in Georgia

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

Redistricting
State legislative and congressional redistricting after the 2020 census Select your state:AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingSubmit
General information
State-by-state redistricting procedures •Majority-minority districts •Gerrymandering
The 2020 cycle
United States census, 2020 •Congressional apportionment •Redistricting committees •Deadlines •2022 House elections with multiple incumbents •New U.S.House districts created after apportionment •Congressional maps •State legislative maps •Lawsuits •Status of redistricting after the 2020 census
Redrawn maps
Redistricting before 2024 elections •Redistricting before 2026 elections
Ballotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker

Redistricting is the process by which new congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn. Each of Georgia's 14 United States Representatives and 236 state legislators are elected from political divisions called districts. United States Senators are not elected by districts, but by the states at large. District lines are redrawn every 10 years following completion of the United States census. The federal government stipulates that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.^[1][2][3][4]

Georgia was apportioned 14 seats in theU.S. House of Representatives after the 2020 census, the same number it received after the 2010 census. Click here for more information aboutredistricting in Georgia after the 2020 census.

On December 8, 2023, GovernorBrian Kemp (R) signed revised congressional maps into law. Legislators in theGeorgia House of Representatives voted 98-71 to adopt the new congressional map on December 7. TheGeorgia State Senate voted 32-22 to adopt the congressional map on December 5.^[5][6]

On October 26, 2023, theUnited States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ruled that the state's congressional and legislative district boundaries violated theVoting Rights Act and enjoined the state from using them for future elections.^[7] The court directed theGeorgia General Assembly to develop new maps by December 8, 2023.^[7]

On December 28, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District upheld the maps enacted on December 8, which were later used in the 2024 elections, and found them in compliance with the Voting Rights Act.^[8]

Thedistrict court's approval of remedial state legislative maps was appealed to theEleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral argument was held on January 23, 2025.^[11] Thedistrict court's approval of remedial state legislative maps was appealed to theEleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral argument was held on January 23, 2025.^[12]

Governor Kemp (R) signed revised legislative maps into law on December 8, 2023. Legislators in the Georgia House of Representatives voted 98-71 to adopt the new state legislative maps on December 5. The Georgia State Senate voted 32-23 to adopt the state legislative maps on December 1. For more information about the enacted legislative maps,click here.^[5][6]

On October 26, 2023, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ruled that the state's congressional and legislative district boundaries violated the Voting Rights Act and enjoined the state from using them for future elections.^[7] The court directed theGeorgia General Assembly to develop new maps by December 8, 2023.^[7]Click here for more information on maps enacted after the 2020 census.

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

1. Background: A summary of federal requirements for redistricting at both the congressional and state legislative levels.
2. State process: An overview about the redistricting process in Georgia
3. District maps: Information about the current district maps in Georgia
4. Redistricting by cycle: A breakdown of the most significant events in Georgia's redistricting after recent censuses
5. State legislation and ballot measures: State legislation and state and local ballot measures relevant to redistricting policy
6. Political impacts of redistricting: An analysis of the political issues associated with redistricting

Background

This section includes background information on federal requirements forcongressional redistricting,state legislative redistricting,state-based requirements,redistricting methods used in the 50 states,gerrymandering, andrecent court decisions.

Federal requirements for congressional redistricting

According to Article I, Section 4 of theUnited 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.^[13][14]

Article I, Section 2 of theUnited States Constitution stipulates that congressional representatives beapportioned to the states on the basis of population. There are 435 seats in theUnited 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, theUnited States Supreme Court ruled inWesberry v. Sanders that the populations of House districts must be equal "as nearly as practicable."^[15][16][17]

The equal population requirement for congressional districts is strict. According toAll 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."^[17]

Federal requirements for state legislative redistricting

TheUnited States Constitution is silent on the issue of state legislative redistricting. In the mid-1960s, theUnited States Supreme Court issued a series of rulings in an effort to clarify standards for state legislative redistricting. InReynolds v. Sims, the court ruled that "the Equal Protection Clause [of theUnited States Constitution] demands no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens, of all places as well as of all races." According toAll 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."^[17]

State-based requirements

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.^[17][18]
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.^[17][18]
3. Acommunity of interest is defined byFairVote 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.^[17][18]
4. A total of 42 states require that state legislative district lines be drawn to account forpolitical 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.^[17][18]

Methods

In general, a state's redistricting authority can be classified as one of the following:^[19]

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

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

See also:Gerrymandering

The termgerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to favor one political party, individual, or constituency over another. When used in a rhetorical manner by opponents of a particular district map, the term has a negative connotation but does not necessarily address the legality of a challenged map. The term can also be used in legal documents; in this context, the term describes redistricting practices that violate federal or state laws.^[1][20]

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

Recent court decisions

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 inapportionment, and the constitutionality ofredistricting 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

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (2024)

See also:Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP — This case concerns a challenge to the congressional redistricting plan that theSouth Carolina legislature enacted after the 2020 census. In January 2023, a federal three-judge panel ruled that the state's 1st Congressional District was unconstitutional and enjoined the state from conducting future elections using its district boundaries. The panel's opinion said, "The Court finds that race was the predominant factor motivating the General Assembly’s adoption of Congressional District No. 1...Defendants have made no showing that they had a compelling state interest in the use of race in the design of Congressional District No. 1 and thus cannot survive a strict scrutiny review."^[24]Thomas Alexander (R)—in his capacity asSouth Carolina State Senate president—appealed the federal court's ruling, arguing: :In striking down an isolated portion of South Carolina Congressional District 1 as a racial gerrymander, the panel never even mentioned the presumption of the General Assembly’s “good faith.”...The result is a thinly reasoned order that presumes bad faith, erroneously equates the purported racial effect of a single line in Charleston County with racial predominance across District 1, and is riddled with “legal mistake[s]” that improperly relieved Plaintiffs of their “demanding” burden to prove that race was the “predominant consideration” in District 1.^[25] TheU.S. Supreme Court scheduled oral argument on this case for October 11, 2023.^[26]

Moore v. Harper (2023)

