Redistricting in Washington
 in Washington |
Redistricting is the process by which new congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn. Each of Washington's 10 United States Representatives and 123 state legislators are elected from political divisions called districts. United States Senators are not elected by districts, but by the states at large. District lines are redrawn every 10 years following completion of the United States census. The federal government stipulates that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.[1][2][3][4]
Washington was apportioned 10 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2020 census, the same number it received after the 2010 census. Click here for more information about redistricting in Washington after the 2020 census.
The Washington House approved a final congressional map proposal 88-7 on February 2, 2022, and the Senate approved the congressional plan on February 8, 2022, in a 35-14 vote.[5][6] Washington’s four redistricting commissioners each released their proposed congressional maps on September 28, 2021. On November 16, 2021, the commission announced that it was not able to produce new maps by its November 15 deadline and had submitted plans to the Washington Supreme Court for consideration, as authority to draw new maps passes to the court if the commission fails to agree on maps before the deadline. The court decided to accept the final map drafts the commission submitted, ruling that it had "substantially complied" with the deadline. This map took effect for Washington's 2022 congressional elections. On March 15, 2024, Judge Robert Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington ordered the state to adopt a new legislative map named Remedial Map 3B that complies with the Voting Rights Act. Judge Lasnik ordered Washington to redraw a legislative district in the Yakima Valley region because its boundaries undermined the ability of Latino voters to participate equally in elections. According to the district court's decision:[7][8]
| “ | The task of fashioning a remedy for a Voting Rights Act violation is not one that falls within the Court’s normal duties. It is only because the State declined to reconvene the Redistricting Commission – with its expertise, staff, and ability to solicit public comments – that the Court was compelled to step in. Nevertheless, with the comprehensive and extensive presentations from the parties, the participation of the Yakama Nation, and the able assistance of Ms. Mac Donald, the Court is confident that the adopted map best achieves the many goals of the remedial process. The Secretary of State is hereby ORDERED to conduct future elections according to Remedial Map 3B...[8][9] | ” |
Click here for more information on maps enacted after the 2020 census.
See the sections below for further information on the following topics:
- Background: A summary of federal requirements for redistricting at both the congressional and state legislative levels
- State process: An overview about the redistricting process in Washington
- District maps: Information about the current district maps in Washington
- Redistricting by cycle: A breakdown of the most significant events in Washington's redistricting after recent censuses
- State legislation and ballot measures: State legislation and state and local ballot measures relevant to redistricting policy
- Political impacts of redistricting: An analysis of the political issues associated with redistricting
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.[10][11]
| “ | 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.[9] | ” |
| —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."[12][13][14]
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."[14]
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."[14]
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.
- 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.[14][15]
- 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.[14][15]
- 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.[14][15]
- 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.[14][15]
Methods
In general, a state's redistricting authority can be classified as one of the following:[16]
- 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.
- 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.
- Hybrid: In a hybrid state, the legislature shares redistricting authority with a commission.
Gerrymandering
- 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.[1][17]
For additional background information about gerrymandering, click "[Show more]" below.
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.[18]
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.[19][20]Recent court decisions
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.
Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (2024)
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."[21] 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.[22] The U.S. Supreme Court scheduled oral argument on this case for October 11, 2023.[23]
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.[24] 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.[25]
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.[26]
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.[27]
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.[28][29][30]
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.[31][32][33][34]
Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2016)
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.[35][36][37]
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015)
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.[38][39][40][41]Race and ethnicity
- See also: Majority-minority districts
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 mandates that electoral district lines cannot be drawn in such a manner as to "improperly dilute minorities' voting power."
