Table of Contents Categories
  • Redistricting by state, 2020 cycle
  • Election policy expansion content
  • Redistricting tracking
    •   Encyclosphere.org ENCYCLOREADER
      supported by EncyclosphereKSF

    Redistricting in Arkansas after the 2020 census

    From Ballotpedia - Reading time: 23 min

    Election Policy Logo.png
    Redistricting after the 2020 census
    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. This article chronicles the 2020 redistricting cycle in Arkansas.

    Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) allowed a congressional map proposal approved by the House and Senate on October 6, 2021, to become law without his signature.[1] The Senate approved the map in a 22-10 vote, and the House approved it in a 59-30 vote.[2] According to a legal opinion issued by state Attorney General Leslie Rutledge (R) on November 4, 2021, the state's congressional district plan will become effective on January 14, 2022.[3] This map takes effect for Arkansas's 2022 congressional elections.

    Click here for more information.

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

    The Arkansas Congressional District Maps Referendums (targeting House Bill 1982 and Senate Bill 743) may appear on the ballot in Arkansas as a veto referendum on November 8, 2022. The veto referendums would uphold or repeal House Bill 1982 and Senate Bill 743 of 2021, which were designed to create new congressional districts for Arkansas after the 2020 census.

    Arkansas' four United States representatives and 135 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 Arkansas 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.

    • Oct. 13, 2021: Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) announced that he would neither sign nor veto the two proposed maps approved by the state legislature, meaning they would go into effect without his signature in 90 days.
    • Oct. 7, 2021: The Arkansas General Assembly approved two proposed maps and sent them to Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R).
    • Sept. 29, 2021: The Arkansas General Assembly reconvened at the start of a state legislative special session to consider congressional map proposals.
    • Sept. 27, 2021: The joint House and Senate State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committees met to consider the last of the 15 congressional map plans proposed by state legislators.
    • 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.
    • Aug. 12, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau delivered redistricting data 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

    Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) allowed a congressional map proposal approved by the House and Senate on October 6, 2021, to become law without his signature.[4] The Senate approved the map in a 22-10 vote, and the House approved it in a 59-30 vote.[5] According to a legal opinion issued by state Attorney General Leslie Rutledge (R) on November 4, 2021, the state's congressional district plan will become effective on January 14, 2022.[6] This map takes effect for Arkansas's 2022 congressional elections.

    Reactions[edit]

    Republican Party of Arkansas Chair Jonelle Fulmer (R) said, “The new congressional districts are compact and keep community interests together. These lines are largely consistent with the existing lines, which were drawn by Democrats in 2010.”[7] Supporters of the map said splitting Pulaski County helps to limit the number of other counties being split and it will still be the most populous county in the 2nd district. State Rep. David Ray (R) said“It’s still going to be the largest county, it’s still going to hold the most sway, it’s still going to be the center of gravity."[8]

    "The governor knows what we know, that the courts will have to get involved to straighten out this illegal mess, and that the Legislature is failing to be a good faith actor in the redistricting process,” Democratic Party of Arkansas Chairman Grant Tennille (D) said. “The Democratic Party of Arkansas is prepared to fulfill our part in whatever manner is appropriate with all parties involved in the coming legal process to protect Arkansas voters.” Little Rock NAACP Chapter President Dianne Curry (D) said, “This is an embarrassment to the state of Arkansas to know in the 21st century we’re dealing with blatant discrimination.”[9]

    This map takes effect for Arkansas's 2022 congressional elections.

    AR 2021 HB1982.png

    Enacted state legislative district maps[edit]

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

    Drafting process[edit]

    The Arkansas General Assembly is responsible for drawing congressional district lines. Both chambers of the state legislature must approve a single redistricting plan. The governor may veto the lines drawn by the state legislature.[10]

    Arkansas' state legislative district lines are drawn by a politician commission, the Arkansas Board of Apportionment. The commission comprises the governor, the secretary of state, and the attorney general.[10]

    The Arkansas Constitution requires that Arkansas State Senate district lines be "contiguous, and that they follow county lines except where necessary to comply with other legal requirements." There are no such requirements in place for congressional districts.[10]

    Timeline[edit]

    On September 8, 2021, it was reported that the Arkansas House of Representatives and Senate would be called back into an extended regular session on September 29, 2021. The chambers would consider proposed congressional redistricting boundaries.[11] Click [show] on the table header below to view the schedule of meetings announced by both the Board of Apportionment, regarding state legislative maps, and the Arkansas State Legislature, regarding congressional maps.[12][11] To access meeting notes click here.


