the merits, stating that "disruptions to the election process need not occur, nor may an expedited schedule for summary judgment or trial even be needed, should the General Assembly, on its own initiative, act immediately and with all due haste to enact new congressional districts." The same three-judge panel, comprising Judges Paul C. Ridgeway, Joseph N. Crosswhite, and Alma L. Hinton, struck down the state's legislative district plan on similar grounds on September 3, 2019.^[133]

On November 14, 2019, the state House approved a remedial district plan (HB1029) by a vote of 55-46 .The vote split along party lines, with all Republicans voting in favor of the bill and all Democrats voting against it. The state Senate approved the bill on November 15, 2019, by a vote of 24-17. This vote also split along party lines. An image of the remedial map can be accessed here.^[134]^[135]

Democrats opposed the remedial plan and announced their intention to challenge it in court. Eric Holder, former U.S. Attorney General and chair of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, said, "The congressional map passed by Republicans in the North Carolina legislature simply replaces one partisan gerrymander with a new one. This new map fails to respond to the court’s order by continuing to split communities of interest, packing voters in urban areas, and manipulating the district lines to provide Republicans with an unfair partisan advantage." Meanwhile, Republican Representative Patrick McHenry dismissed these criticisms: "Eric Holder and (former President) Barack Obama have raised a lot of money for this outcome, and they’ve pursued a really aggressive legal strategy for their partisan outcomes, and right now they’re calling it partisan gerrymandering, but what they’re seeking is partisan gerrymandering for the left. We basically have a Wild West of redistricting. This will be the fourth map in six cycles, and I think that is so confusing for voters and has a major negative impact on voters."^[136]

On November 20, 2019, the court issued an order delaying the congressional candidate filing period for the 2020 election cycle pending resolution of the case. The filing period had originally been set to open on December 2, 2019, and close on December 20, 2019. The court scheduled a hearing for December 2, 2019, to consider both the plaintiffs' and the defendants' motions for summary judgment. On December 2, 2019, the court ruled unanimously that elections in 2020 would take place under the remedial maps. The court did not issue a final decision on the merits, saying it would need more time to evaluate the maps and the relevant factual and constitutional issues. The court ordered that candidate filing open immediately. The plaintiffs announced that they would not appeal the decision. Holder said, "After nearly a decade of voting in some of the most gerrymandered districts in the country, courts have put new maps in place that are an improvement over the status quo, but the people still deserve better."^[137]^[138]

State legislative district map challenges

Federal court challenges

On June 5, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous per curiam ruling affirming a U.S. District Court decision that 28 state legislative district maps had been subject to an illegal racial gerrymander. However, the district court was directed to reconsider its order for special elections in 2017, with the high court finding that the district court had not conducted the proper analysis in determining its remedy.^[139]

On July 31, 2017, the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina issued an order denying plaintiff's request for a special election using a new district map in 2017.^[140] The court ordered state lawmakers to enact a new district map by September 1, 2017, for use in the 2018 general election.^[140]

On August 30, 2017, the remedial House and Senate district plans (HB 927 and SB 691, respectively) became law.^[141]^[142]^[143]^[144]

On October 26, 2017, the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina issued an order appointing Nate Persily as a special master "to assist the Court in further evaluating and, if necessary, redrawing" the revised maps.^[145]

On December 1, 2017, Persily made his final recommendations. The district court panel overseeing the case adopted Persily's recommendations on January 19, 2018. On January 21, 2018, state Republican lawmakers filed a motion requesting that the court stay its order pending an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.^[146]^[147]

On February 6, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a partial stay of the district court's order. The stay applied to five revised state House districts in Wake and Mecklenburg counties (four in Wake County, one in Mecklenburg). The four remaining district maps adopted by the district court (in Hoke, Cumberland, Guilford, Sampson, and Wayne counties) were permitted to stand.^[148]^[149]^[150]

On June 28, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a per curiam ruling in North Carolina v. Covington, affirming in part and remanding in part the district court decision (i.e., allowing the court's order to stand as it applied to districts in Hoke, Cumberland, Guilford, Sampson, and Wayne counties but overturning the district court's decision as it applied to districts in Wake and Mecklenburg counties).^[151]^[152]^[153]^[154]

For full details on this process, click "[Show more]" below.

On August 11, 2016, the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina ruled that North Carolina's state legislative district map constituted an illegal racial gerrymander. The court found that the General Assembly of North Carolina had placed too many minority voters into a small number of districts, thereby diluting the impact of their votes. The court determined that nine state Senate districts and 19 state House districts had been subject to an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The court ruled that the existing map could be used for the 2016 general election. However, the court ordered state lawmakers to draft a new map during their next legislative session.^[155]^[156]

The Senate district map used by the General Assembly of North Carolina in April 2017. Districts ordered to be redrawn: 4, 5, 14, 20, 21, 28, 32, 38, and 40.
Click the image to enlarge.

On November 29, 2016, the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina ordered the state to conduct special elections for the state legislature in 2017 using new state legislative district maps. The court ordered state lawmakers to redraw state legislative district maps by March 15, 2017. In its ruling, the court wrote the following:^[157]^[158]

The House district map used by the General Assembly of North Carolina in April 2017. Districts ordered to be redrawn: 5, 7, 12, 21, 24, 29, 31, 32, 33, 38, 42, 43, 48, 57, 58, 60, 99, 102, and 107.
Click the image to enlarge.

“	While special elections have costs, those costs pale in comparison to the injury caused by allowing citizens to continue to be represented by legislators elected pursuant to a racial gerrymander. The court recognizes that special elections typically do not have the same level of voter turnout as regularly scheduled elections, but it appears that a special election here could be held at the same time as many municipal elections, which should increase turnout and reduce costs.^[46]	”
—United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina

State Representative David Lewis (R) and State Senator Bob Rucho (R) issued a press release on November 29, 2016, criticizing the order:>

“	This politically motivated decision, which would effectively undo the will of millions of North Carolinians just days after they cast their ballots, is a gross overreach that blatantly disregards the constitutional guarantee for voters to duly elect their legislators to biennial terms.^[46]	”
—Representative David Lewis (R) and Senator Bob Rucho (R)

The North Carolina Democratic Party (NCDP) voiced its support of the special elections following the federal order:^[159]

“	The North Carolina Democratic Party applauds the federal court's order to redraw these gerrymandered legislative districts. Our elected officials should fairly represent our state, and redrawn districts will help level the playing field.^[46]	”
—NCDP Executive Director Kimberly Reynolds

On December 30, 2016, Republican legislators petitioned the United States Supreme Court to intervene and stay (i.e., suspend) the district court's decision. On January 10, 2017, the high court issued an order halting the special elections pending appeals.^[160]^[161]^[162]

North Carolina State Senate President Pro tem Phil Berger (R) and North Carolina House Speaker Timothy K. Moore (R) said in a joint statement on the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily blocking the order that:^[163]

“	[We] … are grateful the U.S. Supreme Court has quashed judicial activism and rejected an attempt to nullify the votes of North Carolinians in the 2016 legislative elections.^[46]	”
—Representative Tim Moore (R) and Senator Phil Berger (R)

Senate Minority Leader Dan Blue (D) said in a town hall in March 2017 that he was confident the special elections would happen in 2017. He said the following:^[163]

“	I’m confident, and most of the lawyers who practice in this area [of law] …are confident that the [U.S.] Supreme Court, when they look at the case, because it has been appealed up there, will uphold the findings of the federal court that this is unconstitutional. The case law says they have no choice.^[46]	”
—Senator Dan Blue (D)

On June 5, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a unanimous per curiam ruling affirming the decision of the district court, which had earlier determined that the aforementioned 28 districts had been subject to an illegal racial gerrymander. However, the district court was directed to reconsider its order for special elections in 2017, with the high court finding that the district court had not undertaken the proper analysis in determining its remedy:^[164]

“	Relief in redistricting cases is "fashioned in the light of well-known principles of equity." A district court therefore must undertaken an 'equitable weighing process' to select a fitting remedy for the legal violations it has identified, taking account of "what is necessary, what is fair, and what is workable." ... Rather than undertaking such an analysis in this case, the District Court addressed the balance of equities in only the most cursory fashion. ... For that reason, we cannot have confidence that the court adequately grappled with the interests on both sides of the remedial question before us.^[46]	”
—Supreme Court of the United States

On July 31, 2017, the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina issued an order denying the plaintiff's request for a special election using a new district map in 2017.^[140]

“	We do not disagree with Legislative Defendants that there are many benefits to a time line that allows for the General Assembly (1) to receive public feedback on the criteria to be used in drawing the remedial districts and proposed remedial districting plans applying those criteria; (2) to revise the proposed plans based on that feedback; and (3) to engage in robust deliberation. Although we appreciate that Legislative Defendants could have been gathering this information over the past months and weeks, Plaintiffs’ two-week schedule does not provide the General Assembly with adequate time to meet their commendable goal of obtaining and considering public input and engaging in robust debate and discussion. Therefore, we prefer to give the legislature some additional time to engage in a process substantively identical to the one they have proposed.^[46]	”
—United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina

The court ordered state lawmakers to enact a new district map by September 1, 2017, for use in the 2018 general election. State lawmakers had proposed a November 15, 2017, deadline; the court ruled that this "deadline would interfere with the ability of potential candidates to prepare for the upcoming 2018 election."^[140]

On August 10, 2017, the House and Senate redistricting committees adopted criteria for the new state legislative district map. These criteria included the following:^[165]^[166]^[167]

Districts must have approximately equal populations.
Districts must be contiguous (i.e., all parts of a district must be connected).
Districts must adhere to county groupings.
Districts must be compact.
Lawmakers should minimize the splitting of precincts when drawing districts.
Lawmakers should take into account existing municipal boundaries when drawing districts.
Lawmakers can take into account political considerations and election data when drawing districts.
Lawmakers can make efforts to avoid pairing incumbents within the same district.
Lawmakers cannot take race into consideration when drawing districts.

State Democrats criticized some of these criteria. Representative Henry Michaux, Jr. (D), referring to the rule that prevents lawmakers from considering race, said, "How are you going to prove to the court that you did not violate their order in terms of racial gerrymandering? You cannot escape the fact that race has to be in there somewhere." David Lewis (R), chair of the House redistricting committee, said, "We do not believe it is appropriate given the court's order in this case for these committees to consider race when drawing districts." House Minority Leader Darren Jackson (D), referring to the criterion that permits lawmakers to consider incumbency, said "It just seems ridiculous to me that you get to say, 'We will protect the incumbents elected using unconstitutional maps." Lewis said, "Every result from where a line is drawn will be an inherently political thing. It is right and relevant to review past performance in drawing districts." Drafts of the new district maps were slated to be released in advance of expected public hearings on August 22 or 23.^[165]^[166]^[168]

On August 19 and 20, 2017, the General Assembly of North Carolina released drafts of revised district maps for the state House and Senate, respectively. Public hearings on the maps took place on August 23, 2017, in seven different parts of the states: Raleigh, Charlotte, Fayetteville, Hudson, Jamestown, Weldon, and Washington.^[169]^[170]^[171]^[172]

On August 28, 2017, the House passed HB 927, the House redistricting plan, and sent it to the Senate. HB 927 cleared the Senate on August 30, 2017, and became law. As enacted, the state House district map paired incumbents in three districts (i.e., incumbents who, under the prior plan, resided in separate districts):^[173]

Representatives Jean Farmer-Butterfield (D) and Susan Martin (R) in District 24.
Representatives Jon Hardister and John Faircloth, both Republicans, in District 61.
Representatives Carl Ford and Larry Pittman, both Republicans, in District 83.

The House map enacted by the legislature on August 30, 2017, is displayed below. For further details, please click here.

The House district map adopted by the legislature on August 30, 2017.
Click the image to enlarge.

On August 28, 2017, the Senate passed SB 691, the Senate redistricting plan, and sent it to the House. SB 691 cleared the House on August 30, 2017, and was enacted into law. As enacted, the state Senate district map paired incumbents in four districts (i.e., incumbents who, under the prior plan, resided in separate districts):^[174]^[175]^[176]^[177]

Senators Erica Smith-Ingram (D) and Bill Cook (R) in District 3; on August 29, Cook announced that he would not seek re-election in 2018.
Senators Chad Barefoot and John Alexander, both Republicans, in District 18; on August 20, Barefoot announced that he would not seek re-election in 2018.
Senators Joyce Krawiec and Dan Barrett, both Republicans, in District 31.
Senators Deanna Ballard and Shirley Randleman, both Republicans, in District 45.

The Senate map enacted by the legislature on August 30, 2017, is displayed below. For further details, please click here.

The Senate district map adopted by the legislature on August 30, 2017.
Click the image to enlarge.

On October 26, 2017, the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina issued an order appointing Nate Persily as a special master "to assist the Court in further evaluating and, if necessary, redrawing" the revised maps. The court indicated that the redrawn maps for Senate Districts 21 and 28 and House Districts 21, 36, 37, 40, 41, 57, and 105 "either fail to remedy the identified constitutional violation or are otherwise legally unacceptable." The court did not provide a precise deadline in its order; it did, however, indicate that the "upcoming filing period for the 2018 election cycle" factored into its decision to appoint a special master.^[178] North Carolina Democratic Party chairman Wayne Goodwin issued a statement via Twitter in support of the ruling: "This is a stunning rebuke of Republican legislators who refused to fix their racist maps and a collosal political failure from Speaker Moore and Senator Berger. They had a chance to fix their maps and doubled down instead — and now the courts will fix it for them." On October 30, 2017, Republican lawmakers filed a motion objecting to the appointment of Persily as special master; they argued that there was ample time for the state legislature to make any court-ordered amendments to the maps before the 2018 candidate filing period. GOP lawmakers also argued that Persily might be biased because he "has a history of commenting negatively on North Carolina districting matters and working on districting matters with organizations who are allied with the plaintiffs in this case."^[179]^[180]

On November 13, 2017, Persily issued draft redistricting plans. In the order announcing the release of the draft plans, Persily noted that "these draft plans are provided at this early date to give the parties time to lodge objections and to make suggestions, as to unpairing incumbents or otherwise, that might be accommodated in the final plan," which was due to the court by December 1, 2017. Persily's proposed maps can be accessed here.^[181]

On December 1, 2017, Persily issued his final recommendations, which he said "represent a limited response to a select number of districts that require alteration to comply with the law." Rep. David Lewis (R) and Sen. Ralph Hise (R), the chairmen of their chambers' respective redistricting committees, issued a statement criticizing Persily's recommendations: "By making many changes Democrats demanded, Mr. Persily has confirmed our worst suspicions: this entire ‘judicial process’ is little more than a thinly-veiled political operation where unelected judges, legislating from the bench, strip North Carolinians of their constitutional right to self-governance by appointing a left-wing California professor to draw districts handing Democrats control of legislative seats they couldn’t win at the ballot box." Wayne Goodwin, North Carolina Democratic Party (NCDP) chairman, defended Persily's recommendations: "The independent, non-partisan special master had one task – to fix Republicans’ unconstitutional racial gerrymander after Speaker Moore and Leader Berger refused. NCDP applauds the special master for doing just that, and for giving voters in the affected districts a chance to pick their representatives again instead of the other way around. Republicans made this bed and now they must lie in it, and their efforts to delegitimize the special master and our judicial system are dangerous and destructive." The district court panel overseeing the case issued an order adopting Persily's recommendations on January 19, 2018. On January 21, 2018, state Republican lawmakers filed a motion requesting that the court stay its order pending an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. On February 6, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a partial stay against the district court's order. The stay applied to five revised state House districts in Wake and Mecklenburg counties (four in Wake County, one in Mecklenburg). The four remaining district maps adopted by the district court (in Hoke, Cumberland, Guilford, Sampson, and Wayne counties) were permitted to stand. On June 28, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a per curiam ruling in North Carolina v. Covington, affirming in part and remanding in part the district court decision (i.e., allowing the court's order to stand as it applied to districts in Hoke, Cumberland, Guilford, Sampson, and Wayne counties but overturning the district court's decision as it applied to districts in Wake and Mecklenburg counties):^[182]^[183]^[184]^[185]^[186]^[187]^[188]^[189]^[190]

“	The only injuries [the maps' challengers'] established in this case were that they had been placed in their legislative districts on the basis of race. The District Court's remedial authority was accordingly limited to ensuring that the plaintiffs were relieved of the burden of voting in racially gerrymandering legislative districts. But the District Court's revision of the House districts in Wake and Mecklenburg Counties had nothing to do with that. Instead, the District Court redrew those districts because it found that the legislature's revision of them violated the North Carolina Constitution's ban on mid-decade redistricting, not federal law. ... The District Court's decision to override the legislature's remedial map on that basis was clear error. ... Once the District Court had ensured that the racial gerrymanders at issue in this case were remedied, its proper role in North Carolina's legislative redistricting process was at an end.^[46]	”
—Supreme Court of the United States (per curiam opinion)

State court challenges

On February 7, 2018, opponents of the 2017 maps adopted by the state legislature petitioned a state court to intervene and order that the Persily maps be implemented in Wake and Mecklenburg counties. On February 12, 2018, a panel of state superior court judges declined this request. On February 21, 2018, opponents filed another suit in state court challenging the legality of the remedial Wake County district maps (House Districts 36, 37, 40, and 41). The plaintiffs requested that the court intervene to prevent the map's use in future elections. On April 13, 2018, a panel of state superior court judges denied the plaintiffs' request for a stay against the challenged maps. The panel, comprising Judges Paul C. Ridgeway, Joseph N. Crosswhite, and Alma L. Hinton, while noting that the plaintiffs had "demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of their claims," said issuing a stay at this juncture "would interrupt voting by citizens already underway."^[191]^[192]^[193]^[194]

On February 1, 2019, the court issued an order setting a July 15, 2019, start date for a trial on the merits of the claims lodged by the maps' opponents. The trial concluded on July 26, 2019.^[195]^[196]

On September 3, the court issued its ruling, striking down the state's legislative district plan as an impermissible partisan gerrymander under the state constitution. In their ruling, Judges Ridgeway, Crosswhite, and Hinton wrote, "[The] 2017 Enacted Maps, as drawn, do not permit voters to freely choose their representative, but rather representatives are choosing voters based upon sophisticated partisan sorting. It is not the free will of the people that is fairly ascertained through extreme partisan gerrymandering. Rather, it is the carefully crafted will of the map drawer that predominates."^[197]

Bob Phillips, executive director of Common Cause North Carolina, praised the court's decision: "The court has made clear that partisan gerrymandering violates our state's constitution and is unacceptable. Thanks to the court's landmark decision, politicians in Raleigh will no longer be able to rig our elections through partisan gerrymandering." Senate Majority Leader Phil Berger (R), although critical of the court's ruling, announced that state Republicans would not appeal the decision: "We disagree with the court's ruling as it contradicts the Constitution and binding legal precedent, but we intend to respect the court's decision and finally put this divisive battle behind us."^[198]

The court ordered state lawmakers to draft remedial maps by September 18, 2019, for use in the 2020 election cycle. On September 17, 2019, the state legislature approved H1020 and SB 692, remedial district plans for the state House and Senate, respectively. On October 28, 2019, the court approved the remedial plans. The remedial House plan can be accessed here. The remedial Senate plan can be accessed here.^[197]^[199]

On November 1, 2019, the plaintiffs petitioned the state supreme court to review eight remedial state House districts in the Forsyth-Yadkin and Columbus-Pender-Robeson county groupings, alleging that these districts remained impermissible partisan gerrymanders.^[200]

North Dakota

For more information, click "[Show more]" below.

