State-by-state redistricting procedures

Redistricting
State-by-state redistricting procedures
Majority-minority districts
Congressional district demographics

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.

HIGHLIGHTS

As of August 2017, congressional redistricting was the province of the state legislatures in 37 states. In four states, independent commissions were responsible for congressional redistricting. In two states, the task fell to politician commissions. The remaining seven states contained one congressional district each, rendering congressional redistricting unnecessary.

As of August 2017, the legislatures themselves are responsible for state legislative redistricting in 37 states. In six states, the task fell to independent commissions. In seven states, politician commissions drew state legislative district maps.

The states themselves determine their own redistricting methods. These methods vary from state to state and, sometimes, within a state (for example, different methods may apply to congressional redistricting than to state legislative redistricting). This article details redistricting methods by state for both congressional and state legislative redistricting.

Background

What is redistricting and what does it entail?

Federal requirements for congressional redistricting

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

“	The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.	”
—United States Constitution

Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution stipulates that congressional representatives be apportioned to the states on the basis of population. There are 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives. Each state is allotted a portion of these seats based on the size of its population relative to the other states. Consequently, a state may gain seats in the House if its population grows or lose seats if its population decreases, relative to populations in other states. In 1964, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Wesberry v. Sanders that the populations of House districts must be equal "as nearly as practicable."

The equal population requirement for congressional districts is strict. According to All About Redistricting, "Any district with more or fewer people than the average (also known as the 'ideal' population), must be specifically justified by a consistent state policy. And even consistent policies that cause a 1 percent spread from largest to smallest district will likely be unconstitutional."

Federal requirements for state legislative redistricting

The United States Constitution is silent on the issue of state legislative redistricting. In the mid-1960s, the United States Supreme Court issued a series of rulings in an effort to clarify standards for state legislative redistricting. In Reynolds v. Sims, the court ruled that "the Equal Protection Clause [of the United States Constitution] demands no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens, of all places as well as of all races." According to All About Redistricting, "it has become accepted that a [redistricting] plan will be constitutionally suspect if the largest and smallest districts [within a state or jurisdiction] are more than 10 percent apart."

For additional background information on the redistricting process, click "[Show more]" below.

Show more

State-based requirements

In addition to the federal criteria noted above, individual states may impose additional requirements on redistricting. Common state-level redistricting criteria are listed below.

1. Contiguity refers to the principle that all areas within a district should be physically adjacent. A total of 49 states require that districts of at least one state legislative chamber be contiguous (Nevada has no such requirement, imposing no requirements on redistricting beyond those enforced at the federal level). A total of 23 states require that congressional districts meet contiguity requirements.
2. Compactness refers to the general principle that the constituents within a district should live as near to one another as practicable. A total of 37 states impose compactness requirements on state legislative districts; 18 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.
3. A community of interest is defined by FairVote as a "group of people in a geographical area, such as a specific region or neighborhood, who have common political, social or economic interests." A total of 24 states require that the maintenance of communities of interest be considered in the drawing of state legislative districts. A total of 13 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.
4. A total of 42 states require that state legislative district lines be drawn to account for political boundaries (e.g., the limits of counties, cities, and towns). A total of 19 states require that similar considerations be made in the drawing of congressional districts.

Methods

In general, states vest one of the following three entities with redistricting authority:

1. State legislatures: In 37 of the 43 states required to conduct congressional redistricting, state legislatures have the final authority to draft and implement congressional district maps. Likewise, in 37 of the 50 states, state legislatures are primarily responsible for state legislative redistricting. In these states, legislatures typically adopt district lines by a simple majority vote in each chamber. A state's governor may usually veto the legislature's redistricting plan.
2. Independent commissions: The composition of independent redistricting commissions varies from state to state. However, in all cases, the direct participation of elected officials is limited. Independent redistricting commissions exist in six states (in four of these states, independent commissions draw congressional and state legislative boundaries; in two, independent commissions draw only state legislative district boundaries).
3. Politician commissions: The composition of politician redistricting commissions varies from state to state. For example, in some states, specific officials (e.g., governors, secretaries of state, etc.) are de facto commission members; in others, legislative leaders appoint other legislators to serve as commissioners. In all cases, elected officials may participate directly by sitting on the commissions. In two of the 43 states required to conduct congressional redistricting, politician commissions are responsible for drawing the maps. In seven states, politician commissions are responsible for state legislative redistricting.

Advisory commissions and backup commissions may also be involved in the redistricting process.