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

    Arkansas State Legislature[edit]

    The Arkansas State Legislature is responsible for drafting and approving congressional district maps. Meeting jointly, the House and Senate State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committees were responsible for the initial consideration of any proposals. Membership of those committees in the 2021-2022 legislative session is shown below:

    Ark. House State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Cmte.
    Name Partisan affiliation
    Chair: Dwight Tosh Ends.png Republican
    Vice-chair: Justin Gonzales Ends.png Republican
    Rick Beck Ends.png Republican
    Bruce Cozart Ends.png Republican
    Gary Deffenbaugh Ends.png Republican
    Jim Dotson Ends.png Republican
    Michelle Gray Ends.png Republican
    Spencer Hawks Ends.png Republican
    Lane Jean Ends.png Republican
    Lee Johnson Ends.png Republican
    Jack Ladyman Ends.png Republican
    Fredrick Love Electiondot.png Democratic
    Austin McCollum Ends.png Republican
    Stephen Meeks Ends.png Republican
    Josh Miller Ends.png Republican
    John Payton Ends.png Republican
    Marcus Richmond Ends.png Republican
    Nelda Speaks Ends.png Republican
    Jeff R. Wardlaw Ends.png Republican
    David Whitaker Electiondot.png Democratic

    Ark. Senate State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Cmte.
    Name Partisan affiliation
    Chair: Jason Rapert Ends.png Republican
    Vice-chair: Trent Garner Ends.png Republican
    Bob Ballinger Ends.png Republican
    Cecile Bledsoe Ends.png Republican
    Breanne Davis Ends.png Republican
    Jane English Ends.png Republican
    Bart Hester Ends.png Republican
    Clarke Tucker Electiondot.png Democratic

    Board of Apportionment[edit]

    The Arkansas Board of Apportionment consists of three members, the Governor, Attorney General, and the Secretary of State.[13] The three members of the Board in the 2020 cycle are,

    Staff[edit]

    On June 7, 2021, the Arkansas Board of Apportionment hired former Arkansas State Supreme Court Chief Justice Betty Dickey to be its redistricting coordinator.[14] The redistricting coordinator holds meetings to collect input from the public and oversees the redistricting process.[15] Dickey began working in the position on June 15, 2021.

    Drafts and proposals[edit]

    Congressional district plans[edit]

    On September 9, 2021, Rep. Nelda Speaks (R) introduced the first proposed congressional district plan. Click [show] on the list below to view information about the various congressional map plans proposed by state legislators and considered before the House and Senate State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committees.


    On October 7, the Arkansas House of Representatives and State Senate approved the following two proposed congressional district maps and sent them to the governor for approval.

    Approved Arkansas congressional district plans, 2020 cycle
    Lead sponsor Party Proposal View map House vote Senate vote
    Rep. Nelda Speaks Ends.png Republican House Bill 1982 Link 59-30 21-12
    Sen. Jane English Ends.png Republican Senate Bill 743 N/A 53-35 22-10


    On October 13, Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) announced that he would neither sign nor veto the two proposals, meaning the district lines would go into effect in 90 days.[16]

    Map images[edit]

    Reactions[edit]

    Under the proposed maps, two of the state’s counties would be split between multiple congressional districts: Sebastian County, which is split in two, and Pulaski County—the state’s most populous county—split between three districts.

    Opponents of the proposal said the division of Pulaski County, where less than 50% of the population identifies as white alone, was conducted along partisan and racial lines. Supporters of the proposal said the county's size and location in the center of the state necessitated its split so as to lower the total number of counties being split elsewhere.[17]

    When announcing that he would not sign the proposals into law, Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) expressed concern about the splitting of Pulaski County, saying, "While the percentage of minority populations for three of the four congressional districts do not differ that much from the current percentages, the removal of minority areas in Pulaski County into two different congressional districts does raise concerns." Hutchinson added that he was not vetoing the bills, but rather letting them go into effect in 90 days without his signature in order to "enable those who wish to challenge the redistricting plan in court to do so."[16]

    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.[18]

    Apportionment following the 2020 census[edit]

    The U.S. Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts on April 26, 2021. Arkansas was apportioned four 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.[19]

    See the table below for additional details.

    2020 and 2010 census information for Arkansas
    State 2010 census 2020 census 2010-2020
    Population U.S. House seats Population U.S. House seats Raw change in population Percentage change in population Change in U.S. House seats
    Arkansas 2,926,229 4 3,013,756 4 87,527 2.99% 0


    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.[20][21][22][23] 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.[24][25]

    Ballot measure challenges[edit]

    Arkansans for a Unified Natural State veto referendums[edit]

    See also: Arkansas Congressional District Maps Referendum (2022)

    On Oct. 9, 2021, Arkansans for a Unified Natural State announced that the group would attempt to place both proposed congressional district maps—House Bill 1982 and Senate Bill 743—on the November 2022 general election ballot as two veto referendums. Veto referendums are a type of citizen-initiated ballot measure that ask voters whether to uphold or repeal a law passed by the state legislature.[26]

    On Oct. 14, 2021, Secretary of State John Thurston (R) approved the group's two veto referendums for circulation.[27] In order to qualify for the ballot, supporters would need to gather 53,491 valid signatures from registered voters across at least 15 of the state's counties within 90 days after the end of the special legislative session during which the bills were passed. Supporters of the referendums announced they would need to gather the required number of signatures for both proposals.[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 be updated if legal challenges to the redistricting process or enacted maps are filed in court.