See also: Redistricting in North Dakota after the 2010 census

Following the 2010 United States Census, North Dakota did not add a congressional seat, rendering congressional redistricting unnecessary. On November 9, 2011, the state legislature approved a new state legislative district map. The map was signed into law that same day by Governor Jack Dalrymple.^[201]

Ohio

For more information, click "[Show more]" below.

See also: Redistricting in Ohio after the 2010 census

Congressional redistricting, 2010

Following the 2010 United States Census, Ohio lost two congressional seats. At the time of redistricting, Republicans held the governorship and both chambers of the Ohio General Assembly. On September 21, 2011, the legislature approved a congressional map, which was signed into law on September 26, 2011. Opponents threatened to subject the map to a veto referendum. In Ohio, legislation that is not related to spending may be subjected to a veto referendum if it does not pass the legislature by a two-thirds vote. Democratic opponents of the maps commenced a petition drive to put the issue before voters in the next statewide election. This proved unnecessary, however, as a revised congressional map passed the state legislature on December 14, 2011, and was signed into law the next day.^[202]^[35]

A constitutional amendment that would have established an independent congressional redistricting commission was defeated by voters on November 6, 2012.

On May 3, 2019, a three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio ruled unanimously that Ohio's congressional district plan constituted an illegal partisan gerrymander. The court held that the plan, enacted in 2011 by a Republican legislature and governor, violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of Democrats. The panel, comprising Judges Karen Moore (appointed by Democrat Bill Clinton), Timothy Black (appointed by Democrat Barack Obama), and Michael Watson (appointed by Republican George W. Bush), enjoined the state from conducting any future congressional elections under the 2011 plan. The court ordered the state to enact a remedial plan by June 14, 2019. On May 10, 2019, state officials petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a stay of the lower court's ruling.^[203]^[204] The high court granted the stay on May 24, 2019.^[205]

State legislative redistricting, 2010

On September 28, 2011, the politician redistricting commission approved new state legislative district maps. Although these maps were subject to litigation, they were ultimately upheld.^[202]

Oklahoma

For more information, click "[Show more]" below.

See also: Redistricting in Oklahoma after the 2010 census

Congressional redistricting, 2010

Following the 2010 United States Census, Oklahoma neither gained nor lost congressional seats. On May 4, 2011, the state legislature passed a congressional redistricting plan, which was signed into law by the governor on May 10, 2011.^[206]^[207]

State legislative redistricting, 2010

On May 16, 2011, the state legislature passed a state legislative redistricting plan, which was signed into law by the governor on May 20, 2011. The newly approved Senate district boundaries were challenged in state court, but all challenges were ultimately dismissed.^[206]

Oregon

For more information, click "[Show more]" below.

See also: Redistricting in Oregon after the 2010 census

Following the 2010 United States Census, Oregon neither gained nor lost congressional seats. On June 10, 2011, the state legislature approved a state legislative redistricting plan. It was signed into law on June 13, 2011. The state legislature approved a congressional redistricting plan on June 30, 2011, and it was signed into law by the governor on the same day.^[208]

Pennsylvania

For more information, click "[Show more]" below.

See also: Redistricting in Pennsylvania after the 2010 census

Congressional redistricting, 2010

Following the 2010 United States Census, Pennsylvania lost one congressional seat. At the time of redistricting, Republicans held the governorship and both chambers of the Pennsylvania General Assembly. On December 20, 2011, the state legislature approved a congressional redistricting plan, which was signed into law by Governor Tom Corbett on December 22, 2011.^[209]^[210]

On January 10, 2018, a three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued a 2-1 ruling finding that Pennsylvania's congressional district map had not been subject to unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering. Judges Edward G. Smith and Patty Shwartz comprised the majority, with Judge Michael Baylson dissenting. Smith wrote the following in his memorandum opinion:^[211]^[212]

“	Through this lawsuit, Plaintiffs seek a sea change in redistricting. They are forthright about this intention: they desire a judicial mandate that Art I, § 4, of the Constitution prohibits any political or partisan considerations in redistricting. Plaintiffs' ambitious theory suffers from three fatal flaws. First, the Framers provided a check on state power within the text of the Elections Clause, but it is a political one—action by Congress. ... Second, the Elections Clause offers no judicially enforceable limit on political considerations in redistricting. ... Third, Plaintiffs' Elections Clause claim is an unjustifiable attempt to skirt existing Supreme Court precedent.^[46]	”
—Judge Edward G. Smith

Baylson wrote the following in his dissent:^[213]

“	Gerrymandering is a wrong in search of a remedy. This case is brought under the Elections Clause of Article I of the United States Constitution, which is a novel legal claim, asserting the 2011 map redistricting Pennsylvania's congressional districts was in violation of the United States Constitution. ... Plaintiffs have proven their claim by clear and convincing evidence, which is the appropriate burden of proof.^[46]	”
—Judge Michael Baylson

League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

See also: League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

On December 29, 2017, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania issued its "Recommended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law" in League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, a case dealing with alleged partisan gerrymandering of the state's congressional district plan. State Democrats alleged that Pennsylvania's congressional district plan, which was drawn by a Republican-controlled state legislature, gave an unfair advantage to Republicans over Democrats in violation of state and federal law. Judge Kevin Brobson penned the document, which is not itself a binding legal decision. Brobson wrote the following:^[214]^[215]

“	While Petitioners characterize the level of partisanship evident in the 2011 Plan as 'excessive' and 'unfair,' Petitioners have not articulated a judicially manageable standard by which this Court can discern whether the 2011 Plan crosses the line between permissible partisan considerations and unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering under the Pennsylvania Constitution. ... A lot can and has been said about the 2011 Plan, much of which is unflattering and yet justified. Petitioners, however, have failed to meet their burden of proving that the 2011 Plan, as a piece of legislation, clearly, plainly, and palpably violates the Pennsylvania Constitution. For the judiciary, this should be the end of the inquiry.^[46]	”
—Judge P. Kevin Brobson

Suzanne Almeida, the executive director of the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania, said, "While we are disappointed that Judge Brobson did not find that the existing state of Pennsylvania law was violated by the 2011 partisan gerrymander, we are encouraged by the strong findings of fact in our favor and look forward to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s ultimate decision in the case." Drew Compton, an aide to state Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati (R), said, "Even though it's not always a flattering process, [Brobson] found [the map] to be constitutional on all grounds."^[214]^[216]^[217]

According to The Philadelphia Inquirer, "the state Supreme Court can take Brobson's conclusions into account but will ultimately make its own ruling." The high court heard oral argument in the case on January 17, 2018.^[214]^[215]^[218]

On January 22, 2018, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued an order striking down the state's congressional district map, finding that the map "clearly, plainly and palpably violates the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania." The order set the following deadlines for revising the district map:^[219]

February 9, 2018: Deadline for the state legislature to submit a remedial district plan to the governor
February 15, 2018: Deadline for the governor to submit a remedial plan to the state supreme court
February 19, 2018: "The Executive Branch Respondents are advised to anticipate that a congressional districting plan will be available by February 19, 2018, and are directed to take all measures, including adjusting the election calendar if necessary, to ensure that the May 15, 2018 primary election takes place as scheduled under that remedial districting plan."

The order noted that the court would adopt a remedial plan on its own if the state legislature and governor did not submit a plan. The order indicated that a full opinion would be forthcoming. On January 25, 2018, state Republicans requested that the Supreme Court of the United States stay the state supreme court's ruling pending an appeal. Attorneys for Republicans argued that the state supreme court overstepped its authority in striking down Pennsylvania's congressional district plan: "This is not simply a question of a state supreme court interpreting its state constitution, but a state supreme court usurping that state legislature's authority expressly granted under Article I, § 4." David Gersch, an attorney for the voters who initially brought the lawsuit challenging the congressional district plan, said that Republicans were making inconsistent arguments, having claimed in a separate lawsuit that the matter should be addressed by state-level authorities: "Now that they have lost in the highest court of the commonwealth, the legislators turn around and say the exact opposite." On January 29, 2018, Associate Justice Samuel Alito requested a response to this request from the other parties involved in the suit by 4:00 on February 2, 2018. On February 5, 2018, the Supreme Court denied Republicans' request for a stay.^[219]^[220]^[221]^[222]^[223]

On January 26, 2018, the state supreme court issued an order appointing Nate Persily, a Stanford University law professor, "to assist the court in adopting, if necessary, a remedial congressional redistricting plan." The court ordered state lawmakers to turn over digital files containing information on the state's current congressional district boundaries by January 31, 2018. On January 31, 2018, attorneys for Pennsylvania State Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati (R) submitted a letter to the court indicating that Scarnati would not furnish the court with the requested data: "In light of the unconstitutionality of the Court's Orders and the Court's plain intent to usurp the General Assembly's constitutionally delegated role of drafting Pennsylvania's congressional districting plan, Senator Scarnati will not be turning over any data identified in the Court's Orders." The letter also included a footnote indicating that Scarnati did not possess the requested data. According to The Philadelphia Inquirer, an attorney for the Pennsylvania General Assembly, in a separate letter, said, "The General Assembly and its Legislative Data Processing Center do not maintain ESRI shapefiles that contain current boundaries of all Pennsylvania municipalities and precincts."^[224]^[225]^[226]

On February 7, 2018, the state supreme court released the majority opinion explaining its January 22, 2018, order in League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The majority opinion was penned by Justice Debra Todd and read, in part, as follows:^[227]

“	In sum, we conclude that the evidence detailed above and the remaining evidence of the record as a whole demonstrates that Petitioners have established that the 2011 Plan subordinates the traditional redistricting criteria in service of achieving unfair partisan advantage, and, thus, violates the Free and Equal Elections Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Such a plan, aimed at achieving unfair partisan gain, undermines voters’ ability to exercise their right to vote in free and 'equal' elections if the term is to be interpreted in any credible way. An election corrupted by extensive, sophisticated gerrymandering and partisan dilution of votes is not 'free and equal.' In such circumstances, a 'power, civil or military,' to wit, the General Assembly, has in fact 'interfere[d] to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage.'^[46]	”
—Debra Todd

Chief Justice Thomas Saylor penned a dissenting opinion that read, in part, as follows:^[228]

“	In summary, I believe that: the present exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction was improvident; this Court’s review would benefit from anticipated guidance from the Supreme Court of the United States; awaiting such guidance is particularly appropriate given the delay, until 2017, of Petitioners’ challenge to a 2011 redistricting plan; and the appropriate litmus for judicial review of redistricting should take into account the inherently political character of the work of the General Assembly, to which the task of redistricting has been assigned by the United States Constitution.^[46]	”
—Thomas Saylor

Justice Sallie Mundy joined Saylor's dissent and penned a separate dissent. Justice Max Baer filed an opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part with the court's majority opinion.^[229]^[230]

On February 9, 2018, Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati (R) and House Speaker Mike Turzai (R) filed a remedial congressional district plan with Governor Tom Wolf (D). The pair issued a joint statement announcing the plan: "The Republican Legislative Leaders in the House and Senate have agreed to a Congressional District Map that complies fully with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's order and opinion." Senate Minority Leader Jay Costa (D) and House Minority Leader Frank Dermody (D) issued a joint statement that same day denouncing the map: "The Republican leadership in both chambers blocked this process, refused to negotiate, and have now submitted a map directly to [the governor's] office that we have not even seen." J. J. Abbott, a spokesman for Wolf, said, "While the court's order did not appear to allow for two individuals to draw a map on behalf of the entire General Assembly, Gov. Wolf will review Speaker Turzai and President Scarnati's submission in consultation with the experts retained by the administration to determine his next course of action."^[231]^[232]

On February 13, 2018, Governor Tom Wolf (D) announced that he would not submit the remedial congressional district plan drafted by Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati (R) and House Speaker Mike Turzai (R) to the state supreme court. In a press release, Wolf said, "The analysis by my team shows that, like the 2011 map, the map submitted to my office by Republican leaders is still a gerrymander. Their map clearly seeks to benefit one political party, which is the essence of why the court found the current map to be unconstitutional."^[233]^[234]

On February 15, 2018, the deadline set by the state supreme court, parties to the suit and state political leaders submitted their proposals to the court. Wolf, Lieutenant Governor Mike Stack (D), House Democrats, Senate Democrats, the petitioners in the suit, and the intervenors all submitted proposals. These are linked below:^[235]^[236]^[237]

On February 19, 2018, the state supreme court voted 4-3 to adopt the remedial congressional plan drafted by Nate Persily. District locations and numbers differ between the two maps. The map adopted by the state supreme court split 13 counties; the 2011 map split 28 counties. Had the 2018 map been in place during the 2016 presidential election, Donald Trump (R) would have won 10 districts and Hillary Clinton (D) would have won eight. In 2016, at which time the 2011 map was in place, Trump carried 12 districts to Clinton's six. The full text of the court's ruling, including map images, can be accessed here.^[238]

Justices Debra Todd, Christine Donohue, Kevin M. Dougherty, and David N. Wecht formed the court's majority. The majority opinion read, in part, as follows:^[238]

“

This Court recognized that the primary responsibility for drawing congressional districts rested squarely with the legislature, but we also acknowledged that, in the eventuality of the General Assembly not submitting a plan to the Governor, or the Governor not approving the General Assembly’s plan within the time specified, it would fall to this Court expeditiously to adopt a plan based upon the evidentiary record developed in the Commonwealth Court. ... The Remedial Plan is superior or comparable to all plans submitted by the parties, the intervenors, and amici, by whichever Census-provided definition one employs. ... The compactness of the plan is superior or comparable to the other submissions[.] ... Finally, no district has more than a one-person difference in population from any other district, and, therefore, the Remedial Plan achieves the constitutional guarantee of one person, one vote.^[46]

”

Chief Justice Thomas Saylor filed a dissenting opinion, which read, in part, as follows:^[239]

“

The latest round includes: the submission, within the past few days, of more than a dozen sophisticated redistricting plans; the lack of an opportunity for critical evaluation by all of the parties; the adoption of a judicially created redistricting plan apparently upon advice from a political scientist who has not submitted a report as of record nor appeared as a witness in any court proceeding in this case; and the absence of an adversarial hearing to resolve factual controversies arising in the present remedial phase of this litigation. In these circumstances, the displacement to the judiciary of the political responsibility for redistricting -- which is assigned to the General Assembly by the United States Constitution -- appears to me to be unprecedented.^[46]

”

Justices Sallie Mundy and Max Baer also penned individual dissents.^[240]^[241]

In its order, the court set the primary election filing period for congressional candidates to begin on February 27, 2018, and to end on March 20, 2018. By contrast, the filing period for candidates for other offices, such as governor and United States senator, began on February 13, 2018, and ended on March 6, 2018.^[238]

Pennsylvania Democrats applauded the remedial map. David Landau, Delaware County Democratic Party chairman, said, "[The remedial map] remedies the outrageous gerrymander of 2011, and that's the important thing, that the gerrymander be over. All that zigging and zagging is gone, and it makes Delaware County a competitive seat now." Meanwhile, Republicans were critical of the map and the process that led to its adoption. Mark Harris, a Republican campaign consultant, said, "It's a straight Democratic gerrymander by a Democratic Supreme Court to help Democrats." Republicans indicated that they planned to challenge the validity of the remedial map in federal court. According to The Washington Post, Drew Compton, an attorney for Senate Republicans, said that "a separation of powers case will form the essence of the GOP's argument."^[242]^[243]^[244]

On February 27, 2018, Turzai and Scarnati petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a stay of the state supreme court's order pending appeal. The petition was filed with Associate Justice Samuel Alito, who reviews emergency appeals from Pennsylvania. Attorneys for Turzai and Scarnati wrote the following in their petition:^[245]

“

By promulgating mandatory criteria the General Assembly could not anticipate in 2011, and that are found nowhere in the Pennsylvania Constitution, withholding guidance as to how to achieve compliance with Pennsylvania law until two days before the court's imposed deadline to enact a new plan, creating a proportional-representation criterion that is practically impossible to implement, and imposing a remedial plan that had been in the works all along, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ensured that its desired plan to draft the new map would be successful. This court of action cannot square with either the plain text of the U.S. Constitution's Elections Clause, which delegates redistricting authority to 'the Legislature' of each state, or with this Court's interpretive precedent, which holds that '[r]edistricting involves lawmaking in its essential features and most important aspect.'^[46]

