Redistricting in Washington

in  Washington

* Fiscal
* Budgets
* Washington state budget and finances
* Tax policy in Washington
* Finance
* Financial regulation in Washington
* Pensions
* Public pensions in Washington
* Pension health in Washington
* Civil liberties
* Affirmative action in Washington
* Campaign finance requirements in Washington
* Campaign finance requirements for Washington ballot measures
* Nonprofit regulation in Washington
* Education
* Charter schools in Washington
* Higher education in Washington
* Public education in Washington
* School choice in Washington
* Elections
* Ballot access
* Ballot access requirements for political candidates in Washington
* Ballot access requirements for political parties in Washington
* Political parties in Washington
* Ballot access requirements for presidential candidates in Washington
* Redistricting in Washington
* Voting in Washington
* Energy and Environment
* Energy policy in Washington
* Fracking in Washington
* Oil and gas extraction on federal land in Washington
* Endangered species in Washington
* Environmental policy in Washington
* Healthcare
* Healthcare policy in Washington
* Medicaid spending in Washington
* Effect of the Affordable Care Act in Washington
* Immigration
* Immigration in Washington

* * *

* * *

Redistricting
State-by-state
redistricting procedures
Majority-minority districts
Congressional district demographics
United States census,
2020

## Contents

* 1 Background
* 1.1 Federal requirements for congressional redistricting
* 1.2 Federal requirements for state legislative redistricting
* 1.3 State-based requirements
* 1.4 Methods
* 1.5 Gerrymandering
* 1.6 Recent court decisions
* 2 State process
* 2.1 How incarcerated persons are counted for redistricting
* 3 District maps
* 3.1 Congressional districts
* 3.2 State legislative maps
* 4 Political impacts of redistricting
* 4.1 Competitiveness
* 4.1.1 Congress
* 4.1.2 State legislatures
* 4.1.3 Partisan composition
* 4.1.4 House
* 4.1.5 Senate
* 4.2 Race and ethnicity
* 4.2.1 Demographics
* 5 Redistricting after the 2020 census
* 5.1 Enacted congressional district maps
* 5.2 Enacted state legislative district maps
* 6 Redistricting after the 2010 census
* 6.1 Congressional redistricting, 2010
* 6.2 State legislative redistricting, 2010
* 7 State legislation and ballot measures
* 7.1 Redistricting legislation
* 7.2 Redistricting ballot measures
* 8 Recent news
* 9 See also
* 10 External links
* 11 Footnotes

Redistricting is the process by which new congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn. Each of Washington's 10 United States Representatives and 123 state legislators are elected from political divisions called districts. United States Senators are not elected by districts, but by the states at large. District lines are redrawn every 10 years following completion of the United States census. The federal government stipulates that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.[1][2][3][4]

HIGHLIGHTS

* Following the 2020 United States Census, Washington was apportioned 10 congressional districts, which was unchanged from the number it had after the 2010 census.

* Washington's state legislature is made up of 49 districts, each of which elects one senator and two representatives.

* In Washington, congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn by a non-politician commission.

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

1. Background: This section summarizes federal requirements for redistricting at both the congressional and state legislative levels. In addition, common state-level requirements are discussed. Recent court decisions affecting redistricting policy are also summarized.
2. State process: This section provides details about the redistricting process in Washington, identifying the entities responsible for redistricting and delineating state-imposed requirements.
3. District maps: This section provides information about current congressional and state legislative district maps.
4. Issues: This section discusses issues that intersect with redistricting policy, including electoral competitiveness and the consideration of race and ethnicity in electoral policy.
5. Historical information: This section provides summaries of the redistricting processes that occurred in Washington following the 2010 census.
6. State legislation and ballot measures: This section lists state legislation and state and local ballot measures relevant to redistricting policy.

## 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.

What is redistricting and what does it entail?

