Redistricting commissions
Aredistricting commission is a body authorized to draft and implementelectoral district maps. The composition and operation of these commissions varies from state to state. In general, a redistricting commission can take one of two forms: politician commissions and non-politician commissions. Ballotpedia considers a politician commission to be any redistricting commission whose members can hold political office. A non-politician commission is any redistricting commission whose members can not hold political office. Note that Ballotpedia does not use the term "independent redistricting commission."
What is redistricting?
- See also:Redistricting
Redistricting is the process of enacting new district boundaries for elected offices, particularly for offices in theU.S. House of Representatives andstate legislatures.
AllUnited States Representatives and state legislators are elected from political divisions called districts. The states redraw district lines every 10 years following completion of the United States census. The federal government requires that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.[1]
Redistricting commissions play a crucial role in shaping the electoral maps that impact representation at the local, state, and federal levels. By adopting transparent processes and considering factors such demographic changes and the impact on communities, these commissions strive to create electoral districts that accurately reflect the preferences and demographics of the population. However, challenges remain in ensuring the effectiveness and independence of redistricting commissions, and debates continue over the best ways to conduct a fair and equitable redistricting process in the United States.
In 2015, theSupreme Court of the United States issued its decision inArizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, ruling 5-4 that redistricting commissions do not violate theUnited States Constitution.[2][3]
Use in congressional and state legislative redistricting
Redistricting commissions for congressional districts
The map below shows the11 states that use commissions for congressional redistricting, including states withhybrid methods. Nine of these are non-politician commissions. One state, New Jersey, has a politician commission, and one state, Virginia, has an equal number of politicians and non-politicians.
Redistricting commissions for state legislative districts
The map below shows the16 states that use commissions for state legislative redistricting, including states withhybrid methods. Ten of these are non-politician commissions. Five are politician commissions, and Virginia's commission has an equal number of politicians and non-politicians.
Details by state
The table below provides details about the redistricting commissions operating in the United States as of March 2024.
| State | Type | Number of commissioners | Source | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alaska* | Non-politician | 5 | Source | |
| Arizona | Non-politician | 5 | Source | |
| Arkansas* | Politician | 3 | Source | |
| California | Non-politician | 14 | Source | |
| Colorado | Non-politician | 12 (two separate commissions for congressional and state legislative redistricting, each with 12 members) | Source | |
| Hawaii | Non-politician | 9 | Source | |
| Idaho | Non-politician | 6 | Source | |
| Michigan | Non-politician | 13 | Source | |
| Missouri* | Politician | 20 (House); 20 (Senate) | Source | |
| Montana | Non-politician | 5 | Source | |
| New Jersey | Politician | 13 (congressional); 10-11 (state legislative) | Source,Source | |
| New York** | Non-politician | 10 | Source | |
| Ohio* | Politician | 7 | Source | |
| Pennsylvania* | Politician | 5 | Source | |
| Virginia** | Both politician & non-politician | 16 | Source | |
| Washington | Non-politician | 5 | Source | |
| *State legislative redistricting only. **State useshybrid redistricting methods. | ||||
Legal challenges
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, decided by theSupreme Court of the United States in 2015, established the constitutionality of the use of non-politician commissions in congressional redistricting. At issue was the constitutionality of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, which was established bystate constitutional amendment in 2000. According to Article 1, Section 4, of theUnited 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 wordlegislature in this context is literal; therefore, only a state legislature may draw congressional district lines. Meanwhile, the commission contended that the wordlegislature ought to be interpreted more broadly to encompass the legislative powers of the state, including voter initiatives and referenda.[4][5]
On June 29, 2015, theUnited States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. JusticeRuth Bader Ginsburg wrote the following in the court's majority opinion:[2][6]
| “ | The people of Arizona turned to the initiative to curb the practice of gerrymandering and, thereby, to ensure that Members of Congress would have “an habitual recollection of their dependence on the people.” In so acting, Arizona voters sought to restore “the core principle of republican government,” namely, “that the voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around.” The Elections Clause does not hinder that endeavor.[7] | ” |
| —Ruth Bader Ginsburg | ||
JusticesAnthony Kennedy,Stephen Breyer,Elena Kagan, andSonia Sotomayor joined Ginsburg in the court's majority opinion. Chief JusticeJohn Roberts and JusticesAntonin Scalia,Clarence Thomas, andSamuel Alito dissented.[2][6]