”

On March 19, 2018, the Supreme Court issued an order declining to intervene in the case. There were no noted dissents in the order.^[246]

On March 20, 2018, Rep. Cris Dush (R) introduced the following impeachment resolutions against the four justices who signed onto the state supreme court's ruling in League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:^[247]

House Resolution 766 (calling for the impeachment of Justice David N. Wecht)
House Resolution 767 (calling for the impeachment of Justice Debra McCloskey Todd)
House Resolution 768 (calling for the impeachment of Justice Christine Donohue)
House Resolution 769 (calling for the impeachment of Justice Kevin M. Dougherty)

Dush argued that these four justices, all Democrats, exceeded their authority by imposing a new district map, an action that, Dush argued, is the prerogative of the legislative and executive branches. In a memorandum accompanying the impeachment resolutions, Dush said, "[The court's action] overrides the express legislative and executive authority, found in Article IV, Section 15 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, concerning the Governor’s veto authority and the General Assembly’s subsequent authority to override such veto. ... [The justices] who signed this order that blatantly and clearly contradicts the plain language of the Pennsylvania Constitution, engaged in misbehavior in office." Eleven other Republicans signed on as co-sponsors of the impeachment resolutions.^[248]

House Minority Leader Frank Dermody (D) argued that the impeachment efforts constituted an unfounded attack on the judiciary. Dermody said, "It’s an attack on the independence of every judge in our state, one of the bedrock principles of our democracy. If pursued, this would be a clear and present danger to the administration of justice in Pennsylvania." Chief Justice Thomas Saylor said the following in a statement: "Threats of impeachment directed against Justices because of their decision in a particular case are an attack upon an independent judiciary, which is an essential component of our constitutional plan of government."^[249]^[250]

On May 29, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States dismissed Agre v. Wolf, a separate suit alleging unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering in the state's congressional district map, as moot.^[251]

Corman v. Torres

On February 22, 2018, Pennsylvania State Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman (R), Senate State Government Committee Chairman Mike Folmer (R), and Republican congressmen Lou Barletta, Ryan Costello, Mike Kelly, Tom Marino, Scott Perry, Keith Rothfus, Lloyd Smucker, and Glenn Thompson filed suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, seeking an injunction against implementation of the state supreme court's remedial congressional district plan. The plaintiffs alleged that the state supreme court, in adopting a remedial map, violated the Elections Clause of the United States Constitution by usurping the redistricting authority granted by the Constitution to state legislatures. The plaintiffs requested that a three-judge panel of the court be convened to consider the case. On February 23, 2018, this request was granted; judges Kent Jordan, Christopher Conner, and Jerome Simandle were appointed to the panel. That same day, the court denied the plaintiffs' request for a temporary injunction and set an expedited schedule for review. Oral arguments in the case were heard on March 9, 2018.^[252]^[253]^[254]^[255]^[256]

On March 19, 2018, the three-judge panel ruled unanimously to dismiss the complaint. The panel's opinion read, in part, as follows:^[257]^[258]

“

We hold that the federal Elections Clause violations that the Plaintiffs allege are not the Plaintiffs‟ to assert. Because fundamental principles of constitutional standing and judicial restraint prohibit us from exercising jurisdiction, we have no authority to take any action other than to dismiss the Plaintiffs‟ verified complaint. Moreover, the deficiencies identified herein are legal rather than factual in nature. Accordingly, we conclude that leave to amend would be futile. For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiffs‟ verified complaint will be dismissed, and Plaintiffs‟ motion for preliminary injunction will be denied.^[46]

”

State legislative redistricting, 2010

On October 31, 2011, the politician redistricting commission issued its state legislative district proposal. The commission approved the proposal by a 4-1 vote on December 12, 2011. On January 25, 2012, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck the map down, ruling that "the lines violated state constitutional requirements of compactness and adherence to the integrity of political subdivisions." The court ordered the commission to redraw the map. The court further ordered that the state legislative district map adopted during the 2000 redistricting cycle would apply to elections taking place in 2012.^[209]^[47]

On June 8, 2012, the redistricting commission released its amended state legislative district proposal. This map was also subject to court challenges, but these were dismissed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on May 8, 2013. The new map took effect in 2014.^[209]^[47]

Rhode Island

For more information, click "[Show more]" below.

See also: Redistricting in Rhode Island after the 2010 census

Following the 2010 United States Census, Rhode Island neither gained nor lost congressional seats. On December 19, 2011, the advisory redistricting commission issued its recommendations for new congressional and state legislative district boundaries. On February 2, 2012, the legislature approved congressional and state legislative redistricting plans, which were signed into law by the governor on February 8, 2012.^[259]^[260]

South Carolina

For more information, click "[Show more]" below.

See also: Redistricting in South Carolina after the 2010 census

Congressional redistricting, 2010

Following the 2010 United States Census, South Carolina gained a congressional seat. At the time of redistricting, Republicans held the governorship and both chambers of the South Carolina State Legislature. A redistricting plan was adopted by the legislature on July 26, 2011. The governor signed it into law on August 1, 2011. On November 11, 2011, a group of Democratic voters challenged the new congressional and state legislative district maps in federal court, alleging that the new maps constituted "unlawful racial gerrymandering and a violation the Voting Rights Act." The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina rejected the challenge on March 9, 2012. The case, filed as Backus v. South Carolina, was appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which upheld the lower court's decision on October 1, 2012.^[261]^[35]

On August 29, 2013, in the wake of the Shelby County v. Holder decision, the plaintiffs attempted to revive the case. The trial court rejected the attempt on March 10, 2014, and the United States Supreme Court affirmed that decision on October 6, 2014.^[261]^[35]

State legislative redistricting, 2010

On June 22, 2011, the state legislature approved a state legislative redistricting, plan which was signed into law on June 28, 2011. On November 11, 2011, a group of Democratic voters challenged the new congressional and state legislative district maps in federal court, alleging that the new maps constituted "unlawful racial gerrymandering and a violation the Voting Rights Act." The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina rejected the challenge on March 9, 2012. The case, filed as Backus v. South Carolina, was appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which upheld the lower court's decision on October 1, 2012.^[261]^[35]

On August 29, 2013, in the wake of the Shelby County v. Holder decision, the plaintiffs attempted to revive the case. The trial court rejected the attempt on March 10, 2014 and the United States Supreme Court affirmed that decision on October 6, 2014.^[261]^[35]

South Dakota

For more information, click "[Show more]" below.

See also: Redistricting in South Dakota after the 2010 census

Following the 2010 United States Census, South Dakota did not add a congressional seat. As a result, congressional redistricting was unnecessary. At the time of redistricting, Republicans controlled both chambers of the state legislature. On October 24, 2001, the state legislature approved a new state legislative district map. On October 25, 2011, the governor signed the plan into law.^[262]

Tennessee

For more information, click "[Show more]" below.

See also: Redistricting in Tennessee after the 2010 census

Congressional redistricting, 2010

Following the 2010 United States Census, Tennessee neither gained nor lost congressional seats. At the time of redistricting, Republicans controlled both chambers of the Tennessee General Assembly. In addition, a Republican held the governorship. On January 13, 2012, the state legislature approved new congressional district lines, which were signed into law by the governor on January 26, 2012.^[263]^[264]

State legislative redistricting, 2010

On January 13, 2012, the state legislature approved a state House redistricting plan, which was signed into law on January 26, 2012. New state Senate lines were adopted on January 19, 2012, and signed into law on February 9, 2012.^[263]

Texas

For more information, click "[Show more]" below.

See also: Redistricting in Texas after the 2010 census

Following the 2010 United States Census, Texas gained four congressional seats. At the time of redistricting, Republicans controlled both chambers of the Texas State Legislature and the governorship. The legislature approved a state legislative redistricting plan on May 23, 2011, which was signed into law by Governor Rick Perry on June 17, 2011. On June 24, 2011, the legislature approved a congressional redistricting plan, which was signed into law by the governor on July 18, 2011.^[265]^[266]^[35]

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott petitioned a three-judge panel at the United States Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., for preclearance of the redistricting plans. At the time, certain states were required under the Voting Rights Act to receive preclearance from the federal government before implementing modifications to election laws (including redistricting plans). On September 29, 2011, the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas "halted the [state House and congressional maps'] implementation and announced its intent to draw its own interim plan if the state did not obtain federal preclearance before the December 2011 opening of the candidate filing period." On November 8, 2011, the Washington, D.C., Court of Appeals denied Abbott's request for an expedited decision, thereby setting the stage for a trial. On November 23, 2011, the San Antonio federal court issued its own interim congressional and state legislative district maps, which were intended to apply to the 2012 elections. Abbott appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of the United States, which ordered a stay of the San Antonio court's ruling, effectively forcing Texas to delay its primary until May.^[265]^[266]^[35]

In January 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the interim maps drawn by the district court, ruling that the court had exceeded its authority. On February 28, 2012, the district court issued a second set of interim district maps.^[265]^[266]^[35]

On August 28, 2012, the Washington, D.C., Court of Appeals panel refused to grant preclearance to the original maps. On June 25, 2013, however, the United States Supreme Court issued its ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, which effectively removed the preclearance mechanism from the Voting Rights Act. As a result, the earlier refusal to preclear Texas' maps was vacated.

On June 21, 2013, the state legislature approved permanent congressional and state legislative redistricting plans. These new maps resembled the second interim maps issued by the district court. On June 26, 2013, Gov. Perry signed the maps into law.^[265]^[266]^[35]

On November 6, 2015, the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas ordered that the state's existing district maps remain in place for the 2016 election cycle. The court, however, stopped short of issuing a final decision:^[267]^[268]

“	The Court has been working diligently and has made substantial progress toward resolution of the claims on the 2011 plans; however, it has not yet reached a final decision. Trial on the merits of the claims against the 2013 plans has not been scheduled, and legal challenges to the 2013 plans will not be resolved before the 2016 election cycle. ... [The] Court must balance the need to protect voting rights that may be affected by the 2013 plans with the need to avoid the adverse effect on voting rights that comes with delay and confusion during election time. If the Court enjoined the 2013 enacted plans and imposed yet another set of interim plans for the 2016 election, the shifting district and precinct lines would leave candidates in limbo, voters confused, and election officials with the burden of implementing new maps in a timely manner with very limited resources. It would be extremely difficult to implement new interim plans without tremendous interruption to the 2016 election schedule.^[268]^[46]	”
—United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

On March 10, 2017, the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas ruled that some of the congressional district boundaries adopted by the state legislature in 2011 had been drawn with racially discriminatory intent. The court ruled 2-1 on the matter. The ruling did not apply to the remedial districts adopted in 2013.^[269]^[270]

On April 20, 2017, the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas ruled that some of the state house district boundaries adopted by the state legislature in 2011 had been drawn with racially discriminatory intent. The court ruled 2-1 on the matter. The decision did not apply to the remedial districts adopted in 2013.^[271]^[272]

On July 10, 2017, a federal trial addressing the constitutionality of the district maps adopted by the legislature in 2013 began, with Judges Orlando Garcia and Xavier Rodriguez (both of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas) and Judge Jerry Smith (of the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit) presiding. The maps' opponents alleged that the 2013 maps, like the original maps adopted in the wake of the 2010 United States Census, unconstitutionally diluted the voting rights of racial minority groups. State officials denied this, maintaining that the 2013 maps were substantially the same as those issued by a federal court in 2012. The trial continued through July 15, 2017.^[273]^[274]^[275]

On August 15, 2017, Judges Smith, Garcia, and Rodriguez issued a unanimous ruling finding that the 2013 maps for congressional districts 27 and 35 had been drawn with racially discriminatory intent on the part of the legislature. The judges ordered state officials to inform the court within three days of the state legislature's intent to draft and implement new remedial maps. State Representative Rafael Anchia (D), chairman of the Mexican American Legislative Caucus (a plaintiff in the case), supported the ruling: "Intentional discrimination is a bad habit for the Texas Legislature. With the seventh ruling of intentional discrimination since 2011, a federal court confirmed today that Texas congressional maps remain unconstitutional." In a statement, Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) announced his plans to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of the United States: "We appreciate that the panel ruled in favor of Texas on many issues in the case. But the portion of the ruling that went against Texas is puzzling considering the Legislature adopted the congressional map the same court itself adopted in 2012, and the Obama-era Department of Justice did not bring any claims against the map. We look forward to asking the Supreme Court to decide whether Texas had discriminatory intent when relying on the district court."^[276]^[277]^[278]

On August 17, 2017, Paxton announced that he had initiated an appeal of the decision to the Supreme Court of the United States. Paxton requested that the high court stay the lower court's ruling pending full review of the case.^[279]^[280]

On August 24, 2017, Judges Smith, Garcia, and Rodriguez issued a unanimous ruling finding that the 2013 maps for the following state House districts had been drawn with racially discriminatory intent on the part of the legislature:^[281]

Districts 103, 104, and 105 in Dallas County
Districts 32 and 34 in Nueces County
Districts 54 and 55 in Bell County
Districts 90 and 93 in Tarrant County

Paxton announced that he intended to appeal the decision.^[282]

On August 28, 2017, Associate Justice Samuel Alito of the Supreme Court of the United States stayed the district court's August 15 ruling on Texas' congressional district plan pending further review by the high court. On August 31, 2017, Alito issued a similar order on the district court's August 24 ruling on Texas' state House district plan. On September 12, 2017, the high court voted 5-4 to implement a full stay against both rulings pending progression of the state's appeal. According to The New York Times, the high court's order made it more likely that the 2018 election would be held using the existing district plans. Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch formed the majority. Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Stephen Breyer dissented. On January 12, 2018, the Supreme Court announced that it would hear the case, with oral argument scheduled for April 24, 2018. In March 2018, United States Solicitor General Noel Francisco requested that court permit him, on behalf of the federal government, to argue in support of Texas during oral argument on April 24, 2018.^[283]^[284]^[285]^[286]^[287]^[288]^[289]^[290]

On June 25, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a 5-4 ruling reversing the decision of the district court with respect to all challenged districts except House District 90. Associate Justice Samuel Alito penned the court's majority opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch. Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan. For more information on the court's decision, see here.

On August 30, 2018, the district court ordered the state legislature to adopt a remedial plan for House District 90 no later than within 45 days of the start of the 2019 regular legislative session. On May 28, 2019, the court approved a remedial plan for House District 90.^[291]^[292]

On July 24, 2019, the district court declined to subject the state to a federal preclearance remedy that would have required state lawmakers to obtain approval from the U.S. Department of Justice before enacting changes to the state's election laws and procedures, including implementation of redistricting plans. The court wrote the following in its opinion: "[The] Court has grave concerns about Texas' past conduct. During the 2011 legislative session, Texas engaged in traditional means of vote dilution such as cracking and packing in drawing districts, and also utilized newer methods of dilution and suppression such as using the 'nudge factor' and passing voter ID requirements. ... Nevertheless, the Court concludes that ordering preclearance on the current record would be inappropriate, given the recent guidance from the Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit. It is time for this round of litigation to close."^[293]

Utah

For more information, click "[Show more]" below.

See also: Redistricting in Utah after the 2010 census

Congressional redistricting, 2010

Following the 2010 United States Census, Utah gained one congressional seat. On October 17, 2011, the state legislature approved new congressional district boundaries, which were signed into law on October 20, 2011.^[294]^[35]

State legislative redistricting, 2010

On October 4, 2011, the state legislature approved new state Senate and House district maps. The House maps were signed into law on October 19, 2011. The Senate maps were signed into law the following day. On January 27, 2012, the legislature passed amendments to these boundaries, which were signed into law on January 30, 2012.^[294]

Vermont

For more information, click "[Show more]" below.

See also: Redistricting in Vermont after the 2010 census

Following the 2010 United States Census, Vermont did not add to its single congressional seat, rendering congressional redistricting unnecessary. At the time of redistricting, Democrats held the governorship and majorities in both the state Senate and the state House. On April 30, 2012, the state legislature approved state legislative district lines. On May 1, 2012, the governor signed the plan into law.^[295]

Virginia

For more information, click "[Show more]" below.

