Redistricting in Iowa 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, Iowa will draft and enact new district maps. This article chronicles the 2020 redistricting cycle in Iowa.

Iowa's four United States representatives and 150 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 November 4, 2021, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds (R) signed new congressional and state legislative maps into law after the state's Legislative Services Agency had proposed them on October 21, 2021. The Iowa legislature approved the maps on October 28, 2021, by a vote of 48-1 in the state Senate and 93-2 in the state House.^[1] The legislature could only vote to approve or reject the maps and could not make any amendments. These maps take effect for Iowa's 2022 congressional and legislative elections. 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. 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 Iowa is also provided.

Summary[edit]

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

• November 4, 2021: Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds (R) signed congressional and state legislative maps into law.
• October 28, 2021: The Iowa legislature approved the Legislative Services Agency's second congressional and state legislative maps.
• October 21, 2021: The Iowa Legislative Services Agency released its second draft of congressional and state legislative maps.
• October 5, 2021: The Iowa legislature rejected the Legislative Services Agency's first congressional and state legislative maps.
• September 16, 2021: The Iowa Legislative Services Agency released its first draft congressional and state legislative maps.
• 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 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 November 4, 2021, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds (R) signed new congressional and state legislative maps into law after the state's Legislative Services Agency had proposed them on October 21, 2021. The Iowa legislature approved the maps on October 28, 2021, by a vote of 48-1 in the state Senate and 93-2 in the state House.^[1] The legislature could only vote to approve or reject the maps and could not make any amendments. These maps take effect for Iowa's 2022 congressional and legislative elections.

Upon signing the maps, Gov. Reynolds issued the following statement, "Today I signed the bipartisan redistricting maps into law. I am confident in how the process played out—just as the law intended, and I believe these new districts will fairly and accurately represent the citizens of Iowa for the next decade."^[2] Bloomberg Government's Greg Giroux said this about Iowa's congressional redistricting plan, "The map, drafted by the state’s nonpartisan legislative agency, created three districts where Donald Trump would’ve narrowly defeated Joe Biden in the 2020 election and a fourth that’s heavily Republican...The map paired the homes of Reps. Cindy Axne (D) and Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R) in the politically competitive 3rd District, which takes most of its population from Axne’s current district in and around Des Moines."^[3]

This map takes effect for Iowa’s 2022 congressional elections.

Enacted state legislative district maps[edit]

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

State Senate districts[edit]

This map takes effect for Iowa’s 2022 legislative elections.

State House districts[edit]

This map takes effect for Iowa’s 2022 legislative elections.

Reactions[edit]

After the legislature approved the maps on October 28, 2021, Senate Majority Leader Jack Whitver (R) said, "Despite years of fear-mongering about gerrymandering and claims the first map could not be improved, the Iowa Senate followed the process outlined in Iowa Code, and a more compact map with better population differences has been approved."^[4] Senate Minority Leader Zach Wahls (D), who had objected to Republican legislators' rejection of the Legislative Services Agency's first proposal, said after the legislature approved the final maps, "it would have been a lot easier if they had just said that they weren't going to gerrymander."^[4]

Drafting process[edit]

The Legislative Services Agency prepares redistricting plans for approval by the Iowa State Legislature. According to All About Redistricting, the Legislative Services Agency (LSA) consists of "civil servants committed to nonpartisanship and otherwise charged with tasks like legal and fiscal analysis of state legislation and state government oversight." The LSA is assisted by an advisory commission, which consists of the following members:^[5]

1. one member selected by the majority leader of the Iowa State Senate
2. one member selected by the majority leader of the Iowa House of Representatives
3. one member selected by the minority leader of the Iowa State Senate
4. one member selected by the minority leader of the Iowa House of Representatives
5. one member selected by the first four members

The members of this commission cannot "hold partisan public office or an office in a political party, and none may be a relative or employee of a federal or state legislator (or the legislature as a whole)."^[5]

Working with this independent commission, the LSA drafts congressional and state legislative district lines. The maps are presented as a single bill to the state legislature, which may approve or reject the bill without altering it (the legislature can provide feedback). If the legislature rejects the plan, the LSA must draft a second proposal. If the legislature rejects the second proposal, the LSA must draft a third, and final, set of maps. If the legislature rejects this plan, it may then approve its own maps. Since the implementation of this process in 1980, the state legislature has never chosen not to approve an LSA proposal. Redistricting plans are also subject to gubernatorial veto. In addition, the legislature may repeal or revise the maps at any time, though it has never done so.^[5]

State law establishes the following criteria for both congressional and state legislative districts:^[5]

1. Districts must be "convenient and contiguous."
2. Districts must "preserve the integrity of political subdivisions like counties and cities."
3. Districts must "to the extent consistent with other requirements, [be] reasonably compact–defined in terms of regular polygons, comparisons of length and width, and overall boundary perimeter."

