From Ballotpedia

Redistricting in 2011-2012
Redistricting Procedures
Types of Redistricting •2010 Redistricting • Voting Rights Act • Apportionment • Trifectas • Public Input • U.S. House • Counting Prisoners • Fundraising • Redistricting History
States
Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan• Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

Every decade, the census is conducted to readjust population figures across the country. These population figures are then used in redistricting -- the re-drawing of Congressional and state legislative districts.

Once the census figures are released, states are then tasked with the redistricting process. In most states redistricting is taken up by the state legislature and governor.

Redistricting is often a highly politicized process. According to Bill Thomas, a 2010 Congressional candidate from Maryland, the real goal of redistricting is, "to repackage constituents in ways designed to benefit the party in power. The 8th Congressional District in Maryland... is a carefully crafted inkblot. Voters only think they choose elected officials, but it’s elected officials who choose them," he said.^[1]

Thomas Mann, a scholar at the Brookings Institution has written extensively on redistricting reform. Mann wrote, "Redistricting is a deeply political process, with incumbents actively seeking to minimize the risk to themselves (via bipartisan gerrymanders) or to gain additional seats for their party (via partisan gerrymanders)."^[2]

On the ballot

While redistricting has a controversial history, it has generally been of interest only to the political die-hard.^[3] But in recent years, there has been increased momentum toward establishing independent commissions, as voters push to move politicians as far away from the process as possible.

According to Bob Edgar, president and CEO of Common Cause, redistricting often "puts partisan legislators in charge, allowing them to choose which voters they’ll represent." He added: independent redistricting commissions help to foster healthy two-party competition and uphold one of America’s fundamental principles: Voters should be represented by people of their own choosing."^[4]

2011

In 2011, voters approved one measure -- Maine that impacted the redistricting process.

2010

In 2010, voters approved four measures -- in California, Florida (and a second in Florida), and Oklahoma -- that either created or expanded a redistricting commissions' jurisdiction over the process (or diluted legislative power). Additionally, California voters rejected a measure that would have eliminated the California Citizens Redistricting Commission.

Types of Redistricting

In each state, there are three general processes by which districts are re-drawn.

• Legislative authority
• Commission
• Hybrid of both legislative and commission

Redistricting in the United States

This map displays what type of redistricting each state uses.

2010 Census Redistricting

The new census information was released on December 21, 2010.^[5] States will spend 2011 redrawing their Congressional and legislative districts according to their individual laws and processes.

Michigan was the only state in the nation to actually lose population over the past decade. Meanwhile, the West has 8 of the 12 new Congressional seats, with the remaining 4 in the southeast. 2012 will mark the first time that the West has a higher population than the Midwest.^[6]

Republicans' powerful showing in the 2010 legislative elections is likely to have a substantial impact on the redistricting process.^[7] According to E.D. Kain, the results of the 2010 elections, combined with the 2011 redistricting, could give Republicans control of the U.S. House until the year 2022.^[8] However, the large, sweeping victories in 2010 will likely make it difficult for Republicans to attempt any far-reaching grab at additional Congressional gains. Rather, it is expected they will play a safer approach to simply try and solidify gains from 2010.^[9] However, in June 2011, some experts indicated that Democrats would likely come out ahead in Congressional redistricting.^[10] Stuart Rothenberg wrote in Roll Call that the likely Democratic gains in California and Illinois would put together completely offset any losses in the 48 other states.

Lawsuits

Lawsuits pertaining to redistricting in 2010-2011 have been filed in 38 states so far.

Deviation of Districts

One of the tools that majority parties have historically used in order to hold power longer is the size of a district. By under-populating districts with one party and overpopulating others, the majority party can shift the balance of power without raising alarms through oddly shaped, gerrymandered districts.

This type of rigged redistricting occurred in several states after the 2000 census.