| “ | No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.[9] | ” |
| —Voting Rights Act of 1965[42] | ||
States and other political subdivisions may create majority-minority districts in order to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. A majority-minority district is a district in which minority groups compose a majority of the district's total population. As of 2015, Washington was home to one congressional majority-minority district.[2][3][4]
Proponents of majority-minority districts maintain that these districts are a necessary hindrance to the practice of cracking, which occurs when a constituency is divided between several districts in order to prevent it from achieving a majority in any one district. In addition, supporters argue that the drawing of majority-minority districts has resulted in an increased number of minority representatives in state legislatures and Congress.[2][3][4]
Critics, meanwhile, contend that the establishment of majority-minority districts can result in packing, which occurs when a constituency or voting group is placed within a single district, thereby minimizing its influence in other districts. Because minority groups tend to vote Democratic, critics argue that majority-minority districts ultimately present an unfair advantage to Republicans by consolidating Democratic votes into a smaller number of districts.[2][3][4]
State process
- See also: State-by-state redistricting procedures
In Washington, congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn by a five-member non-politician commission. The commission was established by constitutional amendment in 1983. The majority and minority leaders of the Washington State Senate and Washington House of Representatives each appoint one registered voter to the commission. These four commissioners appoint a fifth, non-voting member to serve as the commission's chair. In the event that the four voting commissioners cannot agree on a chair, the Washington Supreme Court must appoint one.[43]
The Washington Constitution stipulates that no commission member may have been an elected official or party officer in the two-year period prior to his or her appointment. Individuals who have registered with the state as lobbyists within the past year are also prohibited from serving on the commission.[43]
The Washington State Legislature may amend the commission's maps by a two-thirds vote in each legislative chamber.[43]
The state constitution requires that congressional and state legislative districts "should be contiguous, compact, and convenient, and follow natural, geographic, artificial, or political subdivision boundaries." The constitution states that the redistricting commission "must not purposely draw plans to favor or discriminate against any political party or group."[43]
State statutes require that congressional and state legislative districts "preserve areas recognized as communities of interest." State statutes also require the commission to draw districts that "provide fair and effective representation" and "encourage electoral competition."[43]
How incarcerated persons are counted for redistricting
- See also: State-by-state redistricting procedures
States differ on how they count incarcerated persons for the purposes of redistricting. In Washington, inmates who were in-state residents prior to incarceration are counted in their last known residence's district population. Out-of-state residents and inmates with unknown previous residences are excluded from all district populations. Washington's policy also applies to incarcerated juveniles and involuntarily committed behavioral health patients. It does not address federal inmates.
District maps
Congressional districts
Washington comprises 10 congressional districts. The table below lists Washington's current U.S. Representatives.
| Office | Name | Party | Date assumed office | Date term ends |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. House Washington District 1 | Suzan DelBene | Democratic | November 13, 2012 | January 3, 2027 |
| U.S. House Washington District 2 | Rick Larsen | Democratic | January 3, 2001 | January 3, 2027 |
| U.S. House Washington District 3 | Marie Gluesenkamp Pérez | Democratic | January 3, 2023 | January 3, 2027 |
| U.S. House Washington District 4 | Dan Newhouse | Republican | January 3, 2015 | January 3, 2027 |
| U.S. House Washington District 5 | Michael Baumgartner | Republican | January 3, 2025 | January 3, 2027 |
| U.S. House Washington District 6 | Emily Randall | Democratic | January 3, 2025 | January 3, 2027 |
| U.S. House Washington District 7 | Pramila Jayapal | Democratic | January 3, 2017 | January 3, 2027 |
| U.S. House Washington District 8 | Kim Schrier | Democratic | January 3, 2019 | January 3, 2027 |
| U.S. House Washington District 9 | D. Adam Smith | Democratic | January 3, 1997 | January 3, 2027 |
| U.S. House Washington District 10 | Marilyn Strickland | Democratic | January 3, 2021 | January 3, 2027 |
State legislative maps
- See also: Washington State Senate and Washington House of Representatives
Washington comprises 49 state legislative districts. Each district elects one state senator and two state representatives. State senators are elected every four years in partisan elections. State representatives are elected every two years in partisan elections.[44] To access the state legislative district maps approved during the 2020 redistricting cycle, click here.
Redistricting by cycle
Redistricting after the 2020 census
Washington was apportioned 10 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.[45]
Enacted state legislative district maps
State legislative maps enacted in 2024
On March 15, 2024, Judge Robert Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington ordered the state to adopt a new legislative map named Remedial Map 3B that complies with the Voting Rights Act. Judge Lasnik ordered Washington to redraw a legislative district in the Yakima Valley region because its boundaries undermined the ability of Latino voters to participate equally in elections. According to the district court's decision:[7][8]
| “ | The task of fashioning a remedy for a Voting Rights Act violation is not one that falls within the Court’s normal duties. It is only because the State declined to reconvene the Redistricting Commission – with its expertise, staff, and ability to solicit public comments – that the Court was compelled to step in. Nevertheless, with the comprehensive and extensive presentations from the parties, the participation of the Yakama Nation, and the able assistance of Ms. Mac Donald, the Court is confident that the adopted map best achieves the many goals of the remedial process. The Secretary of State is hereby ORDERED to conduct future elections according to Remedial Map 3B...[8][9] | ” |
On August 10, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington struck down the state's legislative maps, which were drawn by the bipartisan state Redistricting Commission in 2021, after finding that they discriminate against Latino voters in violation of the Voting Rights Act. At the time, the 15th district encompassed parts of five counties in south-central Washington and was represented by three Republicans.[7]
“The question in this case is whether the state has engaged in line-drawing which, in combination with the social and historical conditions in the Yakima Valley region, impairs the ability of Latino voters in that area to elect their candidate of choice on an equal basis with other voters. The answer is yes,” Judge Lasnik wrote in the district court's 32-page decision.[7]
Reactions to 2024 state legislative maps
Simone Leeper, an attorney with Campaign Legal Center representing the coalition of Latino voters that brought the lawsuit challenging legislative district boundaries called the ruling a definitive win and said, “For the first time, Latinos in the region will have the voice that they deserve in the Legislature. She also praised the decision's “repeated recognition of the history of discrimination and continuing struggle that Latinos have in the region and the incredible need for true representation to address those concerns.”[7]
State Senate map
Below is the state Senate map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.
