Redistricting In California 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 before 2024 elections
Redistricting committees
Deadlines
Lawsuits
Timeline of redistricting maps
2022 House elections with multiple incumbents
New U.S.House districts created after apportionment
Congressional maps
State legislative maps
General information
State-by-state redistricting procedures
United States census, 2020
Majority-minority districts
Gerrymandering
Ballotpedia's election legislation tracker

Redistricting is the process of enacting new district boundaries for elected offices, particularly for offices in the U.S. House of Representatives and state legislatures. This article chronicles the 2020 redistricting cycle in California.

The California Citizens Redistricting Commission voted 14-0 in favor of a new congressional district map on December 20, 2021, and delivered those maps to the secretary of state on December 27, 2021.^[1][2] California was apportioned 52 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2020 census, a net loss of one seat compared to apportionment after the 2010 census. This map took effect for California's 2022 congressional elections.

The California Citizens Redistricting Commission voted 14-0 in favor of a new state Assembly and Senate district maps on December 20, 2021, and delivered those maps to the secretary of state on December 27, 2021.^[1][2] These maps took effect for California's 2022 state legislative elections.

Click here for more information.

California's 52 United States representatives and 120 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. Enactment: This section provides information about the enacted congressional and state legislative district maps.
3. Apportionment and release of census data: This section details the 2020 apportionment process, including data from the United States Census Bureau.
4. Drafting process: This section details the drafting process for new 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 California 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.

• Dec. 27, 2021: The commission delivered its final maps to the secretary of state completing the redistricting process.
• Dec. 20, 2021: The commission displayed its final maps for the state's congressional, legislative, and Board of Equalization district lines.
• Nov. 10, 2021: The commission released its first set of draft maps for the state's congressional, legislative, and Board of Equalization district lines.
• Sept. 22, 2021: The California Supreme Court extended the commission's deadline to release its preliminary draft district maps to November 15, 2021, and its deadline to deliver final maps to the secretary of state to December 27, 2021.
• Sept. 20, 2021: The California Citizens Redistricting Commission received official census data signaling the start of its redistricting process.
• Sept. 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.
• Aug. 12, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau delivered redistricting data to states in a legacy format.
• 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

The California Citizens Redistricting Commission voted 14-0 in favor of a new congressional district map on December 20, 2021, and delivered those maps to the secretary of state on December 27, 2021.^[1][2] California was apportioned 52 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2020 census, a net loss of one seat compared to apportionment after the 2010 census. This map took effect for California's 2022 congressional elections.

Below are the congressional maps in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.

Reactions[edit]

The Los Angeles Times' Seema Mehta, Melanie Mason, and Jason Myers wrote, "The state's 42 Democratic congressional incumbents largely fared well," adding that "nearly half the state's 11 Republican members of Congress will see their districts grow more blue."^[3] Demographically, the Associated Press' Don Thompson wrote that the new maps created 16 congressional districts with a Latino citizen voting age population greater than 50%, an increase of six such districts compared to previous maps.^[4]

National Republican Redistricting Trust Executive Director Adam Kincaid said, "California's 'independent' redistricting commission is producing wildly contorted congressional lines," adding that the maps "ignore California's communities in a desperate attempt to try to save Nancy Pelosi's majority."^[5] The commission's nonpartisan chairwoman, Isha Ahmad, said, "We drew district maps in an open and transparent manner that did more than merely allow public input — we actively sought and encouraged broad public participation in the process through a massive education and outreach program."^[6]

2020 presidential results[edit]

The table below details the results of the 2020 presidential election in each district at the time of the 2022 election and its political predecessor district.^[7] This data was compiled by Daily Kos Elections.^[8]

