When do states redistrict

Highly Competitive. Competitive R. Solid R. There are 22 Democratic-leaning seats , 41 Republican-leaning seats and 3 highly competitive seats in the new maps so far.

The latest with redistricting Oct. Illinois Democratic lawmakers introduced a new congressional map proposal after releasing an initial proposal earlier this month. West Virginia. West Virginia Gov. West Virginia becomes the fifth state to complete its congressional maps this cycle. Our latest coverage. The committee said it would select district plans that would be published for public input on September 16, and adopt maps to be recommended to the legislature on October The Commission released its first redistricting proposal to the public on September 15, On February 23, , Karen Brinson Bell, executive director of the state board of elections, recommended that state lawmakers postpone North Carolina's primary election, scheduled for March 8, , by two months.

There are no plans to move the primaries. On August 9, the House Redistricting Committee and Senate Redistricting and Elections Committee met for the first time, with two other meetings scheduled for August 10 and August 12, to establish redistricting criteria and take comments from the public.

North Carolina's redistricting committees announced a series of public hearings to be held on redistricting: [82]. The second and final deadline was September The congressional map deadline was September If the commission is then unable to adopt a map, the General Assembly must draw a map by November The Oklahoma House of Representatives provided this projected timeline for the redistricting cycle in Oklahoma. Kevin Stitt R called a special session of the legislature to address redistricting that begins Nov.

The House and Senate Redistricting Committees scheduled town hall meetings about redistricting to take place at the following times and locations:. Kate Brown called for a special session of the Oregon legislature to address redistricting that would begin on Sept.

The Oregon Supreme Court established the following timeline for state legislative redistricting in and The state supreme court also laid out a timeline for the secretary of state to complete state legislative redistricting should the legislature fail to do so:. Neither the Oregon Constitution nor state statutes establish a fixed timeline for congressional redistricting.

Redistricting authorities in Pennsylvania have not established a timeline for the cycle. On July 12, , a series of public hearings on congressional redistricting was announced by the Pennsylvania House State Government Committee. Tom Wolf D announced the Pennsylvania Redistricting Advisory Council would hold a series of public hearings on redistricting.

The following public hearing schedule was posted on the Rhode Island Redistricting Project website. The following public hearing schedule was posted on the South Carolina Senate website. The following timeline was adapted from a timeline released by the South Dakota legislature. The following timeline represents the projected redistricting schedule in Tennessee.

The following timeline represents the projected redistricting schedule in Texas. Redistricting authorities in Vermont have not established a timeline for the cycle. The following timeline was adapted from a timeline constructed by the Virginia Civic Engagement Table and information provided by the Virginia Redistricting Commission. On April 26, , Delegate Lee Carter D sent a letter to Attorney General Mark Herring D and asked for a formal opinion as to the "constitutionality of the elections for the House of Delegates being conducted under electoral districts established in As of May 6, , Herring had not responded to Carter's request for an opinion.

The following public hearing schedule was posted on the Virginia Redistricting Commission's website. The following timeline was adapted from a redistricting timeline provided by the Washington Secretary of State's office.

The Washington Redistricting Commission posted the following public outreach meeting schedule on their website. The following timeline represents the projected redistricting schedule in West Virginia. It will be updated as more information becomes available. Michael Keane, a senior research analyst for the Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau, prepared the following projected timeline for the redistricting cycle in Wisconsin.

The Wyoming legislature released its interactive mapping tool on September 20, The mapping interface, provided by Maptitude , allows legislators and members of the public to draw legislative maps. Click here to access the mapping tool. Wyoming was apportioned one single at-large U. House seat, making Congressional redistricting after the census unnecessary. Wyoming is drawing state legislative district maps following the census.

New state legislative district maps have not yet been enacted. This section will be updated if legal challenges to the redistricting process or enacted maps are filed in court. 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. Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution stipulates that congressional representatives be apportioned to the states on the basis of population. Each state is allotted a portion of these seats based on the size of its population relative to the other states. 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. The United States Constitution is silent on the issue of state legislative redistricting.

In the mids, 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.

In addition to the federal criteria noted above, individual states may impose additional requirements on redistricting. Common state-level redistricting criteria are listed below. In general, a state's redistricting authority can be classified as one of the following: []. 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 Supreme Court of the United States has, in recent years, issued several decisions dealing with redistricting policy, including rulings relating to the consideration of race in drawing district maps, the use of total population tallies in apportionment , and the constitutionality of independent redistricting commissions.

The rulings in these cases, which originated in a variety of states, impact redistricting processes across the nation. In Gill v. Whitford , decided on June 18, , 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. 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. In Cooper v. Harris , decided on May 22, , 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 United States Census, had been subject to an illegal racial gerrymander in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

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. Evenwel v. Abbott was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 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 on April 4, , 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. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts that were created by the commission in 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.

The plaintiffs claimed that the commission placed a disproportionately large number of non-minority voters in districts dominated by Republicans; meanwhile, the commission allegedly placed many minority voters in smaller districts that tended to vote Democratic. As a result, the plaintiffs argued, more voters overall were placed in districts favoring Republicans than in those favoring Democrats, thereby diluting the votes of citizens in the Republican-dominated districts.

The defendants countered that the population deviations resulted from legally defensible efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act and obtain approval from the United States Department of Justice. At the time of redistricting, certain states were required to obtain preclearance A jurisdiction subject to preclearance needed to get approval from the U. Department of Justice before changing election laws or district maps.

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 On April 20, , 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. In 34 of the states that conducted legislative elections in , the legislatures themselves will play a significant part in the subsequent redistricting process.

The winner of eight of 's gubernatorial elections will have veto authority over state legislative or congressional district plans approved by legislatures. The party that won trifecta control of a state in which redistricting authority rests with the legislature will direct the process that produces the maps that will be used for the remainder of the decade.

Trifecta shifts in the election cycle illustrate this point. In , 12 states in which legislatures had authority over redistricting saw shifts in trifecta status. Prior to the elections, seven of these states were Democratic trifectas; the rest were divided governments. After the elections, seven of these states became Republican trifectas; the remainder either remained or became divided governments.

The table below details these shifts and charts trifecta status heading into the election cycle. Following the 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, , the legislature approved a state legislative redistricting plan, which was signed into law on March 6, On April 5, , 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. The case was filed as Hunzie v. At the bottom of the congressional district look-up tool, there are links to your state legislature's website.

All state legislatures have districts, too. Most states have a similar address look-up tool or an on-line map for their state legislative districts. If you can find your state legislative district, you will note that your state legislative district does not have the same boundary as your congressional district.

No state has the same number of congressional and state legislative districts, so these different legislatures must have different district boundaries. If this was not complicated enough, you likely live in local districts, too, such as city council, county supervisor, school board, and even districts like water and conservation districts, among many others. While it may seem difficult for you to discover all the districts that you live in, it is important to be able to determine who represents you.

Have a problem with your school? Contact your school board member. Your social security check is lost? Contact your member of congress. Most elected officials have staff to help you with these sorts of problems.

They don't care which political party you are aligned with, as elected officials have learned that constituent service builds goodwill even with people of different political parties.

If you do not know who represents you, elected officials know who they represent. If you are a registered voter, around election time you may receive literature in the mail, phone calls, and visits to your door from people campaigning for office. When you vote, you will find that you can only vote for candidates to the offices in the districts you live in. In single-member districts, like those for the U. House, voters elect only one candidate to represent their district.

In multi-member districts, voters can elect two or more candidates. Most United States governments tend to use single-member districts for legislative offices. In , the federal government passed a law requiring that congressional districts be single member. Single-member districts are not required by the U. Constitution, and they were not necessarily used in the past. Many states and localities also use single-member districts. Some states have multi-member state legislative districts and some local governments use multi-member districts for local offices.

There are different flavors of multi-member elections. If all the members are selected at-large , then voters vote separately for candidates to each office. For example, if two members are elected from a district, then voters would cast a vote for the candidates seeking the first seat and vote separately for candidates to the second seat. Some states use bloc voting , where voters receive a number of votes equal to the number of offices to fill, all the candidates run against each other, and voters can vote for as many candidates as they have votes.

Some localities may use uncommon - to the United States - proportional representation methods to elect multiple candidates from the same district. The up-shot of multi-member districts is that a legislature may have 60 seats, but if all members are elected from two-member districts, there may be only 30 districts. Some states like Maryland and New Hampshire even allow the number of members elected from each district to vary. Why Do Redistricting? Redistricting is the redrawing of legislative districts.

By federal law, redistricting must occur following a census for two reasons. First, new districts must be drawn when a state gains or loses congressional districts as a result of the apportionment of congressional districts to the states. Second, even if the number of districts does not change, governments must redraw districts so that the districts have equal populations. These are the reasons why redistricting must occur. Some governments may choose to conduct redistricting for political reasons.

The most infamous case in recent times was the re-redistricting in Texas, where Democratic state legislators fled the state to prevent a mid-decade congressional redistricting.

Apportionment Article 1, Section 2 of the United States constitution requires the federal government to conduct a census of its population every ten years for the purpose of apportioning U. House of Representatives seats among the states.