Jump to content

Redistricting: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile app edit iOS app edit
Restored revision 1263694576 by ThoughtWarden (talk): Not a correct hatnote, and unexplained removal of content
 
(45 intermediate revisions by 32 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Process of drawing electoral district boundaries in the United States}}
{{Short description|Process of drawing electoral district boundaries in the United States}}
{{about|redistricting in the United States|redistricting in other countries|Redistribution (election)}}
{{about|the process of determining electoral boundaries in the United States|the process in other countries|Redistribution (election)}}
{{Duplicated citations|reason=[[User:Polygnotus/DuplicateReferences|DuplicateReferences]] detected:<br>
{{More citations needed|article|date=September 2008}}
* https://redistricting.lls.edu/redistricting-101/who-draws-the-lines/ (refs: 6, 13)
* https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/2a(c) (refs: 12, 16)
* https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S000305541900056X/type/journal_article (refs: 28, 29)
|date=November 2024}}
{{Politics of the United States}}
{{Politics of the United States}}
'''Redistricting''' in the [[United States]] is the process of drawing [[electoral district]] boundaries.<ref name ="ACE">{{Cite web|url=https://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/bd/annex/bdz01 |title=Boundary Delimitation Glossary |publisher=ACE: The Electoral Knowledge Network |access-date=4 December 2022 }}</ref> For the [[United States House of Representatives]], and state legislatures, redistricting occurs after each [[United States census|ten-year census]].<ref name="Goldman-1986">{{Cite news|last=Goldman |first=Ari L. |date=21 November 1986 |title=One man, one vote: Decades of court decisions |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1986/11/21/nyregion/one-man-one-vote-decades-of-court-decisions.html }}</ref>
'''Redistricting''' in the [[United States]] is the process of drawing [[electoral district]] boundaries. [[An Act For the relief of Doctor Ricardo Yallejo Saniala and to provide for congressional redistricting]] (enacted in 1967) requires that representatives be elected from [[Single-member district|single-member districts]]. When a [[U.S. state|state]] has a single representative, that district will be state-wide.<ref> {{USC|2|2c}}</ref> Redistricting has become subject to contentious political debate in recent years with critics arguing that it has been weaponized to neutralize minority voting power.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Gerrymandering could limit minority voters’ power even though Census shows population gains|url=https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/13/gerrymandering-could-limit-minority-voters-power-even-after-census-gains.html|access-date=2021-11-26|website=CNBC|language=en}}</ref> Supporters say it enhances electoral competitiveness.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Why should we care?|url=https://redistricting.lls.edu/redistricting-101/why-should-we-care/|access-date=2021-11-05|website=All About Redistricting|language=en}}</ref>


The [[Article One of the United States Constitution#Section 2, Clause 3|U.S. Constitution in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3]] provides for [[proportional representation]] in the House of Representatives. The [[Reapportionment Act of 1929]] required that the number of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives be kept at a constant 435, and a 1941 act made the reapportionment among the states by population automatic after every decennial census.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Apportionment Legislation 1890{{snd}}Present |date= 2008 |publisher=U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration U.S. Census Bureau |url=https://www.census.gov/history/www/reference/apportionment/apportionment_legislation_1890_-_present.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101017161546/https://www.census.gov/history/www/reference/apportionment/apportionment_legislation_1890_-_present.html |archive-date=17 October 2010 |url-status=live }}</ref> Reapportionment occurs at the federal level followed by redistricting at the state level. According to {{ussc|name=Colegrove v. Green|328|549|1946|el=no}}, [[Article One of the United States Constitution#Section 4: Congressional elections|Article I, Section 4]] left to the legislature of each state the authority to establish congressional districts;<ref name="History-proportional">{{Cite web| title=Proportional Representation| url=http://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Proportional-Representation/| publisher=Office of the Historian, United States House of Representatives| location=Washington, D.C.| accessdate=September 21, 2018 }}</ref> however, such decisions are subject to judicial review.<ref name="Goldman-1986" /><ref>{{Cite web|last=Warren |first=Earl |title=Reynolds v. Sims |publisher=Justia |language=en |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/377/533/ |access-date=4 December 2022 }}</ref> In most states redistricting is subject to political maneuvering, but some state legislatures have created independent commissions.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Who draws the lines? |website=All About Redistricting |language=en |url=https://redistricting.lls.edu/redistricting-101/who-draws-the-lines/ |access-date=4 December 2022 }}</ref>
==Legislative representatives==
[[File:2020 census reapportionment.svg|left|thumb|Allocation of districts following the [[2020 United States census|2020 census]].]]