In his dissent, Roberts argued that the wordlegislature in Article 1, Section 4, of theUnited States Constitution ought to be interpreted narrowly to mean the "representative body which makes the laws of the people."[2]
| “ | The people of Arizona have concerns about the process of congressional redistricting in their State. For better or worse, the Elections Clause of the Constitution does not allow them to address those concerns by displacing their legislature. But it does allow them to seek relief from Congress, which can make or alter the regulations prescribed by the legislature.[7] | ” |
| —John Roberts | ||
Support and opposition
Support
Proponents of redistricting commissions (particularly, non-politician commissions) contend that redistricting methods involving elected officials compromise the integrity of the electoral process by enabling politicians to draw boundaries to their benefit. The National Election Defense Coalition, arguing for the increased use of non-politician commissions, made this argument on its website:[8]
| “ | Political power in America should flow from the people. But politicians often abuse their power to draw district boundaries, gerrymandering them for partisan and personal advantage. Elected officials end up choosing their voters, instead of the other way around. The result is stagnant and unaccountable incumbency, and unfair allocation of seats in Congress and state legislatures.[7] | ” |
| —National Election Defense Coalition | ||
In December 2016, theCenter for American Progress released a report supportive of non-politician redistricting commissions:[9]
| “ | Independent commissions offer several benefits, including eliminating the appearance of impropriety and making elections fairer. Legislators, for instance, are four times more likely than independent commissions to create congressional districts that 'deny voters choice in the primary' and two times more likely to do so for general elections. This is perhaps one of the reasons why maps drawn by independent commissions face fewer legal challenges than maps drawn by politicians.[7] | ” |
| —Center for American Progress | ||
Opposition
Opponents argue that non-politician commissions exclude state legislators from the redistricting process in violation of theUnited States Constitution. TheNational Conference of State Legislatures, in an amicus brief filed in support of the Arizona State Legislature inArizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, made the following argument:[10]
| “ | In 37 states, the legislature draws the congressional redistricting plan. The other thirteen states involve both the legislature and some form of redistricting commission. All but two of these thirteen states respect the Election Clause's delegation by maintaining a substantive role for the legislature. But Arizona and one other state provide the legislature no substantive involvement in redistricting. ... Excluding the legislature from substantive involvement in redistricting contravenes the Elections Clause[.][7] | ” |
| —National Conference of State Legislatures | ||
Opponents also contend that non-politician commissions are less transparent in their methods and therefore less accountable to voters than elected officials. Susan Myrick, writing for the Civitas Institute in January 2017, made the following argument:
| “ | The fact is, redistricting is and always had been an inherently partisan process. The best way to deal with that fact is to ensure the process is transparently implemented by the elected officials charged with the responsibility. ... They are the ones who the voters can hold accountable at the ballot box – not namely, faceless bureaucrats.[7] | ” |
| —Sysan Myrick | ||
Redistricting legislation
The table below lists redistricting bills introduced during or carried over to each state's regular legislative session this year. The following information is included for each bill:
- State
- Bill number
- Official bill name or caption
- Most recent action date
- Legislative status
- Sponsor party
- Topics dealt with by the bill
Bills are organized by state and then by most recent action. The table displays up to 100 results. To view more bills, use the arrows in the upper-right corner. Clicking on a bill will open its page onBallotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker, which includes bill details and a summary.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑All About Redistricting, "Why does it matter?" accessed April 8, 2015
- ↑2.02.12.22.3United States Supreme Court, "Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Opinion of the Court," June 29, 2015
- ↑All About Redistricting, "Who draws the lines?" accessed June 19, 2017
- ↑The New York Times, "Court Skeptical of Arizona Plan for Less-Partisan Congressional Redistricting," March 2, 2015
- ↑The Atlantic, "Will the Supreme Court Let Arizona Fight Gerrymandering?" September 15, 2014
- ↑6.06.1The New York Times, "Supreme Court Upholds Creation of Arizona Redistricting Commission," June 29, 2015
- ↑7.07.17.27.37.47.5Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑National Election Defense Coalition, "Independent Redistricting to End Partisan Gerrymandering," accessed June 19, 2017
- ↑Center for American Progress, "Redistricting and Representation: Drawing Fair Election Districts Instead of Manipulated Maps," December 5, 2016
- ↑Supreme Court of the United States, "Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Brief of Amicus Curiae National Conference of State Legislatures in Support of Appellant," December 9, 2014
