Redistricting In North Carolina After The 2020 Census

Redistricting after the 2020 census Select your state:AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingSubmit
The 2020 cycle
Congressional apportionment
Redistricting committees
Deadlines
Lawsuits
Status of redistricting maps
Congressional maps
State legislative maps
Congressional and state legislative maps
Redistricting apps and software
General information
State-by-state redistricting procedures
United States census, 2020
Majority-minority districts
Gerrymandering

Redistricting is the process of enacting new congressional and state legislative district boundaries. On Nov. 4, the North Carolina General Assembly voted to enact a congressional map. The map passed the North Carolina State Senate 27-22 on Nov. 2, and the North Carolina House of Representatives 65-49 on Nov. 4.^[1] This map takes effect for North Carolina's 2022 congressional elections. On Nov. 4, the North Carolina General Assembly voted to enact legislative maps. The house map passed the North Carolina House of Representatives 67-49 on Nov. 2, and the North Carolina State Senate 25-21 on Nov. 4.^[2] The senate map passed 26-19 in the North Carolina State Senate on Nov. 3 and 65-49 in the North Carolina House of Representatives on Nov. 4.^[3] These maps take effect for North Carolina's 2022 legislative elections. Click here for more information.
This article chronicles the 2020 redistricting cycle in North Carolina.

North Carolina's 14 United States representatives and 170 state legislators are all elected from political divisions called districts. District lines are redrawn every 10 years following completion of the United States census. Federal law stipulates that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.

See the sections below for further information on the following topics:

1. Summary: This section provides summary information about the drafting and enacting processes.
2. Apportionment and release of census data: This section details the 2020 apportionment process, including data from the United States Census Bureau.
3. Drafting process: This section details the drafting process for new congressional and state legislative district maps.
4. Enactment: This section provides information about the enacted congressional and state legislative district maps.
5. Court challenges: This section details court challenges to the enacted congressional and state legislative district maps.
6. Background: This section summarizes federal and state-based requirements for redistricting at both the congressional and state legislative levels. A summary of the 2010 redistricting cycle in North Carolina is also provided.

Summary[edit]

This section lists major events in the post-2020 census redistricting cycle in reverse chronological order. Major events include the release of apportionment data, the release of census population data, the introduction of formal map proposals, the enactment of new maps, and noteworthy court challenges. Click the dates below for additional information.

• November 4, 2021: The North Carolina General Assembly voted to enact congressional and state legislative maps.
• October 22, 2021: The House Redistricting Committee released its first map proposals.
• October 20, 2021: The Senate Redistricting Committee released its first map proposals.
• September 16, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau released data from the 2020 census in an easier-to-use format to state redistricting authorities and the public.
• August 12, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau delivered redistricting data to states in a legacy format.
• June 28, 2021: The state legislature passed a law postponing certain municipal elections in response to delayed census data.
• April 26, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts.

Enactment[edit]

Enacted congressional district maps[edit]

See also: Congressional district maps implemented after the 2020 census

On Nov. 4, the North Carolina General Assembly voted to enact a congressional map. The map passed the North Carolina State Senate 27-22 on Nov. 2, and the North Carolina House of Representatives 65-49 on Nov. 4.^[4] This map takes effect for North Carolina's 2022 congressional elections.

Enacted state legislative district maps[edit]

See also: State legislative district maps implemented after the 2020 census

On Nov. 4, the North Carolina General Assembly voted to enact legislative maps. The house map passed the North Carolina House of Representatives 67-49 on Nov. 2, and the North Carolina State Senate 25-21 on Nov. 4.^[5] The senate map passed 26-19 in the North Carolina State Senate on Nov. 3 and 65-49 in the North Carolina House of Representatives on Nov. 4.^[6] These maps take effect for North Carolina's 2022 legislative elections.