Washington State Senate Districts
until January 12, 2025
Click a district to compare boundaries.
Washington State Senate Districts
starting January 13, 2025
Click a district to compare boundaries.
State House map
Below is the state House map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.
Washington State House Districts
until January 12, 2025
Click a district to compare boundaries.
Washington State House Districts
starting January 13, 2025
Click a district to compare boundaries.
State legislative maps enacted in 2022
The Washington House approved final state legislative map proposals on February 2, 2022, and the Senate approved the legislative plan on February 8, 2022 in a 35-14 vote.[46]Washington’s four redistricting commissioners each released their proposed state legislative maps on September 21, 2021. On November 16, 2021, the commission announced that it was not able to produce new maps by its November 15 deadline and had submitted plans to the Supreme Court for consideration, as authority to draw new maps passes to the court if the commission fails to agree on maps before the deadline. The court decided to accept the final map drafts the commission submitted, ruling that it had "substantially complied" with the deadline.[47] These maps took effect for Washington's 2022 legislative elections.
Reactions to 2022 state legislative maps
Senate Majority Leader Andy Billig (D) voted for the legislative but said, “I continue to have significant concern that the Yakima Valley legislative district may not be compliant with the federal Voting Rights Act.” Sen. Jamie Pedersen (D) said, “I think I’m not the only one who was surprised and disappointed that this past Nov. 15, as the clock approached midnight, without actually having agreed on a plan, without having published a plan for public comment, our redistricting commission voted to approve some sort of oral agreement that they had to send that over to us.”[48]
Commission member April Sims said, “I just think there is something really powerful about forcing folks who normally wouldn’t come together to come together. It means everyone has to give a little in the process and no one side wins. And I think that’s good for democracy and good for the public.”[49] In their decision to not alter the commission-approved maps, the justices of the Washington Supreme Court wrote, “This is not a situation in which the Supreme Court must step in because the Commission has failed to agree on a plan it believes complies with state and federal equirements.”[50]
Enacted congressional district maps
The Washington House approved a final congressional map proposal 88-7 on February 2, 2022, and the Senate approved the congressional plan on February 8, 2022, in a 35-14 vote.[51][52] Washington’s four redistricting commissioners each released their proposed congressional maps on September 28, 2021. On November 16, 2021, the commission announced that it was not able to produce new maps by its November 15 deadline and had submitted plans to the Washington Supreme Court for consideration, as authority to draw new maps passes to the court if the commission fails to agree on maps before the deadline. The court decided to accept the final map drafts the commission submitted, ruling that it had "substantially complied" with the deadline. This map took effect for Washington's 2022 congressional elections.
Congressional map
Below are the congressional maps in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.
Washington Congressional Districts
until January 2, 2023
Click a district to compare boundaries.
Washington Congressional Districts
starting January 3, 2023
Click a district to compare boundaries.
