Redistricting commissions

Redistricting
State-by-state redistricting procedures
Majority-minority districts
Congressional district demographics
United States census, 2020

A redistricting commission is a body authorized to draft and implement electoral district maps. The composition and operation of these commissions varies from state to state. In general, a redistricting commission can take one of two forms: politician commissions and non-politician commissions. Ballotpedia considers a politician commission to be any redistricting commission whose members can hold political office. A non-politician commission is any redistricting commission whose members can not hold political office. Note that Ballotpedia does not use the term "independent redistricting commission."

HIGHLIGHTS

Congressional redistricting: Eleven states use commissions to draw congressional district lines, including states with hybrid methods. Nine of these are non-politician commissions. One state, New Jersey, has a politician commission, and one state, Virginia, has an equal number of politicians and non-politicians.

State legislative redistricting: Sixteen states use commissions for state legislative redistricting, including states with hybrid methods. Ten of these are non-politician commissions. Five are politician commissions, and Virginia's commission has an equal number of politicians and non-politicians.

What is redistricting?

See also: Redistricting

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.

All United States Representatives and state legislators are elected from political divisions called districts. The states redraw district lines every 10 years following completion of the United States census. The federal government requires that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.

Redistricting commissions play a crucial role in shaping the electoral maps that impact representation at the local, state, and federal levels. By adopting transparent processes and considering factors such demographic changes and the impact on communities, these commissions strive to create electoral districts that accurately reflect the preferences and demographics of the population. However, challenges remain in ensuring the effectiveness and independence of redistricting commissions, and debates continue over the best ways to conduct a fair and equitable redistricting process in the United States.

In 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, ruling 5-4 that redistricting commissions do not violate the United States Constitution.

Use in congressional and state legislative redistricting

Redistricting commissions for congressional districts

The map below shows the 11 states that use commissions for congressional redistricting, including states with hybrid methods. Nine of these are non-politician commissions. One state, New Jersey, has a politician commission, and one state, Virginia, has an equal number of politicians and non-politicians.

Redistricting commissions for state legislative districts

The map below shows the 16 states that use commissions for state legislative redistricting, including states with hybrid methods. Ten of these are non-politician commissions. Five are politician commissions, and Virginia's commission has an equal number of politicians and non-politicians.

Details by state

The table below provides details about the redistricting commissions operating in the United States as of March 2024.

Redistricting commissions
State	Type	Number of commissioners	Source
Alaska*	Non-politician	5	Source
Arizona	Non-politician	5	Source
Arkansas*	Politician	3	Source
California	Non-politician	14	Source
Colorado	Non-politician	12 (two separate commissions for congressional and state legislative redistricting, each with 12 members)	Source
Hawaii	Non-politician	9	Source
Idaho	Non-politician	6	Source
Michigan	Non-politician	13	Source
Missouri*	Politician	20 (House); 20 (Senate)	Source
Montana	Non-politician	5	Source
New Jersey	Politician	13 (congressional); 10-11 (state legislative)	Source, Source
New York**	Non-politician	10	Source
Ohio*	Politician	7	Source
Pennsylvania*	Politician	5	Source
Virginia**	Both politician & non-politician	16	Source
Washington	Non-politician	5	Source
*State legislative redistricting only. **State uses hybrid redistricting methods.

Legal challenges

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

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

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2015, established the constitutionality of the use of non-politician commissions in congressional redistricting. At issue was the constitutionality of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, which was established by state constitutional amendment in 2000. According to Article 1, 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 more broadly to encompass the legislative powers of the state, including voter initiatives and referenda.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

On June 29, 2015, the United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the following in the court's majority opinion:

“	The people of Arizona turned to the initiative to curb the practice of gerrymandering and, thereby, to ensure that Members of Congress would have “an habitual recollection of their dependence on the people.” In so acting, Arizona voters sought to restore “the core principle of republican government,” namely, “that the voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around.” The Elections Clause does not hinder that endeavor.	”
—Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor joined Ginsburg in the court's majority opinion. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito dissented.

In his dissent, Roberts argued that the word legislature in Article 1, Section 4, of the United States Constitution ought to be interpreted narrowly to mean the "representative body which makes the laws of the people."

“	The people of Arizona have concerns about the process of congressional redistricting in their State. For better or worse, the Elections Clause of the Constitution does not allow them to address those concerns by displacing their legislature. But it does allow them to seek relief from Congress, which can make or alter the regulations prescribed by the legislature.	”
—John Roberts

Support and opposition

Support

Proponents of redistricting commissions (particularly, non-politician commissions) contend that redistricting methods involving elected officials compromise the integrity of the electoral process by enabling politicians to draw boundaries to their benefit. The National Election Defense Coalition, arguing for the increased use of non-politician commissions, made this argument on its website:

“	Political power in America should flow from the people. But politicians often abuse their power to draw district boundaries, gerrymandering them for partisan and personal advantage. Elected officials end up choosing their voters, instead of the other way around. The result is stagnant and unaccountable incumbency, and unfair allocation of seats in Congress and state legislatures.	”
—National Election Defense Coalition

In December 2016, the Center for American Progress released a report supportive of non-politician redistricting commissions:

“	Independent commissions offer several benefits, including eliminating the appearance of impropriety and making elections fairer. Legislators, for instance, are four times more likely than independent commissions to create congressional districts that 'deny voters choice in the primary' and two times more likely to do so for general elections. This is perhaps one of the reasons why maps drawn by independent commissions face fewer legal challenges than maps drawn by politicians.	”
—Center for American Progress

Opposition

Opponents argue that non-politician commissions exclude state legislators from the redistricting process in violation of the United States Constitution. The National Conference of State Legislatures, in an amicus brief filed in support of the Arizona State Legislature in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, made the following argument:

“	In 37 states, the legislature draws the congressional redistricting plan. The other thirteen states involve both the legislature and some form of redistricting commission. All but two of these thirteen states respect the Election Clause's delegation by maintaining a substantive role for the legislature. But Arizona and one other state provide the legislature no substantive involvement in redistricting. ... Excluding the legislature from substantive involvement in redistricting contravenes the Elections Clause[.]	”
—National Conference of State Legislatures

Opponents also contend that non-politician commissions are less transparent in their methods and therefore less accountable to voters than elected officials. Susan Myrick, writing for the Civitas Institute in January 2017, made the following argument:

“	The fact is, redistricting is and always had been an inherently partisan process. The best way to deal with that fact is to ensure the process is transparently implemented by the elected officials charged with the responsibility. ... They are the ones who the voters can hold accountable at the ballot box – not namely, faceless bureaucrats.	”
—Sysan Myrick

Redistricting legislation

The table below lists redistricting bills introduced during or carried over to each state's regular legislative session this year. The following information is included for each bill:

• State
• Bill number
• Official bill name or caption
• Most recent action date
• Legislative status
• Sponsor party
• Topics dealt with by the bill

Bills are organized by state and then by most recent action. The table displays up to 100 results. To view more bills, use the arrows in the upper-right corner. Clicking on a bill will open its page on Ballotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker, which includes bill details and a summary.

See also

• Redistricting
• State-by-state redistricting procedures

External links

• National Conference of State Legislatures, "Redistricting Commissions"