    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.[28][29]

    “ 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.[30] ”
    —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."[31][32][33]

    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."[33]

    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."[33]

    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.[33][34]
    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.[33][34]
    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.[33][34]
    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.[33][34]

    Methods[edit]

    In general, a state's redistricting authority can be classified as one of the following:[35]

    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.[36][37]

    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.[38]

    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.[39][40]

    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.[41]

    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.[42][43][44]

    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.[45][46][47][48]

    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.[49][50][51]

    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.[52][53][54][55]

    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.

    The 12 legislature-redistricting states that saw trifecta shifts in 2010 – subsequent trifecta status
    State Primary redistricting authority Pre-2010 trifecta status Post-2010 trifecta status Post-2018 trifecta status
    Alabama Legislature Divided Republican Republican
    Colorado Congressional maps: legislature
    State legislative maps: politician commission     		Democratic Divided Democratic
    Indiana Legislature Divided Republican Republican
    Iowa Legislature Democratic Divided Republican
    Maine Legislature Democratic Republican Democratic
    Michigan Legislature Divided Republican Divided
    New Hampshire Legislature Democratic Divided Divided
    North Carolina Legislature Democratic Divided Divided
    Ohio Congressional maps: legislature
    State legislative maps: politician commission     		Divided Republican Republican
    Oregon Legislature Democratic Divided Democratic
    Pennsylvania Congressional maps: legislature
    State legislative maps: politician commission     		Divided Republican Divided
    Wisconsin Legislature Democratic Republican Divided

    2010 redistricting cycle[edit]

    Redistricting in Arkansas after the 2010 census

    Following the 2010 United States Census, Arkansas neither gained nor lost congressional seats. At the time of redistricting, Democrats controlled the state Senate, the state House, and the governorship. In the wake of the 2010 election, however, Republicans held three congressional seats.[56]

    On April 14, 2011, Governor Mike Beebe signed the new congressional district map into law. That same year, Ross announced his retirement from the United States House of Representatives. In the election that followed, Democrats lost District 4, marking the first time since Reconstruction that Democrats had not held at least one of the state's congressional seats.[56]

    On July 29, 2011, the Arkansas Board of Apportionment approved new state legislative district maps. Governor Mike Beebe and Attorney General Dustin McDaniel, both Democrats, voted to approve the maps. Secretary of State Mark Martin, a Republican, dissented. The new state House map reduced the number of majority-minority districts from 13 to 11.[57]

    On January 23, 2012, state senator Jack Crumbly and a group of residents from eastern Arkansas filed suit against the Arkansas Board of Apportionment. The plaintiffs alleged that the new district lines constituted a racial gerrymander by diluting the black vote in Crumbly's district. On September 17, 2012, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas "rejected the plaintiff's challenges, upholding the state plan against racial gerrymandering and Voting Rights Act claims."[10]

    See also[edit]

    External links[edit]

    Footnotes[edit]