The [[Uniform Congressional District Act]] (enacted in 1967) requires that representatives be elected from [[single-member district]]s. When a [[U.S. state|state]] has a single representative, that district will be state-wide.<ref>{{USC|2|2c}}</ref>

[[Gerrymandering in the United States|Gerrymandering]] in the redistricting process has been a problem since the early days of the republic.<ref name="Griffith-1907">{{Cite book|last=Griffith |first=Elmer |year=1907 |title=The Rise and Development of the Gerrymander |location=Chicago |publisher=Scott Foresman |oclc=45790508 |url=https://archive.org/details/risedevelopmento00grif }}</ref> In recent years, critics have argued that redistricting has been used to neutralize minority voting power.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Gerrymandering could limit minority voters' power even though Census shows population gains|url=https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/13/gerrymandering-could-limit-minority-voters-power-even-after-census-gains.html|access-date=2021-11-26|website=[[CNBC]]|date=13 August 2021 |language=en}}</ref> Supporters say it enhances electoral competitiveness.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Why should we care? |website=All About Redistricting|language=en |url=https://redistricting.lls.edu/redistricting-101/why-should-we-care/ |access-date=4 December 2022 }}</ref>

==Legislative representatives==
===Federal===
===Federal===
{{see also|United States congressional apportionment}}
{{Further|United States congressional apportionment}}
[[File:2020 census reapportionment.svg|thumb|upright=.95|Allocation of districts following the [[2020 United States census|2020 census]].]]
[[File:USCongressionalRedistrictingPartisanControl2020.svg|upright=.95|thumb|Partisan control of congressional redistricting after the 2020 elections, with the number of U.S. House seats each state will receive.
{{legend|#2c82b6|Democratic control}}
{{legend|#d63f3f|Republican control}}
{{legend|#ecc61c|Split or bipartisan control}}
{{legend|#60c53a|Independent redistricting commission}}
{{legend|#c0c0c0|No redistricting necessary}}]]


Six states have a single representative in the [[United States House of Representatives]], because of their low populations.<ref>{{cite web |last1=U.S. Census Bureau |title=2020 Census: Apportionment of the U.S. House of Representatives |url=https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2021/dec/2020-apportionment-map.html |website=Census.gov |date=April 26, 2021}}</ref> These are [[Alaska]], [[Delaware]], [[North Dakota]], [[South Dakota]], [[Vermont]], and [[Wyoming]]. These states do not need redistricting for the House and elect members on a state-wide [[at-large]] basis.<ref> {{USC|2|2a(c)}}</ref>
Six states have a single representative in the [[United States House of Representatives]], because of their low populations.<ref>{{cite web |last1=U.S. Census Bureau |title=2020 Census: Apportionment of the U.S. House of Representatives |url=https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2021/dec/2020-apportionment-map.html |website=Census.gov |date=April 26, 2021}}</ref> These are [[Alaska]], [[Delaware]], [[North Dakota]], [[South Dakota]], [[Vermont]], and [[Wyoming]]. These states do not need redistricting for the House and elect members on a state-wide [[at-large]] basis.<ref>{{USC|2|2a(c)}}</ref>


In 25 states, the [[State legislature (United States)|state legislature]] has primary responsibility for creating a redistricting plan, in many cases subject to approval by the state [[Governor (United States)|governor]].<ref>{{cite web |title=Who draws the lines? |url=https://redistricting.lls.edu/redistricting-101/who-draws-the-lines/ |website=All About Redistricting |language=en |access-date=2021-11-27}}</ref> To reduce the role that legislative politics might play, thirteen states ([[Alaska]]{{efn|Since Alaska only has a single Representative, its congressional redistricting laws are not currently in force.}}, [[Arizona]], [[California]], [[Colorado]], [[Hawaii]], [[Idaho]], [[Michigan]], [[Missouri]], [[Montana]], [[New Jersey Redistricting Commission|New Jersey]], [[Ohio]], [[Pennsylvania]], and [[Washington (state)|Washington]]) determine congressional redistricting by an independent or bipartisan [[redistricting commission]].<ref name="NCSL-redistricting">{{cite web |url=http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/redist/2009-redistricting-commissions-table.aspx |title=2009 Redistricting Commission Table |publisher=[[National Conference of State Legislatures]] (NCSL) |date=June 28, 2008 |access-date=2013-09-06}}</ref> Five states: [[Maine]], [[New York (state)|New York]], [[Rhode Island]], [[Vermont]]{{efn|Since Vermont only has a single Representative, its congressional redistricting laws are not currently in force.}}, and [[Virginia]] give independent bodies authority to propose redistricting plans, but preserve the role of legislatures to approve them. [[Arkansas]] has a commission composed of its governor, attorney general, and secretary of state.
In 25 states, the [[State legislature (United States)|state legislature]] has primary responsibility for creating a redistricting plan, in many cases subject to approval by the state [[Governor (United States)|governor]].<ref>{{cite web |title=Who draws the lines? |url=https://redistricting.lls.edu/redistricting-101/who-draws-the-lines/ |website=All About Redistricting |language=en |access-date=2021-11-27}}</ref> To reduce the role that legislative politics might play, thirteen states ([[Alaska]],{{efn|Since Alaska only has a single representative, its congressional redistricting laws are not currently in force.}} [[Arizona]], [[California]], [[Colorado]], [[Hawaii]], [[Idaho]], [[Michigan]], [[Missouri]], [[Montana]], [[New Jersey Redistricting Commission|New Jersey]], [[Ohio]], [[Pennsylvania]], and [[Washington (state)|Washington]]) determine congressional redistricting by an independent or bipartisan [[redistricting commission]].<ref name="NCSL-redistricting">{{cite web |url=http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/redist/2009-redistricting-commissions-table.aspx |title=2009 Redistricting Commission Table |publisher=[[National Conference of State Legislatures]] (NCSL) |date=June 28, 2008 |access-date=2013-09-06}}</ref> Five states: [[Maine]], [[New York (state)|New York]], [[Rhode Island]], [[Vermont]],{{efn|Since Vermont only has a single representative, its congressional redistricting laws are not currently in force.}} and [[Virginia]] give independent bodies authority to propose redistricting plans, but preserve the role of legislatures to approve them. [[Arkansas]] has a commission composed of its governor, attorney general, and secretary of state.