Gerrymandering

In 1812, Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry signed into law a state Senate district map that, according to the Encyclopædia Britannica, "consolidated the Federalist Party vote in a few districts and thus gave disproportionate representation to Democratic-Republicans." The word gerrymander was coined by The Boston Gazette to describe the district.

See also: Gerrymandering

The term gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to favor one political party, individual, or constituency over another. When used in a rhetorical manner by opponents of a particular district map, the term has a negative connotation but does not necessarily address the legality of a challenged map. The term can also be used in legal documents; in this context, the term describes redistricting practices that violate federal or state laws.

The phrase racial gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to dilute the voting power of racial minority groups. Federal law prohibits racial gerrymandering and establishes that, to combat this practice and to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act, states and jurisdictions can create majority-minority electoral districts. A majority-minority district is one in which a racial group or groups comprise a majority of the district's populations. Racial gerrymandering and majority-minority districts are discussed in greater detail in this article.

The phrase partisan gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district maps with the intention of favoring one political party over another. In contrast with racial gerrymandering, on which the Supreme Court of the United States has issued rulings in the past affirming that such practices violate federal law, the high court had not, as of November 2017, issued a ruling establishing clear precedent on the question of partisan gerrymandering. Although the court has granted in past cases that partisan gerrymandering can violate the United States Constitution, it has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring partisan gerrymanders. Partisan gerrymandering is described in greater detail in this article.

Recent court decisions

See also: Redistricting cases heard by the Supreme Court of the United States

The following are summaries of recent court decisions dealing with redistricting policy, including questions relating to the consideration of race in drawing district maps, the use of total population tallies in apportionment, and the constitutionality of independent redistricting commissions. The rulings in these cases, which originated in a variety of states, impact redistricting processes across the nation.

Gill v. Whitford (2018)

See also: Gill v. Whitford

In Gill v. Whitford, decided on June 18, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the plaintiffs—12 Wisconsin Democrats who alleged that Wisconsin's state legislative district plan had been subject to an unconstitutional gerrymander in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments—had failed to demonstrate standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to bring a complaint. The court's opinion, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, did not address the broader question of whether partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. Roberts was joined in the majority opinion by Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Kagan penned a concurring opinion joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas penned an opinion that concurred in part with the majority opinion and in the judgment, joined by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Cooper v. Harris (2017)

See also: Cooper v. Harris

In Cooper v. Harris, decided on May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the judgment of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, finding that two of North Carolina's congressional districts, the boundaries of which had been set following the 2010 United States Census, had been subject to an illegal racial gerrymander in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the court's majority opinion, which was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor (Thomas also filed a separate concurring opinion). In the court's majority opinion, Kagan described the two-part analysis utilized by the high court when plaintiffs allege racial gerrymandering as follows: "First, the plaintiff must prove that 'race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature's decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district.' ... Second, if racial considerations predominated over others, the design of the district must withstand strict scrutiny. The burden shifts to the State to prove that its race-based sorting of voters serves a 'compelling interest' and is 'narrowly tailored' to that end." In regard to the first part of the aforementioned analysis, Kagan went on to note that "a plaintiff succeeds at this stage even if the evidence reveals that a legislature elevated race to the predominant criterion in order to advance other goals, including political ones." Justice Samuel Alito delivered an opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part with the majority opinion. This opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Evenwel v. Abbott (2016)

See also: Evenwel v. Abbott

Evenwel v. Abbott was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts in Texas. The plaintiffs, Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger, argued that district populations ought to take into account only the number of registered or eligible voters residing within those districts as opposed to total population counts, which are generally used for redistricting purposes. Total population tallies include non-voting residents, such as immigrants residing in the country without legal permission, prisoners, and children. The plaintiffs alleged that this tabulation method dilutes the voting power of citizens residing in districts that are home to smaller concentrations of non-voting residents. The court ruled 8-0 on April 4, 2016, that a state or locality can use total population counts for redistricting purposes. The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2016)

Justice Stephen Breyer penned the majority opinion in Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.

