2020 United States redistricting cycle

{{see also|United States congressional apportionment}}

Article One of the United States Constitution establishes the United States House of Representatives apportions representatives to the states based on population, with reapportionment occurring every ten years. The decennial United States census determines the population of each state. Each of the fifty states is guaranteed at least one representative, and the Huntington–Hill method is used to assign the remaining 385 seats to states based on the population of each state. Congress has provided for reapportionment every ten years since the enactment of the Reapportionment Act of 1929. Since 1913, the U.S. House of Representatives has consisted of 435 members, a number set by statute, though the number of representatives temporarily increased in 1959. Reapportionment also affects presidential elections, as each state is guaranteed electoral votes equivalent to the number of representatives and senators representing the state.{{Citation needed|date=July 2022}}

Prior to the 2022 U.S. House elections, each state apportioned more than one representative drew new congressional districts based on the reapportionment following the 2020 census. Based on the official counts of the 2020 census, California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia each lost one seat, while Colorado, Florida, Montana, North Carolina, and Oregon each gained one seat, and Texas gained two seats. Though California lost a seat for the first time in its history, the 2020 census continued a broader trend of Northeastern and Midwestern states losing seats and Western and Southern states gaining seats.{{cite news |last1=Skelley |first1=Geoffrey |last2=Rakich |first2=Nathaniel |title=Which States Won — And Lost — Seats In The 2020 Census? |url=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/which-states-won-and-lost-seats-in-the-2020-census/ |publisher=FiveThirtyEight |date=April 26, 2021}}

{{clear}}

{{Main|Redistricting}}

File:US congressional redistricting methods, post-2020 census.svg methods by state after the 2020 census:

{{legend|#00E673|Independent commission}}

{{legend|#F0F000|Politician commission}}

{{legend|#FF9B37|Passed by legislature with gubernatorial approval}}{{efn|name="finalpower"|Several states, including Iowa,{{cite web |title=Iowa |url=https://redistricting.lls.edu/state/iowa/?cycle=2020&level=Congress&startdate= |website=All About Redistricting |publisher=Justin Levitt}} New York,{{cite web |title=New York |url=https://redistricting.lls.edu/state/new-york/?cycle=2020&level=Congress&startdate= |website=All About Redistricting |publisher=Justin Levitt}} and Utah,{{cite web |title=Utah |url=https://redistricting.lls.edu/state/utah/?cycle=2020&level=Congress&startdate= |website=All About Redistricting |publisher=Justin Levitt}} employ commissions that play a role in the redistricting process. However, unlike in the states labeled as "independent commission" or "politician commission", in these states the legislature has the final power to approve redistricting maps.}}

{{legend|#C90000|Passed by legislature, governor plays no role}}

{{legend|#800080|Passed by legislature, simple majority veto override}}

{{legend|#d5d3d5|Not applicable due to having one at-large district}}

{{small|* The Ohio Constitution requires that redistricting votes in the Ohio Legislature be bipartisan, with a minimum number of votes required from both parties for a redistricting act to pass}}]]

Each U.S. representative represents one congressional district, which encompasses all or part of a single state. Following the apportionment of seats based on the most recent census, every state with more than one congressional district must pass a new redistricting plan before the filing deadlines of the next general election.{{cite news |title=Election Dates for Legislators and Governors Who Will Do Redistricting |url=http://www.ncsl.org/research/redistricting/election-dates-for-legislators-governors-who-will-do-redistricting.aspx |access-date=November 1, 2018 |publisher=National Conference of State Legislatures |date=May 25, 2018 |archive-date=October 4, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181004164037/http://www.ncsl.org/research/redistricting/election-dates-for-legislators-governors-who-will-do-redistricting.aspx |url-status=live }} In most states, the state legislature draws the new districts, but some states have established redistricting commissions.{{cite web|last1=Levitt|first1=Justin|title=Who draws the lines?|url=http://redistricting.lls.edu/who.php|access-date=October 28, 2016|publisher=Loyola Law School|archive-date=June 17, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180617165953/http://redistricting.lls.edu/who.php|url-status=live}} Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Michigan, and Washington use independent commissions to draw House districts, while Hawaii and New Jersey use "politician commissions" to draw House districts. Alaska, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming will continue to have only one representative in the House, and so will not have to draw new House districts.

In all other states, the legislature draws district lines, although some states have advisory commissions that can play a major role in drawing lines, and other states have backup commissions if the state legislature is unable to draw the lines itself. State governors may also play a role in deciding district boundaries. In many states, districts are drawn with the intent to benefit certain political groups, including one of the two major political parties, in a practice known as gerrymandering. Most states draw new lines by passing a law the same way any other law is passed, but some states have special procedures. Connecticut and Maine require a two-thirds super-majority in each house of the state legislature for redistricting plans, while district lines are not subject to gubernatorial veto in Connecticut and North Carolina. The Ohio redistricting process is designed to encourage the legislature to pass a map with bipartisan support, but the majority party can pass maps that last for four years (as opposed to the normal ten years) without the support of the minority party. The legislatures of Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, and West Virginia can override gubernatorial vetoes with a simple majority vote,{{cite news|last1=Haughey|first1=John|title=State-By-State Guide To Gubernatorial Veto Types|url=http://cqrollcall.com/statetrackers/state-by-state-guide-to-gubernatorial-veto-types/|access-date=November 19, 2016|publisher=CQ Roll Call|date=November 14, 2016|archive-date=November 19, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161119190421/http://cqrollcall.com/statetrackers/state-by-state-guide-to-gubernatorial-veto-types/|url-status=live}} giving governors in those states little leverage in the drawing of new district maps.