See also:Moore v. Harper

At issue inMoore v. Harper, was whether state legislatures alone are empowered by the Constitution to regulate federal elections without oversight from state courts, which is known as theindependent state legislature doctrine. On November 4, 2021, theNorth Carolina General Assembly adopted a new congressional voting map based on 2020 Census data. The legislature, at that time, was controlled by theRepublican Party. In the caseHarper v. Hall (2022), a group of Democratic Party-affiliated voters and nonprofit organizations challenged the map in state court, alleging that the new map was a partisan gerrymander that violated the state constitution.^[27] On February 14, 2022, theNorth Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the state could not use the map in the 2022 elections andremanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The trial court adopted a new congressional map drawn by three court-appointed experts.TheUnited States Supreme Court affirmed theNorth Carolina Supreme Court's original decision inMoore v. Harper that the state's congressional district map violated state law. In a 6-3 decision, Chief JusticeJohn Roberts wrote that the "Elections Clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections.^[28]

Merrill v. Milligan (2023)

See also:Merrill v. Milligan

At issue inMerrill v. Milligan, was the constitutionality of Alabama's 2021 redistricting plan and whether it violated Section 2 of theVoting Rights Act. A group of Alabama voters and organizations sued Secretary of State John Merrill (R) and the House and Senate redistricting chairmen, Rep. Chris Pringle (R) and Sen. Jim McClendon (R). Plaintiffs alleged the congressional map enacted on Nov. 4, 2021, by Gov. Kay Ivey (R) unfairly distributed Black voters. The plaintiffs asked the lower court to invalidate the enacted congressional map and order a new map with instructions to include a second majority-Black district.The court ruled 5-4, affirming the lower court opinion that the plaintiffs showed a reasonable likelihood of success concerning their claim that Alabama's redistricting map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.^[29]

Gill v. Whitford (2018)

See also:Gill v. Whitford

InGill 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 JusticeJohn 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 JusticesAnthony Kennedy,Ruth Bader Ginsburg,Stephen Breyer,Samuel Alito,Sonia Sotomayor, andElena Kagan. Kagan penned a concurring opinion joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Associate JusticeClarence Thomas penned an opinion that concurred in part with the majority opinion and in the judgment, joined by Associate JusticeNeil Gorsuch.^[30]

Cooper v. Harris (2017)

See also:Cooper v. Harris

InCooper v. Harris, decided on May 22, 2017, theSupreme Court of the United States affirmed the judgment of theUnited 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 theVoting Rights Act. JusticeElena Kagan delivered the court's majority opinion, which was joined by JusticesClarence Thomas,Ruth Bader Ginsburg,Stephen Breyer, andSonia 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." JusticeSamuel Alito delivered an opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part with the majority opinion. This opinion was joined by Chief JusticeJohn Roberts and JusticeAnthony Kennedy.^[31][32][33]

Evenwel v. Abbott (2016)

See also:Evenwel v. Abbott

Evenwel v. Abbott was a case decided by theSupreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality ofstate legislative districts inTexas. 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 JusticeRuth Bader Ginsburg.^{[34][35][36][37]}

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2016)

JusticeStephen Breyer penned the majority opinion inHarris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.

See also:Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by theSupreme 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 ofRepublican 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 theVoting Rights Act and obtain approval from theUnited States Department of Justice. At the time of redistricting, certain states were required to obtainpreclearance 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 inShelby 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 JusticeStephen Breyer.^[38][39][40]

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015)

See also:Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by theSupreme Court of the United States in 2015. At issue was the constitutionality of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, which was established bystate constitutional amendment in 2000. According to Article I, 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 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 JusticeRuth Bader Ginsburg and joined by JusticesAnthony Kennedy,Stephen Breyer,Elena Kagan, andSonia Sotomayor. Chief Justice John Roberts and JusticesClarence Thomas,Antonin Scalia, andSamuel Alito dissented.^{[41][42][43][44]}

Race and ethnicity

See also:Majority-minority districts

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

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

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

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

State process

See also:State-by-state redistricting procedures

In Georgia, both congressional and state legislative district lines are drawn by the state legislature. A simple majority in each chamber is required to approve redistricting plans, which are subject to veto by thegovernor.^[46]

TheGeorgia Constitution requires that state legislative districts be contiguous. There are no similar requirements for congressional districts.^[46][47]

In 2011, the House redistricting committee released guidelines recommending the following for both congressional and state legislative districts:^[46]

1. prohibition of multi-member districts
2. consideration of county and precinct boundaries
3. compactness
4. consideration of communities of interest

The committee also suggested that "efforts should be made to avoid the unnecessary pairing of incumbents" within single districts. These are not legal requirements; as such, they may be altered at any time.^[46]

How incarcerated persons are counted for redistricting

See also:How incarcerated persons are counted for redistricting

States differ on how they count incarcerated persons for the purposes of redistricting. In Georgia, incarcerated persons are counted in the correctional facilities they are housed in.

District maps

Congressional districts

See also:United States congressional delegations from Georgia

Georgia comprises 14 congressional districts. The table below lists Georgia's current U.S. Representatives.

State legislative maps

See also:Georgia State Senate andGeorgia House of Representatives

Georgia comprises 56state Senate districts and 180state House districts. State senators and representatives are elected every two years in partisan elections. To access the state legislative district maps approved during the 2020 redistricting cycle, clickhere.

Redistricting by cycle

Redistricting after the 2020 census

See also:Redistricting in Georgia after the 2020 census

Georgia was apportioned 14 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.^[48]

Enacted congressional district maps

See also:Congressional district maps implemented after the 2020 census

Congressional map enacted in 2023

Litigation over congressional redistricting in Georgia after the 2020 censusis ongoing.

On December 8, 2023, GovernorBrian Kemp (R) signed revised congressional maps into law. Legislators in theGeorgia House of Representatives voted 98-71 to adopt the new congressional map on December 7. TheGeorgia State Senate voted 32-22 to adopt the congressional map on December 5.^[5][6]

On October 26, 2023, theUnited States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ruled that the state's congressional and legislative district boundaries violated theVoting Rights Act and enjoined the state from using them for future elections.^[7] The court directed theGeorgia General Assembly to develop new maps by December 8, 2023.^[7]

On December 28, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District upheld the maps enacted on December 8, which were later used in the 2024 elections, and found them in compliance with the Voting Rights Act.^[49]

Thedistrict court's approval of remedial state legislative maps was appealed to theEleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral argument was held on January 23, 2025.^[51]

Reactions to 2023 congressional map

Several plaintiffs from the cases objecting to the congressional maps asked the court to draw new voting districts in time for the 2024 congressional and legislative elections:^[52]

Below are the congressional maps in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle. The map on the right was in effect for Georgia’s 2024 congressional elections.