• Georgia: After the 2000 census, Democrats still controlled the legislature. The party created larger Republican districts in the suburbs and smaller Democrats districts within city limits. In Larios v. Cox a federal court ruled the maps unconstitutional based on "one-person, one-vote" grounds. The Supreme Court upheld the decision. The situation was resolved just in time for the 2004 elections, with a $2 million price tag on the process.^[11]
• Montana: Although Montana has a bipartisan redistricting commission, the past two redistricting processes were seemingly in favor of one party or the other (Democrats in 2000, Republicans in 1990). Of the 50 Senate seats redistricted in 2000, 20 had a population deviation of more than 4% -- 12 with fewer than 4 and eight with more than 4. Democrats won nine of the 12 smaller districts while Republicans won six of the eight larger ones. The same trend was evident in the House, where Democrats won 22 of the 26 smaller districts and Republicans won 17 of the 26 larger ones.^[12]
• New York: In New York, it was the same story as Georgia, only with the Republicans drawing smaller districts for themselves and packing Democrats into larger districts. However, in this circumstance, the courts sided with the Senate plan, ruling the maps constitutional.^[13]

Some states have lowered their population deviation to 3 or even 1 percent of the ideal size, heading into the 2010 Census redistricting process.

Census results

Michael McDonald of George Mason University compiled census data and state legislative district in order to determine where the greatest and least amount of growth took place over the past decade. At the website Public Mapping Project, McDonald posted that information. According to the website Public Mapping with George Mason University, Louisiana has four of the five most underpopulated state legislative districts in the country.^[14]

State Legislative Districts that are Most Underpopulated after 2010 Census
State[14]	District[14]	Total Population[14]	2010 Ideal Population[14]	Deviation[14]	Percent Deviation[14]	% Black Voting-Age Population[14]	% Hispanic Voting-Age Population[14]
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%

Meanwhile, three of the districts that displayed the largest growth, and are therefore overpopulated are in Nevada.

State Legislative Districts that are Most Overpopulated after 2010 Census
State[14]	District[14]	Total Population[14]	2010 Ideal Population[14]	Deviation[14]	Percent Deviation[14]	% Black Voting-Age Population[14]	% Hispanic Voting-Age Population[14]
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%

Apportionment

The breakdown of states that won and lost new seats in the Congressional reapportionment are as follows:^[15]

States that Added Congressional Seats after 2010 Census
State	Before 2010 census	After 2010 census[16]
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[17]
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)

However, while population gains have generally taken place in Republican states, projections show the bulk of the increases are from minorities -- particularly in states like Arizona, Florida and Texas.^[18] Minorities generally lean Democratic in elections.^[19] According to an estimate by Salon.com, Republicans could gain 15 new seats nationwide if they chose to impose "brutal" maps.^[20]

Of the top 10 Congressional districts that need to lose population -- meaning they were the fastest growing districts over the past decade in the country -- all of them were won by a Republican in the 2010 election. That implies, that Republicans will have an easier time spreading their voters across more districts while still managing to try and maintain a safe majority in those overly-populated districts. The most-populated district is the 3rd Congressional seat in Nevada, which has a population of 1,002,482. The least-populated district is the 1st Congressional seat in Nebraska, with 611,333 residents.^[21]

Voting Rights Act

The Voting Rights Act, passed in 1965, impacts redistricting because it mandates that states may not hinder minority voting rights -- including breaking up majority-minority congressional districts.^[20] The legislation was passed to prevent state legislatures, particularly those in the South, from lessening minority representation.^[22]

For example, in Texas, there are four majority-minority districts. Latinos represent 63 percent of the state's growth -- which could result in one or 2 additional minority-majority districts. Texas will be required to have its districts approved by the Department of Justice.^[23]

There are 16 states that will require some form of federal approval of their redistricting plans under jurisdiction of the Voting Rights Act.^[24] Nine states require complete approval; six are only subject to county approval, and two have township mandates. The breakdown is as follows:

States Affected by Voting Rights Act in Redistricting
State	Entire State	Counties only[25]	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

The Voting Rights Act has not impacted redistricting since the Kennedy administration.^[20] Arturo Vargas, executive director of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, expects the Justice Department to play an active roll in redistricting this year. "They've been very clear to us that they intend to be very vigilant and very active in this redistricting process," he said.^[26] Historically, legal challenges have been common in the redistricting process.