2020 presidential results by Congressional district, California
District	2022 district		Political predecessor district
	Joe Biden	Donald Trump	Joe Biden	Donald Trump
California's 1st	39.2%	58.3%	41.1%	56.4%
California's 2nd	73.5%	24.0%	73.6%	23.9%
California's 3rd	47.9%	49.7%	46.2%	51.6%
California's 4th	67.1%	30.5%	72.4%	25.3%
California's 5th	42.7%	55.0%	43.9%	53.7%
California's 6th	57.9%	39.4%	55.6%	41.9%
California's 7th	67.4%	30.3%	70.3%	27.2%
California's 8th	76.0%	22.0%	54.9%	42.7%
California's 9th	55.2%	42.6%	50.3%	47.4%
California's 10th	68.6%	29.3%	74.3%	23.6%
California's 11th	86.3%	11.7%	86.1%	11.9%
California's 12th	89.3%	8.6%	88.9%	9.0%
California's 13th	54.3%	43.4%	57.9%	39.9%
California's 14th	71.7%	26.2%	71.5%	26.4%
California's 15th	77.7%	20.4%	77.7%	20.5%
California's 16th	75.4%	22.4%	76.4%	21.3%
California's 17th	72.7%	25.3%	72.5%	25.5%
California's 18th	71.0%	26.9%	70.0%	27.9%
California's 19th	68.7%	29.1%	72.7%	25.0%
California's 20th	36.4%	61.3%	40.5%	57.1%
California's 21st	59.1%	38.8%	58.8%	38.9%
California's 22nd	55.3%	42.3%	54.4%	43.5%
California's 23rd	43.9%	53.7%	43.6%	54.0%
California's 24th	63.3%	34.3%	60.7%	36.9%
California's 25th	56.7%	41.4%	55.9%	42.3%
California's 26th	58.9%	39.0%	61.4%	36.5%
California's 27th	55.1%	42.7%	54.0%	43.9%
California's 28th	66.1%	31.9%	67.2%	30.8%
California's 29th	74.5%	23.2%	74.1%	23.7%
California's 30th	72.2%	26.0%	70.9%	27.2%
California's 31st	64.5%	33.4%	65.2%	32.8%
California's 32nd	69.5%	28.7%	68.7%	29.4%
California's 33rd	61.5%	36.2%	58.8%	38.9%
California's 34th	81.0%	16.7%	80.8%	16.9%
California's 35th	62.7%	35.1%	65.1%	32.6%
California's 36th	71.0%	26.9%	69.0%	29.0%
California's 37th	85.7%	12.4%	84.3%	13.8%
California's 38th	64.1%	33.9%	65.6%	32.3%
California's 39th	62.0%	35.8%	61.7%	36.1%
California's 40th	49.9%	48.0%	54.1%	44.0%
California's 41st	48.6%	49.7%	45.3%	52.7%
California's 42nd	71.7%	25.9%	77.1%	20.6%
California's 43rd	80.8%	17.0%	76.9%	20.9%
California's 44th	72.9%	24.7%	78.4%	19.2%
California's 45th	52.1%	46.0%	49.7%	48.2%
California's 46th	64.1%	33.7%	64.3%	33.5%
California's 47th	54.5%	43.4%	54.6%	43.3%
California's 48th	42.7%	55.0%	45.0%	52.7%
California's 49th	54.6%	43.2%	55.2%	42.5%
California's 50th	65.4%	32.2%	63.4%	34.2%
California's 51st	62.5%	35.2%	67.0%	30.9%
California's 52nd	67.4%	30.5%	66.9%	30.9%

Enacted state legislative district maps[edit]

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

The California Citizens Redistricting Commission voted 14-0 in favor of a new state Assembly and Senate district maps on December 20, 2021, and delivered those maps to the secretary of state on December 27, 2021.^[1][2] These maps took effect for California's 2022 state legislative elections.

State Senate map[edit]

Below is the state Senate map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.

State Assembly map[edit]

Below is the state House map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.

Reactions[edit]

Following the 2020 elections, Democrats held supermajorities in both legislative chambers. In the state Assembly, the party held 60 of the 80 seats with Republicans holding 19 and an independent holding one. In the state Senate, Democrats held 31 of the 40 seats with Republicans holding the remaining nine. CalMatters' Sameea Kamal wrote, "Democrats' grip of the Assembly could tighten," under the new maps with 63 districts having a strong Democratic lean.^[9] Kamal added that "the Democratic majority in the state Senate might shrink," with three districts becoming more Republican and one becoming more Democratic in terms of voter registration.^[9] Demographically, the Associated Press' Don Thompson wrote that the new maps created 22 Assembly districts and 11 Senate districts with a Latino citizen voting age population greater than 50%, an increase of six and four such districts compared to previous maps, respectively.^[10]

Enacted Board of Equalization district maps[edit]

The California Citizens Redistricting Commission voted 14-0 in favor of a new state Board of Equalization district maps on Dec. 20, 2021, and delivered those maps to the secretary of state on Dec. 27.^[1][2] The Board of Equalization is a state executive agency divided into four districts, each of which elect one member. The board is responsible for administering various taxes and overseeing county property tax assessments. This map took effect for California's 2022 state Board of Equalization elections.