### 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.[5][6]

“  | The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.[7] |  ”

|
|

—United States Constitution

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."[8][9][10]

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."[10]

### 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."[10]

### 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.[10][11]
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.[10][11]
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.[10][11]
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.[10][11]

### Methods[edit]

In general, a state's redistricting authority can be classified as one of the following:[12]

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.[1][13]

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

Show more

The phrase racial gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to dilute the voting power of racial minority groups. Federal law prohibits racial gerrymandering and establishes that, to combat this practice and to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act, states and jurisdictions can create majority-minority electoral districts. A majority-minority district is one in which a racial group or groups comprise a majority of the district's populations. Racial gerrymandering and majority-minority districts are discussed in greater detail in this article.[14]

The phrase partisan gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district maps with the intention of favoring one political party over another. In contrast with racial gerrymandering, on which the Supreme Court of the United States has issued rulings in the past affirming that such practices violate federal law, the high court had not, as of November 2017, issued a ruling establishing clear precedent on the question of partisan gerrymandering. Although the court has granted in past cases that partisan gerrymandering can violate the United States Constitution, it has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring partisan gerrymanders. Partisan gerrymandering is described in greater detail in this article.[15][16]

### 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.[17]

#### 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.[18][19][20]

#### 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.[21][22][23][24]

#### 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.[25][26][27]

#### 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.[28][29][30][31]

## State process[edit]

See also: State-by-state redistricting procedures

In Washington, congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn by a five-member non-politician commission. The commission was established by constitutional amendment in 1983. The majority and minority leaders of the Washington State Senate and Washington House of Representatives each appoint one registered voter to the commission. These four commissioners appoint a fifth, non-voting member to serve as the commission's chair. In the event that the four voting commissioners cannot agree on a chair, the Washington Supreme Court must appoint one.[32]

The Washington Constitution stipulates that no commission member may have been an elected official or party officer in the two-year period prior to his or her appointment. Individuals who have registered with the state as lobbyists within the past year are also prohibited from serving on the commission.[32]

The Washington State Legislature may amend the commission's maps by a two-thirds vote in each legislative chamber.[32]

The state constitution requires that congressional and state legislative districts "should be contiguous, compact, and convenient, and follow natural, geographic, artificial, or political subdivision boundaries." The constitution states that the redistricting commission "must not purposely draw plans to favor or discriminate against any political party or group."[32]

State statutes require that congressional and state legislative districts "preserve areas recognized as communities of interest." State statutes also require the commission to draw districts that "provide fair and effective representation" and "encourage electoral competition."[32]

### How incarcerated persons are counted for redistricting[edit]

See also: State-by-state redistricting procedures

States differ on how they count incarcerated persons for the purposes of redistricting. In Washington, inmates who were in-state residents prior to incarceration are counted in their last known residence's district population. Out-of-state residents and inmates with unknown previous residences are excluded from all district populations. Washington's policy also applies to incarcerated juveniles and involuntarily committed behavioral health patients. It does not address federal inmates.

## District maps[edit]

### Congressional districts[edit]

See also: United States congressional delegations from Washington

Click the above image to enlarge it.
Source: The National Atlas of the United States of America

Washington comprises 10 congressional districts. The map to the right depicts Washington's congressional district lines as drawn following the 2010 United States Census. The table below lists Washington's current House representatives.

Office

| Name | Party | Date assumed office | Date term ends

|
|
|
|

U.S. House Washington District 1 | Suzan DelBene | Democratic  | November 13, 2012 | January 3, 2023 | U.S. House Washington District 2 | Rick Larsen | Democratic  | January 3, 2001 | January 3, 2023 | U.S. House Washington District 3 | Jaime Herrera Beutler | Republican  | January 5, 2011 | January 3, 2023 | U.S. House Washington District 4 | Dan Newhouse | Republican  | January 6, 2015 | January 3, 2023 | U.S. House Washington District 5 | Cathy McMorris Rodgers | Republican  | January 4, 2005 | January 3, 2023 | U.S. House Washington District 6 | Derek Kilmer | Democratic  | January 3, 2013 | January 3, 2023 | U.S. House Washington District 7 | Pramila Jayapal | Democratic  | January 3, 2017 | January 3, 2023 | U.S. House Washington District 8 | Kim Schrier | Democratic  | January 3, 2019 | January 3, 2023 | U.S. House Washington District 9 | D. Adam Smith | Democratic  | January 7, 1997 | January 3, 2023 | U.S. House Washington District 10 | Marilyn Strickland | Democratic  | January 3, 2021 | January 3, 2023