By law, the 43 states with more than one Representative must redistrict after each decennial census to account for population shifts within the state as well as (when necessary) to add or remove congressional districts.<ref>[[Wesberry v. Sanders]], 376 U.S. 1, 18 (1964).</ref><ref> {{USC|2|2a(c)}}.</ref> States are not prevented from redistricting at any time between censuses up to and including redistricting prior to each congressional election, provided such redistricting conforms to various federal laws.<ref>[[League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry]], 548 U.S. 399, 447 (2006).</ref> However, "mid-decade" redistricting proposals (such as what occurred in [[2003 Texas redistricting|2003 in Texas]]) have typically been highly controversial. Another case of between-censuses redistricting occurred between the 2016 and 2018 elections, in [[Redistricting in Pennsylvania#2018: Pennsylvania Supreme Court invalidating the 2011 congressional districts|Pennsylvania]].<ref>[[League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania]], 181 A.3d 1083 (Pa. 2018)</ref>
By law, the forty-four states with more than one representative must redistrict after each decennial census to account for population shifts within the state as well as (when necessary) to add or remove congressional districts.<ref>[[Wesberry v. Sanders]], 376 U.S. 1, 18 (1964).</ref><ref>{{USC|2|2a(c)}}.</ref> Federal law (including the [[Constitution of the United States|Constitution]]) does not prevent states from redistricting at any time between censuses, up to and including redistricting prior to each congressional election, provided such redistricting conforms to various federal laws.<ref>[[League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry]], 548 U.S. 399, 447 (2006).</ref> However, "mid-decade" redistricting proposals (such as what occurred in [[2003 Texas redistricting|2003 in Texas]]) have typically been highly controversial. Because of this, many states prohibit mid-decade redistricting, although this is more prevalent for state legislative redistricting than for congressional redistricting. Some also link it to a specific year or to the decennial census. It is unclear to what extent mid-decade redistricting would be legal in those states.<ref>{{Cite web |title=National Overview |url=https://redistricting.lls.edu/national-overview/ |access-date=2023-04-08 |website=All About Redistricting |language=en}}</ref>[[File:Congressional mid-decade redistricting map.png|thumb|The legality of mid-decade congressional redistricting in the United States]][[File:State legislative mid-decade redistricting map.png|thumb|The legality of mid-decade state-legislative redistricting in the United States]]

Apart from mid-decade redistricting initiated by state legislatures (as happened in [[2003 Texas redistricting|Texas]]), both federal and state courts can also order the redistricting of certain maps between-censuses (because said maps were ruled unconstitutional or against federal law, for example). Examples of this are the redistricting that occurred between the 2016 and 2018 elections in [[Redistricting in Pennsylvania#2018: Pennsylvania Supreme Court invalidating the 2011 congressional districts|Pennsylvania]] or the redistricting that occurred in [[Redistricting in North Carolina|North Carolina]].<ref>[[League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania]], 181 A.3d 1083 (Pa. 2018)</ref>


===State===
===State===
Line 30: Line 47:


===Redistricting criteria===
===Redistricting criteria===
The [[Reapportionment Act of 1929]] withdrew the size and population requirements for Congressional districts, last stated in the [[Apportionment Act of 1911]]. The previous apportionment acts required districts be contiguous, compact, and equally populated.<ref>Apportionment Act of 1842, 5 Stat. 491.</ref><ref>Apportionment Act of 1862, 12 Stat. 572.</ref><ref>[[Vieth v. Jubelirer]], 541 U.S. 267, 276 (2004).</ref>
The [[Reapportionment Act of 1929]] did not state any size and population requirements for congressional districts, last stated in the [[Apportionment Act of 1911]], since the 1911 Act was still in force. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the 1911 Act was no longer in force even though Congress never repealed it. The previous apportionment acts required districts be contiguous, compact, and equally populated.<ref>Apportionment Act of 1842, 5 Stat. 491.</ref><ref>Apportionment Act of 1862, 12 Stat. 572.</ref><ref>[[Vieth v. Jubelirer]], 541 U.S. 267, 276 (2004).</ref>