Reaction[edit]

CalMatters' Sameea Kamal wrote, "For these lines, there was little drama at the redistricting commission — and certainly nothing like the fights over congressional and legislative districts."^[9]

Drafting process[edit]

In California, an independent commission draws both congressional and state legislative district lines. Established in 2008 by ballot initiative, the commission comprises 14 members: five Democrats, five Republicans, and four belonging to neither party. A panel of state auditors selects the pool of nominees from which the commissioners are appointed. This pool comprises 20 Democrats, 20 Republicans, and 20 belonging to neither party. The majority and minority leaders of both chambers of the state legislature may each remove two members from each of the aforementioned groups. The first eight commission members are selected at random from the remaining nominees. These first eight comprise three Democrats, three Republicans, and two belonging to neither party. The first eight commissioners appoint the remaining six, which must include two Democrats, two Republicans, and two belonging to neither party.^[11]

Commissioners must meet the following requirements in order to serve:^[11]

1. Members must have voted in at least two of the last three statewide elections.
2. Members cannot have switched party affiliation for at least five years.
3. "Neither commissioners nor immediate family may have been, within 10 years of appointment, a candidate for federal or state office or member of a party central committee; an officer, employee, or paid consultant to a federal or state candidate or party; a registered lobbyist or paid legislative staff; or a donor of more than $2,000 to an elected candidate."
4. Members cannot be "staff, consultants or contractors for state or federal government" while serving as commissioners. The same prohibition applies to the family of commission members.

In order to approve a redistricting plan, nine of the commission's 14 members must vote for it. These nine must include three Democrats, three Republicans, and three belonging to neither party. Maps drawn by the commission may be overturned by public referendum. In the event that a map is overturned by the public, the California Supreme Court must appoint a group to draw a new map.^[11]

The California Constitution requires that districts be contiguous. Further, the state constitution mandates that "to the extent possible, [districts] must ... preserve the geographic integrity of cities, counties, neighborhoods and communities of interest." Districts must also "encourage compactness." State Senate and Assembly districts should be nested within each other where possible.^[11]

On August 27, 2021, the California Citizens Redistricting Commission launched a database portal of public input submissions.^[12] To access the data click here.

Timeline[edit]

On July 17 and Sept. 22, 2021, the California Supreme Court adjusted California's redistricting deadlines due to delays in the delivery of census data caused by the coronavirus pandemic. The state supreme court set Nov. 15 as the deadline for the release of initial draft district plans.^[13] The commission displayed its final approved maps on Dec. 20, ahead of its court-ordered Dec. 23 deadline, with Dec. 27 as its deadline to certify those maps to the secretary of state.^{[14][15][16][1]}

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

The following individuals were appointed to the California Citizens Redistricting Commission in the 2020 cycle.^[17]

California Citizens Redistricting Commission membership, 2020 cycle
Name	Partisan affiliation
Isra Ahmad	Nonpartisan
Linda Akutagawa	Nonpartisan
Jane Andersen	Republican
Alicia Fernández	Republican
Neal Fornaciari	Republican
Dr. J. Ray Kennedy	Democratic
Antonio Le Mons	Nonpartisan
Dr. Sara Sadhwani	Democratic
Patricia Sinay	Democratic
Derric Taylor	Republican
Pedro Toledo	Nonpartisan
Trena Turner	Democratic
Angela Vázquez	Democratic
Dr. Russell Yee	Republican

Draft maps and proposals[edit]

The California Citizens Redistricitng Commission approved initial congressional, state legislative, and Board of Equalization draft maps on Nov. 10, 2021, which can be found here.^[18] On Dec. 20, 2021, the commission voted 14-0 in favor of final congressional, state legislative, and Board of Equalization maps, which can be found here.^[1]

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.^[19]

Apportionment following the 2020 census[edit]

The U.S. Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts on April 26, 2021. California was apportioned 52 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. This represented a net loss of one seat as compared to apportionment after the 2010 census.^[20]

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.^{[21][22][23][24]} 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.^[25][26]

Court challenges[edit]

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

This section will include information regarding any legal challenges to enacted maps.