In addition, state House districts are required to be contained within state Senate districts "where possible, and where not in conflict with the criteria above." It is explicit in state law that district lines cannot be drawn "to favor a political party, incumbent, or other person or group."^[5]

Drafts and proposals[edit]

Legislative Services Agency releases second draft maps[edit]

On October 21, 2021, the Iowa Legislative Services Agency (LSA) released its second proposed congressional and state legislative maps.^[6] The Iowa legislature approved these maps on October 28, 2021.^[1] The state Senate voted to approve them, 48-1, and the state House approved them, 93-2.^[1]

The draft maps and redistricting plan report can be viewed below:

Congressional district maps[edit]

Map images[edit]

Legislative district maps[edit]

Map images[edit]

Proposed state Senate districts



Proposed state House districts

Redistricting plan report[edit]

Iowa State Senate rejects first proposed maps[edit]

On September 16, 2021, the Iowa Legislative Services Agency (LSA) released its first draft congressional and state legislative maps.^[7][8] The Iowa State Senate voted on October 5, 2021, to reject the proposed district boundaries on a 32-18 party-line vote. Since this was the Agency's first proposal, the legislature could only vote to approve or reject it and could not make any amendments. Under state law, the LSA must send a second redistricting plan to the legislature within 35 days.^[9]

After the vote, Senate Majority Leader Jack Whitver (R) said, "Senate Republicans believe LSA can improve the compactness and population deviation of several districts by developing a second redistricting plan. My colleagues and I look forward to reviewing that plan and its compliance with the criteria established in Iowa Code." Senate Minority Leader Zach Wahls (D) said, "This was a fair map drawn by the nonpartisan, independent commission. It met all the requirements laid out in state law. This is an outrageous use of political power to rig elections in their favor."^[10]

Congressional district maps[edit]

LSA's first draft of proposed congressional maps:

Map images[edit]

Legislative district maps[edit]

LSA's first draft of proposed legislative maps:

Map images[edit]

Proposed state Senate districts



Proposed state House districts

Legislative Services Agency announces release date for second map proposal[edit]

On October 6, 2021, the Legislative Services Agency (LSA) announced that it would submit its second proposed congressional and legislative redistricting maps to the legislature by October 21.^[11] Gov. Kim Reynolds (R) called a special session of the legislature beginning October 28, 2021, to consider the second redistricting proposal that the Iowa Legislative Services Agency had announced would be released on October 21.^[12][13]

Timeline[edit]

On September 14, 2021, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that they were extending the deadline for state legislative redistricting to December 1, 2021. The last two paragraphs are quoted below:^[14]

On August 17, 2021, Ed Cook, legal counsel for the Iowa Legislative Services Agency, announced that the Iowa Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission would release the first draft of proposed state legislative district maps on September 16, 2021.^[16] The Commission also scheduled three virtual public hearings on the following dates:^[17]

• September 20, 2021 7:00 p.m. CT
• September 21, 2021 12:00 p.m. CT
• September 22, 2021 6:00 p.m. CT

On April 8, 2021, the Iowa Supreme Court released the following statement on its role in the post-2020 census redistricting cycle:^[18]

The court added, "Legally and constitutionally, the supreme court cannot commit to a future course of action beforehand. Thus, the statement herein should not be considered legally binding."^[18]

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

The four appointed members of the Iowa Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission selected former state Legislative Services Agency analyst Sue Lerdal as the commission's chairperson and fifth member on August 17, 2021.^[16]

Senate Minority Leader Zach Wahls (D) announced that Jazmin Newton, a Davenport attorney, will replace former Iowa secretary of state candidate Deidre DeJear (D) on the Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission on July 6, 2021. The Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission is responsible for gathering feedback from residents and holding public hearings. Other members of the commission are attorney Ian Russell (who was appointed by House Minority Leader Todd Prichard (D)), former Iowa State Budget Director David Roederer (who was appointed by House Speaker Pat Grassley (R)), and former State Rep. Chris Hagenow (R) (who was appointed by Senate Majority Leader Jack Whitver (R)).^[19][20][21]

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.^[23]

Apportionment following the 2020 census[edit]

The U.S. Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts on April 26, 2021. Iowa 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.^[24]

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.^{[25][26][27][28]} 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.^[29][30]

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.^[31][32]

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."^[33][34][35]

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."^[35]

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."^[35]

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.^[35][36]
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.^[35][36]
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.^[35][36]
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.^[35][36]

Methods[edit]

In general, a state's redistricting authority can be classified as one of the following:^[37]

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.^[38][39]

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.^[43]

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.^[44][45][46]

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.^{[47][48][49][50]}

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.^[51][52][53]

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.^{[54][55][56][57]}

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 Iowa after the 2010 census

Following the 2010 United States Census, Iowa lost one congressional seat. The Legislative Services Agency released its proposed congressional and state legislative maps on March 31, 2011. The maps were approved in both the Democratic Iowa State Senate and the Republican Iowa House of Representatives. On April 19, 2011, Governor Terry Branstad (R) signed the maps into law.^[5][58]

See also[edit]

• Redistricting in Iowa after the 2010 census
• Redistricting in Iowa
• 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 Iowa Des Moines (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