For example, in 1981, legislators in Virginia had their plan challenged under the Voting Rights Act. Because Virginia is one of 4 states with off-year state elections, there was a sense of urgency to complete the maps quickly. But because of the legal challenge, the new district drawings were not finished in time to allow candidates to declare. Therefore, a judge ordered that delegates would undergo election for a one-year term using the old districts. Then, in 1982, there would be another one-year term using the newly drawn -- legal -- district lines.^[27]

Lawsuit

On February 2, 2011, District Court of Columbia Judge John Bates heard arguments for a lawsuit brought by officials of Shelby County, Alabama. The lawsuit challenges the Voting Rights Act's pre-clearance mandate, arguing that states and local jurisdictions should no longer be forced to justify voting changes to the federal government.^[28] According to the suit, "There can be no question that the VRA ushered in long-overdue changes in electoral opportunities for minorities throughout the Deep South. However, it is no longer constitutionally justifiable for Congress to arbitrarily impose on Shelby County and other covered jurisdictions disfavored treatment ... without a legislative record showing that [they] are still engaged in the type of 'unremitting and ingenious defiance of the constitution' that justified enactment of the VRA in 1965."^[28]

Department of Justice Approval

The first state to have plans analyzed and inspected by the Department of Justice is Louisiana. The proceedings are being closely watched by other states to try and gauge what level of scrutiny the DOJ will apply to state maps. If the Louisiana maps are rejected, that would send a signal that the DOJ is setting a very high standard for legal approval. This would send ripples through the processes in other pre-clearance states. "Other states will be watching this very, very closely since it is likely to be the first major redistricting plan to get preclearance, or denial, from this Justice Department in this cycle of redistricting. If the plans are rejected, states will study very closely to see how plans are going to be evaluated," said Tim Storey, a senior fellow with the National Conference of State Legislatures.^[29]

Trifectas

A trifecta is when one political party holds these three positions in a state government:

• The governorship
• A majority in the state senates
• A majority in the state houses.

The concept of the trifecta is important in redistricting because in many states, the governor, senate majority leader and house majority leader play decisive roles in the reapportionment process. After the 2010 elections, Republicans picked up 12 new trifectas while Democrats lost 5.

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

State	Governor	State Senate	State House		Trifecta?	# of U.S. Congressional seats
						Before 2010 census	After 2010 census[30]
Alabama						7	7
Alaska						1	1
Arizona						8	9 (+1)
Arkansas						4	4
California						53	53
Colorado						7	7
Connecticut						5	5
Delaware						1	1
Florida						25	27 (+2)
Georgia						13	14 (+1)
Hawaii						2	2
Idaho						2	2
Illinois						19	18 (-1)
Indiana						9	9
Iowa						5	4 (-1)
Kansas						4	4
Kentucky						6	6
Louisiana						7	6 (-1)
Maine						2	2
Maryland						8	8
Massachusetts						10	9 (-1)
Michigan						15	14 (-1)
Minnesota						8	8
Mississippi						4	4
Missouri						9	8 (-1)
Montana						1	1
Nebraska		Non-partisan	NA			3	3
Nevada						3	4 (+1)
New Hampshire						2	2
New Jersey						13	12 (-1)
New Mexico						3	3
New York						29	27 (-2)
North Carolina						13	13
North Dakota						1	1
Ohio						18	16 (-2)
Oklahoma						5	5
Oregon						5	5
Pennsylvania						19	18 (-1)
Rhode Island						2	2
South Carolina						6	7 (+1)
South Dakota						1	1
Tennessee						9	9
Texas						32	36 (+4)
Utah						3	4 (+1)
Vermont						1	1
Virginia						11	11
Washington						9	10 (+1)
West Virginia						3	3
Wisconsin						8	8
Wyoming						1	1

Public input

Technology allows public input to play a much greater role in the 2010 Census redistricting than in historical efforts. The Census Bureau is releasing all of the population information on its website. In the 1970s, politicians used dry-erase boards to create district boundaries. This year, any citizen can use the census website to try their luck at redistricting. Both Ohio and Virginia have held public redistricting competitions. According to Cathy McCully, who heads the Census Redistricting data division, "anybody could be in their basement, unload this and draw their own plan, using all the tools we have."^[31]

Across the nation, more and more citizens are weighing-in with their own versions of redistricting maps. A Wall Street Journal feature in March 2011 was one of many newspaper stories to profile the countless numbers of individuals spending times bringing "redistricting to the basement." Using software available on the Internet, people can draw maps from their own homes.^[32]

For example, the website Draw Congress is compiling publicly-generated maps for both Congressional and state legislative districts. As the redistricting process moves along, it will be compelling to see how many of the actual maps compare similarly to those attempts by the regular voting populace.

Even state officials involved in the process are marveling at the tools at their disposal for redistricting. "This is new. We didn't have something like this 10 years ago," said Clare Dyer, redistricting manager for the Texas Legislative Council.^[33]

U.S. House Input

Legislation

Two Representatives in Congress have introduced legislation that would impact redistricting at the state-level. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) and Jim Cooper (D-TN) each plan to put a bill on the floor of the House. Shuler's bill would require each state to put redistricting in the hands of a five-member commission, in much the same structure as Arizona. Cooper's bill would require each state to create a website to solicit input on the redistricting process.^[34]

Representatives and their Districts

While elected Congressional officials do not directly control redistricting, historically, they have played a vital role in the process. That trend is continuing with this redistricting process. Congressional input happens in many ways -- often behind closed door meetings. In some instances, U.S. House Reps make large donations to political parties or committees in state chambers.^[35]

• In 2008, Brad Miller, a five-term Democrat from North Carolina, donated $250 to the North Carolina House Democratic Committee. In October 2010, Miller sent $10,000 to the committee and $14,000 to the State Senate Democratic Committee.^[35]
• In 2008, Sandy Levin, a 14-term Democrat from Michigan, did not send any money to the Michigan House Democrat fund. In 2010, Levin provided a $20,000 donation.^[35]
• Every Republican incumbent in Ohio contributed to a state legislative campaign committee.
• In New York, 5 incumbent Democrats made donations to state committees, including Brian Higgins, a third-term Congresman who sent $18,000 to the New York State Assembly Campaign Committee.^[35]
• Pete Sessions, an 8-term Republican from Texas, sent $10,000 to the Texas House Campaign Committee. Rep. Michael McCaul (R) -- in his fourth term -- also sent $5,000 to the same committee.^[35]

In other occasions, the Congressional delegation will meet privately with the state legislative leadership that is in charge of redistricting. In early February, Michael Moran (D), chair of the Massachusetts House redistricting committee, met with all 10 of the current Congressional delegates from Massachusetts.^[36]

Meanwhile, lawyers on both sides of the aisle are informing Congressional representatives that it would be wiser to keep quiet about redistricting, rather than risking providing material for potential lawsuits. "This redistricting cycle will be the most-watched in history and will have more public involvement. Everything that is said could end up in court. So people have to be careful what they say," said Jeffrey Wice, a veteran redistricting attorney and counsel to the Democratic Party’s national redistricting project.^[37]

Timeline

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

Counting Prisoners

Historically, prisoners have been counted in redistricting for the district where the jail is physically located. But several states -- namely, Delaware, Maryland and New York have been working to reform that process. Each state has planned to alter the process for the 2011 redistricting, planning instead to locate prisoners most recent addresses and counting them in those districts.^[38]

According to a report by the NAACP, prison-based gerrymandering results in stark contrasts in racial disparities in government representation. Population figures have an impact on federal funding levels, and thus localities often have a specific self-interest in how prisoners are counted. According to the Census Bureau, an act of Congress will be required to have a nationwide change on the process of counting prisoners.^[39]

However, in late March 2011, the federal government rejected Maryland's attempt to reform their process. When the state asked prison officials to provide detailed information on the previous addresses of current inmates, the Federal Bureau of Prisons refused, citing privacy violations. Maryland immediately appealed directly to the U.S. Justice Department in a bid to get that information.^[40]