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.^[27][28]

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."^[30][31][32]

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."^[32]

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."^[32]

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.^[32][33]
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.^[32][33]
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.^[32][33]
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.^[32][33]

Methods[edit]

In general, a state's redistricting authority can be classified as one of the following:^[34]

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.^[35][36]

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

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (2024)[edit]

See also: Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP — This case concerns a challenge to the congressional redistricting plan that the South Carolina legislature enacted after the 2020 census. In January 2023, a federal three-judge panel ruled that the state's 1st Congressional District was unconstitutional and enjoined the state from conducting future elections using its district boundaries. The panel's opinion said, "The Court finds that race was the predominant factor motivating the General Assembly’s adoption of Congressional District No. 1...Defendants have made no showing that they had a compelling state interest in the use of race in the design of Congressional District No. 1 and thus cannot survive a strict scrutiny review."^[40] Thomas Alexander (R)—in his capacity as South Carolina State Senate president—appealed the federal court's ruling, arguing: :In striking down an isolated portion of South Carolina Congressional District 1 as a racial gerrymander, the panel never even mentioned the presumption of the General Assembly’s “good faith.”...The result is a thinly reasoned order that presumes bad faith, erroneously equates the purported racial effect of a single line in Charleston County with racial predominance across District 1, and is riddled with “legal mistake[s]” that improperly relieved Plaintiffs of their “demanding” burden to prove that race was the “predominant consideration” in District 1.^[41] The U.S. Supreme Court scheduled oral argument on this case for October 11, 2023.^[42]

Moore v. Harper (2023)[edit]

See also: Moore v. Harper

At issue in Moore v. Harper, was whether state legislatures alone are empowered by the Constitution to regulate federal elections without oversight from state courts, which is known as the independent state legislature doctrine. On November 4, 2021, the North Carolina General Assembly adopted a new congressional voting map based on 2020 Census data. The legislature, at that time, was controlled by the Republican Party. In the case Harper v. Hall (2022), a group of Democratic Party-affiliated voters and nonprofit organizations challenged the map in state court, alleging that the new map was a partisan gerrymander that violated the state constitution.^[43] On February 14, 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the state could not use the map in the 2022 elections and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The trial court adopted a new congressional map drawn by three court-appointed experts. The United States Supreme Court affirmed the North Carolina Supreme Court's original decision in Moore v. Harper that the state's congressional district map violated state law. In a 6-3 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the "Elections Clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections.^[44]

Merrill v. Milligan (2023)[edit]

See also: Merrill v. Milligan

At issue in Merrill v. Milligan, was the constitutionality of Alabama's 2021 redistricting plan and whether it violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. A group of Alabama voters and organizations sued Secretary of State John Merrill (R) and the House and Senate redistricting chairmen, Rep. Chris Pringle (R) and Sen. Jim McClendon (R). Plaintiffs alleged the congressional map enacted on Nov. 4, 2021, by Gov. Kay Ivey (R) unfairly distributed Black voters. The plaintiffs asked the lower court to invalidate the enacted congressional map and order a new map with instructions to include a second majority-Black district. The court ruled 5-4, affirming the lower court opinion that the plaintiffs showed a reasonable likelihood of success concerning their claim that Alabama's redistricting map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.^[45]

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.^[46]

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.^[47][48][49]

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.^{[50][51][52][53]}

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 preclearance 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.^[54][55][56]

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.^{[57][58][59][60]}

Trifectas and redistricting[edit]

In 34 of the states that conducted legislative elections in 2020, the legislatures themselves played a significant part in the subsequent redistricting process. The winner of eight of 2020's gubernatorial elections had 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 directed 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 California after the 2010 census

Following the 2010 United States Census, California neither gained nor lost congressional seats. On August 15, 2011, the state's independent redistricting commission voted to approve new congressional and state legislative district maps. The commission voted 12-2 to approve the congressional map and 13-1 to approve the state legislative map. The newly-approved state Senate districts were subject to a popular referendum on November 6, 2010. The district lines were maintained as a result of the referendum. Suits challenging the congressional and state legislative district lines were ultimately rejected.^[11][61]

See also[edit]

• Redistricting in California after the 2010 census
• Redistricting in California
• 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 State of California Sacramento (capital)
Elections	What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | 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