Reactions[edit]

Rep. Destin Hall (R), chair of the House Redistricting Committee, said: "This is the most transparent process in the history of this state. We voluntarily chose to be out in public and not use election data, even though by law we didn't have to do that. We chose to do that because that's the right thing to do."^[7] Sen. Ralph Hise (R), co-chairman of the Senate Redistricting and Elections Committee, said: "I feel that we have complied with the law" in drawing the maps.^[8]

Rep. Kandie Smith (D) criticized the maps, saying: "When I look at these congressional maps - they stink. People don't want gerrymandering. That's what we have, People don't want us packing. That's what we're doing. People don't want us to separate people with the same interest. That's what we're doing."^[7] Sen. Jay Chaudhuri (D) said: "Is it going to come down to litigation being filed? Yes — and what the courts have to say about it."^[8]

Drafting process[edit]

In North Carolina, the state legislature is responsible for drawing both congressional and state legislative district lines. District maps cannot be vetoed by the governor. State legislative redistricting must take place in the first regular legislative session following the United States Census. There are no explicit deadlines in place for congressional redistricting.^[9]

State law establishes the following requirements for state legislative districts:^[9]

• Districts must be contiguous and compact.
• Districts "must cross county lines as little as possible." If counties are grouped together, the group should include as few counties as possible.
• Communities of interest should be taken into account.

There are no similar restrictions in place regarding congressional districts.^[9]

Timeline[edit]

On February 23, 2021, Karen Brinson Bell, executive director of the state board of elections, recommended that state lawmakers postpone North Carolina's 2022 primary election, scheduled for March 8, 2022, by two months. Lauren Horsch, a representative for Senate Majority Leader Phil Berger (R), said. “Legislators are currently evaluating the impact of the delayed census on the 2021 elections. There are no plans to move the primaries.”^[10]

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.^[11]

North Carolina's redistricting committees announced a series of public hearings on redistricting:^[12] Additional hearings in October were also announced.^[13]

Committees and/or commissions involved in the process[edit]

In North Carolina, the following committees are involved in the redistricting process: the House Redistricting Committee and the Senate Redistricting and Elections Committee. As of June 17, 2021, these committees had the following members:^[14][15]

North Carolina House Redistricting Committee membership, 2020 cycle
Name	Partisan affiliation
Rep. Destin Hall (Chairman)	Republican
Rep. William Richardson (Vice-Chairman)	Democratic
Rep. Jason Saine (Vice-Chairman)	Republican
Rep. John Torbett (Vice-Chairman)	Republican
Rep. Cecil Brockman	Democratic
Rep. Becky Carney	Democratic
Rep. Linda Cooper-Suggs	Democratic
Rep. Jimmy Dixon	Republican
Rep. Jon Hardister	Republican
Rep. Pricey Harrison	Democratic
Rep. Kelly Hastings	Republican
Rep. Zack Hawkins	Democratic
Rep. Grey Mills	Republican
Rep. Robert Reives	Democratic
Rep. David Rogers	Republican
Rep. John Sauls	Republican
Rep. John Szoka	Republican
Rep. Harry Warren	Republican
Rep. Lee Zachary	Republican

North Carolina Senate Redistricting and Elections Committee membership, 2020 cycle
Name	Partisan affiliation
Sen. Warren Daniel (Chairman)	Republican
Sen. Ralph Hise (Chairman)	Republican
Sen. Paul Newton (Chairman)	Republican
Sen. Dan Blue	Democratic
Sen. Ben Clark	Democratic
Sen. Don Davis	Democratic
Sen. Chuck Edwards	Republican
Sen. Carl Ford	Republican
Sen. Kathy Harrington	Republican
Sen. Brent Jackson	Republican
Sen. Joyce Krawiec	Republican
Sen. Paul Lowe	Democratic
Sen. Natasha Marcus	Democratic
Sen. Wiley Nickel	Democratic
Sen. Jim Perry	Republican
Sen. Bill Rabon	Republican

Criteria[edit]

Adopted criteria (August 12, 2021)[edit]

The House Redistricting Committee and Senate Redistricting and Elections Committee adopted redistricting criteria on August 12, 2021.^[16]

Proposed criteria (August 9, 2021)[edit]

The House Redistricting Committee and Senate Redistricting and Elections Committee released a redistricting criteria proposal on August 9, 2021.^[17]

Proposed maps[edit]

Legislative[edit]

On Oct. 20, 2021, the Senate Redistricting and Elections Committee released a senate map proposal (SST-4).^[18] On Oct. 22, the House Redistricting Committee released a house map proposal (HBK-11).^[19]

Senate Redistricting and Elections Committee proposals[edit]

• SST-4 senate proposal (click to expand)
  

House Redistricting Committee proposals[edit]

• HBK-11 house proposal (click to expand)
  

Congressional[edit]

On Oct. 20, 2021, the Senate Redistricting and Elections Committee released five congressional map proposals (CST-2, CMT-9, CBK-4, CBK-5, and CBK-3).^[18] On Oct. 22, the House Redistricting Committee released a congressional map proposal (CBA-2).^[19]