Reactions to congressional map
Criticism of the redistricting plans focused on the commission's vote to approve them without leaving time for public input. Mike Fancher of the Washington Coalition for Open Government said, “The commission damaged public trust in our system of governing, which always happens when secrecy prevails over transparency.”[53] Rep. Sharon Wylie (D) said the commission process was still effective. “I’ve not always been happy with the results, but I’ve always felt that our system worked better than in a lot of other states and was more fair,” Wylie said.[54]
Redistricting after the 2010 census
Congressional redistricting, 2010
Following the 2010 United States Census, Washington gained one congressional seat. On January 1, 2012, the state's independent redistricting commission released its congressional district plan. On February 1, 2012, the state legislature passed an amended version of this plan by a two-thirds vote.[43][55]
State legislative redistricting, 2010
On January 1, 2012, the state's independent redistricting commission released its state legislative district plan. On February 1, 2012, the state legislature passed an amended version of this plan by a two-thirds vote.[43]
Political impacts of redistricting
Competitiveness
There are conflicting opinions regarding the correlation between partisan gerrymandering and electoral competitiveness. In 2012, Jennifer Clark, a political science professor at the University of Houston, said, "The redistricting process has important consequences for voters. In some states, incumbent legislators work together to protect their own seats, which produces less competition in the political system. Voters may feel as though they do not have a meaningful alternative to the incumbent legislator. Legislators who lack competition in their districts have less incentive to adhere to their constituents’ opinions."[56]
In 2006, Emory University professor Alan Abramowitz and Ph.D. students Brad Alexander and Matthew Gunning wrote, "[Some] studies have concluded that redistricting has a neutral or positive effect on competition. ... [It] is often the case that partisan redistricting has the effect of reducing the safety of incumbents, thereby making elections more competitive."[57]
In 2011, James Cottrill, a professor of political science at Santa Clara University, published a study of the effect of non-legislative approaches (e.g., independent commissions, politician commissions) to redistricting on the competitiveness of congressional elections. Cottrill found that "particular types of [non-legislative approaches] encourage the appearance in congressional elections of experienced and well-financed challengers." Cottrill cautioned, however, that non-legislative approaches "contribute neither to decreased vote percentages when incumbents win elections nor to a greater probability of their defeat."[58]
In 2021, John Johnson, Research Fellow in the Lubar Center for Public Policy Research and Civic Education at Marquette University, reviewed the relationship between partisan gerrymandering and political geography in Wisconsin, a state where Republicans have controlled both chambers of the state legislature since 2010 while voting for the Democratic nominee in every presidential election but one since 1988. After analyzing state election results since 2000, Johnson wrote, "In 2000, 42% of Democrats and 36% of Republicans lived in a neighborhood that the other party won. Twenty years later, 43% of Democrats lived in a place Trump won, but just 28% of Republicans lived in a Biden-voting neighborhood. Today, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to live in both places where they are the overwhelming majority and places where they form a noncompetitive minority."[59]
State legislatures after the 2020 redistricting cycle
In 2014, Ballotpedia conducted a study of competitive districts in 44 state legislative chambers between 2010, the last year in which district maps drawn after the 2000 census applied, and 2012, the first year in which district maps drawn after the 2010 census applied. Ballotpedia found that there were 61 fewer competitive general election contests in 2012 than in 2010. Of the 44 chambers studied, 25 experienced a net loss in the number of competitive elections. A total of 17 experienced a net increase. In total, 16.2 percent of the 3,842 legislative contests studied saw competitive general elections in 2010. In 2012, 14.6 percent of the contests studied saw competitive general elections. An election was considered competitive if it was won by a margin of victory of 5 percent or less. An election was considered mildly competitive if it was won by a margin of victory between 5 and 10 percent. For more information regarding this report, including methodology, see this article.
In Washington, there were seven competitive races for the Washington House of Representatives in 2012, compared to 11 in 2010. There were nine mildly competitive House races in 2012, compared to 11 in 2010. This amounted to a net loss of six competitive elections.
State legislation and ballot measures
Redistricting legislation
The table below includes bills related to redistricting introduced during (or carried over to) the current session of the Washington state legislature. The following information is included for each bill:
- State
- Bill number
- Official bill name or caption
- Most recent action date
- Legislative status
- Sponsor party
- Topics dealt with by the bill
Bills are organized by most recent action. The table displays up to 100 results. To view more bills, use the arrows in the upper-right corner. Clicking on a bill will open its page on Ballotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker, which includes bill details and a summary.
Redistricting ballot measures
Ballotpedia has tracked the following ballot measure(s) relating to redistricting in Washington.
