Who is responsible for gerrymandering congressional districts

So what can we do in our own states? Each state has their own individual process and timeline for determining redistricting. Find out who controls redistricting in your state using these resources from our partners:. In most states, a public hearing is the best way for residents to have their voices heard in the redistricting process. Public hearings allow stakeholders to explain why certain communities should be kept intact, where boundaries should be drawn, and other pertinent information for map-drawing.

In 24 states, the redistricting process expressly prioritizes keeping communities of interest in a single district. If that applies, you can testify at public hearings about why your community should be kept intact during the redistricting process. Communities of interest can argue their case using personal testimonies, written descriptions, boundary maps, and more. For more detailed information on affecting the redistricting process, check out these partner resources. At all levels of advocacy federal, state, and local , it is critical that you work in collaboration with value-aligned partner organizations to be a respectful part of the movement and maximize your collective power.

Here are a few partners that you may be interested in connecting with to advocate for fair redistricting in your state:. Skip to main content. Search form Search. Image by Caroline Kavit. Image by Melissa Bender. Image from Herndon-Reston Indivisible. To fight against gerrymandering in your state, you should use this document to: Learn how redistricting works Learn about the policies that make redistricting more fair Work with advocates to push for democracy reform in your state.

How does redistricting work? When are congressional district lines drawn? Who draws the lines? State legislatures: Legislatures draw congressional district lines in 31 states, and state legislature district lines in 30 states.

These maps often follow the same legislative process as any other bill in the legislature, meaning they must pass the legislature and, in most states, can be vetoed or signed by the governor. Independent redistricting commissions: In other states, independent commissions, comprised of people who are not lawmakers or public officials, draw the lines.

Political commissions: In some states, maps are drawn by a political appointee commission whose members are selected by lawmakers or party leadership. In Arkansas, maps are drawn by a commission made up of legislators themselves.

Backup commissions: Some states have a backup commission that draws the lines if the legislature is deadlocked. Advisory commissions: In some states, an advisory commission drafts the maps, which are then voted on by the state legislature. How are lines drawn?

Federal law mandates certain requirements for district lines. While the vast majority of states continue to let their legislatures draw districts, there is a growing movement toward alternative approaches to mapdrawing. Citizen-driven ballot initiatives let to the passage of redistricting reforms in Arizona in and in California in and Since then, voters in Colorado, Michigan, Missouri, New York, Ohio, and Utah have also adopted changes to improve the redistricting process.

With another round of redistricting in , many state legislatures are currently considering redistricting reforms. Visit our Redistricting Reform Tracker for information on redistricting bills currently pending before legislatures.

State legislatures currently are responsible for drawing congressional districts in 31 states and state legislative districts in In most states, the legislature passes redistricting plans as regular legislation. Plans often must be approved with a majority vote in each chamber and are subject to veto by the governor, but a few states exclude the governor from the process. State legislative plans in Florida, Maryland, and Mississippi are not subject to gubernatorial veto.

In North Carolina, neither congressional nor state legislative plans are subject to gubernatorial veto. Four states use an advisory commission to draw congressional plans, and six states have an advisory commission to draw state legislative districts.

Advisory commissions, which may consist of legislators or non-legislators or a mix, recommend redistricting plans to the legislature. 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. Most states are required to draw new congressional district lines every 10 years following completion of United States Census those states comprising one congressional district are not required to redistrict.

In 33 of these states, state legislatures play the dominant role in congressional redistricting. In eight states, commissions draw congressional district lines. In two states, hybrid systems are used, in which the legislatures share redistricting authority with commissions. The remaining states comprise one congressional district each, rendering redistricting unnecessary.

See the map and table below for further details. In the table below, click on a state name for details about that state's redistricting procedures. In 33 of the 50 states, state legislatures play the dominant role in state legislative redistricting. Commissions draw state legislative district lines in 14 states. In three states, hybrid systems are used, in which state legislature share redistricting authority with commissions.

As of August , twelve states required redistricting authorities to count prison inmates who are state residents at their pre-incarceration address, rather than in the community where their detention facility is located. Eleven states had those policies take effect with the redistricting cycle, while Illinois' policy was not scheduled to go into effect until These states differed on whether their policy for counting incarcerated persons in their pre-incarceration districts applied to legislative or congressional maps.

Five states counted incarcerated persons at their pre-incarceration addresses for legislative maps only, and seven counted them at their pre-incarceration residences for both legislative and congressional maps. The states' policies also differed on how out-of-state inmates, and inmates with unknown previous residences, are counted. Two states— Colorado and Virginia —count these people as residents in their correctional facility for redistricting purposes.

Seven exclude this group from all district redistricting population calculations. Pennsylvania excluded out-of-state inmates from all district population calculations, but counted in-state inmates with unknown previous residences as residents of their correctional facility.

Federal inmates are counted the same as state inmates in six states, and are excluded from redistricting calculations in two states. Four states have not addressed how to count persons incarcerated in federal facilities for redistricting. The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Redistricting. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles. State-by-state redistricting procedures - Google News.