Congressional map enacted in 2021

Georgia's congressional district boundaries were originally adopted on December 30, 2021, when Gov. Brian Kemp (R) signed Georgia's earlier congressional map into law. TheGeorgia General Assembly previously approved the map with thestate Senate voting 32-21 in favor of the map on November 19, 2021, followed by thestate House voting 96-68 on November 22, 2021.^[53][54] This map took effect for Georgia's 2022 congressional elections.

Reactions to 2021 congressional map

House Minority LeaderJames Beverly (D) said, "The majority party had an opportunity — indeed, an obligation — to implement a fair and transparent participant process to work across party lines on maps that are equitable for all Georgians ... Instead, they chose the process of closed doors, locked gates, closed processes to deter participation in the democratic process."^[53]

House SpeakerDavid Ralston (R) said, "[W]e have released a proposed map that reflects Georgia’s growing, diverse population, respects jurisdictional lines and communities of interest, and conforms to applicable legal standards including the Voting Rights Act."^[55]

After Kemp signed the map into law, twolawsuits were filed against the congressional map alleging racial gerrymandering. Marina Jenkins, with the National Democratic Redistricting Committee's National Redistricting Foundation, said, "The congressional map signed into law by Gov. Brian Kemp is a shameless power grab that cheats Black voters out of proper representation."^[56]

2020 presidential results using the 2021 congressional map

The table below details the results of the 2020 presidential election in each district at the time of the 2022 election and its political predecessor district.^[57] This data was compiled byDaily Kos Elections.^[58]

2020 presidential results by Congressional district, Georgia
District	2022 district		Political predecessor district
	Joe Biden	Donald Trump	Joe Biden	Donald Trump
Georgia's 1st	42.6%	56.0%	43.1%	55.5%
Georgia's 2nd	54.7%	44.4%	55.7%	43.4%
Georgia's 3rd	34.4%	64.4%	36.8%	62.0%
Georgia's 4th	78.3%	20.6%	78.8%	20.2%
Georgia's 5th	82.6%	16.2%	86.2%	12.6%
Georgia's 6th	41.8%	56.7%	52.4%	46.1%
Georgia's 7th	62.3%	36.5%	54.8%	43.7%
Georgia's 8th	35.7%	63.3%	37.0%	62.0%
Georgia's 9th	30.4%	68.3%	22.4%	76.4%
Georgia's 10th	37.7%	61.1%	39.2%	59.6%
Georgia's 11th	41.5%	56.8%	41.5%	56.9%
Georgia's 12th	44.3%	54.5%	43.0%	55.8%
Georgia's 13th	79.7%	19.3%	75.6%	23.4%
Georgia's 14th	30.7%	68.1%	25.3%	73.4%

Enacted state legislative district maps

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

State legislative maps enacted in 2023

Litigation over state legislative redistricting in Georgia after the 2020 censusis ongoing.

Thedistrict court's approval of remedial state legislative maps was appealed to theEleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral argument was held on January 23, 2025.^[59]

Governor Kemp (R) signed revised legislative maps into law on December 8, 2023. Legislators in the Georgia House of Representatives voted 98-71 to adopt the new state legislative maps on December 5. The Georgia State Senate voted 32-23 to adopt the state legislative maps on December 1. For more information about the enacted legislative maps,click here.^[5][6]

On October 26, 2023, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ruled that the state's congressional and legislative district boundaries violated the Voting Rights Act and enjoined the state from using them for future elections.^[7] The court directed theGeorgia General Assembly to develop new maps by December 8, 2023.^[7]

On December 28, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District upheld the maps enacted on December 8 and found them in compliance with the Voting Rights Act.

Reactions to 2023 state legislative maps

On December 20, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District decided to uphold the maps enacted on November 30 and found them in compliance with the Voting Rights Act.

The plaintiffs from the October 26 case objected to the maps and asked the court to draw new voting districts in time for the 2024 congressional and legislative elections:^[52]

State Senate maps

Below is the state Senate map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle. The map on the right was in effect for Georgia’s 2024 state legislative elections.

State House maps

Below is the state House map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle. The map on the right was in effect for Georgia’s 2024 state legislative elections.

State legislative maps enacted in 2021

On December 30, 2021, Governor Kemp (R) signed Georgia's Senate and House district maps into law. The state Senate approved its map on November 9, 2021, with a 34-21 vote followed by the state House voting 96-70 in favor on November 15, 2021.^[61] The state House approved its map on Nov. 10 with a 99-79 vote followed by the state Senate voting 32-21 in favor on Nov. 12. These maps took effect for Georgia's 2022 state legislative elections.

Drafting process

In Georgia, both congressional and state legislative district lines are drawn by the state legislature. A simple majority in each chamber is required to approve redistricting plans, which are subject to veto by thegovernor.^[46]

TheGeorgia Constitution requires that state legislative districts be contiguous. There are no similar requirements for congressional districts.^[46][62]

On August 30, 2021, the House reapportionment committee approved guidelines for congressional and legislative redistricting.^[63] The guidelines were similar to those recommended in 2011, and included:^[46]

1. prohibition of multi-member districts
2. consideration of county and precinct boundaries
3. compactness
4. consideration of communities of interest

The guidelines restricted public access to redistricting plans so that until they were submitted to the reapportionment committee, the plans would not be subject to public disclosure.^[64] The committee also suggested that "efforts should be made to avoid the unnecessary pairing of incumbents." These are not legal requirements; as such, they may be altered at any time.^[46]

To read all of the guidelines approved by the committee clickhere.

Timeline of 2021 map adoption

Georgia did not set a specific redistricting deadline for the 2020 redistricting cycle. The candidate filing deadline for the 2022 election cycle in Georgia was March 3, 2022, an inferred deadline.