Fundraising

Both the Democratic and Republican parties have focused national efforts on fundraising for redistricting. The Democrats have a goal of $12.5 million while Republicans hope to raise $20 million. According to a Federal Election Commission ruling last year, money donated for this purpose is considered soft money -- meaning donors do not need to be revealed. Both parties anticipate a large quantity of costly lawsuits, which serves as a primary purpose for the expense of the funds. Mike Thompson, U.S. House representative from California is heading up Democratic efforts while Lynn Westmoreland is spearheading the comparable Republican organization.^[41]

Ugliest districts

A Roll Call article in November 2011 listed the following five Congressional districts as the "ugliest" of 2011.^[42]

• North Carolina District 4
• Maryland District 3
• Ohio District 9
• Michigan District 14
• Illinois District 4

Redistricting History

2000 Census

The tables below detail the success rates of legislatures versus commissions at getting redistricting plans approved without challenges in court (or, if challenged, without a change being required). The information was compiled by analyzing redistricting plans after the census of 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000.^[43]

Legislative Success Rate at Redistricting[43]
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)

Since redistricting in the 1970s, nearly 1/3 of all legislative attempts at redistricting have been challenged in court. However, commissions have been more successful, with roughly 1/5 of all redistricting plans ending up requiring judicial approval.

President Obama and redistricting

Nobody is safe from gerrymandering. In 2000, President Obama ran for Congress against incumbent Democrat Bobby Rush. Obama won 38 percent of the primary vote, subsequently losing to Rush, who has served in the 1st district since 1993. After the 2000 census, Rush influenced the re-drawing of the districts and re-drew Obama into a different Congressional district, that of Jesse Jackson Jr..^[44] Subsequently, with Obama drawn out of Rush's Congressional district, the incumbent faced no primary challenger in 2002 or 2004.^[45]

States

Alabama

• Redistricting in Alabama

Alaska

• Redistricting in Alaska

Arizona

• Redistricting in Arizona

Arizona's early redistricting process was marked with controversy, as Republicans filed suit over the nominee list for the redistricting commission. The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that 2 names would be replaced on the list. Republican and Democratic leaders each pick 2 commission members; those 4 members then choose a fifth and final commissioner.^[46]

Arkansas

• Redistricting in Arkansas

California

States that Received Local Census Population Data
State	Date local data received
Louisiana	February 3, 2011
Mississippi	February 3, 2011
New Jersey	February 3, 2011
Virginia	February 3, 2011
Maryland	February 8, 2011
Indiana	February 9, 2011
Arkansas	February 9, 2011
Vermont	February 9, 2011
Iowa	February 9, 2011
Illinois	February 15, 2011
Oklahoma	February 15, 2011
South Dakota	February 15, 2011
Texas	February 16, 2011
Oregon	February 22, 2011
Washington	February 22, 2011
Colorado	February 22, 2011
Hawaii	February 22, 2011
Utah	February 23, 2011
Nevada	February 23, 2011
Alabama	February 23, 2011
Missouri	February 23, 2011
Nebraska	February 28, 2011
Delaware	March 1, 2011
North Carolina	March 1, 2011
Kansas	March 2, 2011
Wyoming	March 2, 2011
California	March 7, 2011
Connecticut	March 8, 2011
Pennsylvania	March 8, 2011
Arizona	March 9, 2011
Ohio	March 9, 2011
Idaho	March 10, 2011
Wisconsin	March 10, 2011
Alaska	March 14, 2011
Montana	March 14, 2011
New Mexico	March 14, 2011
North Dakota	March 15, 2011
Minnesota	March 15, 2011
Tennessee	March 15, 2011
Florida	March 16, 2011
Georgia	March 16, 2011
Kentucky	March 16, 2011
Massachusetts	March 22, 2011
Michigan	March 22, 2011
New Hampshire	March 22, 2011
Maine	March 23, 2011
New York	March 23, 2011
West Virginia	March 23, 2011
South Carolina	March 23, 2011
Rhode Island	March 23, 2011

• Redistricting in California

Colorado

• Redistricting in Colorado

For a while in the 00's, Colorado was growing rapidly enough that politicos began dreaming of an 8th District. However, the state could not maintain the growth rate and will instead have its seven seats to divvy up. The bar is somewhat low as simply being able to avoid the vicious partisan fight that dragged the 2000 redistricting process out for three years and through the courts will be a win.