### State legislative maps[edit]

See also: Washington State Senate and Washington House of Representatives

Washington comprises 49 state legislative districts. Each district elects one state senator and two state representatives. State senators are elected every four years in partisan elections. State representatives are elected every two years in partisan elections. To access the state legislative district maps approved following the 2010 United States Census, click here.[33]

## Political impacts of redistricting[edit]

### Competitiveness[edit]

There are conflicting opinions regarding the correlation between partisan gerrymandering and electoral competitiveness. In 2012, Jennifer Clark, a political science professor at the University of Houston, said, "The redistricting process has important consequences for voters. In some states, incumbent legislators work together to protect their own seats, which produces less competition in the political system. Voters may feel as though they do not have a meaningful alternative to the incumbent legislator. Legislators who lack competition in their districts have less incentive to adhere to their constituents’ opinions."[34]

In 2006, Emory University professor Alan Abramowitz and Ph.D. students Brad Alexander and Matthew Gunning wrote, "[Some] studies have concluded that redistricting has a neutral or positive effect on competition. ... [It] is often the case that partisan redistricting has the effect of reducing the safety of incumbents, thereby making elections more competitive."[35]

In 2011, James Cottrill, a professor of political science at Santa Clara University, published a study of the effect of non-legislative approaches (e.g., independent commissions, politician commissions) to redistricting on the competitiveness of congressional elections. Cottrill found that "particular types of [non-legislative approaches] encourage the appearance in congressional elections of experienced and well-financed challengers." Cottrill cautioned, however, that non-legislative approaches "contribute neither to decreased vote percentages when incumbents win elections nor to a greater probability of their defeat."[36]

In 2021, John Johnson, Research Fellow in the Lubar Center for Public Policy Research and Civic Education at Marquette University, reviewed the relationship between partisan gerrymandering and political geography in Wisconsin, a state where Republicans have controlled both chambers of the state legislature since 2010 while voting for the Democratic nominee in every presidential election but one since 1988. After analyzing state election results since 2000, Johnson wrote, "In 2000, 42% of Democrats and 36% of Republicans lived in a neighborhood that the other party won. Twenty years later, 43% of Democrats lived in a place Trump won, but just 28% of Republicans lived in a Biden-voting neighborhood. Today, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to live in both places where they are the overwhelming majority and places where they form a noncompetitive minority."[37]

#### Congress[edit]

See also: United States House of Representatives elections, 2016

In 2016, Ballotpedia analyzed the margins of victory in all 435 contests for the United States House of Representatives. Ballotpedia found that the average margin of victory was 36.6 percent. A total of 321 elections (73.8 percent of all House elections) were won by margins of victory of 20 percent or more. Sixteen elections (3.7 percent of all House elections) were won by margins of victory of less than 5 percent.

In Washington, five of ten elections for the United States House of Representatives were won by margins of victory of 20 percent or greater. The smallest margin of victory occurred in District 1, where Suzan DelBene (D) won by 10.8 percent. The greatest margin of victory occurred in District 9, where Adam Smith (D) won by 45.8 percent. See the table below for full details.

