Redistricting in Idaho after the 2020 census

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

Redistricting is the process of enacting new congressional and state legislative district boundaries. Upon completion of the 2020 census, Idaho will draft and enact new district maps. This article chronicles the 2020 redistricting cycle in Idaho.

Idaho's two United States representatives and 105 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.

On Nov. 12, 2021, the Idaho Independent Redistricting Commission formally submitted its final congressional map to the secretary of state. On Nov. 10, the commission voted 4-2 in favor of the final congressional map with Nels Mitchell and Dan Schmidt, both Democratic appointees, voting against the map.^[1] The commission had earlier voted in favor of the map on Nov. 5, but chose to recast their votes on Nov. 10 due to concerns regarding Idaho's open meetings laws.^[1][2][3] On Nov. 12, 2021, the Idaho Independent Redistricting Commission formally submitted its final legislative map to the secretary of state. On Nov. 10, the commission voted 6-0 in favor of the final legislative map.^[1] The commission had earlier voted in favor of the map on Nov. 5, but chose to recast their votes on Nov. 10 due to concerns regarding Idaho's open meetings laws.^[1][2][3] Idaho has 35 legislative districts, each of which elects one senator and two representatives. Click here for more information.

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

1. Summary: This section provides summary information about the drafting and enacting processes.
2. Enactment: This section provides information about the enacted congressional and state legislative district maps.
3. Drafting process: This section details the drafting process for new congressional and state legislative district maps.
4. Apportionment and release of census data: This section details the 2020 apportionment process, including data from the United States Census Bureau.
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 Idaho 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.

• Nov. 12, 2021: The commission formally submitted its final congressional and legislative map plans to the secretary of state.
• Nov. 10, 2021: The commission met again to recast its votes in favor of the final congressional and legislative maps due to concerns over the state's open meeting laws.
• Nov. 5, 2021: The commission voted 4-2 in favor of adopting a final congressional map and 6-0 in favor of a final legislative map.
• Sept. 16, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau released data from the 2020 census in an easier-to-use format to state redistricting authorities and the public.
• Sept. 1, 2021: The Idaho Reapportionment Commission held its first meeting.
• Aug. 12, 2021: Secretary of State Lawerence Denney (R) issued an executive order to form Idaho's Reapportionment Commission.
• Aug. 12, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau delivered redistricting data to states in a legacy format.
• April 26, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts.

Enactment[edit]

Enacted congressional district maps[edit]

See also: Congressional district maps implemented after the 2020 census

On Nov. 12, 2021, the Idaho Independent Redistricting Commission formally submitted its final congressional map to the secretary of state. On Nov. 10, the commission voted 4-2 in favor of the final congressional map with Nels Mitchell and Dan Schmidt, both Democratic appointees, voting against the map.^[1] The commission had earlier voted in favor of the map on Nov. 5, but chose to recast their votes on Nov. 10 due to concerns regarding Idaho's open meetings laws.^[1][2][3]

This map takes effect for Idaho's 2022 congressional elections. An interactive version can be found here.

Reactions[edit]

Disagreements over the final congressional map revolved around the splitting of Ada County, the state's most populous and home to its capital, Boise. The final map continued the practice of dividing the county into two districts, as was the case following the 2010 redistricting cycle.^[4]

Commissioners Mitchell and Schmidt voted against the final congressional map due to the splitting of Ada County. Mitchell said he voted against the map because "there is a statute on the books that says we're not supposed to split counties if we don't have to, and I don't believe we had to. It's there, and I think we should have honored it.".^[4]

Commissioner Davis said, "there were honest disagreements on the congressional plan ... and that's the reason we have a commission of six, is to allow us to think about it and challenge each other's thinking and hopefully come to a resolution."^[4]

Enacted state legislative district maps[edit]

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

On Nov. 12, 2021, the Idaho Independent Redistricting Commission formally submitted its final legislative map to the secretary of state. On Nov. 10, the commission voted 6-0 in favor of the final legislative map.^[1] The commission had earlier voted in favor of the map on Nov. 5, but chose to recast their votes on Nov. 10 due to concerns regarding Idaho's open meetings laws.^[1][2][3] Idaho has 35 legislative districts, each of which elects one senator and two representatives.

This map takes effect for Idaho's 2022 state legislative elections. An interactive version can be found here.