On Sept. 23, 2021, Gov.Brian Kemp (R) called for a special session to begin on Nov. 3, 2021, for the purpose of considering and finalizing congressional and state legislative district maps.^[65]

Redistricting committees and/or commissions in 2021

Senate

The following individuals were assigned to the Senate Reapportionment and Redistricting Committee in the 2020 cycle.^[66]

Georgia Senate Reapportionment and Redistricting Committee membership, 2020 cycle
Name	Position	Partisan affiliation
John F Kennedy	Chairman	Republican
Bill Cowsert	Vice Chairman	Republican
Jeff Mullis	Ex-Officio	Republican
Tonya Anderson	Member	Democratic
Dean Burke	Member	Republican
Gloria Butler	Member	Democratic
Greg Dolezal	Member	Republican
Mike Dugan	Member	Republican
Steve Gooch	Member	Republican
Marty Harbin	Member	Republican
Ed Harbison	Member	Democratic
Harold V. Jones II	Member	Democratic
Butch Miller	Member	Republican
Michael 'Doc' Rhett	Member	Democratic
Blake Tillery	Member	Republican

House of Representatives

The following individuals were assigned to the House Reapportionment and Redistricting Committee in the 2020 cycle.^[67]

Georgia House Committee on Legislative and Congressional Reapportionment membership, 2020 cycle
Name	Position	Partisan affiliation
Bonnie Rich	Chair	Republican
Darlene Taylor	Vice chair	Republican
Susan Holmes	Secretary	Republican
Richard H. Smith	Member	Republican
Lynn Smith	Member	Republican
Carl Gilliard	Member	Democratic
Ed Setzler	Member	Republican
Randy Nix	Member	Republican
Jan Jones	Member	Republican
Mack Jackson	Member	Democratic
Barry Fleming	Member	Republican
Chuck Efstration	Member	Republican
Matt Dollar	Member	Republican
Kimberly Alexander	Member	Democratic
Buddy DeLoach	Member	Republican
Mandi Ballinger	Member	Republican
Sandra Scott	Member	Democratic
Edward Stephens	Member	Democratic

Drafts and proposals

Congressional district maps

2023 Approved congressional map
On Dec. 7, 2023, theGeorgia House of Representatives voted 98-71 in favor of Senate Bill 3EX (SB 3EX). TheGeorgia State Senate approved SB 3EX with a 32-22 vote on Dec. 5. Gov.Brian Kemp (R) signed revised congressional and legislative maps into law on Dec. 8.^[68][5][6] An image of the approved congressional district map is shown below. More detailed images can be foundhere.

Georgia congressional districts - adopted Dec. 8, 2023

2023 Congressional map proposals

Click "Show more" to view previously proposed congressional and legislative maps.

2021 Approved congressional map
On Nov. 22, 2021, the Georgia House of Representatives voted 96-68 in favor of Senate Bill 2EX (SB 2EX), sending the bill redrawing the state's 14 congressional districts to Gov. Brian Kemp (R) for final approval. The Georgia State Senate previously approved SB 2EX on Nov. 19 with a 32-21 vote. An image of the proposed congressional district map is shown below. More detailed images can be foundhere.

Georgia congressional districts - adopted Nov. 30, 2021

2021 Congressional map proposals

Click "Show more" to view previously proposed congressional and legislative maps.

Legislative district maps

Click on the headers below to view information, images, and reactions to draft state legislative district maps released in Georgia.

State Senate

2023 Approved State Senate map
On Dec. 5, 2023, theGeorgia House of Representatives voted 98-71 in favor of Senate Bill 1EX (SB 1EX). TheGeorgia State Senate approved SB 1EX with a 32-23 vote on Dec. 1. Gov.Brian Kemp (R) signed revised congressional and legislative maps into law on Dec. 8.^[72][5][6] An image of the approved congressional district map is shown below. More detailed images can be foundhere.

Georgia Senate districts – approved Dec. 8, 2023

2023 State Senate map proposals

Click "Show more" to view previously proposed Senate district maps.

2021 Approved State Senate map
On Nov. 15, 2021, theGeorgia House of Representatives voted 96-70 in favor of Senate Bill 1EX (SB 1EX), sending the bill redrawing the state's 56 Senate districts to Gov.Brian Kemp (R) for final approval. TheGeorgia State Senate had previously approved SB 1EX on Nov. 9 with a 34-21 vote.^[73] An image of the approved Senate district map is shown below. More detailed images can be foundhere and an interactive version is availablehere.

Georgia Senate districts – approved Nov. 30, 2021

2021 State Senate map proposals

Click "Show more" to view previously proposed state Senate district maps.

State House

2023 Approved State House map
On Dec. 5, 2023, theGeorgia State Senate voted 32-21 in favor of House Bill 1EX (HB 1EX). TheGeorgia House of Representatives approved HB 1EX with a 101-76 vote on Dec. 1. Gov.Brian Kemp (R) signed revised congressional and legislative maps into law on Dec. 8.^[80][5][6] An image of the approved congressional district map is shown below. More detailed images can be foundhere.

Georgia House districts – approved Dec. 8, 2023

2023 State House proposals
Click "Show more" to view previously proposed House district maps.

2021 Approved State House map
On Nov. 12, 2021, theGeorgia State Senate voted 32-21 in favor of House Bill 1EX (HB 1EX), sending the bill redrawing the state's 180 House districts to Gov.Brian Kemp (R) for final approval. TheGeorgia House of Representatives had previously approved HB 1EX on Nov. 10 with a 99-79 vote.^[81] An image of the approved House district map is shown below. More detailed images can be foundhere and an interactive version is availablehere.

Georgia House districts – approved Nov. 30, 2021

2021 State House proposals
Click "Show more" to view previously proposed State House district maps.

Apportionment and release of census data

Apportionment is the process by which representation in a legislative body is distributed among its constituents. The number of seats in theUnited 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.^[87]

Apportionment following the 2020 census

The U.S. Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts on April 26, 2021. Georgia was apportioned 14 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.^[88]

See the table below for additional details.