Electoral margins of victory in 2016 United States House of Representatives elections, Washington

District  |  Winner  |  Margin of victory  |  Total votes cast  |  Top opponent
Washington District 1  |  Suzan DelBene  |  10.8%  |  349,398  |  Robert Sutherland
Washington District 2  |  Rick Larsen  |  28%  |  325,408  |  Marc Hennemann
Washington District 3  |  Jaime Herrera Beutler  |  23.5%  |  313,277  |  Jim Moeller
Washington District 4  |  Dan Newhouse  |  15.3%  |  229,919  |  Clint Didier
Washington District 5  |  Cathy McMorris Rodgers  |  19.3%  |  323,534  |  Joe Pakootas
Washington District 6  |  Derek Kilmer  |  23.1%  |  327,834  |  Todd Bloom
Washington District 7  |  Pramila Jayapal  |  12%  |  378,754  |  Brady Walkinshaw
Washington District 8  |  Dave Reichert  |  20.4%  |  320,865  |  Tony Ventrella
Washington District 9  |  Adam Smith  |  45.8%  |  281,482  |  Doug Basler
Washington District 10  |  Denny Heck  |  17.3%  |  290,564  |  Jim Postma

#### State legislatures[edit]

See also: Margin of victory in state legislative elections

In 2014, Ballotpedia conducted a study of competitive districts in 44 state legislative chambers between 2010, the last year in which district maps drawn after the 2000 census applied, and 2012, the first year in which district maps drawn after the 2010 census applied. Ballotpedia found that there were 61 fewer competitive general election contests in 2012 than in 2010. Of the 44 chambers studied, 25 experienced a net loss in the number of competitive elections. A total of 17 experienced a net increase. In total, 16.2 percent of the 3,842 legislative contests studied saw competitive general elections in 2010. In 2012, 14.6 percent of the contests studied saw competitive general elections. An election was considered competitive if it was won by a margin of victory of 5 percent or less. An election was considered mildly competitive if it was won by a margin of victory between 5 and 10 percent. For more information regarding this report, including methodology, see this article.

In Washington, there were seven competitive races for the Washington House of Representatives in 2012, compared to 11 in 2010. There were nine mildly competitive House races in 2012, compared to 11 in 2010. This amounted to a net loss of six competitive elections.

#### Partisan composition[edit]

The tables below summarize the current partisan composition of the Washington House of Representatives and the Washington State Senate.

#### House[edit]

Party  |  As of November 2021

|

|  Democratic Party |  57
|  Republican Party |  41
|  Vacancies  |  0
Total |  98

#### Senate[edit]

Party  |  As of November 2021

|

|  Democratic Party |  29
|  Republican Party |  20
|  Vacancies  |  0
Total |  49

### Race and ethnicity[edit]

See also: Majority-minority districts

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 mandates that electoral district lines cannot be drawn in such a manner as to "improperly dilute minorities' voting power."

“  | No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.[7] |  ”

|
|

—Voting Rights Act of 1965[38]

States and other political subdivisions may create majority-minority districts in order to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. A majority-minority district is a district in which minority groups compose a majority of the district's total population. As of 2015, Washington was home to one congressional majority-minority district.[2][3][4]

Proponents of majority-minority districts maintain that these districts are a necessary hindrance to the practice of cracking, which occurs when a constituency is divided between several districts in order to prevent it from achieving a majority in any one district. In addition, supporters argue that the drawing of majority-minority districts has resulted in an increased number of minority representatives in state legislatures and Congress.[2][3][4]

Critics, meanwhile, contend that the establishment of majority-minority districts can result in packing, which occurs when a constituency or voting group is placed within a single district, thereby minimizing its influence in other districts. Because minority groups tend to vote Democratic, critics argue that majority-minority districts ultimately present an unfair advantage to Republicans by consolidating Democratic votes into a smaller number of districts.[2][3][4]

#### Demographics[edit]

See also: Demographics of congressional districts as of 2015 and Demographics of congressional districts as of 2015 (as percentages)

The tables below provide demographic information for each of Washington's congressional districts as of 2015. At that time, the population of the largest congressional district, Washington's 7th Congressional District, totaled 746,317, and the population of the smallest, Washington's 6th Congressional District, totaled 680,903, which represented a difference of 9.61 percent.[39]

Demographics of Washington's congressional districts (as percentages)