See also: Redistricting in Virginia after the 2010 census

Congressional redistricting, 2010

Following the 2010 United States Census, Virginia neither gained nor lost congressional seats. On January 20, 2012, the legislature approved a new congressional district plan, which was signed into law by the governor on January 25, 2012.^[296]

Legal challenges and other developments

United States Supreme Court

On October 6, 2013, opponents challenged the state's congressional district map in federal court, alleging "racial gerrymander without adequate justification under the Voting Rights Act." On October 7, 2014, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia struck down the state's congressional map. The court found that "the legislature's use of broad demographic target percentages, without accounting for the political reality on the ground, left its plan insufficiently tailored to [Voting Rights Act] compliance." The maps remained in effect during the 2014 election, but the court ordered the legislature to draw new districts for future elections. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which, on March 30, 2015, remanded the case to the trial court for reconsideration in light of the high court's March 25, 2015, decision in Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama.^[296]

On June 5, 2015, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia again ruled that an unconstitutional racial gerrymander had occurred in Virginia. The court ordered that District 3 be redrawn in light of this ruling. Judges Allyson Duncan and Liam O'Grady wrote the court's opinion.^[297]^[298]^[299]^[300]^[301]

“	Because plaintiffs have shown that race predominated in Virginia’s 2012 plan and because defendants have failed to establish that this race-based redistricting satisfies strict scrutiny, we find that the 2012 plan is unconstitutional and will require the commonwealth to draw a new congressional district plan.^[46]	”
—Judges Allyson Duncan and Liam O'Grady

Judge Robert Payne dissented. He wrote the following in his dissent: "As I understand the record, the redistricting decision here was driven by a desire to protect incumbents and by the application of traditional redistricting precepts even though race was considered because the legislature had to be certain that the plan complied with federal law, including the Voting Rights Act of 1965."^[297]^[298]^[299]^[300]^[301]

The court ordered the state to draft a new congressional district map by September 1, 2015. The court's full opinion can be accessed here.^[297]^[298]^[299]^[300]^[301]

On August 5, 2015, a panel of federal judges denied requests by state Republicans to extend the deadline. On August 17, 2015, a special session of the state legislature was convened. Within hours, the Virginia State Senate adjourned the session. Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates William Howell (R) said, "The House of Delegates remains in session. ... Unfortunately, without the presence of the Senate, there is no possible path forward on redistricting." After the session's adjournment, Governor Terry McAuliffe (D) said, "The opportunity for a legislative remedy has ended."^[302]^[303]

Because the state legislature was unable to adopt a new congressional district map, the task fell to a panel of federal judges. On January 7, 2016, this panel unveiled Virginia's new congressional district map and ordered that it be used for the 2016 elections. The Richmond Times-Dispatch described this map as follows:^[304]

“	[The map] centers [District 3] in Hampton Roads. The new map adds Richmond and Petersburg to the 4th District, represented by Republican J. Randy Forbes, improving Democrats’ chances of winning the district in November. The new map makes lesser changes to the districts of three other Republicans, Reps. Dave Brat, R-District 7, Robert J. Wittman, R-District 1, and Scott Rigell, R-District 2.^[46]	”
—Richmond Times-Dispatch

In January 2016, a group of Republican lawmakers, including Representatives Rob Wittman, Bob Goodlatte, J. Randy Forbes, Morgan Griffith, Scott Rigell, Robert Hurt, David Brat, and Barbara Comstock, petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States, asking that the court halt the use of this newly drawn map. The lawmakers argued that implementation of this map would result in "electoral chaos" and "mass voter confusion." Lyle Denniston, writing for SCOTUSblog, summarized their argument as follows:^[305]

“	Lawyers representing Republican members of Congress from Virginia had warned that, without a delay, candidates would have to run “two-front” campaigns in five districts, running in both the districts as composed by the legislature and the new districts drawn up by the lower court. Depending on when the Court rules on the earlier map, both this year’s primary and general elections for House of Representatives seats in the state might have to be postponed, the lawyers contended. The primary is now set for June 14 and the general for November 8, the lawyers contended.^[46]	”
—Lyle Denniston

The Virginia State Board of Elections, along with opponents of the original map drawn by the state legislature, "urged the court to deny the postponement." Denniston summarized their argument as follows:^[305]

“	They argued that the primary election should now be allowed to go forward on June 14 under the newly drawn plan of the lower court. If that plan were not used this year, they contended, it could mean that the 2012 plan could not be replaced by a valid plan until the 2018 elections. The opponents also argued that the challengers had little chance of getting the 2012 plan upheld by the Justices.^[46]	”
—Lyle Denniston

On February 1, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States denied Republicans' request for a stay, meaning that the newly drawn map would be used for Virginia's June 2016 primary election and November 2016 general election. The court heard oral arguments about the map on March 21, 2016. On May 23, 2016, the court announced its decision in the case, Wittman v. Personhuballah. The court ruled unanimously against the challengers, finding that they lacked standing to appeal. As a result, the newly drawn map stood. Associate Justice Stephen Breyer penned the opinion. According to election law scholar Rick Hasen, "By deciding the case on standing grounds, the court was able to avoid saying anything new about the racial gerrymandering cause of action."^[303]^[306]^[307]^[308]^[309]^[310]^[311]

State legislative redistricting, 2010

See also: Bethune-Hill v. Virginia Board of Elections

The governor signed into law a state legislative redistricting plan on August 29, 2011. In 2014 and 2015, the legislature made attempts to modify the districts approved in 2011. The governor vetoed each of these bills.^[296]

On December 22, 2014, opponents of the newly drawn map filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging that 12 state legislative districts constituted an illegal racial gerrymander. According to the Oyez Project at the ITT Chicago-Kent College of Law, the district court rejected this argument:^[312]

“	The district court held that the plaintiffs did not establish that race was the predominant factor in the creation of 11 of the 12 challenged district. The district court also held that, although race was the predominant factor in the creation of one district, in doing so the General Assembly was pursuing a compelling state interest and its use of race was narrowly tailored to serve that interest.^[46]	”
—Oyez, ITT Chicago-Kent College of Law

The plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of the United States, which agreed to hear the case (Bethune-Hill v. Virginia Board of Elections) on June 6, 2016.^[313]^[314]

On March 1, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its ruling in Bethune-Hill v. Virginia Board of Elections, finding that the district court "employed an incorrect legal standard in determining that race did not predominate in 11 of the 12 districts." For these 11 districts, the high court remanded the case to the district court for reconsideration. The court ruled 7-1 on the case. Justice Anthony Kennedy penned the court's majority opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Associate Justice Samuel Alito concurred in the judgment, filing a separate opinion. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas filed an opinion that concurred in part with the majority opinion and dissented in part. Kennedy wrote the following in the court's majority opinion:^[315]^[316]

“	The challengers first argue that the District Court misunderstood the relevant precedents when it required the challengers to establish, as a prerequisite to showing racial predominance, an actual conflict between the enacted plan and traditional redistricting principles. The Court agrees with the challengers on this point. ... The challengers submit that the District Court erred further when it considered the legislature's racial motive only to the extent that the challengers identified deviations from traditional redistricting criteria that were attributable to race and not to some other factor. In the challengers' view, this approach foreclosed a holistic analysis of each district and led the District Court to give insufficient weight to the 55 percent [black voting age population] target and other relevant evidence that race predominated. Again, this Court agrees."^[46]	”
—Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's ruling in the case of the remaining challenged district (District 75), arguing that the lower court's ruling was consistent with Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, a case decided by the high court in 2015. Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama established that "where a challenger succeeds in establishing racial predominance, the burden shifts to the State to 'demonstrate that its districting legislation is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest.'"^[315]^[317]

On March 31, 2017, in a separate state-level case, Richmond Circuit Judge W. Reilly Marchant ruled that the contested districts did not violate state constitutional requirements for district compactness. On October 24, 2017, the Virginia Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal of this decision. On May 31, 2018, the state supreme court upheld Marchant's decision, allowing the contested district maps to stand. The court's opinion was delivered by Justice S. Bernard Goodwin, who wrote, "The circuit court did not err in concluding that evidence was presented at trial that would 'lead reasonable and objective people to differ' regarding the compactness of the Challenged Districts, and declaring the constitutional validity of the Challenged Districts under the fairly debatable standard applied to determinations made by the legislature."^[318]^[319]^[320]^[321]

On June 26, 2018, the district court ruled 2-1 in Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections that 11 state legislative districts had been subject to racial gerrymandering and needed to be redrawn. The court gave the legislature until October 30, 2018, to draw new district lines. Writing for the majority, Judge Barbara Milano Keenan said, "Overwhelming evidence in this case shows that, contrary to this constitutional mandate, the state has sorted voters into districts based on the color of their skin." On July 9, 2018, state Republicans petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to stay the district court's order pending an appeal of that court's decision. Governor Ralph Northam (D) convened a special session of the legislature, beginning August 30, 2018, to redraw the maps. The legislature was unable to adopt a remedial map during this session. Consequently, the federal district court appointed a special master, Bernard Grofman, a political science professor at the University of California, Irvine, to draft a remedial map. State lawmakers petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to stay the ruling pending ultimate resolution of the case. The high court denied this request on January 8, 2019.^[322]^[323]^[324]^[325]^[326]

On January 22, 2019, the district court issued an order directing Grofman to finalize the district plan for the House of Delegates selected by the court. Pending appeals, the remedial map was slated to apply to the 2019 election cycle. House Speaker Kirk Cox (R) criticized the plan: "The Eastern District Court selected a series of legally indefensible redistricting modules that attempts to give Democrats an advantage at every turn. The modules selected by the Court target senior Republicans, myself included, without a substantive basis in the law." Meanwhile, Democratic attorney Marc Elias, who initiated the suit, praised the order: "In Virginia, the Federal Court in the long-running state house redistricting case has ordered the special master to adopt the alternative-map configuration we advocated. We are one important step closer to the end of the GOP's racial gerrymander." At the time of the ruling, Republicans controlled the House of Delegates, holding 51 seats to Democrats' 48. Larry Sabato, head of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, said, "[The remedial map] would nearly guarantee a Democratic takeover of the House of Delegates."^[327]

On June 17, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its ruling in Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill, finding that the state House, helmed by Republicans, lacked standing to appeal a lower court order striking down the original legislative district plan as a racial gerrymander. The high court ruled 5-4, with Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg penning the majority opinion, joined by Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Neil Gorsuch. Associate Justice Samuel Alito dissented, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Stephen Breyer and Brett Kavanaugh. As a result of the high court's ruling, the lower court order implementing a remedial district plan was upheld.^[328]

Washington

For more information, click "[Show more]" below.

See also: Redistricting in Washington after the 2010 census

Congressional redistricting, 2010

Following the 2010 United States Census, Washington gained one congressional seat. On January 1, 2012, the state's redistricting commission released its congressional district plan. On February 1, 2012, the state legislature passed an amended version of this plan by a two-thirds vote.^[329]^[330]

State legislative redistricting, 2010

On January 1, 2012, the state's redistricting commission released its state legislative district plan. On February 1, 2012, the state legislature passed an amended version of this plan by a two-thirds vote.^[329]

West Virginia

For more information, click "[Show more]" below.

See also: Redistricting in West Virginia after the 2010 census

Congressional redistricting, 2010

Following the 2010 United States Census, West Virginia neither gained nor lost congressional seats. At the time of redistricting, Democrats held both chambers of the West Virginia State Legislature and the governorship. On August 5, 2011, the legislature approved a congressional redistricting plan, which was signed into law by the governor on August 18, 2011.^[331]^[35]

Jefferson County Commission v. Tennant

In November 2011, commissioners in Jefferson County challenged the newly enacted congressional district map in federal court. The commissioners argued that the "elongated 2nd District violated compactness standards, diluted the Panhandle's influence, and resulted in the largest population deviation between districts in the county–4,871 people." On January 3, 2012, the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia ruled in favor of the commissioners, finding that the map was unconstitutional. On September 25, 2012, however, the United States Supreme Court reversed this decision, ruling that "the deviation was permissible to attain the goal of keeping counties whole."^[331]^[35]

State legislative redistricting, 2010

On August 5, 2011, the state legislature approved a state Senate redistricting plan, which was signed into law by the governor on August 18, 2011. On August 21, 2011, the legislature approved a state House redistricting plan, which was signed into law on September 2, 2011. Challenges were filed against the state legislative district maps, but the maps were ultimately upheld.^[331]

Wisconsin

For more information, click "[Show more]" below.

See also: Redistricting in Wisconsin after the 2010 census

Congressional redistricting, 2010

Following the 2010 United States Census, Wisconsin neither gained nor lost congressional seats. At the time of redistricting, Republicans held both chambers of the Wisconsin State Legislature and the governorship. On July 20, 2011, the legislature approved a congressional redistricting plan, which was signed into law by Governor Scott Walker on August 9, 2011.^[332]^[35]

State legislative redistricting, 2010

On July 20, 2011, the state legislature approved a state legislative redistricting plan, which was signed into law on August 9, 2011. That summer, opponents of the new legislative and congressional maps filed suit in federal court through Baldus v. Brennan, alleging "partisan and racial gerrymandering and ... violation of the Voting Rights Act and various state constitutional criteria." Fifteen Wisconsin residents filed as the plaintiffs in that suit.^[333] On March 22, 2012, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin ruled that two state Assembly districts violated the Voting Rights Act. The court ordered that these two districts be redrawn. On April 11, 2012, the court accepted the redrawn districts.^[332]

In June 2012, Democrats assumed a one-vote majority in the Wisconsin State Senate as the result of a series of recall elections. Although Democrats lost the majority five months later, they were able, in the meantime, to compel law firm Michael Best and Friedrich to turn over files related to the 2011 redistricting cycle (Republicans tasked with drafting new maps in 2011 worked out of the Michael Best and Friedrich office in Madison, Wisconsin). Before Democrats assumed the majority, they had asked Michael Best and Friedrich to turn over the requested records, but the firm refused, saying that it answered to the majority leader. Democrats used these records as evidence when they filed suit in federal district court, alleging that the Wisconsin State Assembly map treated voters "unequally, diluting their voting power based on their political beliefs, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection." On November 21, 2016, the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin struck down the district map for the Wisconsin State Assembly, finding in favor of the plaintiffs, a group of state Democrats. The court ruled 2-1 on the matter, with Judges Kenneth Ripple and Barbara Crabb forming the majority. Ripple wrote the following in the court's majority opinion:^[334]^[335]

“	We find that Act 43 [the redistricting plan enacted by the state legislature in 2011] was intended to burden the representational rights of Democratic voters throughout the decennial period by impeding their ability to translate their votes into legislative seats. Moreover, as demonstrated by the results of the 2012 and 2014 elections, among other evidence, we conclude that Act 43 has had its intended effect.^[46]	”
—Judge Kenneth Ripple

Judge William Griesbach dissented and wrote the following in his dissent:^[334]

“	I am unable to accept proof of intent to act for political purposes as a significant part of any test for whether a task constitutionally entrusted to the political branches of government is unconstitutional. If political motivation is improper, then the task of redistricting should be constitutionally assigned to some other body, a change in law we lack any authority to effect.^[46]	”
—Judge William Griesbach

The court declined to order a remedy when it issued its ruling. Instead, the court ordered the parties involved in the case to submit briefs outlining recommended remedies within 30 days.^[334]

The plaintiffs in the case proposed a three-part test for determining whether illegal partisan gerrymandering has occurred in a state.^[334]

Intent: "Plaintiffs would have to establish that a state had an intent to gerrymander for partisan advantage."
Effect: "Plaintiffs would need to prove a partisan effect by proving that the efficiency gap for a plan exceeds a certain numerical threshold."
State interest: "Plaintiffs placed the burden on the defendants to rebut the presumption by showing that the plan 'is the necessary result of a legitimate state policy, or inevitable given the state's underlying political geography.'"

Peter Barca (D), the minority leader of the Wisconsin State Assembly, said, "This is an historic victory for voters and further admonishment of the extremely slanted maps that trample the democratic will of the people of Wisconsin." Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R) said, "There are only two things that are certain about this case: it's unprecedented and it isn't over. The state of Wisconsin has competitive legislative districts that meet every traditional principle of redistricting. Republicans win elections because we have better candidates and a better message that continues to resonate with the voters."^[336]

On January 27, 2017, the court ordered state lawmakers to draft a remedial redistricting plan for use in the November 2018 election. The court ordered that this plan be adopted by the legislature and signed into law by the governor by November 1, 2017. On March 24, 2017, state attorneys petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to reverse the district court's ruling.^[337]^[338]^[339]

On June 19, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States announced that it would hear the case, Gill v. Whitford. The court also voted 5-4 to stay the district court decision that ordered Wisconsin lawmakers to draft new maps by November 1, 2017. Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch voted to stay the district court order. Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Stephen Breyer dissented. Oral argument in the case took place on October 3, 2017. On June 18, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate standing to bring the complaint under Article III of the United States Constitution. The court's opinion, penned by Roberts, did not address the broader question of whether partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable and remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings. Roberts was joined in the majority opinion by Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Kagan wrote a concurring opinion joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Thomas authored an opinion that concurred in part with the majority opinion and in the judgment, joined by Gorsuch.^[340]^[341]^[342]

In response to the ruling, Bill Whitford, a plaintiff in the suit, said, "The discouraging thing is just the delay. We have a road map forward ... I don't think we'll have any difficulty meeting the burdens the court asked us to meet." Wisconsin Solicitor General Misha Tseytlin doubted the viability of a further challenge, saying, "I think it is quite notable that [the plaintiffs] put together a failry large, well-funded litigation team, had a four-day trial, and the Supreme Court unanimously held 9-0 they did not prove the basis of standing. The plaintiffs here failed to prove up the minimal standing to even bring a lawsuit."^[343]

On September 14, 2018, in response to the high court's ruling in Gill, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. Also on September 14, 2018, the Wisconsin Assembly Democratic Committee filed a similar but separate suit in the same court.^[344]^[345]

Wyoming

For more information, click "[Show more]" below.