Redistricting data from the Census Bureau

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 GeneralDave 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.^{[89][90][91][92]} The Census Bureau released the2020 redistricting data in a legacy format on August 12, 2021, and in an easier-to-use format atdata.census.gov on September 16, 2021.^[93][94]

Court challenges

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

Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Inc., Grant, and Pendergrass v. Raffensperger

In January 2025, the11th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in an appeal of a district court's December 28, 2023, approval of remedial congressional and legislative maps.^[95]

On October 26, 2023, theUnited States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ruled that the state's congressional and legislative district boundaries violated theVoting Rights Act and enjoined the state from using them for future elections.^[7] The court directed theGeorgia General Assembly to develop new maps by December 8, 2023.^[7]

The court combined three cases that lower courts heard separately:Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Inc. v. Raffensperger,Grant v. Raffensperger, andPendergrass v. Raffensperger.^[96]

Federal District Court JudgeSteve C. Jones wrote in his order, "After conducting a thorough and sifting review of the evidence in this case, the Court finds that the State of Georgia violated the Voting Rights Act when it enacted its congressional and legislative maps. The Court commends Georgia for the great strides that it has made to increase the political opportunities of Black voters in the 58 years since the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Despite these great gains, the Court determines that in certain areas of the State, the political process is not equally open to Black voters. . For example, in the past decade, all of Georgia’s population growth was attributable to the minority population, however, the number of majority-Black congressional and legislative districts remained the same. In light of this fact and in conjunction with all of the evidence and testimony in this case, the Court determines that Georgia’s congressional and legislative maps violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and enjoins their use in any future elections."^[96]

Georgia State Conference of the NAACP v. Raffensperger

On February 3, 2022, theUnited States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia consolidated all the cases challenging the state's congressional district boundaries.^[97] The federal district court held hearings regarding challenges to the state's congressional and legislative district boundaries beginning on September 5, 2023.^[98]The consolidated case included the following filed lawsuits:

• Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Inc. v. Raffensperger
• Common Cause v. Raffensperger
• Georgia State Conference of the NAACP v. Raffensperger
• Grant v. Raffensperger
• Pendergrass v. Raffensperger

Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Inc. v. Raffensperger

On Dec. 30, 2021, the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc., Sixth District of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, and a group of voters filed a lawsuit with theUnited States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Secretary of StateBrad Raffensperger (R) challenging the enacted state Senate and House maps.^[99] The plaintiffs alleged that the legislative maps diluted the voting power of Black Georgians in violation of Section 2 of theVoting Rights Act.^[100] As relief, plaintiffs asked the court to reject the enacted maps and order the creation of new maps.^[100]

In their complaint, plaintiffs wrote:

• Read the plaintiffs' complainthere

On Jan. 3, 2022, Raffensperger responded to lawsuits filed against the enacted maps, saying:

This case was combined with two other cases,Grant v. Raffensperger andPendergrass v. Raffensperger, and decided by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on October 26, 2023.^[96]

Common Cause v. Raffensperger

On Jan. 7, 2022,Common Cause, theLeague of Women Voters of Georgia, and several registered voters filed a lawsuit with theUnited States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Secretary of StateBrad Raffensperger (R) and the chairs of the Senate and House redistricting committees—Sen.John F. Kennedy (R) and Rep.Bonnie Rich (R)—challenging the state's enacted congressional map.^[102] The plaintiffs alleged that the map constituted a racial gerrymander in violation of theVoting Rights Act.^[102] As relief, plaintiffs asked the court to block three challenged districts—the6th,13th, and14th—and order a new map.^[102]

• Read the plaintiffs' complainthere.

Georgia State Conference of the NAACP v. Raffensperger

On Dec. 30, 2021, the Georgia State Conference of theNAACP, the Georgia Coalition for the People's Agenda, Inc., and Galeo Latino Community Development Fund, Inc., filed a lawsuit with theUnited States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against GovernorBrian Kemp (R) and Secretary of StateBrad Raffensperger (R) challenging the state's enacted legislative and congressional maps.^[103] The plaintiffs alleged that the map constituted a racial gerrymander in violation of theFourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Section 2 of theVoting Rights Act.^[103] As relief, plaintiffs asked the court to reject a series of identified districts and order the development of new maps.^[103]

In their complaint, plaintiffs wrote:

• Read the plaintiffs' complainthere.

On Jan. 3, 2022, Raffensperger responded to lawsuits filed against the enacted maps, saying:

Grant v. Raffensperger

On. Jan. 11, 2022, a group of voters led by Annie Lois Grant filed a lawsuit with theUnited States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Secretary of StateBrad Raffensperger (R) and four members of the Georgia State Election Board challenging the state's enacted legislative maps.^[104] The plaintiffs alleged that the legislative maps diluted the voting power of Black Georgians in violation of Section 2 of theVoting Rights Act. The complaint also alleged that legislators could have created eight additional minority-opportunity districts.^[104] As relief, plaintiffs asked the court to block the maps and order them redrawn.^[104]

• Read the plaintiffs' complainthere.

This case was combined with two other cases,Grant v. Raffensperger andPendergrass v. Raffensperger, and decided by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on October 26, 2023.^[96] The case is on appeal at theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Oral argument was held on January 23, 2025.^[105]

Pendergrass v. Raffensperger

On Dec. 30, 2021, a group of voters led by Rev. Coakley Pendergrass filed a lawsuit with theUnited States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Secretary of StateBrad Raffensperger (R) and four members of the Georgia State Election Board challenging the state's enacted congressional map.^[106] The plaintiffs alleged that the legislative maps diluted the voting power of Black Georgians in violation of Section 2 of theVoting Rights Act.^[106] As relief, plaintiffs asked the court to reject the enacted map and order the creation of a new map with an additional majority-Black district.^[106]

In their complaint, plaintiffs wrote:

• Read the plaintiffs' complainthere.

On Jan. 3, 2022, Raffensperger responded to lawsuits filed against the enacted maps, saying:

This case was combined with two other cases,Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Inc. v. Raffensperger andGrant v. Raffensperger, and decided by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on October 26, 2023.^[96]

Background

This section includes background information on federal requirements forcongressional redistricting,state legislative redistricting,state-based requirements,redistricting methods used in the 50 states,gerrymandering, andrecent court decisions.