Reactions[edit]

House Speaker Scott Bedke (R) said, "The Idaho House Republican Caucus is not entirely thrilled with the new reapportionment of Idaho’s legislative map," adding that, "highly qualified and established legislators may be forced to campaign against equally skilled former colleagues. It’s an unfortunate situation and will result in the loss of considerable talent and dedication to service to the people of Idaho."^[5]

Idaho Ed News' Kevin Richert estimated that the new maps could result in six House races and five Senate races where incumbents would face re-election against one another.^[6]

Commissioner Dan Schmidt said, "We've tried to do our best to balance the interests and the needs of the communities we are working with and the law that is before us," adding, "We went into this process knowing that our task could not make everybody happy, and we don't expect it will."^[7]

Drafting process[edit]

In Idaho, an independent commission is responsible for drawing both congressional and state legislative district lines. The commission is composed of six members.^[8]

1. One member is appointed by the majority leader of the Idaho State Senate.
2. One member is appointed by the minority leader of the Idaho State Senate.
3. One member is appointed by the majority leader of the Idaho House of Representatives.
4. One member is appointed by the minority leader of the Idaho House of Representatives.
5. The chairs of the state's two largest political parties each appoint one member.

According to the Idaho Constitution, no member may be an elected or appointed official while serving on the commission. The state constitution further requires that the commission produce draft congressional and state legislative maps within 90 days of the commission's formation. There is no explicit deadline for final plans.^[8]

The state constitution requires that state legislative districts "be contiguous, and that counties be preserved intact where possible." State statutes require that both congressional and state legislative districts meet the following criteria:^[8]

• County lines must be maintained "to the extent possible."
• Districts must "preserve traditional neighborhoods, communities of interest, and (if possible) voting precinct boundaries."
• Districts should not be "oddly shaped."
• In districts comprising more than one county or a portion thereof, "those constituent pieces must also be connected by a state or federal highway."

Timeline[edit]

On Aug. 12, 2021, Secretary of State Lawerence Denney (R) issued an executive order to form Idaho's Reapportionment Commission.^[9] Upon issuing the order, Denney said, “While the delay will make the timelines of redistricting challenging, I have confidence that this Commission will be both thorough and expeditious in developing a fair and intelligent plan that adheres to constitutional and statutory requirements.”^[9]

The Idaho Reapportionment Commission held its first meeting on Sept. 1, 2021.^[10] The deadline for the commission to adopt final maps is Nov. 30, 2021.

Public meetings[edit]

The commission held a series of public meetings beginning Sept. 1 and concluding on Oct. 12. Click [show] on the header below to view the meeting schedule released on the commission's website.^[11] For more information, including meeting minutes, click here.

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

The following individuals were appointed to serve on the state's independent redistricting commission.^[12][13][14]

Idaho Independent Reapportionment Commission members, 2020 cycle
Name	Role	Appointing authority
Thomas Dayley	Member	House Speaker Scott Bedke
Bart Davis	Member	Senate Pro Tempore Chuck Winder
Nels Mitchell	Member	Idaho Democratic Party Chair Fred Cornforth
Amber Pence	Member	House Minority Leader Ilana Rubel
Eric Redman	Member	GOP Chairman Tom Luna
Dan Schmidt	Member	Senate Minority Leader Michelle Stennett

Drafts and proposals[edit]

Congressional district maps[edit]

The Idaho Reapportionment Commission prepared and released three draft congressional maps.^[15][16] Members of the public prepared 33 additional congressional maps. Commission-drawn maps are included in the headers below. All maps can be viewed here.

The commission ultimately voted 4-2 in favor of the draft map titled C03 on Nov. 10, 2021.^[1]

• Congressional draft map C03 (click to expand)

  Map images[edit]

  Images of the third set of congressional districts proposed by the commission are embedded below.

  Idaho legislative districts – draft map C03

• Congressional draft map C02 (click to expand)

  Map images[edit]

  Images of the second set of legislative districts proposed by the commission are embedded below.

  Idaho congressional districts – draft map C02

• Congressional draft map C01 (click to expand)

  Map images[edit]

  Images of the first set of congressional districts proposed by the commission are embedded below.