See also: Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts that were created by the commission in 2012. The plaintiffs, a group of Republican voters, alleged that "the commission diluted or inflated the votes of almost two million Arizona citizens when the commission intentionally and systematically overpopulated 16 Republican districts while under-populating 11 Democrat districts." This, the plaintiffs argued, constituted a partisan gerrymander. The plaintiffs claimed that the commission placed a disproportionately large number of non-minority voters in districts dominated by Republicans; meanwhile, the commission allegedly placed many minority voters in smaller districts that tended to vote Democratic. As a result, the plaintiffs argued, more voters overall were placed in districts favoring Republicans than in those favoring Democrats, thereby diluting the votes of citizens in the Republican-dominated districts. The defendants countered that the population deviations resulted from legally defensible efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act and obtain approval from the United States Department of Justice. At the time of redistricting, certain states were required to obtain preclearanceA jurisdiction subject to preclearance needed to get approval from the U.S. Department of Justice before changing election laws or district maps. from the U.S. Department of Justice before adopting redistricting plans or making other changes to their election laws—a requirement struck down by the United States Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder (2013). On April 20, 2016, the court ruled unanimously that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that a partisan gerrymander had taken place. Instead, the court found that the commission had acted in good faith to comply with the Voting Rights Act. The court's majority opinion was penned by Justice Stephen Breyer.

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015)

See also: Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2015. At issue was the constitutionality of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, which was established by state constitutional amendment in 2000. According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, "the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." The state legislature argued that the use of the word "legislature" in this context is literal; therefore, only a state legislature may draw congressional district lines. Meanwhile, the commission contended that the word "legislature" ought to be interpreted to mean "the legislative powers of the state," including voter initiatives and referenda. On June 29, 2015, the court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, finding that "redistricting is a legislative function, to be performed in accordance with the state's prescriptions for lawmaking, which may include the referendum and the governor's veto." The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito dissented.

State-by-state procedures

Congressional districts

Most states are required to draw new congressional district lines every 10 years following completion of United States Census (those states comprising one congressional district are not required to redistrict). In 37 of these states, state legislatures were primarily responsible for redistricting as of August 2017. In four states, independent commissions drew congressional district lines. In two states, politician commissions drew the lines. The remaining states comprised one congressional district each, rendering redistricting unnecessary. See the map and table below for further details.

Congressional redistricting procedures
State	Who draws the lines?	Can the governor veto the lines?	Notes
Alabama	Alabama State Legislature	Yes
Alaska	N/A	N/A	Alaska is home to only one congressional district.
Arizona	Independent commission	N/A
Arkansas	Arkansas State Legislature	Yes
California	Independent commission	N/A
Colorado	Colorado State Legislature	Yes
Connecticut	Connecticut State Legislature	No	A backup commission draws the lines in the event that the state legislature cannot approve a plan.
Delaware	N/A	N/A	Delaware is home to only one congressional district.
Florida	Florida State Legislature	Yes
Georgia	Georgia State Legislature	Yes
Hawaii	Politician commission	N/A
Idaho	Independent commission	N/A
Illinois	Illinois State Legislature	Yes
Indiana	Indiana State Legislature	Yes	A backup commission draws the lines in the event that the state legislature cannot approve a plan.
Iowa	Iowa State Legislature	Yes	An advisory commission is also involved in the process.
Kansas	Kansas State Legislature	Yes
Kentucky	Kentucky State Legislature	Yes
Louisiana	Louisiana State Legislature	Yes
Maine	Maine State Legislature	Yes	An advisory commission is also involved in the process.
Maryland	Maryland State Legislature	Yes
Massachusetts	Massachusetts State Legislature	Yes
Michigan	Michigan State Legislature	Yes
Minnesota	Minnesota State Legislature	Yes
Mississippi	Mississippi State Legislature	Yes
Missouri	Missouri State Legislature	Yes
Montana	N/A	N/A	Montana is home to only one congressional district.
Nebraska	Nebraska State Legislature	Yes
Nevada	Nevada State Legislature	Yes
New Hampshire	New Hampshire State Legislature	Yes
New Jersey	Politician commission	N/A
New Mexico	New Mexico State Legislature	Yes
New York	New York State Legislature	Yes	An advisory commission is also involved in the process.
North Carolina	North Carolina State Legislature	No
North Dakota	N/A	N/A	North Dakota is home to only one congressional district.
Ohio	Ohio State Legislature	Yes
Oklahoma	Oklahoma State Legislature	Yes
Oregon	Oregon State Legislature	Yes
Pennsylvania	Pennsylvania State Legislature	Yes
Rhode Island	Rhode Island State Legislature	Yes
South Carolina	South Carolina State Legislature	Yes
South Dakota	N/A	N/A	South Dakota is home to only one congressional district.
Tennessee	Tennessee State Legislature	Yes
Texas	Texas State Legislature	Yes
Utah	Utah State Legislature	Yes
Vermont	N/A	N/A	Vermont is home to only one congressional district.
Virginia	Virginia State Legislature	Yes	The governor appoints an advisory commission to assist him or her in developing a redistricting proposal.
Washington	Independent commission	N/A
West Virginia	West Virginia State Legislature	Yes
Wisconsin	Wisconsin State Legislature	Yes
Wyoming	N/A	N/A	Wyoming is home to only one congressional district.
Source: All About Redistricting, "Who draws the lines?" accessed March 25, 2015

State legislative districts

In 37 of the 50 states, state legislatures were primarily responsible for state legislative redistricting as of August 2017. Independent commissions drew state legislative district lines in six states. In seven states, politician commissions were responsible for state legislative redistricting. See the map and table below for further details.