Senate Redistricting and Elections Committee proposals[edit]

• CST-2 congressional proposal (click to expand)
  

• CMT-9 congressional proposal (click to expand)
  

• CBK-4 congressional proposal (click to expand)
  

• CBK-5 congressional proposal (click to expand)
  

• CBK-3 congressional proposal (click to expand)
  

House Redistricting Committee proposals[edit]

• CBA-2 congressional proposal (click to expand)
  

Apportionment and release of census data[edit]

Apportionment is the process by which representation in a legislative body is distributed among its constituents. The number of seats in the United States House of Representatives is fixed at 435. The United States Constitution dictates that districts be redrawn every 10 years to ensure equal populations between districts. Every ten years, upon completion of the United States census, reapportionment occurs.^[20]

Apportionment following the 2020 census[edit]

The U.S. Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts on April 26, 2021. North Carolina was apportioned 14 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. This represented a net gain of one seat as compared to apportionment after the 2010 census.^[21]

See the table below for additional details.

Redistricting data from the Census Bureau[edit]

On February 12, 2021, the Census Bureau announced that it would deliver redistricting data to the states by September 30, 2021. On March 15, 2021, the Census Bureau released a statement indicating it would make redistricting data available to the states in a legacy format in mid-to-late August 2021. A legacy format presents the data in raw form, without data tables and other access tools. On May 25, 2021, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (R) announced that the state had reached a settlement agreement with the Census Bureau in its lawsuit over the Census Bureau's timetable for delivering redistricting data. Under the terms of the settlement, the Census Bureau agreed to deliver redistricting data, in a legacy format, by August 16, 2021.^{[22][23][24][25]} The Census Bureau released the 2020 redistricting data in a legacy format on August 12, 2021, and in an easier-to-use format at data.census.gov on September 16, 2021.^[26][27]

Court challenges[edit]

If you are aware of any relevant lawsuits that are not listed here, please email us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

Harper v. Lewis[edit]

On Nov. 5, 2021, the plaintiffs in Harper v. Lewis, a 2019 case that resulted in North Carolina drawing new congressional maps before the 2020 election cycle, filed a supplemental complaint challenging the state's enacted congressional redistricting plan. The supplemental complaint was filed as part of the 2019 Harper v. Lewis case since the case was not closed.^[28] The lawsuit alleges the map was an "intentional, extreme partisan gerrymander that dilutes Democratic votes and prevents Democratic voters from electing candidates of their choice." In their request for the relief, the plaintiffs asked the court to declare the 2016 and 2021 congressional maps unconstitutional, and to redraw the maps.^[29]

Noteworthy events[edit]

Law passed postponing certain 2021 municipal elections[edit]

On June 28, 2021, SB722 was signed into law, postponing elections in at least 35 North Carolina municipalities, including Charlotte, Durham, Greensboro, and Raleigh, due to the delayed release of census data.^[30]

SB722 applies to "any municipality where there is an election of municipal officers scheduled for 2021 and where less than the entire jurisdiction is eligible to vote for candidates for one or more offices on the 2021 ballot." SB722 allows municipalities to conduct elections for at-large offices, such as mayors and citywide council members, as scheduled in 2021. SB722 also directs municipalities to "review and revise [their] electoral districts in accordance with state and federal law" once the U.S. Census Bureau releases raw 2020 block-level data in mid-August. In previous census cycles, the bureau delivered block-level data in the spring.^[31]

Current mayors and city council members in affected jurisdictions will remain in office until their successors are elected in 2022. A full list of affected municipalities and a revised election schedule can be found here.

The bill (SB722) became law without Gov. Roy Cooper's (D) signature. Cooper said, "While delays to census data caused by the pandemic necessitate changes to local elections, decisions about local elections like these should involve more open discussion and public input, and therefore, these changes will become law without my signature."^[32] The North Carolina House of Representatives unanimously approved SB722 on June 9. The North Carolina Senate approved the bill 33-14 on June 14. All votes opposed came from Democrats. Republicans control the chamber 28-22.^[33]

Background[edit]

This section includes background information on federal requirements for congressional redistricting, state legislative redistricting, state-based requirements, redistricting methods used in the 50 states, gerrymandering, and recent court decisions.