  Idaho legislative districts – draft map C01

  Reactions[edit]

  Upon release of the maps, commissioner Amber Pence said, “It’s a rough draft — heavy on the rough.”^[17] The commission scheduled public hearings for feedback on the proposed maps. Redistricting commission co-chairman, Dan Schmidt, said, “Having this open process, a process which people can understand, [that] is what we are doing and they can feel confidence in being represented,”^[18]

Legislative district maps[edit]

The Idaho Reapportionment Commission prepared and released three draft legislative maps.^[15][16] Members of the public prepared 83 additional legislative maps. Commission-drawn maps are included in the headers below. All maps can be viewed here. Idaho has 35 legislative districts, each of which elects one senator and two representatives.

The commission ultimately voted 6-0 in favor of the draft map titled L03 on Nov. 10, 2021.^[1]

• State legislative draft map L03 (click to expand)

  Map images[edit]

  Images of the third set of legislative districts proposed by the commission are embedded below.

  Idaho legislative districts – draft map L03

• State legislative draft map L02 (click to expand)

  Map images[edit]

  Images of the second set of legislative districts proposed by the commission are embedded below.

  Idaho legislative districts – draft map L02

• State legislative draft map L01 (click to expand)

  Map images[edit]

  Images of the first set of legislative districts proposed by the commission are embedded below.

  Idaho legislative districts – draft map L01

  Reactions[edit]

  Upon release of the maps, commissioner Pence said, “It’s a rough draft — heavy on the rough.”^[17] The commission scheduled public hearings for feedback on the proposed maps. Redistricting commission co-chairman, Dan Schmidt, said, “Having this open process, a process which people can understand, [that] is what we are doing and they can feel confidence in being represented,”^[18]

Apportionment and release of census data[edit]

Apportionment is the process by which representation in a legislative body is distributed among its constituents. The number of seats in the United States House of Representatives is fixed at 435. The United States Constitution dictates that districts be redrawn every 10 years to ensure equal populations between districts. Every ten years, upon completion of the United States census, reapportionment occurs.^[19]

Apportionment following the 2020 census[edit]

The U.S. Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts on April 26, 2021. Idaho was apportioned two 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.^[20]

See the table below for additional details.

Redistricting data from the Census Bureau[edit]

On February 12, 2021, the Census Bureau announced that it would deliver redistricting data to the states by September 30, 2021. On March 15, 2021, the Census Bureau released a statement indicating it would make redistricting data available to the states in a legacy format in mid-to-late August 2021. A legacy format presents the data in raw form, without data tables and other access tools. On May 25, 2021, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (R) announced that the state had reached a settlement agreement with the Census Bureau in its lawsuit over the Census Bureau's timetable for delivering redistricting data. Under the terms of the settlement, the Census Bureau agreed to deliver redistricting data, in a legacy format, by August 16, 2021.^{[21][22][23][24]} The Census Bureau released the 2020 redistricting data in a legacy format on August 12, 2021, and in an easier-to-use format at data.census.gov on September 16, 2021.^[25][26]

Court challenges[edit]

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

This section will 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.

Federal requirements for congressional redistricting[edit]

According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, the states and their legislatures have primary authority in determining the "times, places, and manner" of congressional elections. Congress may also pass laws regulating congressional elections.^[27][28]

Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution stipulates that congressional representatives be apportioned to the states on the basis of population. There are 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives. Each state is allotted a portion of these seats based on the size of its population relative to the other states. Consequently, a state may gain seats in the House if its population grows or lose seats if its population decreases, relative to populations in other states. In 1964, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Wesberry v. Sanders that the populations of House districts must be equal "as nearly as practicable."^[30][31][32]

The equal population requirement for congressional districts is strict. According to All About Redistricting, "Any district with more or fewer people than the average (also known as the 'ideal' population), must be specifically justified by a consistent state policy. And even consistent policies that cause a 1 percent spread from largest to smallest district will likely be unconstitutional."^[32]

Federal requirements for state legislative redistricting[edit]

The United States Constitution is silent on the issue of state legislative redistricting. In the mid-1960s, the United States Supreme Court issued a series of rulings in an effort to clarify standards for state legislative redistricting. In Reynolds v. Sims, the court ruled that "the Equal Protection Clause [of the United States Constitution] demands no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens, of all places as well as of all races." According to All About Redistricting, "it has become accepted that a [redistricting] plan will be constitutionally suspect if the largest and smallest districts [within a state or jurisdiction] are more than 10 percent apart."^[32]

State-based requirements[edit]