District  |  Hispanic or Latino of any race  |  White  |  Black or African American  |  American Indian and Alaska Native  |  Asian  |  Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander  |  Other  |  Multiple races
District 1, Washington | 9.19% | 74.68% | 1.06% | 0.96% | 10.11% | 0.17% | 0.11% | 3.72%
District 2, Washington | 10.47% | 71.59% | 2.69% | 1.13% | 8.50% | 0.66% | 0.15% | 4.82%
District 3, Washington | 9.37% | 80.72% | 1.32% | 0.80% | 3.23% | 0.38% | 0.08% | 4.12%
District 4, Washington | 38.43% | 54.47% | 0.82% | 2.11% | 1.32% | 0.03% | 0.13% | 2.69%
District 5, Washington | 6.27% | 84.03% | 1.47% | 1.43% | 2.31% | 0.46% | 0.09% | 3.94%
District 6, Washington | 7.22% | 77.70% | 3.19% | 1.90% | 3.85% | 0.51% | 0.13% | 5.50%
District 7, Washington | 7.19% | 70.10% | 4.69% | 0.66% | 10.99% | 0.56% | 0.27% | 5.54%
District 8, Washington | 11.10% | 71.25% | 2.93% | 0.77% | 9.18% | 0.39% | 0.12% | 4.26%
District 9, Washington | 12.67% | 47.17% | 10.73% | 0.44% | 22.12% | 1.48% | 0.12% | 5.26%
District 10, Washington | 11.78% | 66.27% | 6.09% | 1.39% | 6.20% | 1.68% | 0.18% | 6.40%
Source: United States Census Bureau, "American Fact Finder: 2015 1-year estimates," accessed May 23, 2017
Demographics of Washington's congressional districts

District  |  Hispanic or Latino of any race  |  White  |  Black or African American  |  American Indian and Alaska Native  |  Asian  |  Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander  |  Other  |  Multiple races  |  Total
District 1, Washington | 65,521 | 532,498 | 7,546 | 6,865 | 72,085 | 1,188 | 799 | 26,549 | 713,051
District 2, Washington | 76,094 | 520,441 | 19,575 | 8,216 | 61,769 | 4,774 | 1,078 | 35,004 | 726,951
District 3, Washington | 66,679 | 574,343 | 9,367 | 5,665 | 22,971 | 2,674 | 581 | 29,289 | 711,569
District 4, Washington | 272,713 | 386,595 | 5,853 | 14,957 | 9,348 | 233 | 920 | 19,079 | 709,698
District 5, Washington | 43,664 | 585,213 | 10,260 | 9,955 | 16,074 | 3,171 | 624 | 27,465 | 696,426
District 6, Washington | 49,160 | 529,063 | 21,710 | 12,932 | 26,220 | 3,471 | 876 | 37,471 | 680,903
District 7, Washington | 53,697 | 523,183 | 35,010 | 4,929 | 81,996 | 4,143 | 2,007 | 41,352 | 746,317
District 8, Washington | 81,057 | 520,332 | 21,433 | 5,651 | 67,029 | 2,881 | 843 | 31,101 | 730,327
District 9, Washington | 92,236 | 343,523 | 78,166 | 3,203 | 161,119 | 10,801 | 883 | 38,331 | 728,262
District 10, Washington | 85,598 | 481,682 | 44,300 | 10,108 | 45,093 | 12,240 | 1,322 | 46,504 | 726,847
Source: United States Census Bureau, "American Fact Finder: 2015 1-year estimates," accessed May 23, 2017

## Redistricting after the 2020 census[edit]

See also: Redistricting in Washington after the 2020 census

Washington was apportioned 10 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. This represented neither a gain nor a loss of seats as compared to apportionment after the 2010 census.[40]

### Enacted congressional district maps[edit]

Washington is drawing congressional district maps following the 2020 census. New congressional district maps have not yet been enacted.

### Enacted state legislative district maps[edit]

Washington is drawing state legislative district maps following the 2020 census. New state legislative district maps have not yet been enacted.