Federal requirements for congressional redistricting

According to Article I, Section 4 of theUnited 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.^[107][108]

Article I, Section 2 of theUnited States Constitution stipulates that congressional representatives beapportioned to the states on the basis of population. There are 435 seats in theUnited 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, theUnited States Supreme Court ruled inWesberry v. Sanders that the populations of House districts must be equal "as nearly as practicable."^{[15][109][17]}

The equal population requirement for congressional districts is strict. According toAll 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."^[17]

Federal requirements for state legislative redistricting

TheUnited States Constitution is silent on the issue of state legislative redistricting. In the mid-1960s, theUnited States Supreme Court issued a series of rulings in an effort to clarify standards for state legislative redistricting. InReynolds v. Sims, the court ruled that "the Equal Protection Clause [of theUnited States Constitution] demands no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens, of all places as well as of all races." According toAll 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."^[17]

State-based requirements

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.^[17][18]
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.^[17][18]
3. Acommunity of interest is defined byFairVote 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.^[17][18]
4. A total of 42 states require that state legislative district lines be drawn to account forpolitical 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.^[17][18]

Methods

In general, a state's redistricting authority can be classified as one of the following:^[110]

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

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

See also:Gerrymandering

The termgerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to favor one political party, individual, or constituency over another. When used in a rhetorical manner by opponents of a particular district map, the term has a negative connotation but does not necessarily address the legality of a challenged map. The term can also be used in legal documents; in this context, the term describes redistricting practices that violate federal or state laws.^[1][20]

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

Recent court decisions

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 inapportionment, and the constitutionality ofredistricting 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

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (2024)

See also:Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP — This case concerns a challenge to the congressional redistricting plan that theSouth Carolina legislature enacted after the 2020 census. In January 2023, a federal three-judge panel ruled that the state's 1st Congressional District was unconstitutional and enjoined the state from conducting future elections using its district boundaries. The panel's opinion said, "The Court finds that race was the predominant factor motivating the General Assembly’s adoption of Congressional District No. 1...Defendants have made no showing that they had a compelling state interest in the use of race in the design of Congressional District No. 1 and thus cannot survive a strict scrutiny review."^[24]Thomas Alexander (R)—in his capacity asSouth Carolina State Senate president—appealed the federal court's ruling, arguing: :In striking down an isolated portion of South Carolina Congressional District 1 as a racial gerrymander, the panel never even mentioned the presumption of the General Assembly’s “good faith.”...The result is a thinly reasoned order that presumes bad faith, erroneously equates the purported racial effect of a single line in Charleston County with racial predominance across District 1, and is riddled with “legal mistake[s]” that improperly relieved Plaintiffs of their “demanding” burden to prove that race was the “predominant consideration” in District 1.^[113] TheU.S. Supreme Court scheduled oral argument on this case for October 11, 2023.^[114]

Moore v. Harper (2023)

See also:Moore v. Harper

At issue inMoore v. Harper, was whether state legislatures alone are empowered by the Constitution to regulate federal elections without oversight from state courts, which is known as theindependent state legislature doctrine. On November 4, 2021, theNorth Carolina General Assembly adopted a new congressional voting map based on 2020 Census data. The legislature, at that time, was controlled by theRepublican Party. In the caseHarper v. Hall (2022), a group of Democratic Party-affiliated voters and nonprofit organizations challenged the map in state court, alleging that the new map was a partisan gerrymander that violated the state constitution.^[27] On February 14, 2022, theNorth Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the state could not use the map in the 2022 elections andremanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The trial court adopted a new congressional map drawn by three court-appointed experts.TheUnited States Supreme Court affirmed theNorth Carolina Supreme Court's original decision inMoore v. Harper that the state's congressional district map violated state law. In a 6-3 decision, Chief JusticeJohn Roberts wrote that the "Elections Clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections.^[115]

Merrill v. Milligan (2023)

See also:Merrill v. Milligan

At issue inMerrill v. Milligan, was the constitutionality of Alabama's 2021 redistricting plan and whether it violated Section 2 of theVoting Rights Act. A group of Alabama voters and organizations sued Secretary of State John Merrill (R) and the House and Senate redistricting chairmen, Rep. Chris Pringle (R) and Sen. Jim McClendon (R). Plaintiffs alleged the congressional map enacted on Nov. 4, 2021, by Gov. Kay Ivey (R) unfairly distributed Black voters. The plaintiffs asked the lower court to invalidate the enacted congressional map and order a new map with instructions to include a second majority-Black district.The court ruled 5-4, affirming the lower court opinion that the plaintiffs showed a reasonable likelihood of success concerning their claim that Alabama's redistricting map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.^[116]

Gill v. Whitford (2018)

See also:Gill v. Whitford

InGill 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 JusticeJohn 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 JusticesAnthony Kennedy,Ruth Bader Ginsburg,Stephen Breyer,Samuel Alito,Sonia Sotomayor, andElena Kagan. Kagan penned a concurring opinion joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Associate JusticeClarence Thomas penned an opinion that concurred in part with the majority opinion and in the judgment, joined by Associate JusticeNeil Gorsuch.^[30]

Cooper v. Harris (2017)

See also:Cooper v. Harris

InCooper v. Harris, decided on May 22, 2017, theSupreme Court of the United States affirmed the judgment of theUnited 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 theVoting Rights Act. JusticeElena Kagan delivered the court's majority opinion, which was joined by JusticesClarence Thomas,Ruth Bader Ginsburg,Stephen Breyer, andSonia 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." JusticeSamuel Alito delivered an opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part with the majority opinion. This opinion was joined by Chief JusticeJohn Roberts and JusticeAnthony Kennedy.^{[117][118][33]}

Evenwel v. Abbott (2016)

See also:Evenwel v. Abbott

Evenwel v. Abbott was a case decided by theSupreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality ofstate legislative districts inTexas. 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 JusticeRuth Bader Ginsburg.^{[34][35][36][37]}

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2016)

JusticeStephen Breyer penned the majority opinion inHarris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.

See also:Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by theSupreme 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 ofRepublican 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 theVoting Rights Act and obtain approval from theUnited States Department of Justice. At the time of redistricting, certain states were required to obtainpreclearance 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 inShelby 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 JusticeStephen Breyer.^[38][39][40]

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015)

See also:Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by theSupreme Court of the United States in 2015. At issue was the constitutionality of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, which was established bystate constitutional amendment in 2000. According to Article I, 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 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 JusticeRuth Bader Ginsburg and joined by JusticesAnthony Kennedy,Stephen Breyer,Elena Kagan, andSonia Sotomayor. Chief Justice John Roberts and JusticesClarence Thomas,Antonin Scalia, andSamuel Alito dissented.^{[41][42][43][44]}

Trifectas and redistricting

In 34 of the states that conducted legislative elections in 2020, the legislatures themselves played a significant part in the subsequent redistricting process. The winner of eight of 2020's gubernatorial elections had veto authority over state legislative or congressional district plans approved by legislatures. The party that wontrifecta control of a state in which redistricting authority rests with the legislature directed 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