Though the states have wide latitude in the re-drawing of congressional districts, state power over redistricting is subject to limits set by the U.S. Constitution, rulings of the federal judiciary and statutes passed by Congress. In the case of Wesberry v. Sanders, the Supreme Court of the United States established that states must draw districts that are equal in population "as nearly as is practicable." Subsequent court cases have required states to redistrict every ten years, although states can redistrict more often than that depending on their own statutes and constitutional provisions.{{cite journal|last1=Levitt|first1=Justin|last2=McDonald|first2=Michael|title=Taking the "Re" out of Redistricting: State Constitutional Provisions on Redistricting Timing|journal=The Georgetown Law Journal|volume=95|issue=4|pages=1247–1254|url=http://georgetownlawjournal.org/files/pdf/95-4/levitt_mcdonald.pdf|access-date=November 12, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160804063539/http://georgetownlawjournal.org/files/pdf/95-4/levitt_mcdonald.pdf|archive-date=August 4, 2016|url-status=dead}} Since the passage of the Uniform Congressional District Act ({{USStatute|90|196|81|581|1967|12|14}}), most states have been barred from using multi-member districts; all states currently use single-member districts.{{cite news|last1=Schaller|first1=Thomas|title=Multi-Member Districts: Just a Thing of the Past?|url=http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/multi-member-legislative-districts-just-a-thing-of-the-past/|access-date=October 31, 2016|publisher=Sabato's Crystal Ball|date=March 21, 2013|archive-date=October 8, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151008080844/http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/multi-member-legislative-districts-just-a-thing-of-the-past/|url-status=live}} The Voting Rights Act of 1965 establishes protections against racial redistricting plans that would deny minority voters an equal opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. The Supreme Court case of Thornburg v. Gingles established a test to determine whether redistricting lines violate the Voting Rights Act. In some states, courts have required the creation of majority-minority districts.{{cite web|last1=Levitt|first1=Justin|title=Where are the lines drawn?|url=http://redistricting.lls.edu/where.php|website=All About Redistricting|publisher=Loyola Law School|access-date=October 31, 2016|archive-date=November 7, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161107014316/http://redistricting.lls.edu/where.php|url-status=live}}

In addition to standards required by federal law, many states have also adopted other criteria, including compactness, contiguity, and the preservation of political subdivisions (such as cities or counties) or communities of interest.{{cite web|title=Redistricting Criteria|url=http://www.ncsl.org/research/redistricting/redistricting-criteria.aspx|publisher=National Conference of State Legislatures|access-date=November 12, 2016|date=January 26, 2016|archive-date=October 17, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161017180314/http://www.ncsl.org/research/redistricting/redistricting-criteria.aspx|url-status=live}} Some states, including Arizona, Colorado, New York and Washington require the drawing of competitive districts.

[[File:USCongressionalRedistrictingPartisanControl2020.svg|350px|thumb|Partisan control of congressional redistricting after the 2020 elections, with the number of U.S. House seats each state received.

{{legend|#2c82b6|Democratic control}}

{{legend|#d63f3f|Republican control}}

{{legend|#ecc61c|Split or bipartisan control}}

{{legend|#60c53a|Independent redistricting commission}}

{{legend|#c0c0c0|No redistricting necessary}}]]

The table shows the partisan control of states in which congressional redistricting is enacted through either a bill or a joint resolution passed by the legislature. States in which the governor can technically veto the bill, but that veto can be overridden by a simple majority of the state legislature, are marked as "simple maj. override".

{{sticky header}}{{table alignment}}

"*" indicates that a 2/3 super-majority vote is required in the legislature

"↑" indicates that one party can override a gubernatorial veto because of a supermajority in the legislature

"†" indicates that the state employs an advisory commission

"‡" indicates that the state employs a back-up commission

Ohio requires certain qualified majorities, at each stage of its congressional redistricting process, for its congressional maps to endure (subject to judicial review) for the full decade.

Six states with multiple members of the House of Representatives use independent commissions to draw congressional districts. In Arizona, Montana, and Washington, the four party leaders of the state house and state senate each select one member of the Independent Redistricting Commission, and these four members select a fifth member who is not affiliated with either party. In California, the Citizen's Redistricting Commission consists of five Democrats, five Republicans, and four individuals who are not members of either party. In Idaho, the four party leaders of the state house and state senate and the chairmen of the two most popular state parties (based on the results of the most recent gubernatorial vote) each select a member of the Commission for Reapportionment.{{cite web|title=Redistricting Commissions: Congressional Plans|url=http://www.ncsl.org/research/redistricting/redistricting-commissions-congressional-plans.aspx|website=National Conference of State Legislatures|access-date=October 28, 2016|archive-date=October 9, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161009015752/http://www.ncsl.org/research/redistricting/redistricting-commissions-congressional-plans.aspx|url-status=live}}

Two states use politician commissions to draw congressional districts. In Hawaii, the president of the state senate and the speaker of the state house each select two members of the Reapportionment Commission, while the minority parties in both chambers each appoint two members of the commission. The eight members of the commission then select a ninth member, who also chairs the commission. In New Jersey, the four party leaders of the state house and state senate and the party leaders of the two largest parties each choose two members of the Apportionment Commission, and the twelve members of the commission select a thirteenth member to chair the commission.

One state, Virginia, uses a hybrid, bipartisan commission consisting of eight legislators and eight non-legislator citizens. The commission is evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans.

Ohio employs a hybrid commission as a back-up redistricting authority in the case of the state legislature failing to achieve a certain qualified majority for approval of a map. The commission is composed of elected political officials as well as appointments made by the leaders of the state legislative chambers (namely: the speaker of the house, the leader of the largest party in the house to which the speaker of the house does not belong, the president of the senate, and the leader of the largest party in the senate to which the speaker of the senate does not belong), although those appointments also were politicians in the 2020 cycle. If the redistricting commission fails to achieve a certain qualified majority for approval of a congressional redistricting plan when it has been charged to do so, the authority to pass such a plan transfers back to the state legislature, which may then pass a plan either for the full decade via a certain qualified majority, or for only four years via normal legislative procedure otherwise.{{Citation needed|date=July 2022}}

[[File:State legislative redistricting methods, 2022.png|350px|thumb|right|State legislative redistricting methods by state:

{{legend|#33ea0f|Independent commission}}

{{legend|#ead80f|Politician commission}}

{{legend2|#31d9cf|Passed by the legislature with gubernatorial approval}}{{efn|name="finalpower"}}

{{legend|#e012ed|Passed by legislature with no gubernatorial veto}}

{{legend|#8f07e5|Passed by legislature, simple majority veto override}}]]

Each state draws new legislative district boundaries every ten years. Every state except Nebraska has a bicameral legislative branch. Nebraska is also unique in that it has the only legislative body that is officially non-partisan. Most states must pass redistricting plans by the time of the filing deadlines for the 2022 elections. The exceptions are Virginia and New Jersey, which must pass new plans in 2021, Louisiana and Mississippi which have a 2023 deadline, and Montana, which has a 2024 deadline.