## Redistricting after the 2010 census[edit]

See also: Redistricting in Washington after the 2010 census

### Congressional redistricting, 2010[edit]

Following the 2010 United States Census, Washington gained one congressional seat. On January 1, 2012, the state's independent redistricting commission released its congressional district plan. On February 1, 2012, the state legislature passed an amended version of this plan by a two-thirds vote.[32][41]

### State legislative redistricting, 2010[edit]

On January 1, 2012, the state's independent redistricting commission released its state legislative district plan. On February 1, 2012, the state legislature passed an amended version of this plan by a two-thirds vote.[32]

## State legislation and ballot measures[edit]

### Redistricting legislation[edit]

See state election laws

The following is a list of recent redistricting bills that have been introduced in or passed by the Washington state legislature. To learn more about each of these bills, click the bill title. This information is provided by BillTrack50 and LegiScan.

Note: Due to the nature of the sorting process used to generate this list, some results may not be relevant to the topic. If no bills are displayed below, no legislation pertaining to this topic has been introduced in the legislature recently.

### Redistricting ballot measures[edit]

See also: Redistricting measures on the ballot and List of Washington ballot measures

Ballotpedia has tracked the following ballot measure(s) relating to redistricting in Washington.

1. Washington Advancement of Date for Completion of Redistricting Plan, Senate Joint Resolution No. 8210 (2016)
2. Washington Congressional Reapportionment and Redistricting, Referendum 16 (1966)
3. Washington Legislative Reapportionment and Redistricting, Initiative 211 (1962)
4. Washington Legislative Reapportionment and Redistricting Act, Initiative 199 (1956)
5. Washington Redistricting Commission, SJR 103 (1983)
6. Washington State Legislative Redistricting, Initiative 57 (1930)

## Recent news[edit]

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Redistricting Washington. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Redistricting in Washington - Google News

## See also[edit]

* United States census, 2020
* Redistricting in Washington after the 2010 census
* Redistricting
* State-by-state redistricting procedures
* Majority-minority districts
* State legislative and congressional redistricting after the 2010 census
* Margin of victory in state legislative elections before and after the 2010 census
* Margin of victory analysis for the 2014 congressional elections

## External links[edit]

* 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]