Redistricting in Georgia after the 2010 census

Congressional redistricting, 2010

Following the 2010 United States Census, Georgia gained one congressional seat. At the time of redistricting, Republicans controlled both chambers of thestate legislature. On August 13, 2011, the legislature approved a new congressional map. It was signed into law on September 6, 2011.^[46][119]

State legislative redistricting, 2010

On August 23, 2010, the state legislature approved new state legislative district lines. The maps were signed into law on August 24, 2011. On February 23, 2012, the legislature approved amended House district lines, which were in turn signed by the governor. On March 21, 2012, the legislature passed revised Senate district lines, which the governor signed into law on April 13, 2012.^[46]

The revised Senate maps did not take effect until 2014.^[46]

See also

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

External links

• 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

	v • e State ofGeorgia Atlanta (capital)
Elections	What's on my ballot? |Elections in 2026 |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

Redistricting after the 2010 census

See also:Redistricting in Georgia after the 2010 census

Congressional redistricting, 2010

Following the 2010 United States Census, Georgia gained one congressional seat. At the time of redistricting, Republicans controlled both chambers of thestate legislature. On August 13, 2011, the legislature approved a new congressional map. It was signed into law on September 6, 2011.^[1][2]

State legislative redistricting, 2010

On August 23, 2010, the state legislature approved new state legislative district lines. The maps were signed into law on August 24, 2011. On February 23, 2012, the legislature approved amended House district lines, which were in turn signed by the governor. On March 21, 2012, the legislature passed revised Senate district lines, which the governor signed into law on April 13, 2012.^[1]

The revised Senate maps did not take effect until 2014.^[1]

Lawsuits backed by National Redistricting Commission

On June 13, 2018, attorneys for Democratic voters in three states (Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana) filed three separate lawsuits in federal court, alleging in each that existing congressional district maps prevented black voters from electing candidates of their choosing, in violation of theVoting Rights Act. The suits were backed by the National Redistricting Commission, a nonprofit affiliate of theNational Democratic Redistricting Committee, chaired byEric Holder, former U.S. Attorney General. In a statement, Holder said, "The creation of additional districts in which African Americans have the opportunity to elect their preferred candidates in each of these states will be an important step toward making the voting power of African Americans more equal and moving us closer to the ideals of representative democracy." Matt Walter, president of theRepublican State Leadership Committee, denounced the suits: "The cynical lawsuits filed today by Holder and the Democrats are crass attempts to rally the left-wing base and to elect more Democrats through litigation, instead of running winning campaigns on policies and ideas that voters actually want."^[3]

The trial involving Alabama's congressional district plan began on November 4, 2019, with JudgeKaron Bowdre, of theUnited States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, presiding.^[4]

Political impacts of redistricting

Competitiveness

There are conflicting opinions regarding the correlation between partisan gerrymandering and electoral competitiveness. In 2012, Jennifer Clark, a political science professor at the University of Houston, said, "The redistricting process has important consequences for voters. In some states, incumbent legislators work together to protect their own seats, which produces less competition in the political system. Voters may feel as though they do not have a meaningful alternative to the incumbent legislator. Legislators who lack competition in their districts have less incentive to adhere to their constituents’ opinions."^[5]

In 2006, Emory University professor Alan Abramowitz and Ph.D. students Brad Alexander and Matthew Gunning wrote, "[Some] studies have concluded that redistricting has a neutral or positive effect on competition. ... [It] is often the case that partisan redistricting has the effect of reducing the safety of incumbents, thereby making elections more competitive."^[6]

In 2011, James Cottrill, a professor of political science at Santa Clara University, published a study of the effect of non-legislative approaches (e.g., independent commissions, politician commissions) to redistricting on the competitiveness of congressional elections. Cottrill found that "particular types of [non-legislative approaches] encourage the appearance in congressional elections of experienced and well-financed challengers." Cottrill cautioned, however, that non-legislative approaches "contribute neither to decreased vote percentages when incumbents win elections nor to a greater probability of their defeat."^[7]

In 2021, John Johnson, Research Fellow in the Lubar Center for Public Policy Research and Civic Education at Marquette University, reviewed the relationship between partisan gerrymandering and political geography in Wisconsin, a state where Republicans have controlled both chambers of the state legislature since 2010 while voting for the Democratic nominee in every presidential election but one since 1988. After analyzing state election results since 2000, Johnson wrote, "In 2000, 42% of Democrats and 36% of Republicans lived in a neighborhood that the other party won. Twenty years later, 43% of Democrats lived in a place Trump won, but just 28% of Republicans lived in a Biden-voting neighborhood. Today, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to live in both places where they are the overwhelming majority and places where they form a noncompetitive minority."^[8]

State legislatures after the 2010 redistricting cycle

See also:Margin of victory in state legislative elections

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

There were four competitive elections for theGeorgia House of Representatives in 2012, compared to one in 2010. There were four mildly competitive state House races in 2012, compared to five in 2010. This amounted to a net gain of two competitive elections.

There were no competitive elections for theGeorgia State Senate in 2012, the same as in 2010. There was one mildly competitive state Senate race in 2012, compared to zero in 2010. This amounted to a net gain of one competitive election.

State legislation and ballot measures

Redistricting legislation

Seestate election laws

The table below includes bills related to redistricting introduced during (or carried over to) the current session of theGeorgia state legislature. 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 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.

Redistricting ballot measures

See also:Redistricting policy ballot measures andList of Georgia ballot measures

Recent news

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

See also

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

External links

• All About Redistricting
• Dave's Redistricting
• FiveThirtyEight, "What Redistricting Looks Like In Every State"
• National Conference of State Legislatures, "Redistricting Process"
• FairVote, "Redistricting"