See also: Redistricting in Wyoming after the 2010 census

Following the 2010 United States Census, Wyoming did not add to its single congressional seat, making congressional redistricting unnecessary. At the time of redistricting, Republicans held majorities in both chambers of the state legislature. On March 1, 2012, the legislature approved a state legislative redistricting plan, which was signed into law on March 6, 2012.^[346]

On April 5, 2012, a suit was filed in state court challenging the newly-approved state legislative district lines. The plaintiffs alleged "violations of the state and federal constitution, including allegedly insufficient attention to county representation." On August 6, 2014, the state filed a motion for . The case was filed as Hunzie v. Maxfield.^[346]

External links

Footnotes

↑ All About Redistricting, "Why does it matter?" accessed April 8, 2015
↑ New York Times, "Census 2010:Gains and Losses in Congress," December 21, 2010
↑ Official 2010 Apportionment from Census
↑ Official 2010 Apportionment from Census
↑ ^5.00 ^5.01 ^5.02 ^5.03 ^5.04 ^5.05 ^5.06 ^5.07 ^5.08 ^5.09 ^5.10 ^5.11 ^5.12 ^5.13 ^5.14 ^5.15 ^5.16 Public Mapping, "Legislative Districts 2010 Census Statistics," May 23, 2011
↑ Stateline, "Republicans face obstacles in redistricting," January 12, 2011
↑ USCourts.gov, "Shelby County, Alabama, Appellant v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, et al., Appellees," accessed July 6, 2015
↑ USCourts.gov, "SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA,Plaintiff,v.ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, Defendant.," accessed July 6, 2015
↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "CERTIORARI GRANTED ," accessed July 6, 2015
↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Shelby County Alabama v. Holder, Attorney General, et al.," accessed July 6, 2015
↑ ^11.0 ^11.1 National Conference of State Legislatures, "Reallocating Inmate Data for Redistricting," accessed August 24, 2021
↑ tuscaloosanews.com, "Alabama Legislature passes redistricting plans," accessed April 21, 2015
↑ Geo Community, "Alabama moves its redistricting process to the web," January 20, 2011
↑ WAAYTV.com, "Alabama Legislature passes redistricting plans," May 24, 2012
↑ AL.com, "Bentley rejects Huntsville's alternative redistricting plan; signs Legislature's plan into law," June 8, 2011
↑ The Leadership Conference, "Shelby County v. Holder," accessed April 16, 2015
↑ The Birmingham News, "Alabama Legislative Black Caucus files lawsuit over redistricting plans," August 10, 2012
↑ ^18.0 ^18.1 Politico, "High Court reasserts Voting Rights Act in Alabama decision," March 25, 2015
↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court hands win to opponents of Alabama redistricting plan," March 25, 2015
↑ Montgomery Advertiser, "Federal judges see problems with Ala. legislative map," August 25, 2015
↑ Montgomery Advertiser, "Redistricting case: Plaintiffs must provide map proposals," September 1, 2015
↑ United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, "Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama: Memorandum Opinion and Order," January 20, 2017
↑ AL.com, "Federal judges rule Alabama must redraw legislative districts," January 20, 2017
↑ BillTrack50, "AL SB403," May 19, 2017
↑ BillTrack50, "AL HB571," May 11, 2017
↑ Associated Press, "Lawsuits: Congressional maps dilute black voters in 3 states," June 13, 2018
↑ Associated Press, "Trial begins in challenge to congressional district map," November 3, 2019
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named alaskaloyola
↑ ^29.0 ^29.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named arizonaloyola
↑ State of Arizona, "Commissioner Colleen Mathis, Chair Impeachment Letters," November 1, 2011
↑ 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
↑ ^35.00 ^35.01 ^35.02 ^35.03 ^35.04 ^35.05 ^35.06 ^35.07 ^35.08 ^35.09 ^35.10 ^35.11 ^35.12 ^35.13 ^35.14 ^35.15 ^35.16 ^35.17 ^35.18 ^35.19 ^35.20 ^35.21 ^35.22 ^35.23 ^35.24 ^35.25 ^35.26 ^35.27 ^35.28 ^35.29 ^35.30 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. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "almanac" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "almanac" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "almanac" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "almanac" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "almanac" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "almanac" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "almanac" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "almanac" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "almanac" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "almanac" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "almanac" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "almanac" defined multiple times with different content
↑ Arkansas News, "Update: Governor's redistricting maps adopted by panel," July 29, 2011
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named arkansasloyola
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named caloyola
↑ 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.
↑ ^40.0 ^40.1 ^40.2 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named coloyola
↑ ^41.0 ^41.1 Redistricting in Colorado, "Redistricting Committee," accessed April 22, 2015
↑ ^42.0 ^42.1 ^42.2 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named ctloyola
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named deloyola
↑ Florida Division of Elections, "Standards for Legislature to Follow in Legislative Redistricting," accessed April 22, 2015
↑ Florida Division of Elections, "Standards for Legislature to Follow in Congressional Redistricting," accessed April 22, 2015
↑ ^46.00 ^46.01 ^46.02 ^46.03 ^46.04 ^46.05 ^46.06 ^46.07 ^46.08 ^46.09 ^46.10 ^46.11 ^46.12 ^46.13 ^46.14 ^46.15 ^46.16 ^46.17 ^46.18 ^46.19 ^46.20 ^46.21 ^46.22 ^46.23 ^46.24 ^46.25 ^46.26 ^46.27 ^46.28 ^46.29 ^46.30 ^46.31 ^46.32 ^46.33 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
↑ ^47.0 ^47.1 ^47.2 ^47.3 ^47.4 ^47.5 All About Redistricting, "Litigation in the 2010 cycle," accessed April 22, 2015 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "litigation" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "litigation" defined multiple times with different content
↑ Law 360, "Voter Coalition Appeals Fla. Court's OK of Redrawn Maps," August 29, 2014
↑ Politico, "Judge tosses Florida congressional map," July 10, 2014
↑ Law 360, "Voter Coalition Appeals Fla. Court's OK of Redrawn Maps," August 29, 2014
↑ Tampa Bay Times, "Florida Supreme Court orders new congressional map with eight districts to be redrawn," July 9, 2015
↑ Florida Supreme Throws Out Congressional Map, Orders Battleground Districts Redrawn," July 9, 2015
↑ Florida Supreme Court, "League of Women Voters of Florida v. Detzner: Opinion," July 9, 2015
↑ Ballot Access News, "Florida Supreme Court Orders Legislature to Redraw U.S. House Districts," July 9, 2015
↑ Election Law Blog, "The Alabama Redistricting Cases and Today’s Decision Invalidating Eight Congressional Districts in Florida," July 9, 2015
↑ Law 360, "Voter Coalition Appeals Fla. Court's OK of Redrawn Maps," August 29, 2014
↑ The Miami Herald, "Florida Legislature ends special session with no agreement on new congressional districts," August 21, 2015
↑ NPR, "Judge To Redraw Florida's Congressional Maps After Legislature Fails To Reach Deal," August 21, 2015
↑ Miami Herald, "Florida Supreme Court approves congressional map drawn by challengers," December 2, 2015
↑ CBS Miami, "Senate Redistricting Battle Looms," July 8, 2015
↑ The Miami Herald, "Judge orders Senate redistricting trial to move forward," November 13, 2015
↑ Tampa Bay Times, "Judge orders Florida Senate redistricting trial to move forward," November 13, 2015
↑ Florida Politics, "Judge selects plaintiffs’ map in Senate redistricting case," December 21, 2015
↑ Florida Politics, "New state Senate seats renumbered," January 5, 2016
↑ ^65.0 ^65.1 ^65.2 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named galoyola
↑ Associated Press, "Lawsuits: Congressional maps dilute black voters in 3 states," June 13, 2018
↑ Associated Press, "Trial begins in challenge to congressional district map," November 3, 2019
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named hiloyola
↑ Idaho Press-Tribune, "Idaho redistricters vote 4-2 for congressional map," October 17, 2011
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named idaholoyola
↑ Idaho Supreme Court, "Denney v. Ysursa," January 25, 2012
↑ ^72.0 ^72.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named illinoisloyola
↑ The Huffington Post, "Illinois Redistricting: Quinn Signs Plan To Add Democratic Seats," June 24, 2011
↑ The Huffington Post, "Illinois Redistricting: Democrat-Backed Maps Head To Quinn's Desk, Threaten Republican Gains," May 31, 2011
↑ Forbes, "Ind. gov signs 80 bills into law, including budget," May 11, 2011
↑ Evansville Courier and Press, "Indiana lawmakers unveil new draft of legislative maps," April 11, 2011
↑ WTHI TV, "Illinois loses seat to census, Indiana constant," December 21, 2010
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named iowaloyola
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named ksloyola
↑ ^80.0 ^80.1 ^80.2 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named kyloyola
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named laloyola
↑ Associated Press, "Lawsuits: Congressional maps dilute black voters in 3 states," June 13, 2018
↑ Associated Press, "Trial begins in challenge to congressional district map," November 3, 2019
↑ ^84.0 ^84.1 ^84.2 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named meloyola
↑ 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.
↑ ^86.0 ^86.1 ^86.2 ^86.3 ^86.4 All About Redistricting, 'Maryland," accessed April 30, 2015
↑ ^87.0 ^87.1 Brennan Center for Justice, "Supreme Court to Wade into Partisan Gerrymandering," June 8, 2015
↑ Jurist, "Supreme Court to rule on three-judge rule for redistricting cases," June 8, 2015
↑ United States Code, "Title 28, Part VI, Chapter 155, Section 2284," accessed June 12, 2015
↑ SCOTUSblog, "Shapiro v. Mack," accessed June 12, 2015
↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Shapiro v. McManus: Decision," December 8, 2015
↑ United States District Court for the District of Maryland, "Joint Motion to Extend Deadlines for Certain Expert Witness Disclosures," May 2, 2017
↑ United States District Court for the District of Maryland, "Benisek v. Lamone: Memorandum," August 24, 2017
↑ Brennan Center for Justice, "Benisek v. Lamone," August 24, 2017
↑ Election Law Blog, "Supreme Court Won't Hurry Consideration of Maryland Partisan Gerrymandering Case," September 13, 2017
↑ SCOTUSblog, "Court adds seven new cases to merits docket," December 8, 2017
↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Benisek v. Lamone: Decision," June 18, 2018
↑ SCOTUSblog, "Lamone v. Benisek," accessed January 28, 2019
↑ ^99.0 ^99.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek: Opinion of the Court," June 27, 2019
↑ ^100.0 ^100.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named maloyola
↑ The Detroit News, "Federal suit alleges GOP 'gerrymandering' in Michigan," December 22, 2017
↑ United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, "League of Women Voters of Michigan v. Johnson: Order Granting Application for Three-Judge Court," December 27, 2017
↑ Associated Press, "Sotomayor rejects delay of Michigan redistricting trial," February 4, 2019
↑ ^104.0 ^104.1 ^104.2 United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, "League of Women Voters of Michigan v. Benson: Opinion and Order," April 25, 2019
↑ The Detroit News, "Federal court: Michigan political maps illegally rigged to 'historical proportions,'" April 25, 2019
↑ The Detroit News, "GOP appeals Michigan gerrymandering ruling to Supreme Court," April 30, 2019
↑ Election Law Blog, "Stay Request in Michigan Redistricting Case," May 6, 2019
↑ Ballot Access News, "Michigan and Ohio Ask U.S. Supreme Court to Stay Orders that Require Redistricting of US House Districts," May 11, 2019
↑ Ballot Access News, "U.S. Supreme Court Grants Stay in Gerrymandering Cases in Michigan and Ohio," May 24, 2019
↑ NBC News, "Supreme Court wipes out ruling on Michigan partisan gerrymander," October 21, 2019
↑ ^111.0 ^111.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named miloyola
↑ ^112.0 ^112.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named mnloyola
↑ ^113.0 ^113.1 ^113.2 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named moloyola
↑ 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.
↑ All About Redistricting, "Litigation in the 2010 cycle, Missouri," accessed May 7, 2015
↑ ^116.0 ^116.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named mtloyola
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named neloyola
↑ ^118.0 ^118.1 ^118.2 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named nvloyola
↑ ^119.0 ^119.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named nhloyola
↑ 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.
↑ ^121.0 ^121.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named njloyola
↑ 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.
↑ ^123.0 ^123.1 ^123.2 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named nmloyola
↑ 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.
↑ ^125.0 ^125.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named nyloyola
↑ 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.
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named ncloyola
↑ 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
↑ ^130.0 ^130.1 ^130.2 Supreme Court of the United States, "Cooper v. Harris: Decision," May 22, 2017
↑ ^131.0 ^131.1 United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, "Common Cause v. Rucho: Memorandum Opinion," August 27, 2018
↑ United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, "Common Cause v. Rucho: Order," September 12, 2018
↑ North Carolina General Court of Justice – Superior Court Division – Wake County, "Harper v. Lewis: Order on Injunctive Relief," October 28, 2019
↑ WRAL.com, "NC's congressional district redraw starts Tuesday," November 4, 2019
↑ North Carolina General Assembly, "House Bill 1029 / SL 2019-249," accessed November 18, 2019
↑ The News & Observer, "North Carolina lawmakers OK new 2020 congressional maps. Now it’s up to the courts." November 15, 2019
↑ North Carolina General Court of Justice – Superior Court Division – Wake County, "Harper v. Lewis: Order," November 20, 2019
↑ The News & Observer, "New congressional maps in North Carolina will stand for 2020, court rules," December 2, 2019
↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "North Carolina v. Covington: Per Curiam," June 5, 2017
↑ ^140.0 ^140.1 ^140.2 ^140.3 United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, "Covington v. North Carolina: Order," July 31, 2017
↑ The News and Observer, "See the proposed NC Senate map," August 20, 2017
↑ General Assembly of North Carolina, "Senate Bill 691," accessed August 25, 2017
↑ General Assembly of North Carolina, "House Calendar," August 25, 2017
↑ General Assembly of North Carolina, "SB 691," accessed August 29, 2017
↑ United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, "Covington v. North Carolina: Order," October 26, 2017
↑ The News & Observer, "Republican lawmakers upset with Stanford professor’s plan to fix gerrymandering," December 1, 2017
↑ Winston-Salem Journal, "'Special master' submits final N.C. redistricting maps," December 1, 2017
↑ WRAL.com, "Redistricting hearing signals coming end to map-making saga," January 5, 2018
↑ United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, "Covington v. North Carolina: Memorandum Opinion and Order," January 19, 2018
↑ WRAL.com, "GOP legislators ask altered North Carolina maps be delayed," January 21, 2018
↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "North Carolina, et al. v. Covington, Sandra L., et al.: Order in Pending Case," February 6, 2018
↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Issues Partial Stay in North Carolina Voting Case," February 6, 2018
↑ WRAL.com, "Supreme Court says some, but not all, new legislative districts can be used in 2018 elections," February 6, 2018
↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "North Carolina v. Covington: Per Curiam," June 28, 2018
↑ Election Law Blog, "Breaking: 3-Judge Court Unanimously Rules NC State Districts Unconstitutional Racial Gerrymander," August 11, 2016
↑ United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, "Covington v. North Carolina," August 11, 2016
↑ Governing, "North Carolina Ordered to Hold Special Elections After Redrawing Districts," November 30, 2016
↑ Reuters, "Federal judges order North Carolina to redraw legislative districts," November 30, 2016
↑ ABC 11, "Federal court orders North Carolina to redraw districts, hold elections in Fall of 2017," accessed April 17, 2017
↑ The News and Observer, "GOP legislative leaders ask US Supreme Court to halt 2017 elections," December 30, 2016
↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "State of North Carolina, et al. v. Sandra Little Covington, et al.: Emergency Application for Stay of Remedial order Pending Resolution of Direct Appeal in This Court," December 30, 2016
↑ Election Law Blog, "Breaking: #SCOTUS Halts NC Special Elections Ordered after Finding of Racial Gerrymandering," January 10, 2017
↑ ^163.0 ^163.1 The Chronicle, "Blue: Special election will happen," accessed March 31, 2017
↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "North Carolina v. Covington: Per Curiam," June 5, 2017
↑ ^165.0 ^165.1 The News and Observer, "NC legislators OK redistricting rules. Democrats aren’t happy." August 10, 2017
↑ ^166.0 ^166.1 WRAL.com, "Redistricting criteria call for partisan maps, no consideration of race," August 10, 2017
↑ General Assembly of North Carolina, "House Select Committee on Redistricting – 8-10-2017," accessed August 11, 2017
↑ Citizen-Times, "NC remapping rules include election results but not race," August 11, 2017
↑ The News and Observer, "New map reveals part of NC Republicans’ redistricting plan," August 19, 2017
↑ General Assembly of North Carolina, "Districts and Their Incumbents: NC House Plan," August 21, 2017
↑ General Assembly of North Carolina, "August 22, 2017 Redistricting Public Hearing Sites," accessed August 23, 2017
↑ The News and Observer, "Here’s what the public had to say about GOP redistricting plans," August 22, 2017
↑ General Assembly of North Carolina, "HB 927," accessed August 30, 2017
↑ The News and Observer, "See the proposed NC Senate map," August 20, 2017
↑ General Assembly of North Carolina, "Senate Bill 691," accessed August 25, 2017
↑ General Assembly of North Carolina, "House Calendar," August 25, 2017
↑ General Assembly of North Carolina, "SB 691," accessed August 29, 2017
↑ United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, "Covington v. North Carolina: Order," October 26, 2017
↑ Greensboro News and Record, "GOP leaders object to using outside expert on redistricting maps," October 30, 2017
↑ American Lens, "Special Master Imposed by Court on NC Redistricting," October 31, 2017
↑ United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, "Covington v. North Carolina: Special Master's Draft Plan and Order," November 13, 2017
↑ The News & Observer, "Republican lawmakers upset with Stanford professor’s plan to fix gerrymandering," December 1, 2017
↑ Winston-Salem Journal, "'Special master' submits final N.C. redistricting maps," December 1, 2017
↑ WRAL.com, "Redistricting hearing signals coming end to map-making saga," January 5, 2018
↑ United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, "Covington v. North Carolina: Memorandum Opinion and Order," January 19, 2018
↑ WRAL.com, "GOP legislators ask altered North Carolina maps be delayed," January 21, 2018
↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "North Carolina, et al. v. Covington, Sandra L., et al.: Order in Pending Case," February 6, 2018
↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Issues Partial Stay in North Carolina Voting Case," February 6, 2018
↑ WRAL.com, "Supreme Court says some, but not all, new legislative districts can be used in 2018 elections," February 6, 2018
↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "North Carolina v. Covington: Per Curiam," June 28, 2018
↑ The News & Observer, "After Supreme Court ruling, NC gerrymander challengers turn to state court for relief," February 7, 2018
↑ The News & Observer, "Wake-Mecklenburg maps stand as GOP drew them as candidates file for office," February 12, 2018
↑ The News & Observer, "Another redistricting lawsuit filed in NC — this one over Wake election districts," February 21, 2018
↑ The News & Observer, "Wake redistricting challengers 'likely to succeed,' judges say – but elections go on," April 13, 2018
↑ Associated Press, "State partisan gerrymandering trial set to begin in July," February 1, 2019
↑ U.S. News and World Report, "North Carolina Trial Into Partisan Gerrymandering Wraps Up," July 26, 2019
↑ ^197.0 ^197.1 North Carolina General Court of Justice – Superior Court Division – Wake County, "Common Cause v. Lewis: Judgment," September 3, 2019
↑ The Washington Post, "North Carolina court rules partisan state legislative districts unconstitutional," September 3, 2019
↑ North Carolina General Court of Justice – Superior Court Division – Wake County, "Common Cause v. Lewis: Order," October 28, 2019
↑ Common Cause North Carolina, "Plaintiffs in Common Cause v. Lewis file appeal asking NC Supreme Court to review eight NC House districts that remain partisan gerrymanders," November 1, 2019
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named ndloyola
↑ ^202.0 ^202.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named ohloyola
↑ United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, "Ohio A. Phillip Randolph Institute v. Householder: Opinion and Order," May 3, 2019
↑ Ballot Access News, "Michigan and Ohio Ask U.S. Supreme Court to Stay Orders that Require Redistricting of US House Districts," May 11, 2019
↑ Ballot Access News, "U.S. Supreme Court Grants Stay in Gerrymandering Cases in Michigan and Ohio," May 24, 2019
↑ ^206.0 ^206.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named okloyola
↑ 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.
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named orloyola
↑ ^209.0 ^209.1 ^209.2 All About Redistricting, "Pennsylvania," accessed May 8, 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.
↑ United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, "Judgment," January 10, 2018
↑ United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, "Agre v. Wolf: Smith Memorandum," January 10, 2018
↑ United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, "Agre v. Wolf: Baylson Memorandum," January 10, 2018
↑ ^214.0 ^214.1 ^214.2 The Philadelphia Inquirer, "In gerrymandering case, judge recommends Pa. Supreme Court uphold congressional map," December 29, 2017
↑ ^215.0 ^215.1 Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, "League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: Recommended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law," December 29, 2017
↑ The New York Times, "Judge Says Pennsylvania Election Districts Give Republicans an Edge, but Are Not Illegal," December 29, 2017
↑ The Morning Call, "Judge: No proof Pennsylvania congressional map is unconstitutional," December 29, 2017
↑ Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, "Pa. Supreme Court hears arguments in gerrymandering case," January 17, 2018
↑ ^219.0 ^219.1 Pennsylvania Supreme Court, League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, January 22, 2018 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "pasupreme" defined multiple times with different content
↑ The Inquirer, "Pa. Republicans ask U.S. Supreme Court to halt redistricting order," January 25, 2018
↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania: Emergency Application for Stay Pending Resolution of Appeal to This Court," January 25, 2018
↑ Election Law Blog, "Justice Alito (Belatedly) Calls for Response in PA Congressional Gerrymandering Case," January 29, 2018
↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court won't block Pa. ruling that state redraw congressional boundaries immediately, in decision that could help Democrats," February 5, 2018
↑ Penn Live, "New Pa. court order adds further definition to 11th-hour redistricting process," January 27, 2018
↑ The Hill, "Pa. state Senate leader refuses court order on redrawing district maps," January 31, 2018
↑ The Inquirer, "Sen. Scarnati refuses Pa. Supreme Court order to turn over map data in gerrymander case," January 31, 2018
↑ Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, "League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: Opinion," February 7, 2018
↑ Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, "League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: Dissenting Opinion (Chief Justice Saylor)," February 7, 2018
↑ Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, "League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: Dissenting Opinion (Justice Mundy)," February 7, 2018
↑ Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, "League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: Concurring and Dissenting Opinion (Justice Baer)," February 7, 2018
↑ The Inquirer, "Top Republicans in Pa. House, Senate submit congressional map to Gov. Wolf," February 9, 2018
↑ Senator Joe Scarnati, "Pennsylvania Legislative Leaders Submitting Congressional Map," February 9, 2018
↑ The Inquirer, "Gov. Wolf rejects Republican map proposal, saying it remains a partisan gerrymander," February 13, 2018
↑ Governor of Pennsylvania, "Governor Tom Wolf Rejects Partisan Gerrymandered Map," February 13, 2018
↑ WFMZ-TV, "So many maps, so little time: Pennsylvania redistricting debate continues," February 16, 2018
↑ The United Judicial System of Pennsylvania, "League of Women Voters, et al. v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al. – 159 MM 2017," accessed February 16, 2018
↑ Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, "League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: Brief for Intervenors," January 10, 2018
↑ ^238.0 ^238.1 ^238.2 Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, "League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: Opinion and Order," February 19, 2018
↑ Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, "The League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: Dissenting Opinion (Chief Justice Saylor)," February 19, 2018
↑ Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, "The League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: Dissenting Opinion (Justice Mundy)," February 19, 2018
↑ Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, "The League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: Dissenting Opinion (Justice Baer)," February 19, 2018
↑ The Philadelphia Inquirer, "Pa. gerrymandering case: State Supreme Court releases new congressional map for 2018 elections," February 19, 2018
↑ The Washington Post, "Pennsylvania’s new congressional map could boost Democrats," February 19, 2018
↑ The Washington Post, "The Latest: GOP to take new congressional map to court," February 19, 2018
↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Emergency Application for Stay Pending Resolution of Appeal to This Court," February 27, 2018
↑ Election Law Blog, "Breaking: Supreme Court, With No Noted Dissent, Refuses to Intervene in Pa Redistricting Case Just Hours After Lower Court Rules," March 19, 2018
↑ The Indiana Gazette, "Dush introduces legislation to impeach Supreme Court justices," March 20, 2018
↑ Pennsylvania House of Representatives, "Memorandum: Impeachment of five PA Supreme Court Justices," February 5, 2018
↑ The Philadelphia Inquirer, "Pa. Republican state legislator moves to impeach four state Supreme Court justices," March 20, 2018
↑ Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, "GOP chief justice slams Republican judicial impeachment move," March 22, 2018
↑ Bloomberg Law, "SCOTUS Ends One Partisan Gerrymandering Battle; More Remain," May 30, 2018
↑ Election Law Blog, "New Federal Lawsuit in Pennsylvania Congressional Redistricting Litigation Seeks 3 Judge Court Order to Hold Elections Under Old 2011 Maps; Case is Longshot," February 22, 2018
↑ United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, "Corman v. Torres: Verified Complaint," February 22, 2018
↑ United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, "Corman v. Torres: On Application to Convene a Three Judge District Court," February 23, 2018
↑ Election Law Blog, "Three-Judge Federal District Court in Pa Congressional Redistricting Case Sets Expedited Schedule for Briefing on Preliminary Injunction Request," February 23, 2018
↑ The Philadelphia Inquirer, "Federal judges hear arguments in Pa. congressional map fight: Should they block new map?" March 9, 2018
↑ Election Law Blog, "Breaking: Three-Judge Federal Court (All Republican Nominees) Rejects PA Congressional Redistricting Challenge, Leaving Issue to SCOTUS," March 19, 2018
↑ United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, "Corman v. Torres: Memorandum Opinion," March 19, 2018
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named riloyola
↑ 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.
↑ ^261.0 ^261.1 ^261.2 ^261.3 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named scloyola
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named sdloyola
↑ ^263.0 ^263.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named tnloyola
↑ 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.
↑ ^265.0 ^265.1 ^265.2 ^265.3 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named txloyola
↑ ^266.0 ^266.1 ^266.2 ^266.3 All About Redistricting, "Litigation in the 2010 cycle, Texas," accessed May 7, 2015
↑ Election Law Blog, "Breaking: 3-Judge Court Keeps Texas Redistricting Plan in Place, for Now," November 6, 2015
↑ ^268.0 ^268.1 United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, "Civil Action No. 11-CA-360-OLG-JES-XR–Order," November 6, 2015
↑ United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, "Perez v. Abbott: Order," March 10, 2017
↑ Governing, "Redistricting Ruling Bolsters Democrats' Battle in Texas," March 13, 2017
↑ United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, "Perez v. Abbott: Order on Plan H283," April 20, 2017
↑ Dallas News, "Minority votes intentionally diluted by GOP-led Texas House redistricting, federal court says," April 20, 2017
↑ The Texas Tribune, "With 2018 election looming, Texas back in court over political maps," July 10, 2017
↑ Dallas News, "With future elections in the balance, federal court to hear Texas redistricting case," July 10, 2017
↑ San Antonio Express-News, "Redistricting trial begins Monday in San Antonio," July 9, 2017
↑ United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, "Perez v. Abbott: Order on Plan C235," August 15, 2017
↑ Houston Chronicle, "Court invalidates redrawn map for 2 Texas congressional districts," August 15, 2017
↑ Attorney General of Texas, "AG Paxton Reacts to Court’s Redistricting Ruling," August 15, 2017
↑ Texas Tribune, "With Supreme Court appeal, Texas wants to keep congressional map intact," August 18, 2017
↑ Attorney General of Texas, "AG Paxton Appeals Redistricting Ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court and Seeks Stay of District Court Order," August 18, 2017
↑ United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, "Perez v. Abbott: Order on Plan H358," August 24, 2017
↑ Texas Tribune, "Texas House map must be redrawn, federal court says," August 24, 2017
↑ Election Law Blog, "Justice Alito Stays Order to Redo Texas Congressional Districts Pending Further Briefing at Supreme Court," August 28, 2017
↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Abbott v. Perez: Order," August 31, 2017
↑ Election Law Blog, "Supreme Court, on 5-4 Party Line Vote, Blocks Texas Redistricting Remedy for Now. What’s Next?" September 12, 2017
↑ Politico, "Supreme Court blocks ruling against Texas redistricting," September 12, 2017
↑ The New York Times, "Splitting 5-4, Justices Put Texas Redistricting on Hold," September 12, 2017
↑ Ballot Access News, "U.S. Supreme Court Will Hear Texas Redistricting Case," January 13, 2018
↑ Election Law Blog, "Supreme Court Sets Oral Argument in Texas Redistricting Cases for April 24," accessed February 23, 2018
↑ Austin American-Statesman, "Trump lawyer seeks to defend Texas political maps at Supreme Court," March 26, 2018
↑ United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, "Perez v. Abbott: Order," August 30, 2018
↑ Fort Worth Star-Telegram, "Judges OK political map in Fort Worth, saying new boundaries no longer discriminate," June 10, 2019
↑ United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, "Perez v. Abbott: Order on Request for § 3(c) Relief," July 24, 2019
↑ ^294.0 ^294.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named utloyola
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named vtloyola
↑ ^296.0 ^296.1 ^296.2 All About Redistricting, "Virginia," accessed May 8, 2015
↑ ^297.0 ^297.1 ^297.2 Election Law Blog, "Breaking: Federal Court on 2-1 Vote Finds Congressional Districting Plan Unconstitutional Racial Gerrymander," June 5, 2015
↑ ^298.0 ^298.1 ^298.2 Ballot Access News, "Virginia U.S. House District Lines Again Invalidated by 3-Judge U.S. District Court," June 5, 2015
↑ ^299.0 ^299.1 ^299.2 The Daily Press, "3rd Congressional District again deemed unconstitutional," June 5, 2015
↑ ^300.0 ^300.1 ^300.2 The Roanoke Times, "Three-judge panel rules Virginia must redraw congressional map," June 5, 2015
↑ ^301.0 ^301.1 ^301.2 United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, "Page v. Virginia State Board of Elections Memorandum Opinion— Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD," June 5, 2015
↑ The Republic, "Federal judges reject GOP request to delay special session on redistricting," August 5, 2015
↑ ^303.0 ^303.1 The Richmond Times-Dispatch, "Federal judges will redraw Virginia’s congressional map," August 17, 2015
↑ Richmond Times-Dispatch, "U.S. Supreme Court sets March 21 arguments in Va. redistricting case," January 30, 2016
↑ ^305.0 ^305.1 SCOTUSblog, "No delay of new Virginia federal districting map," February 2, 2016
↑ Roll Call, "Lawmakers Ask Supreme Court to Stop Virginia Redistricting Plan," January 13, 2016
↑ Roll Call, "Supreme Court Allows Virginia Redistricting to Stand in 2016," February 1, 2016
↑ Election Law Blog, "Supreme Court Allows Virginia Redistricting to Stand in 2016," February 1, 2016
↑ SCOTUSblog, "Argument preview: Once again, the issue is race," March 14, 2016
↑ Election Law Blog, "Breaking: Unanimous Supreme Court Dismisses Va. Racial Gerrymandering Case on Standing Grounds, Making No New Voting Law," May 23, 2016
↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Wittman v. Personhuballah," May 23, 2016
↑ Oyez, ITT Chicago-Kent College of Law, "Bethune-Hill v. Virginia Board of Elections," accessed June 28, 2016
↑ Politico, "Supreme Court takes case claiming racial gerrymandering in Virginia," June 6, 2016
↑ The Washington Post, "A third redistricting lawsuit targets Va. elections map," September 14, 2015
↑ ^315.0 ^315.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "Bethune-Hill v. Virginia Board of Elections: Opinion," March 1, 2017
↑ SCOTUSblog, "Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections," accessed March 1, 2017
↑ Politico, "Supreme Court calls for further review of Virginia legislative map," March 1, 2017
↑ The Washington Post, "Circuit judge rules against Virginia gerrymandering claims, says districts 'debatable,'" March 31, 2017
↑ Richmond Times-Dispatch, "Virginia Supreme Court to hear appeal in redistricting case," October 24, 2017
↑ Virginia Supreme Court, "Rima Ford Vesilind, et al. v. Virginia State Board of Elections, et al.: Opinion," May 31, 2018
↑ Richmond Times-Dispatch, "Virginia Supreme Court upholds 11 challenged state legislative districts," May 31, 2018
↑ Richmond Times-Dispatch, "Federal court rules against Va. House in racial gerrymandering case, orders new districting plan by Oct. 30," June 26, 2018
↑ Richmond Times-Dispatch, "Va. House GOP asks U.S. Supreme Court to delay court-ordered redistricting in racial gerrymandering case," July 9, 2018
↑ Governing, "Gerrymandered Virginia House Districts to Be Redrawn in Special Session," August 23, 2018
↑ Associated Press, "Judges set timeline for new Virginia legislative map," October 22, 2018
↑ Election Law Blog, "Supreme Court declines to intervene in Virginia redistricting dispute," January 8, 2019
↑ Richmond Times-Dispatch, "Federal court picks redrawn Va. House map that boosts Democrats' chances of taking control," January 23, 2019
↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill," June 17, 2019
↑ ^329.0 ^329.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named waloyola
↑ 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.
↑ ^331.0 ^331.1 ^331.2 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named wvloyola
↑ ^332.0 ^332.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named wiloyola
↑ Loyola Law School, "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN," accessed September 12, 2017
↑ ^334.0 ^334.1 ^334.2 ^334.3 United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, "Whitford v. Gill: Opinion and Order," November 21, 2016
↑ Wisconsin State Journal, "Democrats' short-lived 2012 recall victory led to key evidence in partisan gerrymandering case," July 23, 2017
↑ The Capital Times, "In split decision, federal judges rule Wisconsin's redistricting law an unconstitutional gerrymander," November 21, 2016
↑ United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, "Whitford v. Gill: Opinion and Order," January 27, 2017
↑ Ballot Access News, "Wisconsin Asks U.S. Supreme Court To Hear Partisan Gerrymandering Lawsuit," March 25, 2017
↑ Ballot Access News, "U.S. Supreme Court Will Consider Whether to Grant Stay in Important Wisconsin Gerrymandering Case," May 30, 2017
↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear potentially landmark case on partisan gerrymandering," June 19, 2017
↑ Election Law Blog, "UPDATE ON STAY: Breaking: Supreme Court to Hear WI Gerrymandering Case, Gill v. Whitford, Next Term Analysis," June 19, 2017
↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Gill v. Whitford: Decision," June 18, 2018
↑ Journal Sentinel, "Democrats seek to bring redistricting case back to Supreme Court before 2020 elections," June 18, 2018
↑ United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, "Whitford v. Gill: Amended Complaint," September 14, 2018
↑ United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, "Wisconsin Assembly Democratic Committee v. Gill: Three Judge Panel Requested," September 14, 2018
↑ ^346.0 ^346.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named wyloyola