Federal requirements for congressional redistricting[edit]

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.^[34][35]

Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution stipulates that congressional representatives be apportioned to the states on the basis of population. There are 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives. Each state is allotted a portion of these seats based on the size of its population relative to the other states. Consequently, a state may gain seats in the House if its population grows or lose seats if its population decreases, relative to populations in other states. In 1964, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Wesberry v. Sanders that the populations of House districts must be equal "as nearly as practicable."^[37][38][39]

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."^[39]

Federal requirements for state legislative redistricting[edit]

The United States Constitution is silent on the issue of state legislative redistricting. In the mid-1960s, the United States Supreme Court issued a series of rulings in an effort to clarify standards for state legislative redistricting. In Reynolds v. Sims, the court ruled that "the Equal Protection Clause [of the United States Constitution] demands no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens, of all places as well as of all races." According to All About Redistricting, "it has become accepted that a [redistricting] plan will be constitutionally suspect if the largest and smallest districts [within a state or jurisdiction] are more than 10 percent apart."^[39]

State-based requirements[edit]

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

1. Contiguity refers to the principle that all areas within a district should be physically adjacent. A total of 49 states require that districts of at least one state legislative chamber be contiguous (Nevada has no such requirement, imposing no requirements on redistricting beyond those enforced at the federal level). A total of 23 states require that congressional districts meet contiguity requirements.^[39][40]
2. Compactness refers to the general principle that the constituents within a district should live as near to one another as practicable. A total of 37 states impose compactness requirements on state legislative districts; 18 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.^[39][40]
3. A community of interest is defined by FairVote as a "group of people in a geographical area, such as a specific region or neighborhood, who have common political, social or economic interests." A total of 24 states require that the maintenance of communities of interest be considered in the drawing of state legislative districts. A total of 13 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.^[39][40]
4. A total of 42 states require that state legislative district lines be drawn to account for political boundaries (e.g., the limits of counties, cities, and towns). A total of 19 states require that similar considerations be made in the drawing of congressional districts.^[39][40]

Methods[edit]

In general, a state's redistricting authority can be classified as one of the following:^[41]

1. Legislature-dominant: In a legislature-dominant state, the legislature retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. Maps enacted by the legislature may or may not be subject to gubernatorial veto. Advisory commissions may also be involved in the redistricting process, although the legislature is not bound to adopt an advisory commission's recommendations.
2. Commission: In a commission state, an extra-legislative commission retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. A non-politician commission is one whose members cannot hold elective office. A politician commission is one whose members can hold elective office.
3. Hybrid: In a hybrid state, the legislature shares redistricting authority with a commission.

Gerrymandering[edit]

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

See also: Gerrymandering

The term gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to favor one political party, individual, or constituency over another. When used in a rhetorical manner by opponents of a particular district map, the term has a negative connotation but does not necessarily address the legality of a challenged map. The term can also be used in legal documents; in this context, the term describes redistricting practices that violate federal or state laws.^[42][43]

For additional background information about gerrymandering, click "[Show more]" below.

Recent court decisions[edit]

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

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.

For additional background information about these cases, click "[Show more]" below.

Show more

Gill v. Whitford (2018)[edit]

See also: Gill v. Whitford

In Gill v. Whitford, decided on June 18, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the plaintiffs—12 Wisconsin Democrats who alleged that Wisconsin's state legislative district plan had been subject to an unconstitutional gerrymander in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments—had failed to demonstrate standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to bring a complaint. The court's opinion, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, did not address the broader question of whether partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. Roberts was joined in the majority opinion by Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Kagan penned a concurring opinion joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas penned an opinion that concurred in part with the majority opinion and in the judgment, joined by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch.^[47]

Cooper v. Harris (2017)[edit]

See also: Cooper v. Harris

In Cooper v. Harris, decided on May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the judgment of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, finding that two of North Carolina's congressional districts, the boundaries of which had been set following the 2010 United States Census, had been subject to an illegal racial gerrymander in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the court's majority opinion, which was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor (Thomas also filed a separate concurring opinion). In the court's majority opinion, Kagan described the two-part analysis utilized by the high court when plaintiffs allege racial gerrymandering as follows: "First, the plaintiff must prove that 'race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature's decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district.' ... Second, if racial considerations predominated over others, the design of the district must withstand strict scrutiny. The burden shifts to the State to prove that its race-based sorting of voters serves a 'compelling interest' and is 'narrowly tailored' to that end." In regard to the first part of the aforementioned analysis, Kagan went on to note that "a plaintiff succeeds at this stage even if the evidence reveals that a legislature elevated race to the predominant criterion in order to advance other goals, including political ones." Justice Samuel Alito delivered an opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part with the majority opinion. This opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy.^[48][49][50]