Fifteen states use independent or politician commissions to draw state legislative districts. In the other states, the legislature is ultimately charged with drawing new lines, although some states have advisory or back-up commissions. Connecticut, Illinois, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas have backup commissions that draw district lines if the legislature is unable to agree on new districts. Iowa, Maine, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont employ advisory commissions. In Oregon, the Secretary of State will draw the legislative districts if the legislature fails to do so. In Connecticut and Maine, a 2/3 super-majority vote in each house is required to create new districts, while in Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, Mississippi, and North Carolina, the governor cannot veto redistricting plans.{{cite web|last1=Levitt|first1=Justin|title=Who draws the lines?|url=http://redistricting.lls.edu/who-state.php|access-date=October 28, 2016|publisher=Loyola Law School|archive-date=December 4, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161204170214/http://redistricting.lls.edu/who-state.php|url-status=live}} The legislatures of Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, and West Virginia can override gubernatorial vetoes with a simple majority vote, giving governors in those states little leverage in the drawing of new district maps.

The states have wide latitude in re-drawing legislative districts, but the U.S. Supreme Court case of Reynolds v. Sims established that states must draw districts that are "substantially equal" in population to one another. Federal court cases have established that deviation between the largest and smallest districts generally cannot be greater than ten percent, and some states have laws requiring less deviation. Court cases have also required states to redistrict every ten years, although states can redistrict more often than that depending on their own statutes and constitutional provisions. States are free to employ multi-member districts, and different districts can elect different numbers of legislators.{{cite news|last1=Goodman|first1=Josh|title=The Disappearance of Multi-Member Constituencies|url=http://www.governing.com/blogs/politics/The-Disappearance-of-Multi-Member-Constituencies.html|access-date=October 31, 2016|publisher=Governing|date=July 7, 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161108202750/http://www.governing.com/blogs/politics/The-Disappearance-of-Multi-Member-Constituencies.html|archive-date=November 8, 2016|url-status=dead}} The Voting Rights Act of 1965 establishes protections against racial redistricting plans that would deny minority voters an equal opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. The Supreme Court case of Thornburg v. Gingles established a test to determine whether redistricting lines violate the Voting Rights Act.

Many states have also adopted other criteria, including compactness, contiguity, and the preservation of political subdivisions (such as cities or counties) or communities of interest. Some states, including Arizona, require the drawing of competitive districts, while other states require the nesting of state house districts within state senate districts.{{cite book|last1=Moncrief|first1=Gary F.|title=Reapportionment and Redistricting in the West|date=2011|publisher=Lexington Books|page=30|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=bdBsm4YL9h4C|access-date=November 12, 2016|isbn=9780739167618|archive-date=November 19, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201119172730/https://books.google.com/books?id=bdBsm4YL9h4C|url-status=live}}

[[File:USLegislativeRedistrictingPartisanControl2020.svg|350px|thumb|Partisan control of state legislative redistricting after the 2020 elections.

{{legend|#2016c9|Democratic control}}

{{legend|#c91616|Republican control}}

{{legend|#ecc61c|Split or bipartisan control}}

{{legend|#47bc1c|Independent redistricting commission}}]]

The table shows the partisan control of states in which state legislative redistricting is enacted via a bill passed by the legislature. States in which the governor can technically veto the bill, but that veto can be overridden by a simple majority of the state legislature, are marked as "simple maj. override".

{{sticky header}}

An * indicates that a 2/3 super-majority vote is required in the legislature

A ↑ indicates that one party can override a gubernatorial veto because of a super-majority in the legislature

A † indicates that the state employs an advisory commission

A ‡ indicates that the state employs a backup commission

Eight states use independent commissions to draw state legislative districts. In Alaska, the governor appoints two individuals and the Speaker of the House, senate president, and Chief Justice of the Alaska Supreme Court each appoint one individual to the Redistricting Board. In Arizona, Montana, and Washington, the four legislative party leaders each appoint one member to the redistricting commission, and these four individuals choose a fifth member to chair the commission. California's Citizen's Redistricting Commission consists of five Democrats, five Republicans, and four individuals who are not members of either party. Idaho's Commission for Reapportionment consists of six individuals appointed by the chairmen of the two largest parties (based on the most recent gubernatorial vote) and the four state legislative party leaders.{{cite web|title=Redistricting Commissions: State Legislative Plans|url=http://www.ncsl.org/research/redistricting/2009-redistricting-commissions-table.aspx|website=NCSL|access-date=April 26, 2021|archive-date=October 17, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161017162705/http://www.ncsl.org/research/redistricting/2009-redistricting-commissions-table.aspx|url-status=live}}

Six states use politician commissions to draw state legislative districts. Arkansas's Board of Apportionment consists of the governor, secretary of state, and attorney general. The Ohio Redistricting Commission consists of the governor, auditor, secretary of state, and four individuals appointed by the state legislative party leaders. Hawaii's Reapportionment Commission consists of eight appointees of the state legislative party leaders, and these appointees select a ninth member to chair the commission. The New Jersey Apportionment Commission consists of twelve individuals appointed by the state legislative party leaders and the two major party chairmen, with these twelve individuals choosing a thirteenth member to chair the board. Pennsylvania's redistricting commission consists of four appointees chosen by the state legislative party leaders, and these four appointees choose a fifth member to chair the commission. In Missouri, a commission is created for each legislative chamber as a result of the governor picking from lists submitted by the leaders of the two major parties.

One state, Virginia, uses a hybrid, bipartisan commission consisting of eight legislators and eight non-legislator citizens. The commission is evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans.

{{see also|2022 United States House of Representatives elections|2022 United States state legislative elections}}

[[File:2022 Redistrict Actual Map Drawer.svg|thumb|Final drawer of maps for 2022 U.S. House of Representatives elections

{{legend|#2c82b6|Democratic drawn}}

{{legend|#d63f3f|Republican drawn{{efn-lr|Louisiana is labeled as Republican because the Democratic governor vetoed the maps but was overridden with almost no Democratic votes}}}}

{{legend|#ecc61c|Split or bipartisan drawn{{efn-lr|Maryland is labeled as bipartisan because the Republican governor signed the Democratic-controlled legislature's maps after a court overturned a Democratic gerrymander as a deal to drop the legislature's appeal}}}}

{{legend|#60c53a|Independent redistricting commission drawn}}

{{legend|#c0c0c0|No redistricting necessary}}

{{legend|#ff6600|Court drawn}}

{{notelist-lr}}

]]

This table shows the final status of redistricting in each state.