Connecticut

• Redistricting in Connecticut

Delaware

• Redistricting in Delaware

Florida

• Redistricting in Florida

Georgia

• Redistricting in Georgia

Hawaii

• Redistricting in Hawaii

Idaho

• Redistricting in Idaho

Illinois

• Redistricting in Illinois

Indiana

• Redistricting in Indiana

Iowa

• Redistricting in Iowa

Iowa's redistricting process is considered to be one of the fairest. The Hawkeye state uses a legislative staff of nonpartisan technocrats to redraw districts -- the only system of its kind in the nation.^[47] The results of been predominantly even-shaped districts.

Kansas

• Redistricting in Kansas

Kentucky

• Redistricting in Kentucky

Louisiana

• Redistricting in Louisiana

The devastation of Hurricane Katrina and, to a lesser extent, Rita sent so many residents looking for new homes that Louisiana lost a Congressional seat. As the state has one of the earliest deadlines anywhere and must still receive Department of Justice authority on its political boundaries, Louisiana has limited time to complete its redistricting. Governor Bobby Jindal (R), standing for re-election in the fall and expected to win easily, has been very clear that he will limit his involvement to discrete advice when asked for it, leaving the Pelican State's redistricting in legislative hands.^[48]

Maine

• Redistricting in Maine

Maine's lawmakers didn't intend to look closely at redistricting until 2013, as the state Constitution and stature set both legislative and Congressional map making for after the first election following a Census. However, a federal lawsuit seeks to force the state, which has received its data, to speed up that time table.

Maryland

• Redistricting in Maryland

Massachusetts

• Redistricting in Massachusetts

Michigan

• Redistricting in Michigan

Nationwide, Michigan is the only state that actually lost population from 2000 to 2010, and then only by a tiny - 0.6%. However, so long as Congress keeps the House at 435 seats, Michigan is losing only one seat, going from 19 to 18.^[49]

Minnesota

• Redistricting in Minnesota

Mississippi

• Redistricting in Mississippi

Having neither gained nor lost seats was hardly enough to defuse bickering over almost every aspect of political boundaries. The inability of the House and Senate to agree on a plan for the lower chamber's districts took up the regular session and now still may not be resolved under an emergency resolution extending the session.

The process of drawing maps may end up in the federal courts where the worst outcome would be a costly requirement to hold back-to-back elections. Mississippi's unusual off-year election cycle means they are electing legislative and Constitutional offices in the fall of 2011, and could be forced to hold a second election in 2012 once the courts finalize maps.

Missouri

• Redistricting in Missouri

Having lost a seat, the Republican dominated legislature can defeat a veto from Governor Nixon (D) and has its eye on one of the Democratic seats around St. Louis as the Congressional delegation shrinks.

Montana

• Redistricting in Montana

Nebraska

• Redistricting in Nebraska

Nevada

• Redistricting in Nevada

America's fastest growing state in the last decade, Nevada has won another seat, but a heavily concentrated population and large tracts of all-but empty land make it challenging to incorporate the new seat fairly. Exploding minority populations who live in concentrated areas also means legislators must pay careful attention to not splitting up communities of interest.^[50]

New Hampshire

• Redistricting in New Hampshire

New Jersey

• Redistricting in New Jersey

New Mexico

• Redistricting in New Mexico

New York

• Redistricting in New York

An original state, New York had 45 representatives in Congress as recently as 1940. Since then, the Empire State's proportional voice in Congress has fallen. Losing again in the 2010 Census, New York now has 27 seats, enough to keep the state in the top four electoral powers, but a far cry from where it once was. A contentious debate has ensued over whether a bipartisan commission should be formed to handle redistricting.^[51]