[matter-1] All About Redistricting, "Why does it matter?" accessed April 8, 2015

[2] New York Times, "Census 2010:Gains and Losses in Congress," December 21, 2010

[3] Official 2010 Apportionment from Census

[4] Official 2010 Apportionment from Census

[pmapdata-5] 5.00 ^5.01 ^5.02 ^5.03 ^5.04 ^5.05 ^5.06 ^5.07 ^5.08 ^5.09 ^5.10 ^5.11 ^5.12 ^5.13 ^5.14 ^5.15 ^5.16 Public Mapping, "Legislative Districts 2010 Census Statistics," May 23, 2011

[6] Stateline, "Republicans face obstacles in redistricting," January 12, 2011

[CADC1-7] USCourts.gov, "Shelby County, Alabama, Appellant v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, et al., Appellees," accessed July 6, 2015

[ECF1-8] USCourts.gov, "SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA,Plaintiff,v.ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, Defendant.," accessed July 6, 2015

[Supreme2-9] SupremeCourt.gov, "CERTIORARI GRANTED ," accessed July 6, 2015

[SupremeDec-10] SupremeCourt.gov, "Shelby County Alabama v. Holder, Attorney General, et al.," accessed July 6, 2015

[NCSLPrison-11] 11.0 ^11.1 National Conference of State Legislatures, "Reallocating Inmate Data for Redistricting," accessed August 24, 2021

[12] tuscaloosanews.com, "Alabama Legislature passes redistricting plans," accessed April 21, 2015

[13] Geo Community, "Alabama moves its redistricting process to the web," January 20, 2011

[14] WAAYTV.com, "Alabama Legislature passes redistricting plans," May 24, 2012

[15] AL.com, "Bentley rejects Huntsville's alternative redistricting plan; signs Legislature's plan into law," June 8, 2011

[16] The Leadership Conference, "Shelby County v. Holder," accessed April 16, 2015

[17] The Birmingham News, "Alabama Legislative Black Caucus files lawsuit over redistricting plans," August 10, 2012

[politico2015-18] 18.0 ^18.1 Politico, "High Court reasserts Voting Rights Act in Alabama decision," March 25, 2015

[wapost2015-19] The Washington Post, "Supreme Court hands win to opponents of Alabama redistricting plan," March 25, 2015

[20] Montgomery Advertiser, "Federal judges see problems with Ala. legislative map," August 25, 2015

[21] Montgomery Advertiser, "Redistricting case: Plaintiffs must provide map proposals," September 1, 2015

[22] United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, "Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama: Memorandum Opinion and Order," January 20, 2017

[23] AL.com, "Federal judges rule Alabama must redraw legislative districts," January 20, 2017

[24] BillTrack50, "AL SB403," May 19, 2017

[25] BillTrack50, "AL HB571," May 11, 2017

[26] Associated Press, "Lawsuits: Congressional maps dilute black voters in 3 states," June 13, 2018

[27] Associated Press, "Trial begins in challenge to congressional district map," November 3, 2019

[alaskaloyola-28] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named alaskaloyola

[arizonaloyola-29] 29.0 ^29.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named arizonaloyola

[30] State of Arizona, "Commissioner Colleen Mathis, Chair Impeachment Letters," November 1, 2011

[nytimes-31] The New York Times, "Court Skeptical of Arizona Plan for Less-Partisan Congressional Redistricting," March 2, 2015

[atlanticseptember-32] The Atlantic, "Will the Supreme Court Let Arizona Fight Gerrymandering?" September 15, 2014

[opinion-33] United States Supreme Court, "Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Opinion of the Court," June 29, 2015

[nytimesupheld-34] The New York Times, "Supreme Court Upholds Creation of Arizona Redistricting Commission," June 29, 2015

[almanac-35] 35.00 ^35.01 ^35.02 ^35.03 ^35.04 ^35.05 ^35.06 ^35.07 ^35.08 ^35.09 ^35.10 ^35.11 ^35.12 ^35.13 ^35.14 ^35.15 ^35.16 ^35.17 ^35.18 ^35.19 ^35.20 ^35.21 ^35.22 ^35.23 ^35.24 ^35.25 ^35.26 ^35.27 ^35.28 ^35.29 ^35.30 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. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "almanac" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "almanac" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "almanac" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "almanac" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "almanac" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "almanac" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "almanac" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "almanac" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "almanac" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "almanac" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "almanac" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "almanac" defined multiple times with different content

[36] Arkansas News, "Update: Governor's redistricting maps adopted by panel," July 29, 2011

[arkansasloyola-37] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named arkansasloyola

[caloyola-38] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named caloyola

[39] 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.