Each state can set its own standards for Congressional and legislative districts.<ref>
Each state can set its own standards for congressional and legislative districts.<ref>
{{cite web
{{cite web
|url=http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/redistricting-looms-over-2010-election-landscape-2009-06-13.html
|url=http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/redistricting-looms-over-2010-election-landscape-2009-06-13.html
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090618070653/http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/redistricting-looms-over-2010-election-landscape-2009-06-13.html
|url-status=dead
|archive-date=June 18, 2009
|title=TheHill.com - Redistricting looms over 2010 landscape
|title=TheHill.com - Redistricting looms over 2010 landscape
|work= [[The Hill (newspaper)|The Hill]]
|publisher=thehill.com
|access-date=2009-08-25
|access-date=2009-08-25
}}
}}
</ref> In addition to equalizing the population of districts and complying with federal requirements, criteria may include attempting to create compact, contiguous districts, trying to keep political units and communities within a single district, and avoiding the drawing of boundaries for purposes of partisan advantage or incumbent protection.<ref>Miller, Jason C.,[http://ssrn.com/abstract=1635614 Community as a Redistricting Principle: Consulting Media Markets in Drawing District Lines] (July 6, 2010). Indiana Law Journal Supplement, Vol. 5, 2010.</ref>
</ref> In addition to equalizing the population of districts and complying with federal requirements, criteria may include attempting to create compact, contiguous districts, trying to keep political units and communities within a single district, and avoiding the drawing of boundaries for purposes of partisan advantage or incumbent protection.<ref>Miller, Jason C.,[http://ssrn.com/abstract=1635614 Community as a Redistricting Principle: Consulting Media Markets in Drawing District Lines] (July 6, 2010). Indiana Law Journal Supplement, Vol. 5, 2010.</ref>


Redistricting may follow other criteria depending on state and local laws:<ref name="ARCUSER">{{citation |title=ArcGIS is Making Redistricting More Efficient and Transparent |newspaper=ArcUser |url=http://www.esri.com/~/media/Files/Pdfs/news/arcuser/0518/arcuser-spring-2018.pdf|date=Spring 2018|pages=26}}</ref>
Redistricting may follow other criteria depending on state and local laws:<ref name="ARCUSER">{{citation |title=ArcGIS is Making Redistricting More Efficient and Transparent |newspaper=ArcUser |url=http://www.esri.com/~/media/Files/Pdfs/news/arcuser/0518/arcuser-spring-2018.pdf|date=Spring 2018|pages=26}}</ref>
# compactness<ref name="cambridge.org">{{Cite journal |last1=Katz |first1=Jonathan N. |last2=King |first2=Gary |last3=Rosenblatt |first3=Elizabeth |date=2020 |title=Theoretical Foundations and Empirical Evaluations of Partisan Fairness in District-Based Democracies |url=https://authors.library.caltech.edu/records/awqcc-r3g16/files/S000305541900056Xsup001.pdf?download=1 |journal=American Political Science Review |language=en |volume=114 |issue=1 |pages=164–178 |doi=10.1017/S000305541900056X |s2cid=53991300 |issn=0003-0554}}</ref>
# [[compactness]]
# [[Contiguity (probability theory)|contiguity]]
# [[Contiguity (probability theory)|contiguity]]
# [https://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/bd/bdb/bdb05/bdb05a equal population]
# equal [[population]]
# [https://www.ncsl.org/research/redistricting/redistricting-criteria.aspx preservation of existing political communities]
# preservation of existing political communities
# partisan fairness<ref name="cambridge.org"/>
# [https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/gerrymandering-fair-representation partisan fairness]
# [https://gking.harvard.edu/files/abs/racial-abs.shtml racial fairness]<ref>{{Cite book|title = The Politics of Congressional Elections|last = Jacobson|first = Gary|publisher = PEARSON Education|year = 2013|location = New Jersey|pages = 9}}</ref>
# racial fairness<ref>{{Cite book|title = The Politics of Congressional Elections|last = Jacobson|first = Gary|publisher = PEARSON Education|year = 2013|location = New Jersey|pages = 9}}</ref>


==Gerrymandering==
==Gerrymandering==
Line 53: Line 73:
[[Gerrymandering]], the practice of drawing district boundaries to achieve political advantage for legislators, involves the manipulation of district boundaries to leave out, or include, specific populations in a particular district to ensure a legislator's reelection or to advantage their party.
[[Gerrymandering]], the practice of drawing district boundaries to achieve political advantage for legislators, involves the manipulation of district boundaries to leave out, or include, specific populations in a particular district to ensure a legislator's reelection or to advantage their party.


In states where the legislature (or another body where a partisan majority is possible) is in charge of redistricting, the possibility of gerrymandering (the deliberate manipulation of political boundaries for electoral advantage, usually of [[incumbent]]s or a specific [[political party]]) often makes the process very politically contentious, especially when the majorities of the two houses of the legislature, or the legislature and the governor, are from different parties.
In states where the legislature (or another body where a partisan majority is possible) is in charge of redistricting, the possibility of gerrymandering (the deliberate manipulation of political boundaries for electoral advantage, usually of [[incumbent]]s or a specific [[political party]]) often makes the process very politically contentious, especially when the majorities of the two houses of the legislature, or the legislature and the governor, are from different parties.

Partisan domination of state legislatures and improved technology to design contiguous districts that pack opponents into as few districts as possible have led to district maps which are skewed towards one party. Consequently, many states including [[Florida]], [[Georgia (U.S. state)|Georgia]], [[Maryland]], [[Michigan]], [[North Carolina]], [[Ohio]], [[Pennsylvania]], [[Texas]] and [[Wisconsin]] have succeeded in reducing or effectively eliminating competition for most House seats in those states.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Rakich|first=Ryan Best, Aaron Bycoffe and Nathaniel|date=2021-08-09|title=What Redistricting Looks Like In Every State|url=https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-2022-maps/|access-date=2021-11-09|website=[[FiveThirtyEight]]|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Wilkes|first=Mackenzie|date=2021-10-26|title=Americans Don't Trust Their Congressional Maps To Be Drawn Fairly. Can Anything Change That?|url=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-dont-trust-their-congressional-maps-to-be-drawn-fairly-can-anything-change-that/|access-date=2021-11-09|website=[[FiveThirtyEight]]|language=en-US}}</ref> Some states, including [[New Jersey]] and [[New York (state)|New York]], protect incumbents of both parties, reducing the number of competitive districts.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Astor|first=Maggie|date=2021-09-16|title=Where Redistricting Stands in 14 States|language=en-US|work=[[The New York Times]]|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/16/us/politics/redistricting-gerrymandering.html|access-date=2021-11-10|issn=0362-4331}}</ref>


The state and federal court systems are often involved in resolving disputes over congressional and legislative redistricting when gridlock prevents redistricting in a timely manner. In addition, those disadvantaged by a proposed redistricting plan may challenge it in state and federal courts. [[United States Department of Justice|Justice Department]] approval (which is known as pre-clearance) was formerly required under Section 5 of the [[Voting Rights Act of 1965]] in certain states that have had a history of racial barriers to voting. The Supreme Court's ruling on the Pennsylvania redistricting effectively allows elected officials to select their constituents by eliminating most of the grounds for constituents to challenge district lines.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1580.ZS.html |title=Vieth v. Jubelirer |publisher=supct.law.cornell.edu |access-date=2009-08-25}}</ref>
Partisan domination of state legislatures and improved technology to design contiguous districts that pack opponents into as few districts as possible have led to district maps which are skewed towards one party. Consequently, many states including [[Florida]], [[Georgia (U.S. state)|Georgia]], [[Maryland]], [[Michigan]], [[North Carolina]], [[Ohio]], [[Pennsylvania]], [[Texas]] and [[Wisconsin]] have succeeded in reducing or effectively eliminating competition for most House seats in those states.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Rakich|first=Ryan Best, Aaron Bycoffe and Nathaniel|date=2021-08-09|title=What Redistricting Looks Like In Every State|url=https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-2022-maps/|access-date=2021-11-09|website=FiveThirtyEight|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Wilkes|first=Mackenzie|date=2021-10-26|title=Americans Don’t Trust Their Congressional Maps To Be Drawn Fairly. Can Anything Change That?|url=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-dont-trust-their-congressional-maps-to-be-drawn-fairly-can-anything-change-that/|access-date=2021-11-09|website=FiveThirtyEight|language=en-US}}</ref> Some states, including [[New Jersey]] and [[New York (state)|New York]], protect incumbents of both parties, reducing the number of competitive districts.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Astor|first=Maggie|date=2021-09-16|title=Where Redistricting Stands in 14 States|language=en-US|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/16/us/politics/redistricting-gerrymandering.html|access-date=2021-11-10|issn=0362-4331}}</ref>


== Other redistricting reforms ==
The state and federal court systems are often involved in resolving disputes over Congressional and legislative redistricting when gridlock prevents redistricting in a timely manner. In addition, those disadvantaged by a proposed redistricting plan may challenge it in state and federal courts. [[United States Department of Justice|Justice Department]] approval (which is known as pre-clearance) was formerly required under Section 5 of the [[Voting Rights Act of 1965]] in certain states that have had a history of racial barriers to voting. The Supreme Court's ruling on the Pennsylvania redistricting effectively allows elected officials to select their constituents by eliminating most of the grounds for constituents to challenge district lines.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1580.ZS.html |title=Vieth v. Jubelirer |publisher=supct.law.cornell.edu |access-date=2009-08-25}}</ref>
In addition to the establishments of [[redistricting commission]]s in multiple states, proposals have been fielded to draft [[interstate compact]]s between states on congressional redistricting. These have been proposed in the legislatures of [[Maryland]] and [[Illinois]] since the 2010s in order to reduce redistricting-related litigation, prevent partisan "arms races" over reapportionment and partisan gerrymandering, and reduce perceptions of nonpartisan redistricting as unilateral disarmament.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Krislov |first=Zachary |date=23 Oct 2023 |title=Reflecting on the 2020 Redistricting Cycle: A Proposal for Interstate Redistricting Agreements |url=https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4591238 |journal=Yale Law School, Public Law Research Paper |volume=128 Penn St. L. Rev. 433 (2024)|ssrn=4591238 }}</ref> To date, no such compacts have been approved by legislature or referendum.{{Citation needed|date=July 2024}}


== U.S. Supreme Court redistricting cases ==
== U.S. Supreme Court redistricting cases ==
Line 85: Line 108:
* ''[[Benisek v. Lamone]]'' (2018 & 2019)
* ''[[Benisek v. Lamone]]'' (2018 & 2019)
* ''[[Rucho v. Common Cause]]'' (2019)
* ''[[Rucho v. Common Cause]]'' (2019)
* ''[[Allen v. Milligan]]'' (2023)
* [https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/alexander-v-south-carolina-state-conference-of-the-naacp/ Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP] (2023)


==See also==
==See also==
Line 101: Line 126:
==External links==
==External links==
*[http://redistricting.lls.edu/ All About Redistricting] Includes state criteria.
*[http://redistricting.lls.edu/ All About Redistricting] Includes state criteria.
*[http://www.fairdistricts.info Creating Fair Congressional Districts] A site with an algorithm using just population and state shape for creating congressional districts.
*[http://www.redistrictinginamerica.org redistrictinginamerica.org] A comprehensive source for information about redistricting in all fifty states from the [http://www.rosereport.org Rose Institute of State and Local Government]
*[http://www.redistrictinginamerica.org redistrictinginamerica.org] A comprehensive source for information about redistricting in all fifty states from the [http://www.rosereport.org Rose Institute of State and Local Government]
*[http://www.caliper.com/News/RedistrictingNews.htm MappingSoftware.com] Maptitude for Redistricting News
*[http://www.caliper.com/News/RedistrictingNews.htm MappingSoftware.com] Maptitude for Redistricting News
Line 113: Line 137:
* [http://www.floridaredistricting.org www.FloridaRedistricting.org]
* [http://www.floridaredistricting.org www.FloridaRedistricting.org]
* {{cite web |author=Jeffrey B. Lewis|year=2013 |title= Digital Boundary Definitions of United States Congressional Districts, 1789-2012 |url= http://cdmaps.polisci.ucla.edu |publisher=University of California, Los Angeles |display-authors=etal}}
* {{cite web |author=Jeffrey B. Lewis|year=2013 |title= Digital Boundary Definitions of United States Congressional Districts, 1789-2012 |url= http://cdmaps.polisci.ucla.edu |publisher=University of California, Los Angeles |display-authors=etal}}
* {{cite web |publisher=[[ProPublica]] |title=Redistricting: How Powerful Interests Are Drawing You Out of a Vote |url= https://www.propublica.org/series/redistricting }}
* {{cite web |publisher=[[ProPublica]] |title=Redistricting: How Powerful Interests Are Drawing You Out of a Vote |date=27 February 2013 |url= https://www.propublica.org/series/redistricting }}
*[http://www.redistrictinggame.org The Redistricting Game - Where Do You Draw the Lines] A simulation of how redistricting works. It uses the real US laws and practices and incorporates quotes from US political leaders.
*[http://www.redistrictinggame.org The Redistricting Game - Where Do You Draw the Lines] A simulation of how redistricting works. It uses the real US laws and practices and incorporates quotes from US political leaders.
*[https://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/bd/bdb/bdb05/bdb05a Equal Population in Redistricting] includes definition of equal population criteria from [https://www.aceproject.org/ ACE Projects]
*[https://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/bd/bdb/bdb05/bdb05a Equal Population in Redistricting] includes definition of equal population criteria from [https://www.aceproject.org/ ACE Projects]


{{Redistricting (US)}}
{{Redistricting (US)}}
{{USRedistrictinglaw}}


[[Category:Redistricting in the United States| ]]
[[Category:Redistricting in the United States| ]]

Latest revision as of 12:17, 31 December 2024

Redistricting in the United States is the process of drawing electoral district boundaries.[1] For the United States House of Representatives, and state legislatures, redistricting occurs after each ten-year census.[2]

The U.S. Constitution in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 provides for proportional representation in the House of Representatives. The Reapportionment Act of 1929 required that the number of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives be kept at a constant 435, and a 1941 act made the reapportionment among the states by population automatic after every decennial census.[3] Reapportionment occurs at the federal level followed by redistricting at the state level. According to Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549 (1946), Article I, Section 4 left to the legislature of each state the authority to establish congressional districts;[4] however, such decisions are subject to judicial review.[2][5] In most states redistricting is subject to political maneuvering, but some state legislatures have created independent commissions.[6]

The Uniform Congressional District Act (enacted in 1967) requires that representatives be elected from single-member districts. When a state has a single representative, that district will be state-wide.[7]

Gerrymandering in the redistricting process has been a problem since the early days of the republic.[8] In recent years, critics have argued that redistricting has been used to neutralize minority voting power.[9] Supporters say it enhances electoral competitiveness.[10]

Legislative representatives

[edit]

Federal

[edit]
Allocation of districts following the 2020 census.
Partisan control of congressional redistricting after the 2020 elections, with the number of U.S. House seats each state will receive.
  Democratic control
  Republican control
  Split or bipartisan control
  Independent redistricting commission
  No redistricting necessary

Six states have a single representative in the United States House of Representatives, because of their low populations.[11] These are Alaska, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming. These states do not need redistricting for the House and elect members on a state-wide at-large basis.[12]

In 25 states, the state legislature has primary responsibility for creating a redistricting plan, in many cases subject to approval by the state governor.[13] To reduce the role that legislative politics might play, thirteen states (Alaska,[a] Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Washington) determine congressional redistricting by an independent or bipartisan redistricting commission.[14] Five states: Maine, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont,[b] and Virginia give independent bodies authority to propose redistricting plans, but preserve the role of legislatures to approve them. Arkansas has a commission composed of its governor, attorney general, and secretary of state.

By law, the forty-four states with more than one representative must redistrict after each decennial census to account for population shifts within the state as well as (when necessary) to add or remove congressional districts.[15][16] Federal law (including the Constitution) does not prevent states from redistricting at any time between censuses, up to and including redistricting prior to each congressional election, provided such redistricting conforms to various federal laws.[17] However, "mid-decade" redistricting proposals (such as what occurred in 2003 in Texas) have typically been highly controversial. Because of this, many states prohibit mid-decade redistricting, although this is more prevalent for state legislative redistricting than for congressional redistricting. Some also link it to a specific year or to the decennial census. It is unclear to what extent mid-decade redistricting would be legal in those states.[18]

The legality of mid-decade congressional redistricting in the United States
The legality of mid-decade state-legislative redistricting in the United States

Apart from mid-decade redistricting initiated by state legislatures (as happened in Texas), both federal and state courts can also order the redistricting of certain maps between-censuses (because said maps were ruled unconstitutional or against federal law, for example). Examples of this are the redistricting that occurred between the 2016 and 2018 elections in Pennsylvania or the redistricting that occurred in North Carolina.[19]

State

[edit]

State constitutions and laws also mandate which body has responsibility over drawing the state legislature boundaries.[20] In addition, those municipal governments that are elected on a district basis (as opposed to an at-large basis) also redistrict.[21]

Redistricting criteria

[edit]

The Reapportionment Act of 1929 did not state any size and population requirements for congressional districts, last stated in the Apportionment Act of 1911, since the 1911 Act was still in force. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the 1911 Act was no longer in force even though Congress never repealed it. The previous apportionment acts required districts be contiguous, compact, and equally populated.[22][23][24]

Each state can set its own standards for congressional and legislative districts.[25] In addition to equalizing the population of districts and complying with federal requirements, criteria may include attempting to create compact, contiguous districts, trying to keep political units and communities within a single district, and avoiding the drawing of boundaries for purposes of partisan advantage or incumbent protection.[26]

Redistricting may follow other criteria depending on state and local laws:[27]

  1. compactness[28]
  2. contiguity
  3. equal population
  4. preservation of existing political communities
  5. partisan fairness[28]
  6. racial fairness[29]

Gerrymandering

[edit]

Gerrymandering, the practice of drawing district boundaries to achieve political advantage for legislators, involves the manipulation of district boundaries to leave out, or include, specific populations in a particular district to ensure a legislator's reelection or to advantage their party.

In states where the legislature (or another body where a partisan majority is possible) is in charge of redistricting, the possibility of gerrymandering (the deliberate manipulation of political boundaries for electoral advantage, usually of incumbents or a specific political party) often makes the process very politically contentious, especially when the majorities of the two houses of the legislature, or the legislature and the governor, are from different parties.

Partisan domination of state legislatures and improved technology to design contiguous districts that pack opponents into as few districts as possible have led to district maps which are skewed towards one party. Consequently, many states including Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and Wisconsin have succeeded in reducing or effectively eliminating competition for most House seats in those states.[30][31] Some states, including New Jersey and New York, protect incumbents of both parties, reducing the number of competitive districts.[32]

The state and federal court systems are often involved in resolving disputes over congressional and legislative redistricting when gridlock prevents redistricting in a timely manner. In addition, those disadvantaged by a proposed redistricting plan may challenge it in state and federal courts. Justice Department approval (which is known as pre-clearance) was formerly required under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in certain states that have had a history of racial barriers to voting. The Supreme Court's ruling on the Pennsylvania redistricting effectively allows elected officials to select their constituents by eliminating most of the grounds for constituents to challenge district lines.[33]

Other redistricting reforms

[edit]

In addition to the establishments of redistricting commissions in multiple states, proposals have been fielded to draft interstate compacts between states on congressional redistricting. These have been proposed in the legislatures of Maryland and Illinois since the 2010s in order to reduce redistricting-related litigation, prevent partisan "arms races" over reapportionment and partisan gerrymandering, and reduce perceptions of nonpartisan redistricting as unilateral disarmament.[34] To date, no such compacts have been approved by legislature or referendum.[citation needed]

U.S. Supreme Court redistricting cases

[edit]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ Since Alaska only has a single representative, its congressional redistricting laws are not currently in force.
  2. ^ Since Vermont only has a single representative, its congressional redistricting laws are not currently in force.

References

[edit]
  1. ^ "Boundary Delimitation Glossary". ACE: The Electoral Knowledge Network. Retrieved 4 December 2022.
  2. ^ a b Goldman, Ari L. (21 November 1986). "One man, one vote: Decades of court decisions". The New York Times.
  3. ^ "Apportionment Legislation 1890 – Present". U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration U.S. Census Bureau. 2008. Archived from the original on 17 October 2010.
  4. ^ "Proportional Representation". Washington, D.C.: Office of the Historian, United States House of Representatives. Retrieved September 21, 2018.
  5. ^ Warren, Earl. "Reynolds v. Sims". Justia. Retrieved 4 December 2022.
  6. ^ "Who draws the lines?". All About Redistricting. Retrieved 4 December 2022.
  7. ^ 2 U.S.C. § 2c
  8. ^ Griffith, Elmer (1907). The Rise and Development of the Gerrymander. Chicago: Scott Foresman. OCLC 45790508.
  9. ^ "Gerrymandering could limit minority voters' power even though Census shows population gains". CNBC. 13 August 2021. Retrieved 2021-11-26.
  10. ^ "Why should we care?". All About Redistricting. Retrieved 4 December 2022.
  11. ^ U.S. Census Bureau (April 26, 2021). "2020 Census: Apportionment of the U.S. House of Representatives". Census.gov.
  12. ^ 2 U.S.C. § 2a(c)
  13. ^ "Who draws the lines?". All About Redistricting. Retrieved 2021-11-27.
  14. ^ "2009 Redistricting Commission Table". National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). June 28, 2008. Retrieved 2013-09-06.
  15. ^ Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 18 (1964).
  16. ^ 2 U.S.C. § 2a(c).
  17. ^ League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399, 447 (2006).
  18. ^ "National Overview". All About Redistricting. Retrieved 2023-04-08.
  19. ^ League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 181 A.3d 1083 (Pa. 2018)
  20. ^ Blake, Aaron. "Government Redistricting Web Sites". Purdue University Libraries. Retrieved 2009-08-25.
  21. ^ "California Secretary of State: City and County Redistricting Process". www.sos.ca.gov. Retrieved 29 November 2021.
  22. ^ Apportionment Act of 1842, 5 Stat. 491.
  23. ^ Apportionment Act of 1862, 12 Stat. 572.
  24. ^ Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267, 276 (2004).
  25. ^ "TheHill.com - Redistricting looms over 2010 landscape". The Hill. Archived from the original on June 18, 2009. Retrieved 2009-08-25.
  26. ^ Miller, Jason C.,Community as a Redistricting Principle: Consulting Media Markets in Drawing District Lines (July 6, 2010). Indiana Law Journal Supplement, Vol. 5, 2010.
  27. ^ "ArcGIS is Making Redistricting More Efficient and Transparent" (PDF), ArcUser, p. 26, Spring 2018
  28. ^ a b Katz, Jonathan N.; King, Gary; Rosenblatt, Elizabeth (2020). "Theoretical Foundations and Empirical Evaluations of Partisan Fairness in District-Based Democracies" (PDF). American Political Science Review. 114 (1): 164–178. doi:10.1017/S000305541900056X. ISSN 0003-0554. S2CID 53991300.
  29. ^ Jacobson, Gary (2013). The Politics of Congressional Elections. New Jersey: PEARSON Education. p. 9.
  30. ^ Rakich, Ryan Best, Aaron Bycoffe and Nathaniel (2021-08-09). "What Redistricting Looks Like In Every State". FiveThirtyEight. Retrieved 2021-11-09.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  31. ^ Wilkes, Mackenzie (2021-10-26). "Americans Don't Trust Their Congressional Maps To Be Drawn Fairly. Can Anything Change That?". FiveThirtyEight. Retrieved 2021-11-09.
  32. ^ Astor, Maggie (2021-09-16). "Where Redistricting Stands in 14 States". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2021-11-10.
  33. ^ "Vieth v. Jubelirer". supct.law.cornell.edu. Retrieved 2009-08-25.
  34. ^ Krislov, Zachary (23 Oct 2023). "Reflecting on the 2020 Redistricting Cycle: A Proposal for Interstate Redistricting Agreements". Yale Law School, Public Law Research Paper. 128 Penn St. L. Rev. 433 (2024). SSRN 4591238.

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]