State legislative redistricting procedures
State	Who draws the lines?	Can the governor veto the lines?	Notes
Alabama	Alabama State Legislature	Yes
Alaska	Independent commission	N/A
Arizona	Independent commission	N/A
Arkansas	Politician commission	N/A
California	Independent commission	N/A
Colorado	Politician commission	N/A
Connecticut	Connecticut State Legislature	No	A backup commission draws the lines in the event that the state legislature cannot approve a plan.
Delaware	Delaware State Legislature	Yes
Florida	Florida State Legislature	No
Georgia	Georgia State Legislature	Yes
Hawaii	Politician commission	N/A
Idaho	Independent commission	N/A
Illinois	Illinois State Legislature	No	A backup commission draws the lines in the event that the state legislature cannot approve a plan.
Indiana	Indiana State Legislature	Yes
Iowa	Iowa State Legislature	Yes	An advisory commission is also involved in the process.
Kansas	Kansas State Legislature	Yes
Kentucky	Kentucky State Legislature	Yes
Louisiana	Louisiana State Legislature	Yes
Maine	Maine State Legislature	Yes	An advisory commission is also involved in the process.
Maryland	Maryland State Legislature	No	The governor's plan takes effect if the legislature cannot approve its own plan by joint resolution.
Massachusetts	Massachusetts State Legislature	Yes
Michigan	Michigan State Legislature	Yes
Minnesota	Minnesota State Legislature	Yes
Mississippi	Mississippi State Legislature	No	A backup commission draws the lines in the event that the state legislature cannot approve a plan.
Missouri	Politician commission	N/A	Two separate commissions are involved in the state legislative redistricting process, one for the state Senate and one for the state House.
Montana	Independent commission	N/A
Nebraska	Nebraska State Legislature	Yes
Nevada	Nevada State Legislature	Yes
New Hampshire	New Hampshire State Legislature	Yes
New Jersey	Politician commission	N/A
New Mexico	New Mexico State Legislature	Yes
New York	New York State Legislature	Yes	An advisory commission is also involved in the process.
North Carolina	North Carolina State Legislature	No
North Dakota	North Dakota State Legislature	Yes
Ohio	Politician commission	N/A	An advisory commission is also involved in the process.
Oklahoma	Oklahoma State Legislature	Yes	A backup commission draws the lines in the event that the state legislature cannot approve a plan.
Oregon	Oregon State Legislature	Yes	If the legislature fails to adopt a plan, the secretary of state must draw the district lines.
Pennsylvania	Politician commission	N/A
Rhode Island	Rhode Island State Legislature	Yes	An advisory commission is also involved in the process.
South Carolina	South Carolina State Legislature	Yes
South Dakota	South Dakota State Legislature	Yes
Tennessee	Tennessee State Legislature	Yes
Texas	Texas State Legislature	Yes	A backup commission draws the lines in the event that the state legislature cannot approve a plan.
Utah	Utah State Legislature	Yes
Vermont	Vermont State Legislature	Yes	An advisory commission is also involved in the process.
Virginia	Virginia State Legislature	Yes	An advisory commission is also involved in the process.
Washington	Independent commission	N/A	The legislature may amend the commission's plan with a two-thirds vote.
West Virginia	West Virginia State Legislature	Yes
Wisconsin	Wisconsin State Legislature	Yes
Wyoming	Wyoming State Legislature	Yes
Source: All About Redistricting, "Who draws the lines?" accessed March 25, 2015

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Redistricting. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

State-by-state redistricting procedures - Google News

See also

• Redistricting
• State legislative and congressional redistricting after the 2010 census

External links

• All About Redistricting (Loyola Law School)
• United States Census Bureau, Redistricting Data
• National Conference of State Legislatures, Redistricting

Additional reading

• Brennan Center for Justice, "A Citizen's Guide to Redistricting," July 1, 2008