Footnotes

v • e Election policy Election legislation Ballotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker •Ballotpedia's The Ballot Bulletin •Election legislation tracking: list of sub-topics •Absentee/mail-in voting •Early voting •Election dates and deadlines •Election Day voting •Ranked-choice voting •Redistricting •Voter registration Election administration Alabama •Alaska •Arizona •Arkansas •California •Colorado •Connecticut •Delaware •Florida •Georgia •Hawaii •Idaho •Illinois •Indiana •Iowa •Kansas •Kentucky •Louisiana •Maine •Maryland •Massachusetts •Michigan •Minnesota •Mississippi •Missouri •Montana •Nebraska •Nevada •New Hampshire •New Jersey •New Mexico •New York •North Carolina •North Dakota •Ohio •Oklahoma •Oregon •Pennsylvania •Rhode Island •South Carolina •South Dakota •Tennessee •Texas •Utah •Vermont •Virginia •Washington •Washington, D.C. •West Virginia •Wisconsin •Wyoming Voting policy Alabama •Alaska •Arizona •Arkansas •California •Colorado •Connecticut •Delaware •Florida •Georgia •Hawaii •Idaho •Illinois •Indiana •Iowa •Kansas •Kentucky •Louisiana •Maine •Maryland •Massachusetts •Michigan •Minnesota •Mississippi •Missouri •Montana •Nebraska •Nevada •New Hampshire •New Jersey •New Mexico •New York •North Carolina •North Dakota •Ohio •Oklahoma •Oregon •Pennsylvania •Rhode Island •South Carolina •South Dakota •Tennessee •Texas •Utah •Vermont •Virginia •Washington •West Virginia •Wisconsin •Wyoming Electoral systems policy Alabama •Alaska •Arizona •Arkansas •California •Colorado •Connecticut •Delaware •Florida •Georgia •Hawaii •Idaho •Illinois •Indiana •Iowa •Kansas •Kentucky •Louisiana •Maine •Maryland •Massachusetts •Michigan •Minnesota •Mississippi •Missouri •Montana •Nebraska •Nevada •New Hampshire •New Jersey •New Mexico •New York •North Carolina •North Dakota •Ohio •Oklahoma •Oregon •Pennsylvania •Rhode Island •South Carolina •South Dakota •Tennessee •Texas •Utah •Vermont •Virginia •Washington •West Virginia •Wisconsin •Wyoming Primary elections policy Alabama •Alaska •Arizona •Arkansas •California •Colorado •Connecticut •Delaware •Florida •Georgia •Hawaii •Idaho •Illinois •Indiana •Iowa •Kansas •Kentucky •Louisiana •Maine •Maryland •Massachusetts •Michigan •Minnesota •Mississippi •Missouri •Montana •Nebraska •Nevada •New Hampshire •New Jersey •New Mexico •New York •North Carolina •North Dakota •Ohio •Oklahoma •Oregon •Pennsylvania •Rhode Island •South Carolina •South Dakota •Tennessee •Texas •Utah •Vermont •Virginia •Washington •West Virginia •Wisconsin •Wyoming Redistricting policy Alabama •Alaska •Arizona •Arkansas •California •Colorado •Connecticut •Delaware •Florida •Georgia •Hawaii •Idaho •Illinois •Indiana •Iowa •Kansas •Kentucky •Louisiana •Maine •Maryland •Massachusetts •Michigan •Minnesota •Mississippi •Missouri •Montana •Nebraska •Nevada •New Hampshire •New Jersey •New Mexico •New York •North Carolina •North Dakota •Ohio •Oklahoma •Oregon •Pennsylvania •Rhode Island •South Carolina •South Dakota •Tennessee •Texas •Utah •Vermont •Virginia •Washington •West Virginia •Wisconsin •Wyoming Recount laws Alabama •Alaska •Arizona •Arkansas •California •Colorado •Connecticut •Delaware •Florida •Georgia •Hawaii •Idaho •Illinois •Indiana •Iowa •Kansas •Kentucky •Louisiana •Maine •Maryland •Massachusetts •Michigan •Minnesota •Mississippi •Missouri •Montana •Nebraska •Nevada •New Hampshire •New Jersey •New Mexico •New York •North Carolina •North Dakota •Ohio •Oklahoma •Oregon •Pennsylvania •Rhode Island •South Carolina •South Dakota •Tennessee •Texas •Utah •Vermont •Virginia •Washington •West Virginia •Wisconsin •Wyoming Ballot access for political candidates Alabama •Alaska •Arizona •Arkansas •California •Colorado •Connecticut •Delaware •Florida •Georgia •Hawaii •Idaho •Illinois •Indiana •Iowa •Kansas •Kentucky •Louisiana •Maine •Maryland •Massachusetts •Michigan •Minnesota •Mississippi •Missouri •Montana •Nebraska •Nevada •New Hampshire •New Jersey •New Mexico •New York •North Carolina •North Dakota •Ohio •Oklahoma •Oregon •Pennsylvania •Rhode Island •South Carolina •South Dakota •Tennessee •Texas •Utah •Vermont •Virginia •Washington •West Virginia •Wisconsin •Wyoming Ballot access for presidential candidates Alabama •Alaska •Arizona •Arkansas •California •Colorado •Connecticut •Delaware •Florida •Georgia •Hawaii •Idaho •Illinois •Indiana •Iowa •Kansas •Kentucky •Louisiana •Maine •Maryland •Massachusetts •Michigan •Minnesota •Mississippi •Missouri •Montana •Nebraska •Nevada •New Hampshire •New Jersey •New Mexico •New York •North Carolina •North Dakota •Ohio •Oklahoma •Oregon •Pennsylvania •Rhode Island •South Carolina •South Dakota •Tennessee •Texas •Utah •Vermont •Virginia •Washington •West Virginia •Wisconsin •Wyoming Ballot access for political parties Alabama •Alaska •Arizona •Arkansas •California •Colorado •Connecticut •Delaware •Florida •Georgia •Hawaii •Idaho •Illinois •Indiana •Iowa •Kansas •Kentucky •Louisiana •Maine •Maryland •Massachusetts •Michigan •Minnesota •Mississippi •Missouri •Montana •Nebraska •Nevada •New Hampshire •New Jersey •New Mexico •New York •North Carolina •North Dakota •Ohio •Oklahoma •Oregon •Pennsylvania •Rhode Island •South Carolina •South Dakota •Tennessee •Texas •Utah •Vermont •Virginia •Washington •West Virginia •Wisconsin •Wyoming Electoral systems Single-winner system •Multi-winner system •Block voting system •Plurality voting system •Majority voting system •Top-two primary •Blanket primary •Open primary •Closed primary •Semi-closed primary •Top-four primary •Ranked-choice voting (RCV) •STAR voting •Approval voting •Fusion voting

	v • e State ofGeorgia Atlanta (capital)
Elections	What's on my ballot? |Elections in 2026 |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