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

1. Contiguity refers to the principle that all areas within a district should be physically adjacent. A total of 49 states require that districts of at least one state legislative chamber be contiguous (Nevada has no such requirement, imposing no requirements on redistricting beyond those enforced at the federal level). A total of 23 states require that congressional districts meet contiguity requirements.^[32][33]
2. Compactness refers to the general principle that the constituents within a district should live as near to one another as practicable. A total of 37 states impose compactness requirements on state legislative districts; 18 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.^[32][33]
3. A community of interest is defined by FairVote as a "group of people in a geographical area, such as a specific region or neighborhood, who have common political, social or economic interests." A total of 24 states require that the maintenance of communities of interest be considered in the drawing of state legislative districts. A total of 13 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.^[32][33]
4. A total of 42 states require that state legislative district lines be drawn to account for political boundaries (e.g., the limits of counties, cities, and towns). A total of 19 states require that similar considerations be made in the drawing of congressional districts.^[32][33]

Methods[edit]

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

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

Gerrymandering[edit]

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

See also: Gerrymandering

The term gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to favor one political party, individual, or constituency over another. When used in a rhetorical manner by opponents of a particular district map, the term has a negative connotation but does not necessarily address the legality of a challenged map. The term can also be used in legal documents; in this context, the term describes redistricting practices that violate federal or state laws.^[35][36]

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

Recent court decisions[edit]

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

The Supreme Court of the United States has, in recent years, issued several decisions dealing with redistricting policy, including rulings relating to the consideration of race in drawing district maps, the use of total population tallies in apportionment, and the constitutionality of independent redistricting commissions. The rulings in these cases, which originated in a variety of states, impact redistricting processes across the nation.

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

Show more

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.^[40]

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.^[41][42][43]

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.^{[44][45][46][47]}

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.^[48][49][50]

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.^{[51][52][53][54]}

Trifectas and redistricting[edit]

In 34 of the states that conducted legislative elections in 2020, the legislatures themselves will play a significant part in the subsequent redistricting process. The winner of eight of 2020's gubernatorial elections will have veto authority over state legislative or congressional district plans approved by legislatures. The party that won trifecta control of a state in which redistricting authority rests with the legislature will direct the process that produces the maps that will be used for the remainder of the decade. Trifecta shifts in the 2010 election cycle illustrate this point. In 2010, 12 states in which legislatures had authority over redistricting saw shifts in trifecta status. Prior to the 2010 elections, seven of these states were Democratic trifectas; the rest were divided governments. After the 2010 elections, seven of these states became Republican trifectas; the remainder either remained or became divided governments. The table below details these shifts and charts trifecta status heading into the 2020 election cycle.

2010 redistricting cycle[edit]

Redistricting in Idaho after the 2010 census

Following the 2010 United States Census, Idaho neither gained nor lost congressional seats. On October 17, 2011, Idaho's redistricting commission approved a new congressional district map. Three Republicans and one Democrat voted to approve the map; two Democrats dissented.^[55]

The commission approved a state legislative district map on October 14, 2011. On November 16, 2011, Twin Falls County filed suit against the state redistricting commission. The plaintiffs alleged that the state legislative districts approved by the commission were "based on ... insufficient attention to county boundaries." The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on January 18, 2012, and ordered the commission to draft a new map. Lawrence Denney, Speaker of the Idaho House of Representatives, and Norm Semanko, chair of the state Republican Party, filed suit against Secretary of State Ben Ysursa on January 20, 2012. Denney and Semanko challenged Ysursa's "refusal to replace commissioners nominated by [Denney] and [Semanko], at the request of those two officials." The Idaho Supreme Court dismissed the challenge on January 25, 2012. On January 27, 2012, the redistricting commission unanimously approved a new state legislative district map.^[8][56]

See also[edit]

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

External links[edit]

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

Footnotes[edit]

v • e Redistricting after the 2020 census State-by-state Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming Overviews Congressional apportionment after the 2020 census • Congressional district maps implemented after the 2020 census • Partisan composition of redistricting committees, 2020 cycle • Redistricting lawsuits in the 2020 redistricting cycle • State legislative and congressional redistricting after the 2020 census • Status of redistricting after the 2020 census • State legislative district maps implemented after the 2020 census • State redistricting deadlines after the 2020 census • Redistricting apps and software available for the 2020 cycle

	v • e State of Idaho Boise (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