    1. ↑ AP News, "Arkansas governor OKs House map splitting Little Rock area," October 13, 2021
    2. ↑ AP News, "Arkansas redistrict plan splitting Pulaski County advances," October 6, 2021
    3. ↑ State of Arkansas, Attorney General Leslie Rutledge, "Opinion No. 2021-092," November 4, 2021
    4. ↑ AP News, "Arkansas governor OKs House map splitting Little Rock area," October 13, 2021
    5. ↑ AP News, "Arkansas redistrict plan splitting Pulaski County advances," October 6, 2021
    6. ↑ State of Arkansas, Attorney General Leslie Rutledge, "Opinion No. 2021-092," November 4, 2021
    7. ↑ AP News, "Arkansas governor OKs House map splitting Little Rock area," October 13, 2021
    8. ↑ AP News, "Arkansas redistrict plan splitting Pulaski County advances," October 6, 2021
    9. ↑ AP News, "Arkansas governor OKs House map splitting Little Rock area," October 13, 2021
    10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 All About Redistricting, "Arkansas," accessed April 20, 2015
    11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 Arkansas Democrat Gazette, "Return of Arkansas Lawmakers on tap for redistricting," accessed September 10, 2021
    12. ↑ Arkansas Board of Apportionment, "Events Calendar," accessed June 17, 2021
    13. ↑ Arkansas Board of Apportionment, "More About the Board of Apportionment," accessed June 15, 2021
    14. ↑ AP, "Former chief justice to coordinate Arkansas redistricting," accessed June 9, 2021
    15. ↑ University of Arkansas-Division of Agriculture: Public Policy Center, "Redistricting in Arkansas," accessed June 15, 2021
    16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 5 News, "Arkansas congressional redistricting bills to go into law without governor's signature," Oct. 13, 2021
    17. ↑ Associated Press, "Arkansas redistrict plan splitting Pulaski County advances," Oct. 7, 2021
    18. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "Apportionment," accessed July 11, 2018
    19. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "2020 Census Apportionment Results Delivered to the President," April 26, 2021
    20. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "2020 Census Operational Plan: Executive Summary," December 2015
    21. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "Census Bureau Statement on Redistricting Data Timeline," February 12, 2021
    22. ↑ Office of the Attorney General of Ohio, "AG Yost Secures Victory for Ohioans in Settlement with Census Bureau Data Lawsuit," May 25, 2021
    23. ↑ U.S. Census Bureau, "U.S. Census Bureau Statement on Release of Legacy Format Summary Redistricting Data File," March 15, 2021
    24. ↑ U.S. Census Bureau, "Decennial Census P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data," accessed August 12, 2021
    25. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "Census Bureau Delivers 2020 Census Redistricting Data in Easier-to-Use Format," September 16, 2021
    26. ↑ 26.0 26.1 Facebook, "Arkansans for a Unified Natural State," Oct. 9, 2021
    27. ↑ Facebook, "Arkansans for a Unified Natural State," Oct. 14, 2021
    28. ↑ The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, "Election Regulations," accessed April 13, 2015
    29. ↑ Brookings, "Redistricting and the United States Constitution," March 22, 2011
    30. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    31. ↑ Brennan Center for Justice, "A Citizen's Guide to Redistricting," accessed March 25, 2015
    32. ↑ The Constitution of the United States of America, "Article 1, Section 2," accessed March 25, 2015
    33. ↑ 33.0 33.1 33.2 33.3 33.4 33.5 33.6 All About Redistricting, "Where are the lines drawn?" accessed April 9, 2015
    34. ↑ 34.0 34.1 34.2 34.3 FairVote, "Redistricting Glossary," accessed April 9, 2015
    35. ↑ All About Redistricting, "Who draws the lines?" accessed June 19, 2017
    36. ↑ All About Redistricting, "Why does it matter?" accessed April 8, 2015
    37. ↑ Encyclopædia Britannica, "Gerrymandering," November 4, 2014
    38. ↑ Congressional Research Service, "Congressional Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A Legal Overview," April 13, 2015
    39. ↑ The Wall Street Journal, "Supreme Court to Consider Limits on Partisan Drawing of Election Maps," June 19, 2017
    40. ↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear potentially landmark case on partisan gerrymandering," June 19, 2017
    41. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Gill v. Whitford: Decision," June 18, 2018
    42. ↑ Election Law Blog, "Breaking: SCOTUS to Hear NC Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 27, 2016
    43. ↑ Ballot Access News, "U.S. Supreme Court Accepts Another Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 28, 2016
    44. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Cooper v. Harris: Decision," May 22, 2017
    45. ↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear challenge to Texas redistricting plan," May 26, 2015
    46. ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Agrees to Settle Meaning of ‘One Person One Vote,'" May 26, 2015
    47. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Evenwel v. Abbott," accessed May 27, 2015
    48. ↑ Associated Press, "Supreme Court to hear Texas Senate districts case," May 26, 2015
    49. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "The new look at 'one person, one vote,' made simple," July 27, 2015
    50. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Brief for Appellants," accessed December 14, 2015
    51. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission," April 20, 2016
    52. ↑ The New York Times, "Court Skeptical of Arizona Plan for Less-Partisan Congressional Redistricting," March 2, 2015
    53. ↑ The Atlantic, "Will the Supreme Court Let Arizona Fight Gerrymandering?" September 15, 2014
    54. ↑ United States Supreme Court, "Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Opinion of the Court," June 29, 2015
    55. ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Upholds Creation of Arizona Redistricting Commission," June 29, 2015
    56. ↑ 56.0 56.1 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.
    57. ↑ Arkansas News, "Update: Governor's redistricting maps adopted by panel," July 29, 2011
    Flag of Arkansas
    v • e
    State of Arkansas
    Little Rock (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

    Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 | Original source: https://ballotpedia.org/Redistricting_in_Arkansas_after_the_2020_census
    Status: cached on November 18 2021 13:50:15
    Encyclosphere.org EncycloReader is supported by the EncyclosphereKSF