[coloyola-40] 40.0 ^40.1 ^40.2 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named coloyola

[moreno-41] 41.0 ^41.1 Redistricting in Colorado, "Redistricting Committee," accessed April 22, 2015

[ctloyola-42] 42.0 ^42.1 ^42.2 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named ctloyola

[deloyola-43] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named deloyola

[44] Florida Division of Elections, "Standards for Legislature to Follow in Legislative Redistricting," accessed April 22, 2015

[45] Florida Division of Elections, "Standards for Legislature to Follow in Congressional Redistricting," accessed April 22, 2015

[quotedisclaimer-46] 46.00 ^46.01 ^46.02 ^46.03 ^46.04 ^46.05 ^46.06 ^46.07 ^46.08 ^46.09 ^46.10 ^46.11 ^46.12 ^46.13 ^46.14 ^46.15 ^46.16 ^46.17 ^46.18 ^46.19 ^46.20 ^46.21 ^46.22 ^46.23 ^46.24 ^46.25 ^46.26 ^46.27 ^46.28 ^46.29 ^46.30 ^46.31 ^46.32 ^46.33 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.

[litigation-47] 47.0 ^47.1 ^47.2 ^47.3 ^47.4 ^47.5 All About Redistricting, "Litigation in the 2010 cycle," accessed April 22, 2015 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "litigation" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "litigation" defined multiple times with different content

[48] Law 360, "Voter Coalition Appeals Fla. Court's OK of Redrawn Maps," August 29, 2014

[politico-49] Politico, "Judge tosses Florida congressional map," July 10, 2014

[50] Law 360, "Voter Coalition Appeals Fla. Court's OK of Redrawn Maps," August 29, 2014

[tampabay-51] Tampa Bay Times, "Florida Supreme Court orders new congressional map with eight districts to be redrawn," July 9, 2015

[nationaljournal-52] Florida Supreme Throws Out Congressional Map, Orders Battleground Districts Redrawn," July 9, 2015

[FSCdecision-53] Florida Supreme Court, "League of Women Voters of Florida v. Detzner: Opinion," July 9, 2015

[54] Ballot Access News, "Florida Supreme Court Orders Legislature to Redraw U.S. House Districts," July 9, 2015

[55] Election Law Blog, "The Alabama Redistricting Cases and Today’s Decision Invalidating Eight Congressional Districts in Florida," July 9, 2015

[56] Law 360, "Voter Coalition Appeals Fla. Court's OK of Redrawn Maps," August 29, 2014

[57] The Miami Herald, "Florida Legislature ends special session with no agreement on new congressional districts," August 21, 2015

[58] NPR, "Judge To Redraw Florida's Congressional Maps After Legislature Fails To Reach Deal," August 21, 2015

[59] Miami Herald, "Florida Supreme Court approves congressional map drawn by challengers," December 2, 2015

[60] CBS Miami, "Senate Redistricting Battle Looms," July 8, 2015

[61] The Miami Herald, "Judge orders Senate redistricting trial to move forward," November 13, 2015

[62] Tampa Bay Times, "Judge orders Florida Senate redistricting trial to move forward," November 13, 2015

[63] Florida Politics, "Judge selects plaintiffs’ map in Senate redistricting case," December 21, 2015

[64] Florida Politics, "New state Senate seats renumbered," January 5, 2016

[galoyola-65] 65.0 ^65.1 ^65.2 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named galoyola

[66] Associated Press, "Lawsuits: Congressional maps dilute black voters in 3 states," June 13, 2018

[67] Associated Press, "Trial begins in challenge to congressional district map," November 3, 2019

[hiloyola-68] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named hiloyola

[69] Idaho Press-Tribune, "Idaho redistricters vote 4-2 for congressional map," October 17, 2011

[idaholoyola-70] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named idaholoyola

[71] Idaho Supreme Court, "Denney v. Ysursa," January 25, 2012

[illinoisloyola-72] 72.0 ^72.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named illinoisloyola

[73] The Huffington Post, "Illinois Redistricting: Quinn Signs Plan To Add Democratic Seats," June 24, 2011

[74] The Huffington Post, "Illinois Redistricting: Democrat-Backed Maps Head To Quinn's Desk, Threaten Republican Gains," May 31, 2011

[75] Forbes, "Ind. gov signs 80 bills into law, including budget," May 11, 2011

[76] Evansville Courier and Press, "Indiana lawmakers unveil new draft of legislative maps," April 11, 2011

[77] WTHI TV, "Illinois loses seat to census, Indiana constant," December 21, 2010

[iowaloyola-78] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named iowaloyola

[ksloyola-79] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named ksloyola

[kyloyola-80] 80.0 ^80.1 ^80.2 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named kyloyola

[laloyola-81] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named laloyola

[82] Associated Press, "Lawsuits: Congressional maps dilute black voters in 3 states," June 13, 2018

[83] Associated Press, "Trial begins in challenge to congressional district map," November 3, 2019

[meloyola-84] 84.0 ^84.1 ^84.2 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named meloyola

[85] 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.

[mdloyola-86] 86.0 ^86.1 ^86.2 ^86.3 ^86.4 All About Redistricting, 'Maryland," accessed April 30, 2015

[brennanshapiro-87] 87.0 ^87.1 Brennan Center for Justice, "Supreme Court to Wade into Partisan Gerrymandering," June 8, 2015

[88] Jurist, "Supreme Court to rule on three-judge rule for redistricting cases," June 8, 2015

[89] United States Code, "Title 28, Part VI, Chapter 155, Section 2284," accessed June 12, 2015

[90] SCOTUSblog, "Shapiro v. Mack," accessed June 12, 2015

[91] Supreme Court of the United States, "Shapiro v. McManus: Decision," December 8, 2015

[92] United States District Court for the District of Maryland, "Joint Motion to Extend Deadlines for Certain Expert Witness Disclosures," May 2, 2017

[93] United States District Court for the District of Maryland, "Benisek v. Lamone: Memorandum," August 24, 2017

[94] Brennan Center for Justice, "Benisek v. Lamone," August 24, 2017

[95] Election Law Blog, "Supreme Court Won't Hurry Consideration of Maryland Partisan Gerrymandering Case," September 13, 2017

[scotusblogbenisek-96] SCOTUSblog, "Court adds seven new cases to merits docket," December 8, 2017

[benisekopinion-97] Supreme Court of the United States, "Benisek v. Lamone: Decision," June 18, 2018

[scotusbloglamone-98] SCOTUSblog, "Lamone v. Benisek," accessed January 28, 2019

[ruchorulingfinal-99] 99.0 ^99.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek: Opinion of the Court," June 27, 2019

[maloyola-100] 100.0 ^100.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named maloyola

[101] The Detroit News, "Federal suit alleges GOP 'gerrymandering' in Michigan," December 22, 2017

[102] United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, "League of Women Voters of Michigan v. Johnson: Order Granting Application for Three-Judge Court," December 27, 2017

[103] Associated Press, "Sotomayor rejects delay of Michigan redistricting trial," February 4, 2019

[panelruling-104] 104.0 ^104.1 ^104.2 United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, "League of Women Voters of Michigan v. Benson: Opinion and Order," April 25, 2019

[105] The Detroit News, "Federal court: Michigan political maps illegally rigged to 'historical proportions,'" April 25, 2019

[106] The Detroit News, "GOP appeals Michigan gerrymandering ruling to Supreme Court," April 30, 2019

[107] Election Law Blog, "Stay Request in Michigan Redistricting Case," May 6, 2019

[108] Ballot Access News, "Michigan and Ohio Ask U.S. Supreme Court to Stay Orders that Require Redistricting of US House Districts," May 11, 2019

[109] Ballot Access News, "U.S. Supreme Court Grants Stay in Gerrymandering Cases in Michigan and Ohio," May 24, 2019

[110] NBC News, "Supreme Court wipes out ruling on Michigan partisan gerrymander," October 21, 2019

[miloyola-111] 111.0 ^111.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named miloyola

[mnloyola-112] 112.0 ^112.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named mnloyola

[moloyola-113] 113.0 ^113.1 ^113.2 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named moloyola

[114] 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.

[115] All About Redistricting, "Litigation in the 2010 cycle, Missouri," accessed May 7, 2015

[mtloyola-116] 116.0 ^116.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named mtloyola

[neloyola-117] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named neloyola

[nvloyola-118] 118.0 ^118.1 ^118.2 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named nvloyola

[nhloyola-119] 119.0 ^119.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named nhloyola

[120] 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.

[njloyola-121] 121.0 ^121.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named njloyola

[122] 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.

[nmloyola-123] 123.0 ^123.1 ^123.2 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named nmloyola

[124] 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.

[nyloyola-125] 125.0 ^125.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named nyloyola

[126] 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.

[ncloyola-127] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named ncloyola

[128] Election Law Blog, "Breaking: SCOTUS to Hear NC Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 27, 2016

[129] Ballot Access News, "U.S. Supreme Court Accepts Another Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 28, 2016

[cooperharris-130] 130.0 ^130.1 ^130.2 Supreme Court of the United States, "Cooper v. Harris: Decision," May 22, 2017

[aug27order-131] 131.0 ^131.1 United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, "Common Cause v. Rucho: Memorandum Opinion," August 27, 2018

[132] United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, "Common Cause v. Rucho: Order," September 12, 2018

[133] North Carolina General Court of Justice – Superior Court Division – Wake County, "Harper v. Lewis: Order on Injunctive Relief," October 28, 2019

[134] WRAL.com, "NC's congressional district redraw starts Tuesday," November 4, 2019

[135] North Carolina General Assembly, "House Bill 1029 / SL 2019-249," accessed November 18, 2019

[136] The News & Observer, "North Carolina lawmakers OK new 2020 congressional maps. Now it’s up to the courts." November 15, 2019

[137] North Carolina General Court of Justice – Superior Court Division – Wake County, "Harper v. Lewis: Order," November 20, 2019

[138] The News & Observer, "New congressional maps in North Carolina will stand for 2020, court rules," December 2, 2019

[139] Supreme Court of the United States, "North Carolina v. Covington: Per Curiam," June 5, 2017

[nospecial-140] 140.0 ^140.1 ^140.2 ^140.3 United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, "Covington v. North Carolina: Order," July 31, 2017

[141] The News and Observer, "See the proposed NC Senate map," August 20, 2017

[142] General Assembly of North Carolina, "Senate Bill 691," accessed August 25, 2017

[143] General Assembly of North Carolina, "House Calendar," August 25, 2017

[144] General Assembly of North Carolina, "SB 691," accessed August 29, 2017

[145] United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, "Covington v. North Carolina: Order," October 26, 2017

[146] The News & Observer, "Republican lawmakers upset with Stanford professor’s plan to fix gerrymandering," December 1, 2017

[147] Winston-Salem Journal, "'Special master' submits final N.C. redistricting maps," December 1, 2017

[148] WRAL.com, "Redistricting hearing signals coming end to map-making saga," January 5, 2018

[149] United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, "Covington v. North Carolina: Memorandum Opinion and Order," January 19, 2018

[150] WRAL.com, "GOP legislators ask altered North Carolina maps be delayed," January 21, 2018

[151] Supreme Court of the United States, "North Carolina, et al. v. Covington, Sandra L., et al.: Order in Pending Case," February 6, 2018

[152] The New York Times, "Supreme Court Issues Partial Stay in North Carolina Voting Case," February 6, 2018

[153] WRAL.com, "Supreme Court says some, but not all, new legislative districts can be used in 2018 elections," February 6, 2018

[154] Supreme Court of the United States, "North Carolina v. Covington: Per Curiam," June 28, 2018

[155] Election Law Blog, "Breaking: 3-Judge Court Unanimously Rules NC State Districts Unconstitutional Racial Gerrymander," August 11, 2016

[156] United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, "Covington v. North Carolina," August 11, 2016

[157] Governing, "North Carolina Ordered to Hold Special Elections After Redrawing Districts," November 30, 2016

[158] Reuters, "Federal judges order North Carolina to redraw legislative districts," November 30, 2016

[159] ABC 11, "Federal court orders North Carolina to redraw districts, hold elections in Fall of 2017," accessed April 17, 2017

[160] The News and Observer, "GOP legislative leaders ask US Supreme Court to halt 2017 elections," December 30, 2016

[161] Supreme Court of the United States, "State of North Carolina, et al. v. Sandra Little Covington, et al.: Emergency Application for Stay of Remedial order Pending Resolution of Direct Appeal in This Court," December 30, 2016

[162] Election Law Blog, "Breaking: #SCOTUS Halts NC Special Elections Ordered after Finding of Racial Gerrymandering," January 10, 2017

[chronicle-163] 163.0 ^163.1 The Chronicle, "Blue: Special election will happen," accessed March 31, 2017

[164] Supreme Court of the United States, "North Carolina v. Covington: Per Curiam," June 5, 2017

[newsandobserveraug11-165] 165.0 ^165.1 The News and Observer, "NC legislators OK redistricting rules. Democrats aren’t happy." August 10, 2017

[wralaug11-166] 166.0 ^166.1 WRAL.com, "Redistricting criteria call for partisan maps, no consideration of race," August 10, 2017

[167] General Assembly of North Carolina, "House Select Committee on Redistricting – 8-10-2017," accessed August 11, 2017

[168] Citizen-Times, "NC remapping rules include election results but not race," August 11, 2017

[169] The News and Observer, "New map reveals part of NC Republicans’ redistricting plan," August 19, 2017

[170] General Assembly of North Carolina, "Districts and Their Incumbents: NC House Plan," August 21, 2017

[171] General Assembly of North Carolina, "August 22, 2017 Redistricting Public Hearing Sites," accessed August 23, 2017

[172] The News and Observer, "Here’s what the public had to say about GOP redistricting plans," August 22, 2017

[173] General Assembly of North Carolina, "HB 927," accessed August 30, 2017

[174] The News and Observer, "See the proposed NC Senate map," August 20, 2017

[175] General Assembly of North Carolina, "Senate Bill 691," accessed August 25, 2017

[176] General Assembly of North Carolina, "House Calendar," August 25, 2017

[177] General Assembly of North Carolina, "SB 691," accessed August 29, 2017

[178] United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, "Covington v. North Carolina: Order," October 26, 2017

[179] Greensboro News and Record, "GOP leaders object to using outside expert on redistricting maps," October 30, 2017

[180] American Lens, "Special Master Imposed by Court on NC Redistricting," October 31, 2017

[181] United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, "Covington v. North Carolina: Special Master's Draft Plan and Order," November 13, 2017

[182] The News & Observer, "Republican lawmakers upset with Stanford professor’s plan to fix gerrymandering," December 1, 2017

[183] Winston-Salem Journal, "'Special master' submits final N.C. redistricting maps," December 1, 2017

[184] WRAL.com, "Redistricting hearing signals coming end to map-making saga," January 5, 2018

[185] United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, "Covington v. North Carolina: Memorandum Opinion and Order," January 19, 2018

[186] WRAL.com, "GOP legislators ask altered North Carolina maps be delayed," January 21, 2018

[187] Supreme Court of the United States, "North Carolina, et al. v. Covington, Sandra L., et al.: Order in Pending Case," February 6, 2018

[188] The New York Times, "Supreme Court Issues Partial Stay in North Carolina Voting Case," February 6, 2018

[189] WRAL.com, "Supreme Court says some, but not all, new legislative districts can be used in 2018 elections," February 6, 2018

[190] Supreme Court of the United States, "North Carolina v. Covington: Per Curiam," June 28, 2018

[191] The News & Observer, "After Supreme Court ruling, NC gerrymander challengers turn to state court for relief," February 7, 2018

[192] The News & Observer, "Wake-Mecklenburg maps stand as GOP drew them as candidates file for office," February 12, 2018

[193] The News & Observer, "Another redistricting lawsuit filed in NC — this one over Wake election districts," February 21, 2018

[194] The News & Observer, "Wake redistricting challengers 'likely to succeed,' judges say – but elections go on," April 13, 2018

[195] Associated Press, "State partisan gerrymandering trial set to begin in July," February 1, 2019

[196] U.S. News and World Report, "North Carolina Trial Into Partisan Gerrymandering Wraps Up," July 26, 2019

[partisanrulingstatepanel-197] 197.0 ^197.1 North Carolina General Court of Justice – Superior Court Division – Wake County, "Common Cause v. Lewis: Judgment," September 3, 2019

[198] The Washington Post, "North Carolina court rules partisan state legislative districts unconstitutional," September 3, 2019

[199] North Carolina General Court of Justice – Superior Court Division – Wake County, "Common Cause v. Lewis: Order," October 28, 2019

[200] Common Cause North Carolina, "Plaintiffs in Common Cause v. Lewis file appeal asking NC Supreme Court to review eight NC House districts that remain partisan gerrymanders," November 1, 2019

[ndloyola-201] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named ndloyola

[ohloyola-202] 202.0 ^202.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named ohloyola

[203] United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, "Ohio A. Phillip Randolph Institute v. Householder: Opinion and Order," May 3, 2019

[204] Ballot Access News, "Michigan and Ohio Ask U.S. Supreme Court to Stay Orders that Require Redistricting of US House Districts," May 11, 2019

[205] Ballot Access News, "U.S. Supreme Court Grants Stay in Gerrymandering Cases in Michigan and Ohio," May 24, 2019

[okloyola-206] 206.0 ^206.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named okloyola

[207] 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.