Evenwel v. Abbott (2016)[edit]

See also: Evenwel v. Abbott

Evenwel v. Abbott was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts in Texas. The plaintiffs, Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger, argued that district populations ought to take into account only the number of registered or eligible voters residing within those districts as opposed to total population counts, which are generally used for redistricting purposes. Total population tallies include non-voting residents, such as immigrants residing in the country without legal permission, prisoners, and children. The plaintiffs alleged that this tabulation method dilutes the voting power of citizens residing in districts that are home to smaller concentrations of non-voting residents. The court ruled 8-0 on April 4, 2016, that a state or locality can use total population counts for redistricting purposes. The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.^{[51][52][53][54]}

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2016)[edit]

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

See also: Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts that were created by the commission in 2012. The plaintiffs, a group of Republican voters, alleged that "the commission diluted or inflated the votes of almost two million Arizona citizens when the commission intentionally and systematically overpopulated 16 Republican districts while under-populating 11 Democrat districts." This, the plaintiffs argued, constituted a partisan gerrymander. The plaintiffs claimed that the commission placed a disproportionately large number of non-minority voters in districts dominated by Republicans; meanwhile, the commission allegedly placed many minority voters in smaller districts that tended to vote Democratic. As a result, the plaintiffs argued, more voters overall were placed in districts favoring Republicans than in those favoring Democrats, thereby diluting the votes of citizens in the Republican-dominated districts. The defendants countered that the population deviations resulted from legally defensible efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act and obtain approval from the United States Department of Justice. At the time of redistricting, certain states were required to obtain preclearanceA jurisdiction subject to preclearance needed to get approval from the U.S. Department of Justice before changing election laws or district maps. from the U.S. Department of Justice before adopting redistricting plans or making other changes to their election laws—a requirement struck down by the United States Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder (2013). On April 20, 2016, the court ruled unanimously that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that a partisan gerrymander had taken place. Instead, the court found that the commission had acted in good faith to comply with the Voting Rights Act. The court's majority opinion was penned by Justice Stephen Breyer.^[55][56][57]

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015)[edit]

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

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2015. At issue was the constitutionality of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, which was established by state constitutional amendment in 2000. According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, "the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." The state legislature argued that the use of the word "legislature" in this context is literal; therefore, only a state legislature may draw congressional district lines. Meanwhile, the commission contended that the word "legislature" ought to be interpreted to mean "the legislative powers of the state," including voter initiatives and referenda. On June 29, 2015, the court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, finding that "redistricting is a legislative function, to be performed in accordance with the state's prescriptions for lawmaking, which may include the referendum and the governor's veto." The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito dissented.^{[58][59][60][61]}

Trifectas and redistricting[edit]

In 34 of the states that conducted legislative elections in 2020, the legislatures themselves will play a significant part in the subsequent redistricting process. The winner of eight of 2020'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 2010 election cycle illustrate this point. In 2010, 12 states in which legislatures had authority over redistricting saw shifts in trifecta status. Prior to the 2010 elections, seven of these states were Democratic trifectas; the rest were divided governments. After the 2010 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 2020 election cycle.

2010 redistricting cycle[edit]

Redistricting in North Carolina after the 2010 census

North Carolina's congressional and state legislative district maps adopted in the aftermath of the 2010 census were subject to litigation. For more information, see this article.

See also[edit]

• Redistricting in North Carolina after the 2010 census
• Redistricting in North Carolina
• State-by-state redistricting procedures
• Majority-minority districts

External links[edit]

• Search Google News for this topic
• All About Redistricting
• Dave's Redistricting
• FiveThirtyEight, "What Redistricting Looks Like In Every State"
• National Conference of State Legislatures, "Redistricting Process"
• FairVote, "Redistricting"

Footnotes[edit]

v • e Redistricting after the 2020 census State-by-state 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 Overviews Congressional apportionment after the 2020 census • Congressional district maps implemented after the 2020 census • Partisan composition of redistricting committees, 2020 cycle • Redistricting lawsuits in the 2020 redistricting cycle • State legislative and congressional redistricting after the 2020 census • Status of redistricting after the 2020 census • State legislative district maps implemented after the 2020 census • State redistricting deadlines after the 2020 census • Redistricting apps and software available for the 2020 cycle

	v • e State of North Carolina Raleigh (capital)
Elections	What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2021 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures
Government	Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy