Redistricting in Kansas after the 2020 census

Redistricting after the 2020 census Select your state:AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgienHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingSenden
The 2020 cycle
Congressional apportionment
Redistricting before 2024 elections
Redistricting committees
Deadlines
Lawsuits
Timeline of redistricting maps
2022 House elections with multiple incumbents
New U.S.House districts created after apportionment
Congressional maps
State legislative maps
General information
State-by-state redistricting procedures
United States census, 2020
Majority-minority districts
Gerrymandering
Ballotpedia's election legislation tracker

Redistricting is the process of enacting new district boundaries for elected offices, particularly for offices in the U.S. House of Representatives and state legislatures. This article chronicles the 2020 redistricting cycle in Kansas.

On May 18, 2022, the Kansas Supreme Court overturned a district court's ruling that found that the state's enacted congressional district boundaries were unconstitutional. In a two-page order, Justice Caleb Stegall wrote for the court, "A majority of the court holds that, on the record before us, plaintiffs have not prevailed on their claims that Substitute for Senate Bill 355 violates the Kansas Constitution." On April 25, 2022, Wyandotte County District Court Judge Bill Klapper had struck down Kansas' enacted congressional map. The judge's ruling stated, "The Court has no difficulty finding, as a factual matter, that Ad Astra 2 is an intentional, effective pro-Republican gerrymander that systemically dilutes the votes of Democratic Kansans."

Kansas enacted legislative district boundaries on May 18, 2022, when the Kansas Supreme Court unanimously upheld the validity of the legislative districts that Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly (D) signed into law on April 15, 2022. Both chambers of the legislature passed the redistricting legislation on March 30, 2022, after a joint House-Senate conference committee had developed it. The Kansas House of Representatives approved the legislative boundaries, 83-40, and the State Senate approved them, 29-11.After Kelly signed the maps, Andrew Bahl and Rafael Garcia of the Topeka Capital-Journal wrote, "The state Senate and House maps were mildly contested in the Legislature, particularly in the Senate where the map will create a fourth, Democrat-leaning district in Topeka and Lawrence."

Click here for more information.

Kansas' four United States representatives and 165 state legislators are all elected from political divisions called districts. District lines are redrawn every 10 years following completion of the United States census. Federal law stipulates that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.

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

1. Summary: This section provides summary information about the drafting and enacting processes.
2. Apportionment and release of census data: This section details the 2020 apportionment process, including data from the United States Census Bureau.
3. Drafting process: This section details the drafting process for new congressional and state legislative district maps.
4. Enactment: This section provides information about the enacted congressional and state legislative district maps.
5. Court challenges: This section details court challenges to the enacted congressional and state legislative district maps.
6. Background: This section summarizes federal and state-based requirements for redistricting at both the congressional and state legislative levels. A summary of the 2010 redistricting cycle in Kansas is also provided.

Summary

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

• May 18, 2022: The Kansas Supreme Court overturned a district court ruling that found that the state's enacted congressional district boundaries were unconstitutional.
• April 25, 2022: Wyandotte County District Court Judge Bill Klapper struck down Kansas' enacted congressional map as violating the state constitution due to racial and political gerrymandering.
• April 15, 2022: Gov. Laura Kelly (D) signs the state's new legislative district boundaries.
• March 30, 2022: The Kansas State Senate votes in favor of legislative boundaries developed by a joint House-Senate conference committee, 29-11.
• March 30, 2022: The Kansas House of Representatives approves a legislative redistricting proposal developed by a House-Senate conference committee, 83-40.
• March 23, 2022: The Kansas House of Representatives voted 112-9 to approve new legislative districts.
• March 17, 2022: The Kansas State Senate approves new legislative district boundaries, 28-8.
• February 9, 2022: The Kansas House of Representatives voted 85-37 to override the governor's veto, thus enacting the state's congressional maps.
• February 8, 2022: One chamber of the Kansas legislature—the State Senate—voted 27-11 to override Kelly's veto.
• February 3, 2022: Gov. Laura Kelly (D) vetoed SB355, the congressional redistricting plan.
• January 26, 2022: The Kansas House of Representatives approves the congressional redistricting plan adopted by the Senate and sends it to Gov. Laura Kelly (D) for her signature.
• January 21, 2022: The Kansas State Senate approves congressional redistricting plan.
• September 16, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau released data from the 2020 census in an easier-to-use format to state redistricting authorities and the public.
• Aug. 12, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau delivered redistricting data to states in a legacy format.
• April 26, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts.

Enactment

Enacted congressional district maps

See also: Congressional district maps implemented after the 2020 census

On May 18, 2022, the Kansas Supreme Court overturned a district court's ruling that found that the state's enacted congressional district boundaries were unconstitutional. In a two-page order, Justice Caleb Stegall wrote for the court, "A majority of the court holds that, on the record before us, plaintiffs have not prevailed on their claims that Substitute for Senate Bill 355 violates the Kansas Constitution." On April 25, 2022, Wyandotte County District Court Judge Bill Klapper had struck down Kansas' enacted congressional map. The judge's ruling stated, "The Court has no difficulty finding, as a factual matter, that Ad Astra 2 is an intentional, effective pro-Republican gerrymander that systemically dilutes the votes of Democratic Kansans."

Klapper's opinion also said that the state's new district boundaries "intentionally and effectively dilutes minority votes in violation of the Kansas Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection." The ruling had enjoined Kansas Secretary of State Scott Schwab (R) and local election officials from using the previously enacted maps for the state's upcoming elections and directed the legislature to "enact a remedial plan in conformity with this opinion as expeditiously as possible."

Kansas enacted congressional district boundaries on February 9, 2022, when both the state Senate and House overrode Gov. Laura Kelly's (D) veto of a redistricting plan that the legislature passed. The House of Representatives overrode Kelly’s veto 85-37 on February 9, 2022, with all votes in favor by Republicans, and 36 Democrats and one Republican voting to sustain the veto. The Senate overrode Kelly’s veto 27-11 strictly along party lines on February 8, 2022, with all votes in favor by Republicans and all votes opposed by Democrats. The state Senate originally approved the congressional district map proposal on January 21, 2022, and the state House of Representatives approved it on January 26, 2022. Kelly had vetoed the congressional map on February 3, 2022.

Andrew Bahl of the Topeka Capital-Journal wrote that the "maps were hotly contested, largely for the decision to split Wyandotte County and put part of the Kansas City, Kan., area in the 2nd Congressional District, a move that endangers the state's lone Democrat in Congress, U.S. Rep. Sharice Davids, and, Democrats argue, unfairly divides minority communities." John Hanna of the Associated Press wrote that the congressional district plan "politically hurts the state’s only Democrat in Congress, likely plunging Kansas into a national legal brawl amid the contest for control of the U.S. House."

Below are the congressional maps in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.

Kansas Congressional Districts
until January 2, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Kansas Congressional Districts
starting January 3, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Reactions

Before the legislature voted to override Kelly's veto, House Speaker Pro Tem Blaine Finch (R) told the House Republican Caucus, "Our committee has done a good job, they’ve taken over a year, they held multiple town hall meetings. The process was transparent and open and they’ve done a good job of trying to keep communities together." House Minority Leader Tom Sawyer (D) criticized the process after the legislature's vote, saying, "The public could not have been more clear. They repeatedly demanded — through email, through phone call and even in-person at town halls — that the redistricting maps be constitutional, just and fair. Ad Astra 2 makes a mockery of the redistricting guidelines and betrays the public trust."

2020 presidential results

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. This data was compiled by Daily Kos Elections.

2020 presidential results by Congressional district, Kansas
District	2022 district		Political predecessor district
	Joe Biden	Donald Trump	Joe Biden	Donald Trump
Kansas' 1st	34.1%	63.7%	28.1%	69.7%
Kansas' 2nd	40.7%	57.0%	41.3%	56.3%
Kansas' 3rd	51.2%	46.7%	54.3%	43.7%
Kansas' 4th	38.0%	59.7%	38.0%	59.7%

Enacted state legislative district maps

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

Kansas enacted legislative district boundaries on May 18, 2022, when the Kansas Supreme Court unanimously upheld the validity of the legislative districts that Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly (D) signed into law on April 15, 2022. Both chambers of the legislature passed the redistricting legislation on March 30, 2022, after a joint House-Senate conference committee had developed it. The Kansas House of Representatives approved the legislative boundaries, 83-40, and the State Senate approved them, 29-11.After Kelly signed the maps, Andrew Bahl and Rafael Garcia of the Topeka Capital-Journal wrote, "The state Senate and House maps were mildly contested in the Legislature, particularly in the Senate where the map will create a fourth, Democrat-leaning district in Topeka and Lawrence."

State Senate map

Below is the state Senate map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.

Kansas State Senate Districts
before 2020 redistricting cycle

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Kansas State Senate Districts
after 2020 redistricting cycle

Click a district to compare boundaries.

State House map

Below is the state House map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.

Kansas State House Districts
until January 8, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Kansas State House Districts
starting January 9, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Drafting process

In Kansas, the state legislature draws both congressional and state legislative district lines. Redistricting plans are subject to veto by the governor. State legislative district maps must be submitted for final approval to the Kansas Supreme Court, which must determine whether the maps are constitutional. If the court rules that the maps violate the law, the state legislature may attempt to draw the lines again. There are no such provisions in place for congressional redistricting.

In 2002, Kansas adopted guidelines for congressional and state legislative redistricting. These guidelines ask that "both congressional and state legislative districts be contiguous, as compact as possible, and recognize and consider communities of common 'social, cultural, racial, ethnic, and economic' interests." In addition, these guidelines stipulate that state legislative districts should "preserve existing political subdivisions and avoid contests between incumbents to the extent possible." Congressional districts should "preserve whole counties and maintain the core of existing districts where possible." The state legislature may amend these guidelines at its discretion.

Timeline

The House and Senate Redistricting Committees held a series of town hall meetings in August 2021 where citizens could provide feedback on redistricting.

Redistricting town hall schedule, 2020 cycle
Date	Cities
August 9, 2021	Hays, Manhattan, Salina
August 10, 2021	Colby, Garden City, Dodge City
August 11, 2021	Chanute, Hutchinson, Wichita
August 12, 2021	Kansas City, Overland Park, Pittsburg
August 13, 2021	Lawrence, Leavenworth

The House and Senate Redistricting Committees jointly held a second round of virtual town hall meetings between November 22 and November 30, 2021, in each of the state's four congressional districts.

Redistricting listening tour schedule, 2020 cycle
Date	Congressional District	Cities
November 22, 2021	Kansas' 2nd Congressional District	Atchison, Independence, Mayetta, Ottawa
November 23, 2021	Kansas' 1st Congressional District	Emporia, Great Bend, Liberal, McPherson
November 29, 2021	Kansas' 4th Congressional District	El Dorado, Newton
November 30, 2021	Kansas' 3rd Congressional District	Bonner Springs, Stilwell

Committees and/or commissions involved in the process

Kansas Senate Committee on Redistricting members, 2020 cycle
Name	Partisan affiliation
State Sen. Rick Wilborn, Chair	Republican
State Sen. Ty Masterson Vice Chair	Republican
State Sen. Dinah Sykes Ranking Minority Member	Democratic
State Sen. Rick Billinger	Republican
State Sen. Ethan Corson	Democratic
State Sen. Renee Erickson	Republican
State Sen. Beverly Gossage	Republican
State Sen. Richard Hilderbrand	Republican
State Sen. Rick Kloos	Republican

Kansas House Committee on Redistricting members, 2020 cycle
Name	Partisan affiliation
State Rep. Chris Croft, Chair	Republican
State Rep. Bradley Ralph Vice Chair	Republican
State Rep. Tom Burroughs Ranking Minority Member	Democratic
State Rep. Barbara Ballard	Democratic
State Rep. John Barker	Republican
State Rep. Stephanie Clayton	Democratic
State Rep. Charlotte Esau	Republican
State Rep. Kyle Hoffman	Republican
State Rep. Nick Hoheisel	Republican
State Rep. Steve Huebert	Republican
State Rep. Jim Kelly	Republican
State Rep. Brenda Landwehr	Republican
State Rep. Vic Miller	Democratic
State Rep. Fred Patton	Republican
State Rep. Jason Probst	Democratic
State Rep. Adam Smith	Republican
State Rep. William Sutton	Republican

Drafts and proposals

Congressional district maps

The Kansas State Senate approved a congressional district map proposal by a vote of 26-9 on January 21, 2022. All votes in favor were from Republicans and eight Democrats and one Republican voted against. The Kansas House of Representatives approved the plan by a vote of 79-37 on January 26, 2022. All votes in favor were by Republicans and 36 Democrats and one Republican voted against. On February 3, 2022, Gov. Laura Kelly (D) vetoed the congressional map that the legislature approved. In a statement, Kelly said, "I am ready to work with the Legislature in a bipartisan fashion to pass a new congressional map that addresses the constitutional issues in Senate Bill 355. Together, we can come to a consensus and pass a compromise that empowers all people of Kansas." The Kansas State Senate voted 27-11 to override Kelly's veto on February 8, 2022., and the Kansas House of Representatives overrode the veto 85-37 on February 9, 2022..

According to John Hanna, Andy Tsubasa Field and Heather Hollingsworth of the Associated Press, the congressional map that passed the legislature "would split the Kansas City area into two congressional districts and move the liberal northeast Kansas city of Lawrence into a district with far more conservative central and western Kansas communities, some six hours away by car.”

Map images

Here's a link to an image of the congressional map, along with population data prepared by the Kansas Legislative Research Department, that passed the legislature:

SB355 approved congressional plan

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 the United States House of Representatives is fixed at 435. The United States Constitution dictates that districts be redrawn every 10 years to ensure equal populations between districts. Every ten years, upon completion of the United States census, reapportionment occurs.

Apportionment following the 2020 census

The U.S. Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts on April 26, 2021. Kansas was apportioned four seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. This represented neither a gain nor a loss of seats as compared to apportionment after the 2010 census.

See the table below for additional details.

2020 and 2010 census information for Kansas
State	2010 census		2020 census		2010-2020
	Population	U.S. House seats	Population	U.S. House seats	Raw change in population	Percentage change in population	Change in U.S. House seats
Kansas	2,863,813	4	2,940,865	4	77,052	2.69%	0

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 General Dave Yost (R) announced that the state had reached a settlement agreement with the Census Bureau in its lawsuit over the Census Bureau's timetable for delivering redistricting data. Under the terms of the settlement, the Census Bureau agreed to deliver redistricting data, in a legacy format, by August 16, 2021. The Census Bureau released the 2020 redistricting data in a legacy format on August 12, 2021, and in an easier-to-use format at data.census.gov on September 16, 2021.

Court challenges

If you are aware of any relevant lawsuits that are not listed here, please email us at [email protected].

Rivera, et al, Alonzo, et al, and Frick, et al v. Schwab, et al

U.S. Supreme Court denies plaintiffs' appeal to hear case

On November 23, 2022, the plaintiffs in Alonzo v. Schwab filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the Kansas Supreme Court's May 2022 decision upholding that state's congressional redistricting plan. The petitioners alleged that the Kansas Supreme Court erroneously ruled "that intentional racial discrimination in redistricting is unconstitutional only if it prevents the formation of a majority-minority district." The petition also states that "The court did not disagree with the district court's factual finding, based upon substantial evidence, that the Legislature split Wyandotte County (home to Kansas City) along starkly racial lines in order to eliminate the ability of minority voters to continue electing their preferred candidate; the court simply held that it was irrelevant because those voters were insufficiently numerous to constitute a majority-minority district." On March 27, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in the case, meaning that it did not agree to hear it. According to Devan Cole of CNN, "The court did not disclose a vote count," and "The court’s decision to not hear the case means that the newly redrawn map will remain in play."

Kansas Supreme Court upholds congressional district boundaries

On May 18, 2022, the Kansas Supreme Court overturned a district court's ruling that found that the state's enacted congressional district boundaries were unconstitutional. In a two-page order, Justice Caleb Stegall wrote for the court, "A majority of the court holds that, on the record before us, plaintiffs have not prevailed on their claims that Substitute for Senate Bill 355 violates the Kansas Constitution."

On June 21, 2022, the Kansas Supreme Court issued its full order overturning the Wyandotte County District Court's decision that had found that the state's congressional district boundaries were unconstitutional. The court's order said, "The record below demonstrates that plaintiffs did not ask the district court to apply the correct applicable legal tests to their race-based claims. The district court, in turn, did not apply these legal tests to plaintiffs' race-based claims. Perhaps unsurprisingly then, the district court did not make the requisite fact-findings to satisfy either legal test applicable to plaintiffs' race-based equal protection claims. Therefore, on the record before us, plaintiffs have failed to satisfy their burden to meet the legal elements required for a showing of unlawful racial gerrymandering or unlawful race-based vote dilution...On review, we find the district court's legal errors fatally undermine its conclusions and, applying the correct legal standards to the facts as found by the lower court, we determine that on the record before us, plaintiffs have not prevailed on any of their claims that Ad Astra 2 violates the Kansas Constitution. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the lower court."

On November 23, 2022, the plaintiffs in Alonzo v. Schwab filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the Kansas Supreme Court's May 2022 decision upholding that state's congressional redistricting plan.

District Court overturns congressional maps

On April 25, 2022, Wyandotte County District Court Judge Bill Klapper struck down Kansas' enacted congressional map. The judge's ruling stated, "The Court has no difficulty finding, as a factual matter, that Ad Astra 2 is an intentional, effective pro-Republican gerrymander that systemically dilutes the votes of Democratic Kansans." Klapper's opinion also said that the state's new district boundaries "intentionally and effectively dilutes minority votes in violation of the Kansas Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection."

Klapper ruled on the case which resulted from the consolidation of three lawsuits challenging district boundaries that were enacted when the legislature overrode Gov. Laura Kelly's (D) veto on February 9, 2022. A total of 20 Kansas voters and the organization Loud Light had argued that the maps violated the state constitution due to political and racial gerrymandering. The ruling enjoined Kansas Secretary of State Scott Schwab (R) and local election officials from using the previously enacted maps for the state's upcoming elections and directs the legislature to "enact a remedial plan in conformity with this opinion as expeditiously as possible." Andrew Bahl of the Topeka Capitol Journal wrote that Republican legislative leaders said they would ask Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt (R) to appeal Klapper's ruling to the Kansas Supreme Court.

Challenges to congressional boundaries (Case No. 2022-CV-000089)

Wyandotte County District Court Judge Bill Klapper consolidated three lawsuits challenging the state's congressional district boundaries that argued that the maps violated the state constitution due to political and racial gerrymandering. Klapper heard four days of oral arguments in the case in April 2022. A total of 20 Kansas voters and the organization Loud Light, which describes itself on its website as a group that "engages, educates, and empowers individuals from underrepresented populations to build community power that has an impact on decision makers," filed the lawsuits against the maps and named Kansas Secretary of State Scott Schwab (R) and election officials from Douglas and Wyandotte counties as defendants.Loud Light, "The Mission," accessed April 25, 2022</ref>

Background

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

Federal requirements for congressional redistricting

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

"	The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.	”
—United States Constitution

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

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

Federal requirements for state legislative redistricting

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

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.
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.
3. A community of interest is defined by FairVote as a "group of people in a geographical area, such as a specific region or neighborhood, who have common political, social or economic interests." A total of 24 states require that the maintenance of communities of interest be considered in the drawing of state legislative districts. A total of 13 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.
4. A total of 42 states require that state legislative district lines be drawn to account for political boundaries (e.g., the limits of counties, cities, and towns). A total of 19 states require that similar considerations be made in the drawing of congressional districts.

Methods

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

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 the Encyclopædia Britannica, "consolidated the Federalist Party vote in a few districts and thus gave disproportionate representation to Democratic-Republicans." The word gerrymander was coined by The Boston Gazette to describe the district.

See also: Gerrymandering

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

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

Mehr zeigen

The phrase racial gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to dilute the voting power of racial minority groups. Federal law prohibits racial gerrymandering and establishes that, to combat this practice and to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act, states and jurisdictions can create majority-minority electoral districts. A majority-minority district is one in which a racial group or groups comprise a majority of the district's populations. Racial gerrymandering and majority-minority districts are discussed in greater detail in this article.

The phrase partisan gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district maps with the intention of favoring one political party over another. In contrast with racial gerrymandering, on which the Supreme Court of the United States has issued rulings in the past affirming that such practices violate federal law, the high court had not, as of November 2017, issued a ruling establishing clear precedent on the question of partisan gerrymandering. Although the court has granted in past cases that partisan gerrymandering can violate the United States Constitution, it has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring partisan gerrymanders. Partisan gerrymandering is described in greater detail in this article.

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 in apportionment, and the constitutionality of independent redistricting commissions. The rulings in these cases, which originated in a variety of states, impact redistricting processes across the nation.

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

Mehr zeigen

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 the South 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." Thomas Alexander (R)—in his capacity as South 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. The U.S. Supreme Court scheduled oral argument on this case for October 11, 2023.

Moore v. Harper (2023)

See also: Moore v. Harper

At issue in Moore 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 the independent state legislature doctrine. On November 4, 2021, the North Carolina General Assembly adopted a new congressional voting map based on 2020 Census data. The legislature, at that time, was controlled by the Republican Party. In the case Harper 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. On February 14, 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the state could not use the map in the 2022 elections and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The trial court adopted a new congressional map drawn by three court-appointed experts. The United States Supreme Court affirmed the North Carolina Supreme Court's original decision in Moore v. Harper that the state's congressional district map violated state law. In a 6-3 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the "Elections Clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections.

Merrill v. Milligan (2023)

See also: Merrill v. Milligan

At issue in Merrill v. Milligan, was the constitutionality of Alabama's 2021 redistricting plan and whether it violated Section 2 of the Voting 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.

Gill v. Whitford (2018)

See also: Gill v. Whitford

In Gill v. Whitford, decided on June 18, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the plaintiffs—12 Wisconsin Democrats who alleged that Wisconsin's state legislative district plan had been subject to an unconstitutional gerrymander in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments—had failed to demonstrate standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to bring a complaint. The court's opinion, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, did not address the broader question of whether partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. Roberts was joined in the majority opinion by Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Kagan penned a concurring opinion joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas penned an opinion that concurred in part with the majority opinion and in the judgment, joined by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Cooper v. Harris (2017)

See also: Cooper v. Harris

In Cooper v. Harris, decided on May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the judgment of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, finding that two of North Carolina's congressional districts, the boundaries of which had been set following the 2010 United States Census, had been subject to an illegal racial gerrymander in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the court's majority opinion, which was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor (Thomas also filed a separate concurring opinion). In the court's majority opinion, Kagan described the two-part analysis utilized by the high court when plaintiffs allege racial gerrymandering as follows: "First, the plaintiff must prove that 'race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature's decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district.' ... Second, if racial considerations predominated over others, the design of the district must withstand strict scrutiny. The burden shifts to the State to prove that its race-based sorting of voters serves a 'compelling interest' and is 'narrowly tailored' to that end." In regard to the first part of the aforementioned analysis, Kagan went on to note that "a plaintiff succeeds at this stage even if the evidence reveals that a legislature elevated race to the predominant criterion in order to advance other goals, including political ones." Justice Samuel Alito delivered an opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part with the majority opinion. This opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Evenwel v. Abbott (2016)

See also: Evenwel v. Abbott

Evenwel v. Abbott was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts in Texas. The plaintiffs, Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger, argued that district populations ought to take into account only the number of registered or eligible voters residing within those districts as opposed to total population counts, which are generally used for redistricting purposes. Total population tallies include non-voting residents, such as immigrants residing in the country without legal permission, prisoners, and children. The plaintiffs alleged that this tabulation method dilutes the voting power of citizens residing in districts that are home to smaller concentrations of non-voting residents. The court ruled 8-0 on April 4, 2016, that a state or locality can use total population counts for redistricting purposes. The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2016)

Justice Stephen Breyer penned the majority opinion in Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.

See also: Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts that were created by the commission in 2012. The plaintiffs, a group of Republican voters, alleged that "the commission diluted or inflated the votes of almost two million Arizona citizens when the commission intentionally and systematically overpopulated 16 Republican districts while under-populating 11 Democrat districts." This, the plaintiffs argued, constituted a partisan gerrymander. The plaintiffs claimed that the commission placed a disproportionately large number of non-minority voters in districts dominated by Republicans; meanwhile, the commission allegedly placed many minority voters in smaller districts that tended to vote Democratic. As a result, the plaintiffs argued, more voters overall were placed in districts favoring Republicans than in those favoring Democrats, thereby diluting the votes of citizens in the Republican-dominated districts. The defendants countered that the population deviations resulted from legally defensible efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act and obtain approval from the United States Department of Justice. At the time of redistricting, certain states were required to obtain preclearance from the U.S. Department of Justice before adopting redistricting plans or making other changes to their election laws—a requirement struck down by the United States Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder (2013). On April 20, 2016, the court ruled unanimously that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that a partisan gerrymander had taken place. Instead, the court found that the commission had acted in good faith to comply with the Voting Rights Act. The court's majority opinion was penned by Justice Stephen Breyer.

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 the Supreme Court of the United States in 2015. At issue was the constitutionality of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, which was established by state constitutional amendment in 2000. According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, "the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." The state legislature argued that the use of the word "legislature" in this context is literal; therefore, only a state legislature may draw congressional district lines. Meanwhile, the commission contended that the word "legislature" ought to be interpreted to mean "the legislative powers of the state," including voter initiatives and referenda. On June 29, 2015, the court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, finding that "redistricting is a legislative function, to be performed in accordance with the state's prescriptions for lawmaking, which may include the referendum and the governor's veto." The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito dissented.

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 won trifecta 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.

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

2010 redistricting cycle

Redistricting in Kansas after the 2010 census

Following the 2010 United States Census, Kansas neither gained nor lost congressional seats. The legislature was unable to adopt a new district map. The United States District Court for the District of Kansas was asked to intervene and draw congressional and state legislative district lines. On June 7, 2012, the court approved the new district maps.

See also

• Redistricting in Kansas after the 2010 census
• Redistricting in Kansas
• 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"