North Carolina

• Redistricting in North Carolina

North Dakota

• Redistricting in North Dakota

Ohio

• Redistricting in Ohio

Oklahoma

• Redistricting in Oklahoma

Redistricting on the ballot in 2010

Oregon

• Redistricting in Oregon

In Oregon, the state legislature is responsible for redistricting. However, if they cannot reach an agreement with the governor, then there is a secondary process for redrawing the lines. Under this scenario, the Oregon Secretary of State would redraw the state legislative lines, while the state or federal courts would take care of the Congressional districts.^[52]

Pennsylvania

• Redistricting in Pennsylvania

Republicans are in a familiar situation - a trifecta in a redistricting year. However, in 2001 they pushed it too far and lost their power in the state a few years later. Having regained the majority in the Congressional delegation in addition to their state dominance, the seat Pennsylvania must give up will likely come out of Democratic territory.

But a building movement for an independent commission in redistricting and intense speculation about what the new map will look like have already heightened the stakes.

Rhode Island

• Redistricting in Rhode Island

South Carolina

• Redistricting in South Carolina

South Dakota

• Redistricting in South Dakota

South Dakota hasn't won a second Congressional seat...yet. Population did grow and a wave on internal migration drained rural areas and propelled double-digit growth in some cities. The solidly Republican state expects to take up map during summer 2011 and convene a special legislative session in the autumn to pass maps. Two Indian reservations come under VRA regulations, which could be a cause for some tension.

Tennessee

• Redistricting in Tennessee

Texas

• Redistricting in Texas

Utah

• Redistricting in Utah

Utah has gained a seat and the GOP is in charge, but the state's growth was concentrated in a few small areas and the voters in some cases lean Democratic. The question facing the majority in the legislature may come down to whether they want to pack Dems into one district and shore up the other three for Republicans, or make all four seats into slightly red swing seats and hope to take them all in 2012. Additionally, some reform activists in the state have been pushing hard for the creation of an independent commission.

Vermont

• Redistricting in Vermont

Virginia

• Redistricting in Virginia

Washington

• Redistricting in Washington

The only true 'blue' state to gain a Congressional seat, Washington's population growth has centered around the Puget Sound shoreline. Two Districts in particular, the 3rd and the 8th, have gained so many residents that they are easy picks to give up land as Washington draws her new 10th District. That the 3rd and 8th are both favorable to the GOP raises the partisan issue early.

West Virginia

• Redistricting in West Virginia

Wisconsin

• Redistricting in Wisconsin

Wyoming

• Redistricting in Wyoming

See also

State-by-state redistricting procedures

External links

• NCSL on Redistricting
• U.S. Census Redistricting Page
• Census Guide to Redistricting
• Map of Redistricting websites for each State
• Purdue University List of State Redistricting Web sites
• Redistricting the Nation
• Interactive Map of Local Census Data
• Redistricting in America
• Draw Congress

References

v • d • e Redistricting State Redistricting Pages Alabama · Alaska  · Arizona · Arkansas · California · Colorado  · Connecticut  · Delaware · Florida  · Georgia  · Hawaii  · Idaho  · Illinois  · Indiana  · Iowa  · Kansas  · Kentucky  · Louisiana  · Maine  · Maryland  · Massachusetts  · Michigan  · Minnesota  · Mississippi · Missouri  · Montana · Nebraska · Nevada  · New Hampshire  · New Jersey  · New Mexico  · New York  · North Carolina · North Dakota  · Ohio  · Oklahoma · Oregon · Pennsylvania  · Rhode Island  · South Carolina · South Dakota  · Tennessee · Texas  · Utah · Vermont  · Virginia  · Washington  · West Virginia · Wisconsin · Wyoming State-by-state redistricting procedures • Redistricting news desk • Redistricting lawsuits relating to the 2010 Census • Partisan balance of redistricting committees in 2011 • Redistricting Activist Organizations • Redistricting Roundup • Status of redistricting maps after the 2010 census