[orloyola-208] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named orloyola

[paloyola-209] 209.0 ^209.1 ^209.2 All About Redistricting, "Pennsylvania," accessed May 8, 2015

[210] 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.

[211] United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, "Judgment," January 10, 2018

[212] United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, "Agre v. Wolf: Smith Memorandum," January 10, 2018

[213] United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, "Agre v. Wolf: Baylson Memorandum," January 10, 2018

[inquirer-214] 214.0 ^214.1 ^214.2 The Philadelphia Inquirer, "In gerrymandering case, judge recommends Pa. Supreme Court uphold congressional map," December 29, 2017

[brobson-215] 215.0 ^215.1 Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, "League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: Recommended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law," December 29, 2017

[216] The New York Times, "Judge Says Pennsylvania Election Districts Give Republicans an Edge, but Are Not Illegal," December 29, 2017

[217] The Morning Call, "Judge: No proof Pennsylvania congressional map is unconstitutional," December 29, 2017

[218] Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, "Pa. Supreme Court hears arguments in gerrymandering case," January 17, 2018

[pasupreme-219] 219.0 ^219.1 Pennsylvania Supreme Court, League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, January 22, 2018 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "pasupreme" defined multiple times with different content

[220] The Inquirer, "Pa. Republicans ask U.S. Supreme Court to halt redistricting order," January 25, 2018

[221] Supreme Court of the United States, "Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania: Emergency Application for Stay Pending Resolution of Appeal to This Court," January 25, 2018

[222] Election Law Blog, "Justice Alito (Belatedly) Calls for Response in PA Congressional Gerrymandering Case," January 29, 2018

[223] The Washington Post, "Supreme Court won't block Pa. ruling that state redraw congressional boundaries immediately, in decision that could help Democrats," February 5, 2018

[224] Penn Live, "New Pa. court order adds further definition to 11th-hour redistricting process," January 27, 2018

[225] The Hill, "Pa. state Senate leader refuses court order on redrawing district maps," January 31, 2018

[226] The Inquirer, "Sen. Scarnati refuses Pa. Supreme Court order to turn over map data in gerrymander case," January 31, 2018

[227] Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, "League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: Opinion," February 7, 2018

[228] Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, "League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: Dissenting Opinion (Chief Justice Saylor)," February 7, 2018

[229] Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, "League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: Dissenting Opinion (Justice Mundy)," February 7, 2018

[230] Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, "League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: Concurring and Dissenting Opinion (Justice Baer)," February 7, 2018

[231] The Inquirer, "Top Republicans in Pa. House, Senate submit congressional map to Gov. Wolf," February 9, 2018

[232] Senator Joe Scarnati, "Pennsylvania Legislative Leaders Submitting Congressional Map," February 9, 2018

[233] The Inquirer, "Gov. Wolf rejects Republican map proposal, saying it remains a partisan gerrymander," February 13, 2018

[234] Governor of Pennsylvania, "Governor Tom Wolf Rejects Partisan Gerrymandered Map," February 13, 2018

[235] WFMZ-TV, "So many maps, so little time: Pennsylvania redistricting debate continues," February 16, 2018

[236] The United Judicial System of Pennsylvania, "League of Women Voters, et al. v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al. – 159 MM 2017," accessed February 16, 2018

[237] Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, "League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: Brief for Intervenors," January 10, 2018

[feb19ruling-238] 238.0 ^238.1 ^238.2 Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, "League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: Opinion and Order," February 19, 2018

[feb19dissentsaylor-239] Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, "The League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: Dissenting Opinion (Chief Justice Saylor)," February 19, 2018

[240] Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, "The League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: Dissenting Opinion (Justice Mundy)," February 19, 2018

[241] Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, "The League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: Dissenting Opinion (Justice Baer)," February 19, 2018

[242] The Philadelphia Inquirer, "Pa. gerrymandering case: State Supreme Court releases new congressional map for 2018 elections," February 19, 2018

[243] The Washington Post, "Pennsylvania’s new congressional map could boost Democrats," February 19, 2018

[244] The Washington Post, "The Latest: GOP to take new congressional map to court," February 19, 2018

[245] Supreme Court of the United States, "Emergency Application for Stay Pending Resolution of Appeal to This Court," February 27, 2018

[246] Election Law Blog, "Breaking: Supreme Court, With No Noted Dissent, Refuses to Intervene in Pa Redistricting Case Just Hours After Lower Court Rules," March 19, 2018

[247] The Indiana Gazette, "Dush introduces legislation to impeach Supreme Court justices," March 20, 2018

[248] Pennsylvania House of Representatives, "Memorandum: Impeachment of five PA Supreme Court Justices," February 5, 2018

[249] The Philadelphia Inquirer, "Pa. Republican state legislator moves to impeach four state Supreme Court justices," March 20, 2018

[250] Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, "GOP chief justice slams Republican judicial impeachment move," March 22, 2018

[251] Bloomberg Law, "SCOTUS Ends One Partisan Gerrymandering Battle; More Remain," May 30, 2018

[252] Election Law Blog, "New Federal Lawsuit in Pennsylvania Congressional Redistricting Litigation Seeks 3 Judge Court Order to Hold Elections Under Old 2011 Maps; Case is Longshot," February 22, 2018

[253] United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, "Corman v. Torres: Verified Complaint," February 22, 2018

[254] United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, "Corman v. Torres: On Application to Convene a Three Judge District Court," February 23, 2018

[255] Election Law Blog, "Three-Judge Federal District Court in Pa Congressional Redistricting Case Sets Expedited Schedule for Briefing on Preliminary Injunction Request," February 23, 2018

[256] The Philadelphia Inquirer, "Federal judges hear arguments in Pa. congressional map fight: Should they block new map?" March 9, 2018

[257] Election Law Blog, "Breaking: Three-Judge Federal Court (All Republican Nominees) Rejects PA Congressional Redistricting Challenge, Leaving Issue to SCOTUS," March 19, 2018

[258] United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, "Corman v. Torres: Memorandum Opinion," March 19, 2018

[riloyola-259] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named riloyola

[260] 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.

[scloyola-261] 261.0 ^261.1 ^261.2 ^261.3 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named scloyola

[sdloyola-262] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named sdloyola

[tnloyola-263] 263.0 ^263.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named tnloyola

[264] 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.

[txloyola-265] 265.0 ^265.1 ^265.2 ^265.3 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named txloyola

[txlitigation-266] 266.0 ^266.1 ^266.2 ^266.3 All About Redistricting, "Litigation in the 2010 cycle, Texas," accessed May 7, 2015

[267] Election Law Blog, "Breaking: 3-Judge Court Keeps Texas Redistricting Plan in Place, for Now," November 6, 2015

[novemberorder-268] 268.0 ^268.1 United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, "Civil Action No. 11-CA-360-OLG-JES-XR–Order," November 6, 2015

[269] United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, "Perez v. Abbott: Order," March 10, 2017

[270] Governing, "Redistricting Ruling Bolsters Democrats' Battle in Texas," March 13, 2017

[271] United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, "Perez v. Abbott: Order on Plan H283," April 20, 2017

[272] Dallas News, "Minority votes intentionally diluted by GOP-led Texas House redistricting, federal court says," April 20, 2017

[273] The Texas Tribune, "With 2018 election looming, Texas back in court over political maps," July 10, 2017

[274] Dallas News, "With future elections in the balance, federal court to hear Texas redistricting case," July 10, 2017

[275] San Antonio Express-News, "Redistricting trial begins Monday in San Antonio," July 9, 2017

[276] United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, "Perez v. Abbott: Order on Plan C235," August 15, 2017

[277] Houston Chronicle, "Court invalidates redrawn map for 2 Texas congressional districts," August 15, 2017

[278] Attorney General of Texas, "AG Paxton Reacts to Court’s Redistricting Ruling," August 15, 2017

[279] Texas Tribune, "With Supreme Court appeal, Texas wants to keep congressional map intact," August 18, 2017

[280] Attorney General of Texas, "AG Paxton Appeals Redistricting Ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court and Seeks Stay of District Court Order," August 18, 2017

[281] United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, "Perez v. Abbott: Order on Plan H358," August 24, 2017

[282] Texas Tribune, "Texas House map must be redrawn, federal court says," August 24, 2017

[283] Election Law Blog, "Justice Alito Stays Order to Redo Texas Congressional Districts Pending Further Briefing at Supreme Court," August 28, 2017

[284] Supreme Court of the United States, "Abbott v. Perez: Order," August 31, 2017

[285] Election Law Blog, "Supreme Court, on 5-4 Party Line Vote, Blocks Texas Redistricting Remedy for Now. What’s Next?" September 12, 2017

[286] Politico, "Supreme Court blocks ruling against Texas redistricting," September 12, 2017

[287] The New York Times, "Splitting 5-4, Justices Put Texas Redistricting on Hold," September 12, 2017

[288] Ballot Access News, "U.S. Supreme Court Will Hear Texas Redistricting Case," January 13, 2018

[289] Election Law Blog, "Supreme Court Sets Oral Argument in Texas Redistricting Cases for April 24," accessed February 23, 2018

[290] Austin American-Statesman, "Trump lawyer seeks to defend Texas political maps at Supreme Court," March 26, 2018

[291] United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, "Perez v. Abbott: Order," August 30, 2018

[292] Fort Worth Star-Telegram, "Judges OK political map in Fort Worth, saying new boundaries no longer discriminate," June 10, 2019

[293] United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, "Perez v. Abbott: Order on Request for § 3(c) Relief," July 24, 2019

[utloyola-294] 294.0 ^294.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named utloyola

[vtloyola-295] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named vtloyola

[valoyola-296] 296.0 ^296.1 ^296.2 All About Redistricting, "Virginia," accessed May 8, 2015

[hasenpage-297] 297.0 ^297.1 ^297.2 Election Law Blog, "Breaking: Federal Court on 2-1 Vote Finds Congressional Districting Plan Unconstitutional Racial Gerrymander," June 5, 2015

[banpage-298] 298.0 ^298.1 ^298.2 Ballot Access News, "Virginia U.S. House District Lines Again Invalidated by 3-Judge U.S. District Court," June 5, 2015

[dailypress-299] 299.0 ^299.1 ^299.2 The Daily Press, "3rd Congressional District again deemed unconstitutional," June 5, 2015

[roanoke-300] 300.0 ^300.1 ^300.2 The Roanoke Times, "Three-judge panel rules Virginia must redraw congressional map," June 5, 2015

[order-301] 301.0 ^301.1 ^301.2 United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, "Page v. Virginia State Board of Elections Memorandum Opinion— Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD," June 5, 2015

[302] The Republic, "Federal judges reject GOP request to delay special session on redistricting," August 5, 2015

[fail-303] 303.0 ^303.1 The Richmond Times-Dispatch, "Federal judges will redraw Virginia’s congressional map," August 17, 2015

[304] Richmond Times-Dispatch, "U.S. Supreme Court sets March 21 arguments in Va. redistricting case," January 30, 2016

[denniston-305] 305.0 ^305.1 SCOTUSblog, "No delay of new Virginia federal districting map," February 2, 2016

[306] Roll Call, "Lawmakers Ask Supreme Court to Stop Virginia Redistricting Plan," January 13, 2016

[307] Roll Call, "Supreme Court Allows Virginia Redistricting to Stand in 2016," February 1, 2016

[308] Election Law Blog, "Supreme Court Allows Virginia Redistricting to Stand in 2016," February 1, 2016

[309] SCOTUSblog, "Argument preview: Once again, the issue is race," March 14, 2016

[310] Election Law Blog, "Breaking: Unanimous Supreme Court Dismisses Va. Racial Gerrymandering Case on Standing Grounds, Making No New Voting Law," May 23, 2016

[311] Supreme Court of the United States, "Wittman v. Personhuballah," May 23, 2016

[312] Oyez, ITT Chicago-Kent College of Law, "Bethune-Hill v. Virginia Board of Elections," accessed June 28, 2016

[313] Politico, "Supreme Court takes case claiming racial gerrymandering in Virginia," June 6, 2016

[wapostleg-314] The Washington Post, "A third redistricting lawsuit targets Va. elections map," September 14, 2015

[scotusruling2-315] 315.0 ^315.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "Bethune-Hill v. Virginia Board of Elections: Opinion," March 1, 2017

[316] SCOTUSblog, "Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections," accessed March 1, 2017

[317] Politico, "Supreme Court calls for further review of Virginia legislative map," March 1, 2017

[318] The Washington Post, "Circuit judge rules against Virginia gerrymandering claims, says districts 'debatable,'" March 31, 2017

[319] Richmond Times-Dispatch, "Virginia Supreme Court to hear appeal in redistricting case," October 24, 2017

[320] Virginia Supreme Court, "Rima Ford Vesilind, et al. v. Virginia State Board of Elections, et al.: Opinion," May 31, 2018

[321] Richmond Times-Dispatch, "Virginia Supreme Court upholds 11 challenged state legislative districts," May 31, 2018

[322] Richmond Times-Dispatch, "Federal court rules against Va. House in racial gerrymandering case, orders new districting plan by Oct. 30," June 26, 2018

[323] Richmond Times-Dispatch, "Va. House GOP asks U.S. Supreme Court to delay court-ordered redistricting in racial gerrymandering case," July 9, 2018

[324] Governing, "Gerrymandered Virginia House Districts to Be Redrawn in Special Session," August 23, 2018

[325] Associated Press, "Judges set timeline for new Virginia legislative map," October 22, 2018

[326] Election Law Blog, "Supreme Court declines to intervene in Virginia redistricting dispute," January 8, 2019

[sabato-327] Richmond Times-Dispatch, "Federal court picks redrawn Va. House map that boosts Democrats' chances of taking control," January 23, 2019

[328] Supreme Court of the United States, "Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill," June 17, 2019

[waloyola-329] 329.0 ^329.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named waloyola

[330] 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.

[wvloyola-331] 331.0 ^331.1 ^331.2 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named wvloyola

[wiloyola-332] 332.0 ^332.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named wiloyola

[333] Loyola Law School, "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN," accessed September 12, 2017

[ruling-334] 334.0 ^334.1 ^334.2 ^334.3 United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, "Whitford v. Gill: Opinion and Order," November 21, 2016

[335] Wisconsin State Journal, "Democrats' short-lived 2012 recall victory led to key evidence in partisan gerrymandering case," July 23, 2017

[336] The Capital Times, "In split decision, federal judges rule Wisconsin's redistricting law an unconstitutional gerrymander," November 21, 2016

[337] United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, "Whitford v. Gill: Opinion and Order," January 27, 2017

[338] Ballot Access News, "Wisconsin Asks U.S. Supreme Court To Hear Partisan Gerrymandering Lawsuit," March 25, 2017

[339] Ballot Access News, "U.S. Supreme Court Will Consider Whether to Grant Stay in Important Wisconsin Gerrymandering Case," May 30, 2017

[340] The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear potentially landmark case on partisan gerrymandering," June 19, 2017

[341] Election Law Blog, "UPDATE ON STAY: Breaking: Supreme Court to Hear WI Gerrymandering Case, Gill v. Whitford, Next Term Analysis," June 19, 2017

[gillopinion-342] Supreme Court of the United States, "Gill v. Whitford: Decision," June 18, 2018

[343] Journal Sentinel, "Democrats seek to bring redistricting case back to Supreme Court before 2020 elections," June 18, 2018

[344] United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, "Whitford v. Gill: Amended Complaint," September 14, 2018

[345] United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, "Wisconsin Assembly Democratic Committee v. Gill: Three Judge Panel Requested," September 14, 2018

[wyloyola-346] 346.0 ^346.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named wyloyola

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

[50]

[51]

[52]

[53]

[54]

[55]

[56]

[57]

[58]

[59]

[60]

[61]

[62]

[63]

[64]

[65]

[66]

[67]

[68]

[69]

[70]

[71]

[72]

[73]

[74]

[75]

[76]

[77]

[78]

[79]

[80]

[81]

[82]

[83]

[84]

[85]

[86]

[87]

[88]

[89]

[90]

[91]

[92]

[93]

[94]

[95]

[96]

[97]

[98]

[99]

[100]