{{sticky header}}{{table alignment}}{{sort under}}

An * indicates that litigation is currently pending against the finalized maps

Lawsuits have been filed against a number of passed congressional and legislative maps on the grounds of either racial gerrymandering or partisan gerrymandering. These states include Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina and Texas. As more states continue to adopt maps through the redistricting process, the number of lawsuits filed will potentially increase.{{cite web |last1=Best |first1=Ryan |last2=Bycoffe |first2=Aaron |title=What Redistricting Looks Like In Every State |url=https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-2022-maps/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210809100425/https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-2022-maps/ |url-status=dead |archive-date=August 9, 2021 |website=FiveThirtyEight |date=August 9, 2021 |access-date=January 7, 2022}}

Lawsuits have been filed in multiple states against congressional and state legislative maps due to claims that the new maps disenfranchise minority voters.

In Alabama, four lawsuits were filed against the congressional and state legislative maps, alleging racial bias and violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) by diluting the power of minority voters in the state.{{cite web |last1=Chandler |first1=Kim |title=Lawsuit: Alabama congressional map 'racially gerrymandered' |url=https://apnews.com/article/alabama-lawsuits-race-and-ethnicity-redistricting-montgomery-38e76cb85abe91e9007db0f278764c4d |website=Associated Press |date=September 28, 2021 |access-date=January 7, 2022}} On January 24, 2022, a three-judge panel blocked Alabama's congressional maps over claims it likely violates the VRA. The panel argued that because African Americans counted for a considerable percentage of the total population growth, there should be more opportunities for representation.{{cite web |last1=Chandler |first1=Kim |title=Alabama's new congressional districts map blocked by judges |url=https://apnews.com/article/voting-rights-alabama-race-and-ethnicity-legislature-redistricting-911cfdda84f55956e15a189782d319bb |website=Associated Press |date=January 25, 2022 |access-date=January 25, 2022}}{{cite web |title=Alabama's new congressional map blocked by judges |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/24/alabama-redistricting-map-rejected-00001687 |website=Politico |access-date=January 25, 2022}} On February 7, 2022, the Supreme Court temporarily reinstated Alabama's congressional map and added Alabama's appeal to their 2022 case list, with the hearing date yet to be decided.{{cite news |last1=Liptak |first1=Adam |title=Supreme Court, in 5-4 Vote, Restores Alabama's Congressional Voting Map|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/07/us/politics/supreme-court-alabama-redistricting-congressional-map.html|website=The New York Times|date=February 7, 2022 |access-date=February 7, 2022}} On June 8, 2023, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court's decision, ruling in Allen v. Milligan that Alabama did in fact illegally dilute the power of Black voters.{{cite news|last=Liptak|first=Adam|title= Supreme Court Rejects Voting Map That Diluted Black Voters' Power|date=Jun 8, 2023|newspaper=The New York Times|url= https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/08/us/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-alabama.html}} The Alabama Legislature defied the Supreme Court, drawing a map with only a single Black-majority district, rather than the ruling's minimum two districts.{{Cite web |date=2023-07-21 |title=Alabama lawmakers refuse to create 2nd majority-Black congressional district |url=https://apnews.com/article/alabama-legislature-redistricting-voting-rights-e2fc7c7550e10da353b72bafc3fb6604 |access-date=2023-08-02 |website=AP News |language=en}}

The NAACP and American Civil Liberties Union sued multiple state officials in Arkansas over the new state House districts, arguing that they unconstitutionally underrepresented Black voters.{{cite web |last1=Tarinelli |first1=Ryan |title=ACLU sues over state House redistricting map, says plan under-represents Black Arkansans |url=https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2021/dec/29/aclu-sues-over-state-house-redistricting-map-says/|website=Arkansas Democrat Gazette |date=December 29, 2021 |access-date=January 7, 2022}} A Trump appointed US District judge ruled that the groups did not have standing, and stated that the plaintiff must be the US Attorney General in February, 2022.{{cite web |last1=Earley |first1=Neal |title=ACLU's next move on Arkansas redistricting lawsuit depends on Justice Department, group says|url=https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2022/feb/19/aclus-next-move-on-arkansas-redistricting-lawsuit/|website=Arkansas Democrat Gazette |date=February 19, 2022 |access-date=February 28, 2022}} The ACLU appealed the ruling following the decision by the United States Department of Justice not to intervene.{{cite web |last1=Scott |first1=Emily |title=ACLU Appealing Dismissal of Challenge to AR Redistricting Map|url=https://www.publicnewsservice.org/2022-02-28/census/aclu-appealing-dismissal-of-challenge-to-ar-redistricting-map/a78048-1|website=Public News Service |access-date=January 7, 2022}} US Senator Tom Cotton filed an amicus brief with the court supporting the state of Arkansas, calling racial gerrymandering accusations "baseless".{{cite web |last1=Ellis |first1=Dale |last2=Tarinelli |first2=Ryan |title=Cotton calls racial gerrymandering claims 'baseless,' urges court to dismiss part of Arkansas congressional map lawsuit|url=https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2022/apr/16/cotton-calls-racial-gerrymandering-claims/|website=Arkansas Democrat Gazette |access-date=January 7, 2022}} Two lawsuits were also filed against Arkansas's congressional districts, arguing that the map disenfranchised black voters by splitting Pulaski County between three congressional districts and moving 23,000 black voters out of Arkansas's 2nd congressional district.{{cite web |title=2nd Lawsuit Filed Over Arkansas Congressional Redistricting|url=https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/arkansas/articles/2022-03-22/2nd-lawsuit-filed-over-arkansas-congressional-redistricting|website=US News |date=March 22, 2022|access-date=May 4, 2022}}

In Georgia, staff attorneys at the Southern Poverty Law Center claimed that, "the maps produced out of the special legislative session block Georgia's communities of color from obtaining political representation that reflects their population growth".{{cite news |last1=Niesse |first1=Mark |title=Lawsuits will challenge Georgia's new maps that favor Republicans |url=https://www.ajc.com/politics/lawsuits-will-challenge-georgias-new-maps-that-favor-republicans/6GLRYA6XBFFWDLITQ2GPYI4KYQ/ |website=The Atlanta Journal-Constitution |access-date=January 7, 2022}} The American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia filed suit in December 2021, alleging that both state legislative maps and congressional maps violated the VRA.{{cite web |last1=Ashley |first1=Asia |title=Kemp signs redistricting maps, lawsuit filed |url=https://www.valdostadailytimes.com/news/kemp-signs-redistricting-maps-lawsuit-filed/article_e8652210-6e5f-11ec-b0f0-bb57aff8fd1d.html |website=Valdosta Daily Times |date=January 5, 2022 |access-date=January 7, 2022}} Specifically, the 6th, 13th, and 14th congressional districts were challenged. In March 2022, Judge Steve C. Jones allowed Georgia's congressional and state legislative maps to take effect for the 2022 Georgia state elections even though he believed that it was likely "that certain aspects of the State's redistricting plans are unlawful." Despite this, he decided that overturning Georgia's maps so close to the May primary would prove overly disruptive.{{cite web |last1=Brumback |first1=Kate |title=Judge allows new Georgia political maps to be used this year|url=https://apnews.com/article/voting-rights-2022-midterm-elections-voting-georgia-elections-624ec6cfb7017a367c8915d789310d50|website=The Associated Press|date=March 2022 |access-date=March 2, 2022}} Later, in October 2023, Judge Jones found that Georgia's maps did illegally discriminate against Black voters, ordering the state to create an additional majority-Black district. The state of Georgia is expected to appeal that decision, and it remains uncertain what maps will be used for the 2024 elections.{{cite web|last=Gringlas|first=Sam|title=A federal judge says Georgia's political maps must be redrawn for the 2024 election|website=NPR|date=October 26, 2023|url=https://www.npr.org/2023/10/26/1208796830/georgia-redistricting-districts-judge-ruling}}{{cite news|last1=Niesse|first1=Mark|last2=Prabhu|first2=Maya T.|title=BREAKING: Judge throws out Georgia's redistricting, orders new maps|newspaper=Atlanta Journal-Constitution|date=October 26, 2023|url=https://www.ajc.com/politics/breaking-judge-throws-out-georgias-redistricting-orders-new-maps/OCXTSZBQ7ZGY7PWJWFELWRK6EA/}}

In Michigan, on March 23, 2022, a group of nineteen African-American Detroiters who live in thirteen different Michigan House and Senate districts in portions of Detroit sued the Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission ("MICRC") for violating the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/federal-lawsuit-over-michigans-legislative-maps-heads-to-trial/ On December 21, 2023, a three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan determined that the MICRC "overwhelmingly - indeed, inescapably" drew the boundaries of the plaintiffs' districts predominantly on the basis for race.https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/michigan/miwdce/1:2022cv00272/104360/131/ The three-judge panel enjoined further use of the Michigan House and Michigan Senate maps drawn by the MICRC and ordered the maps to be redrawn. https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-government/experts-everything-air-now-michigan-districts-must-be-redrawn

In Texas, the League of United Latin American Citizens and others filed a lawsuit against congressional and state legislative maps after they had passed the state legislature, but before they had been signed into law. They argued that despite over 50% of Texas's population growth over the past ten years being due to Hispanic citizens, the maps not only failed to add new Hispanic majority districts, but also eliminated several existing districts, violating the Voting Rights Act.{{cite web |last1=Ura |first1=Alexa |title=First lawsuit filed challenging new Texas political maps as intentionally discriminatory|url=https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/politics/2021/10/19/411218/first-lawsuit-filed-challenging-new-texas-political-maps-as-intentionally-discriminatory/|website=Texas Tribune |date=October 19, 2021 |access-date=May 4, 2022}} Republican state legislators claim that the maps were drawn without taking race into account, and that their legal counsel had previously advised them that the maps were legal under federal law.{{cite web |last1=Ura |first1=Alexa |title=Texas' new House map challenged in state court, expanding redistricting fight|url=https://www.texastribune.org/2021/11/03/texas-redistricting-state-court/|website=Texas Tribune |date=November 3, 2021 |access-date=May 4, 2022}} In December 2021, the Department of Justice also filed a lawsuit against Texas's new congressional and state house maps, arguing that they "were drawn with discriminatory intent".{{cite web |last1=Lucas |first1=Ryan |title=The Justice Department is suing Texas over the state's redistricting plans

|url=https://www.npr.org/2021/12/06/1061861305/the-justice-department-is-suing-texas-over-the-states-redistricting-plans|website=NPR |access-date=May 4, 2022}}

In Maryland, new congressional maps were vetoed by Governor Larry Hogan for being "disgracefully gerrymandered", but the Maryland state legislature overrode his veto on December 9, 2021.{{Cite news|last1=Flynn|first1=Meagan|last2=Wiggins|first2=Ovetta|date=December 9, 2021|title=Maryland General Assembly overrides Hogan's veto of new congressional map|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/12/09/hogan-contests-redistricting-maryland/|newspaper=The Washington Post}} Subsequently, two Republican aligned groups sued to overturn the new congressional maps, arguing that they were partisan gerrymanders that "cracked" Republican voters across several districts, diluting their voting power.{{cite web |last1=Leckrone |first1=Bennett |title=Second lawsuit filed over Maryland's new congressional districting map|url=https://wtop.com/maryland/2021/12/second-lawsuit-filed-over-marylands-new-congressional-districting-map/|website=WTOP News|date=December 23, 2021 |access-date=January 7, 2022}} Primaries in the state were delayed to July 19 due to the ongoing litigation.{{cite web |last1=Montellaro |first1=Zach |title=Maryland primary pushed back 3 weeks over redistricting challenge|url=https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/15/maryland-primary-pushed-back-redistricting-00017543|website=Politico |date=March 15, 2022 |access-date=March 21, 2022}} On March 25, a circuit court judge threw out the congressional districts, calling them an "extreme gerrymander" that disenfranchised multiple communities of interest.{{cite web |last1=Corasaniti |first1=Nick |title=Judge Throws Out Maryland Congressional Map, in Blow to Democrats |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/25/us/politics/maryland-redistricting-map-judge-ruling.html |website=The New York Times |date=March 25, 2022 |access-date=March 25, 2022}}

New York's congressional, state assembly, and state senate districts were thrown out by a New York state judge on March 31, 2022, for violating a state Constitutional provision banning partisan gerrymandering. On April 21, 2022, a New York appeals court upheld the ruling that New York's congressional maps were drawn with illegal partisan intent, but they reinstated the state assembly and state senate districts.{{cite web |last1=Fandos |first1=Nicholas |title=N.Y. House Districts Illegally Favor Democrats, Appeals Court Rules |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/21/nyregion/redistricting-lawsuit-new-york.html|website=The New York Times |date=April 21, 2022 |access-date=May 10, 2022}} Upon a second appeal by the state Democratic party, The New York State Court of Appeals found that the congressional and state senate districts were "drawn with impermissible partisan purpose." As such, both maps were found unconstitutional, and Carnegie Mellon University post-doctoral fellow Jonathan Cervas was appointed as an independent special master to draw new maps.{{cite web |last1=Fandos |first1=Nicholas |title=Democrats Lose Control of N.Y. Election Maps, as Top Court Rejects Appeal|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/27/nyregion/redistricting-congress-gerrymander-ny.html|website=The New York Times |date=April 27, 2022 |access-date=May 10, 2022}} Federal Judge Gary L. Sharpe of the Northern District of New York delayed New York's congressional and state senate primaries to August in May 2022, rejecting an argument from state Democrats that the primary must take place in June, and so it was too late to redraw new maps. He called the argument "a Hail Mary pass, the object of which is to take a long-shot try at having the New York primaries conducted on district lines that the state says is unconstitutional".{{cite web |last1=Fandos |first1=Nicholas |title=Federal Judge Dashes Democrats' Hopes for N.Y. District Maps

|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/10/nyregion/primary-election-new-york.html?campaign_id=56&emc=edit_cn_20220510&instance_id=60980&nl=on-politics®i_id=97261512&segment_id=91843&te=1&user_id=297eb39f6984a54beb803a49838bb3d7|website=The New York Times |date=May 10, 2022 |access-date=May 10, 2022}}

The Supreme Court of Ohio overturned initially passed state legislative maps, arguing that they unfairly favored Republicans against the guidance of Ohio's 2015 redistricting amendment that seeks to limit partisan gerrymandering.{{cite web |last1=Carr Smith |first1=Julie |title=Ohio justices toss GOP Statehouse maps, order fix in 10 days |url=https://apnews.com/article/voting-rights-legislature-constitutions-state-legislature-redistricting-0be8d67a2a352416c704eaf86e40755c |website=The Associated Press |date=January 12, 2022 |access-date=January 12, 2022}}

The Republican Party of New Mexico sued to overturn the new congressional maps, arguing that they unduly favor Democrats and dilute Republican voting strength, thereby violating the equal protection clause of the New Mexico state constitution. New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham characterized the congressional map as one "in which no one party or candidate may claim any undue advantage."{{cite web |title=Republican Party files legal challenge to New Mexico's recently approved political maps|url=https://www.lcsun-news.com/story/news/local/new-mexico/2022/01/23/new-mexico-republican-party-files-lawsuit-congressional-district-political-maps/6629505001/|website=Las Cruces Sun News|access-date=February 6, 2022}}

In February 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court struck down both state legislative maps and the congressional map initially passed by the state legislature in November 2021, citing partisan gerrymandering that violated the state Constitution.{{cite web |last1=Robertson |first1=Gary |title=North Carolina Supreme Court strikes down redistricting maps |url=https://apnews.com/article/elections-north-carolina-legislature-state-courts-redistricting-eeabf1f0b3574b1128449cea96bed206 |website=Associated Press |date=February 4, 2022 |access-date=5 February 2022}} As a result, the North Carolina legislature drafted new maps, which they submitted to the court for approval.{{cite web |last1=Robertson |first1=Gary |title=North Carolina lawmakers drew new political maps — again — that will now go back to court|url=https://www.wfae.org/politics/2022-02-20/north-carolina-lawmakers-drew-new-political-maps-again-that-will-now-go-back-to-court |website=WFAE 90.7 |date=February 20, 2022 |access-date=23 February 2022}} A three-judge panel of the court upheld the legality of both state legislative maps, but had court-appointed special masters redraw the congressional map, which was released and approved in February 2022.

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP is the first partisan gerrymandering case taken by the United States Supreme Court after its landmark decision in Rucho v Common Cause which stated that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts, and the first racial gerrymandering case, after the court's landmark decision in Allen v Milligan."Takeaways from Supreme Court Arguments Over South Carolina's Congressional Map". Democracy Docket. October 11, 2023. Retrieved December 23, 2023. The South Carolina case is pending a court decision in 2024.Liptak, Adam (October 11, 2023). "Justices Poised to Restore Voting Map Ruled a Racial Gerrymander". The New York Times. Retrieved December 23, 2023.

State supreme courts have selected or drafted new congressional maps in Connecticut, Minnesota, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin following the failure of redistricting panels or lawmakers to pass new maps in each state.{{Citation needed|date=July 2022|reason=Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin are not mentioned in the rest of the section and so have no references}}

The Connecticut Supreme Court was forced to take over the congressional redistricting process after the bipartisan legislative panel deadlocked and failed to agree on new maps. The court appointed Nathaniel Persily, who drew Connecticut's 2010 maps, as special master to draw the new congressional districts.{{cite web |last1=Haigh |first1=Susan |title=High Court Again Taps Election Law Expert to Redraw Lines |url=https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/politics/high-court-again-taps-election-law-expert-to-redraw-lines/2678542/|website=NBC Connecticut |date=December 24, 2021 |access-date=February 16, 2022}} Persily drew a least-change map, making only the adjustments necessary to ensure equal population in each congressional district.{{cite web |last1=Pazniokas |first1=Mark |title=Special master recommends tweaks to Connecticut congressional map |url=https://ctmirror.org/2022/01/18/special-master-recommends-tweaks-to-connecticut-congressional-map/|website=The CT Mirror |date=January 18, 2022 |access-date=February 16, 2022}} The court adopted Persily's recommended map on February 10, 2022.

In North Carolina, local and state courts took over the congressional redistricting process in February 2022. After initial congressional and legislative maps were ruled as unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders, several nonpartisan redistricting experts including Robert H. Edmunds Jr., Thomas W. Ross, and Robert F. Orr were appointed as special masters by the state Supreme Court. They were tasked with reviewing whether the second iteration of state legislative and congressional maps passed by the North Carolina legislature violated state Constitution provisions opposing partisan gerrymandering.{{cite web |last1=Doyle |first1=Steve |title=NC redistricting special masters have Greensboro flavor |url=https://myfox8.com/your-local-election-hq/nc-redistricting-special-masters-have-greensboro-flavor/|website=Fox 8 News |date=February 17, 2022 |access-date=February 23, 2022}} The special masters in coordination with the Wake County Superior Court found that the new congressional map was unconstitutional, and instead implemented their own map on February 23, 2022. North Carolina House Speaker Tim Moore called the process "egregious" and "unconstitutional", and accused the court of drawing the maps "in an unknown, black-box manner".{{cite web |last1=Anderson |first1=Bryan |title=NC court enacts new legislative, congressional maps; GOP and voting group to appeal |url=https://www.wral.com/nc-court-enacts-new-legislative-congressional-maps-gop-and-voting-group-to-appeal/20153515/|website=WRAL |date=February 23, 2022 |access-date=February 23, 2022}}

Following the failure of the Minnesota Legislature to pass either congressional or state legislative districts by the mandated February 5, 2022, deadline, the Minnesota Supreme Court appointed a five-member commission to draw new boundaries.{{cite web |last1=Callaghan |first1=Peter |title=Off the map: Minnesota Legislature takes a pass on trying to come up with its own redistricting plan|url=https://www.minnpost.com/state-government/2022/02/off-the-map-minnesota-legislature-takes-a-pass-on-trying-to-come-up-with-its-own-redistricting-plan/|website=Minn Post |date=February 11, 2022 |access-date=March 3, 2022}} The panel released the state's new maps later in February.

Democrats were particularly unhappy with the results of the 2012 House elections in which Democratic House candidates received more votes than Republican House candidates, but Republicans retained control of the chamber.{{cite news|last1=Levitz|first1=Eric|title=Democrats aim to 'unrig' congressional maps in 2020|url=http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/democrats-aim-unrig-congressional-maps-2020|access-date=October 31, 2016|publisher=MSNBC|date=August 4, 2015|archive-date=October 30, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161030143052/http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/democrats-aim-unrig-congressional-maps-2020|url-status=live}} Organizations such as the Democratic Governors Association and the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee have established funds dedicated to helping Democrats in the 2020 round of redistricting.{{cite news|last1=Sarlin|first1=Benjy|title=Forget 2016: Democrats already have a plan for 2020|url=http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/2016-democrats-already-have-plan-2020|access-date=October 31, 2016|publisher=MSNBC|date=August 26, 2014|archive-date=October 28, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151028151748/http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/2016-democrats-already-have-plan-2020|url-status=live}}

Democrats also established the National Democratic Redistricting Committee to coordinate Democratic redistricting efforts.{{cite news|last1=Dovere|first1=Edward-Isaac|title=Obama, Holder to lead post-Trump redistricting campaign|url=http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/obama-holder-redistricting-gerrymandering-229868|access-date=October 31, 2016|publisher=Politico|date=October 17, 2016|archive-date=November 2, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161102074552/http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/obama-holder-redistricting-gerrymandering-229868|url-status=live}} Republicans established a similar group, the National Republican Redistricting Trust.{{cite news|last1=Connolly|first1=Griffin|title=Republican Group Ready to Spend Big on Redistricting|url=http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/republican-group-ready-spend-big-redistricting|access-date=September 29, 2017|publisher=Roll Call|date=September 29, 2017|archive-date=September 29, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170929190929/http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/republican-group-ready-spend-big-redistricting|url-status=live}}

{{Further|2010 United States redistricting cycle}}

In the 2013 case, Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court struck down Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act, which was a coverage formula that determined which states and counties required preclearance from the Justice Department before making changes to voting laws and procedures.{{cite web|last1=Levitt|first1=Justin|title=Who draws the lines?-Preclearance|url=http://redistricting.lls.edu/who-preclear.php|website=All About Redistricting|access-date=November 15, 2016|archive-date=November 4, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161104163736/http://redistricting.lls.edu/who-preclear.php|url-status=live}} The formula had covered states with a history of minority voter disenfranchisement, and the preclearance procedure was designed to block discriminatory voting practices. In the 2019 case of Rucho v. Common Cause, the Supreme Court held that claims of partisan gerrymandering present nonjusticiable political questions that cannot be reviewed by federal courts.{{cite web | url = https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-gerrymandering/in-major-elections-ruling-supreme-court-allows-partisan-map-drawing-idUSKCN1TS24Z | title = In major elections ruling, U.S. Supreme Court allows partisan map drawing | first1 = Andrew | last1 = Chung | first2 = Lawrence | last2 = Hurley | date = June 27, 2019 | access-date = June 27, 2019 | publisher = Reuters | archive-date = June 27, 2019 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20190627163814/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-gerrymandering/in-major-elections-ruling-supreme-court-allows-partisan-map-drawing-idUSKCN1TS24Z | url-status = live }}

In another 2019 case, Department of Commerce v. New York, the Supreme Court blocked the Trump administration from adding a question to the 2020 census regarding the citizenship of respondents.{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/us/politics/census-citizenship-question-supreme-court.html|title=Supreme Court Leaves Census Question on Citizenship in Doubt|last=Liptak|first=Adam|date=June 27, 2019|work=The New York Times|access-date=June 27, 2019|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331|archive-date=June 27, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190627175620/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/us/politics/census-citizenship-question-supreme-court.html|url-status=live}}

In 2015, the Supreme Court of Florida ordered the state to draw a new congressional map on the basis of a 2010 state constitutional amendment that banned partisan gerrymandering.{{cite news |last1=Prokop |first1=Andrew |title=Florida's Supreme Court has struck another blow against gerrymandering |url=https://www.vox.com/2015/12/5/9851152/florida-gerrymandering-ruling |access-date=September 11, 2019 |publisher=Vox |date=December 5, 2015 |archive-date=November 24, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191124032612/https://www.vox.com/2015/12/5/9851152/florida-gerrymandering-ruling |url-status=live }}

In 2018, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court threw out the 2011 U.S. House of Representatives map on the grounds that it violated the state constitution; the court established new redistricting standards requiring districts to be compact and to minimize the splitting of counties and towns.{{cite news |last1=Lai |first1=Jonathan |last2=Navratil |first2=Liz |title=Pennsylvania, gerrymandered: A guide to Pa.'s congressional map redistricting fight |url=https://www.inquirer.com/philly/news/politics/state/pennsylvania-gerrymandering-case-congressional-redistricting-map-coverage-guide-20180615.html |publisher=Philly.com |access-date=June 29, 2019 |archive-date=June 29, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190629053916/https://www.inquirer.com/philly/news/politics/state/pennsylvania-gerrymandering-case-congressional-redistricting-map-coverage-guide-20180615.html |url-status=live }}

In 2019, a North Carolina state court struck down the state's legislative districts on the grounds that the district had been created with the partisan intent of favoring Republican candidates.{{cite news |last1=Mills Rodrigo |first1=Chris |title=North Carolina court strikes down state legislative map |url=https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/459787-north-carolina-court-strikes-down-state-legislative-map |work=The Hill |date=September 3, 2019 |access-date=September 5, 2019 |archive-date=September 5, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190905211718/https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/459787-north-carolina-court-strikes-down-state-legislative-map |url-status=live }}

In 2022, the Ohio Supreme Court struck down the state's congressional and legislative districts multiple times.{{cite news|last=Trevas|first=Dan|title=Court Invalidates Second Congressional Map|date=July 19, 2022|newspaper=Court News Ohio|access-date=March 27, 2023|url=https://www.courtnewsohio.gov/cases/2022/SCO/0719/220298_220303.asp#.ZCIsexXMK3A}}

In 2015, Ohio voters approved a ballot measure changing the composition of the commission charged with drawing state legislative districts, adding two legislative appointees to the commission and creating rules and guidelines designed to make partisan gerrymandering more difficult.{{cite news|last1=Siegel|first1=Jim|title=Voters approve issue to reform Ohio's redistricting process|url=http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/public/2015/election/ohio-state-issue-1-redistricting.html|access-date=November 19, 2016|publisher=The Columbus Dispatch|date=November 4, 2015|archive-date=November 15, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161115204655/http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/public/2015/election/ohio-state-issue-1-redistricting.html|url-status=live}} In May 2018, Ohio voters approved a proposal that modified the state's congressional redistricting processes.{{cite news |last1=Wilson |first1=Reid |title=Ohio voters pass redistricting reform initiative |url=https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/386839-ohio-voters-pass-redistricting-reform-initiative |access-date=November 7, 2018 |work=The Hill |date=May 8, 2018 |archive-date=November 8, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181108031253/https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/386839-ohio-voters-pass-redistricting-reform-initiative |url-status=live }}

In 2018, voters in Colorado and Michigan approved of a proposal to establish an independent redistricting commission for congressional and state legislative districts in their respective states.{{cite news |last1=Moon |first1=Emily |title=How Did Citizen-Led Redistricting Initiatives Fare in the Mid-Terms? |url=https://psmag.com/news/how-did-citizen-led-redistricting-initiatives-fare-in-the-mid-terms |access-date=November 7, 2018 |publisher=Pacific Standard |date=November 7, 2018 |archive-date=November 7, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181107224901/https://psmag.com/news/how-did-citizen-led-redistricting-initiatives-fare-in-the-mid-terms |url-status=live }} In Utah, voters approved the creation of a redistricting commission to draw congressional and state legislative districts, though the Utah state legislature retains the power to reject these maps.{{cite news |last1=Rodgers |first1=Bethany |last2=Wood |first2=Benjamin |title=Utah's new anti-gerrymandering law is at risk, group warns |url=https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2020/02/21/utahs-new-anti/ |publisher=The Salt Lake Tribune |date=February 22, 2020 |access-date=April 23, 2020 |archive-date=March 14, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200314192334/https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2020/02/21/utahs-new-anti/ |url-status=live }}

In 2020, voters in Virginia approved the establishment of a bipartisan redistricting commission for both congressional and state legislative redistricting. The commission consists of eight legislators and eight non-legislator citizens, with the commission split evenly between Democrats and Republicans.{{cite news |last1=Weiner |first1=Rachel |title=Virginians approve turning redistricting over to bipartisan commission |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/virginia-redistricting-amendment-results/2020/11/02/5d1ef242-19f8-11eb-befb-8864259bd2d8_story.html |newspaper=Washington Post |date=November 4, 2020}}

In 2018, Missouri voters approved of a proposal to have a non-partisan state demographer draw state legislative districts, but in 2020 Missouri voters approved a second referendum eliminating the state demographer position and restoring the system in place prior to the 2018 referendum.{{cite news |last1=Lieb |first1=David A. |title=Missouri voters dump never-used redistricting reforms |url=https://apnews.com/article/missouri-voter-dump-redistricting-reform-a9e177612d135176ff53718b9b0e5436 |publisher=AP |date=November 5, 2020}}

• 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021 United States elections
• Gerrymandering in the United States
• Redistricting in the United States
• Electoral geography

{{notelist}}

{{reflist}}

• {{cite web |title=50 State Guide to Redistricting |url=https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/50-state-guide-redistricting |website=Brennan Center for Justice |access-date=November 4, 2018 |archive-date=August 26, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190826022653/https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/50-state-guide-redistricting |url-status=dead }}
• {{cite web |title=The Atlas of Redistricting |url=https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-maps/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180125135531/https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-maps/ |url-status=dead |archive-date=January 25, 2018 |website=FiveThirtyEight |date=January 25, 2018 |access-date=November 1, 2018}}

{{Redistricting (US)}}

Category:2020 in American politics

Category:Redistricting in the United States

Category:Electoral geography of the United States

Category:Democratic backsliding in the United States