1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 All About Redistricting, "Why does it matter?" accessed April 8, 2015
2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Indy Week, "Cracked, stacked and packed: Initial redistricting maps met with skepticism and dismay," June 29, 2011
3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 The Atlantic, "How the Voting Rights Act Hurts Democrats and Minorities," June 17, 2013
4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Redrawing the Lines, "The Role of Section 2 - Majority Minority Districts," accessed April 6, 2015
5. ↑ The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, "Election Regulations," accessed April 13, 2015
6. ↑ Brookings, "Redistricting and the United States Constitution," March 22, 2011
7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
8. ↑ Brennan Center for Justice, "A Citizen's Guide to Redistricting," accessed March 25, 2015
9. ↑ The Constitution of the United States of America, "Article 1, Section 2," accessed March 25, 2015
10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 All About Redistricting, "Where are the lines drawn?" accessed April 9, 2015
11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 FairVote, "Redistricting Glossary," accessed April 9, 2015
12. ↑ All About Redistricting, "Who draws the lines?" accessed June 19, 2017
13. ↑ Encyclopædia Britannica, "Gerrymandering," November 4, 2014
14. ↑ Congressional Research Service, "Congressional Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A Legal Overview," April 13, 2015
15. ↑ The Wall Street Journal, "Supreme Court to Consider Limits on Partisan Drawing of Election Maps," June 19, 2017
16. ↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear potentially landmark case on partisan gerrymandering," June 19, 2017
17. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Gill v. Whitford: Decision," June 18, 2018
18. ↑ Election Law Blog, "Breaking: SCOTUS to Hear NC Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 27, 2016
19. ↑ Ballot Access News, "U.S. Supreme Court Accepts Another Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 28, 2016
20. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Cooper v. Harris: Decision," May 22, 2017
21. ↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear challenge to Texas redistricting plan," May 26, 2015
22. ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Agrees to Settle Meaning of ‘One Person One Vote,'" May 26, 2015
23. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Evenwel v. Abbott," accessed May 27, 2015
24. ↑ Associated Press, "Supreme Court to hear Texas Senate districts case," May 26, 2015
25. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "The new look at 'one person, one vote,' made simple," July 27, 2015
26. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Brief for Appellants," accessed December 14, 2015
27. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission," April 20, 2016
28. ↑ The New York Times, "Court Skeptical of Arizona Plan for Less-Partisan Congressional Redistricting," March 2, 2015
29. ↑ The Atlantic, "Will the Supreme Court Let Arizona Fight Gerrymandering?" September 15, 2014
30. ↑ United States Supreme Court, "Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Opinion of the Court," June 29, 2015
31. ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Upholds Creation of Arizona Redistricting Commission," June 29, 2015
32. ↑ 32.0 32.1 32.2 32.3 32.4 32.5 32.6 All About Redistricting, "Washington," accessed May 6, 2015
33. ↑ Washington State Redistricting Commission, "Final Legislative District Plan - Amended," accessed May 6, 2015
34. ↑ The Daily Cougar, "Redistricting will affect November election," October 16, 2012
35. ↑ The Journal of Politics, "Incumbency, Redistricting, and the Decline of Competition in U.S. House Elections," February 2006
36. ↑ Polity, "The Effects of Non-Legislative Approaches to Redistricting on Competition in Congressional Elections," October 3, 2011
37. ↑ Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog, "Why Do Republicans Overperform in the Wisconsin State Assembly? Partisan Gerrymandering Vs. Political Geography," February 11, 2021
38. ↑ Yale Law School, The Avalon Project, "Voting Rights Act of 1965; August 6, 1965," accessed April 6, 2015
39. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "American Fact Finder: 2015 1-year estimates," accessed May 23, 2017
40. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "2020 Census Apportionment Results Delivered to the President," April 26, 2021
41. ↑ Barone, M. & McCutcheon, C. (2013). The almanac of American politics 2014 : the senators, the representatives and the governors : their records and election results, their states and districts. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

v • e

Election policy

Election governance|

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 • Washington, D.C. • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

* * *

Voting policy|

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

* * *

Electoral systems policy|

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

* * *

Primary elections policy|

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

* * *

Redistricting policy|

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

* * *

Recount laws|

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

* * *

Ballot access for
political candidates|

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

* * *

Ballot access for
presidential candidates|

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

* * *

Ballot access for
political parties|

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

* * *

v • e

Ballotpedia

About|

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

* * *

Executive: Leslie Graves, President • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy

Communications: Kayla Harris • Megan Brown • Mary Dunne • Sarah Groat • Lauren Nemerovski
External Relations: Alison Prange • Sara Key • Kari Berger • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski • Lauren Dixon • Kelly Rindfleisch • Sara Horton • Elizabeth Brown
Policy: Christopher Nelson • Caitlin Styrsky • Molly Byrne • Katharine Frey • Jace Lington • Jimmy McAllister
Tech: Matt Latourelle, Tech Manager • Ryan Burch • Michael Cella • Kirsten Corrao • Margaret Kearney • Tom Reitz

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

* * *

Editorial|

Geoff Pallay, Editor-in-Chief • Daniel Anderson, Managing Editor • Josh Altic, Managing Editor • Cory Eucalitto, Managing Editor • Mandy Gillip, Managing Editor • Jerrick Adams • Victoria Antram • Dave Beaudoin • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Ryan Byrne • Kate Carsella • Kelly Coyle • Megan Feeney • Tyler King • Doug Kronaizl • Amee LaTour • David Luchs • Brittony Maag • Andrew McNair • Jackie Mitchell • Elisabeth Moore • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Paul Rader • Ethan Rice • Abbey Smith • Janie Valentine • Caitlin Vanden Boom • Joel Williams • Corinne Wolyniec • Samuel Wonacott • Mercedes Yanora

v • e

State of Washington
Olympia (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