- Washington SJR 103, Redistricting Commission Amendment (1983)
- Washington Referendum 16, Congressional Redistricting Measure (1966)
- Washington Initiative 199, Legislative Reapportionment and Redistricting Measure (1956)
- Washington Initiative 57, State Legislative Redistricting Measure (1930)
- Washington Initiative 211, State Legislative Redistricting Based on Equal Population Measure (1962)
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Redistricting Washington. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
- United States census, 2020
- Redistricting in Washington after the 2010 census
- Redistricting
- State-by-state redistricting procedures
- Majority-minority districts
- State legislative and congressional redistricting after the 2010 census
- Margin of victory in state legislative elections before and after the 2010 census
- Margin of victory analysis for the 2014 congressional elections
External links
- All About Redistricting
- Dave's Redistricting
- FiveThirtyEight, "What Redistricting Looks Like In Every State"
- National Conference of State Legislatures, "Redistricting Process"
- FairVote, "Redistricting"
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 All About Redistricting, "Why does it matter?" accessed April 8, 2015
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Indy Week, "Cracked, stacked and packed: Initial redistricting maps met with skepticism and dismay," June 29, 2011
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 The Atlantic, "How the Voting Rights Act Hurts Democrats and Minorities," June 17, 2013
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Redrawing the Lines, "The Role of Section 2 - Majority Minority Districts," accessed April 6, 2015
- ↑ The Spokesman-Review, "State Senate passes changes to redistricting process as House approves final maps with changes," February 2, 2022
- ↑ Washington State Legislature, "HCR 4407 - 2021-22," accessed February 9, 2022
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 Washington State Standard, "Federal judge orders redrawing of Yakima Valley legislative district," August 10, 2023
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 U.S. District Court for the District of Washington at Seattle, "Case No. 3:22-cv-05035-RSL: Susan Soto Palmer v. Steven Hobbs," March 15, 2024
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, "Election Regulations," accessed April 13, 2015
- ↑ Brookings, "Redistricting and the United States Constitution," March 22, 2011
- ↑ Brennan Center for Justice, "A Citizen's Guide to Redistricting," accessed March 25, 2015
- ↑ The Constitution of the United States of America, "Article 1, Section 2," accessed March 25, 2015
- ↑ 14.0 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 14.5 14.6 All About Redistricting, "Where are the lines drawn?" accessed April 9, 2015
- ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 15.3 FairVote, "Redistricting Glossary," accessed April 9, 2015
- ↑ All About Redistricting, "Who draws the lines?" accessed June 19, 2017
- ↑ Encyclopædia Britannica, "Gerrymandering," November 4, 2014
- ↑ Congressional Research Service, "Congressional Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A Legal Overview," April 13, 2015
- ↑ The Wall Street Journal, "Supreme Court to Consider Limits on Partisan Drawing of Election Maps," June 19, 2017
- ↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear potentially landmark case on partisan gerrymandering," June 19, 2017
- ↑ United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Columbia Division, "South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, et al. v. Alexander," January 6, 2023
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Alexander, et al. v. The South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, et al.," February 17, 2023
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP," accessed July 21, 2023
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Justices will hear case that tests power of state legislatures to set rules for federal elections," June 30, 2022
- ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, “Moore, in his Official Capacity as Speaker of The North Carolina House of Representatives, et al. v. Harper et al.," "Certiorari to the Supreme Court of North Carolina,” accessed June 16, 2023
- ↑ SCOTUSblog.org, "Supreme Court upholds Section 2 of Voting Rights Act," June 8, 2023
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Gill v. Whitford: Decision," June 18, 2018
- ↑ Election Law Blog, "Breaking: SCOTUS to Hear NC Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 27, 2016
- ↑ Ballot Access News, "U.S. Supreme Court Accepts Another Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 28, 2016
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Cooper v. Harris: Decision," May 22, 2017
- ↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear challenge to Texas redistricting plan," May 26, 2015
- ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Agrees to Settle Meaning of ‘One Person One Vote,'" May 26, 2015
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Evenwel v. Abbott," accessed May 27, 2015
- ↑ Associated Press, "Supreme Court to hear Texas Senate districts case," May 26, 2015
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "The new look at 'one person, one vote,' made simple," July 27, 2015
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Brief for Appellants," accessed December 14, 2015
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission," April 20, 2016
- ↑ The New York Times, "Court Skeptical of Arizona Plan for Less-Partisan Congressional Redistricting," March 2, 2015
- ↑ The Atlantic, "Will the Supreme Court Let Arizona Fight Gerrymandering?" September 15, 2014
- ↑ United States Supreme Court, "Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Opinion of the Court," June 29, 2015
- ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Upholds Creation of Arizona Redistricting Commission," June 29, 2015
- ↑ Yale Law School, The Avalon Project, "Voting Rights Act of 1965; August 6, 1965," accessed April 6, 2015
- ↑ 43.0 43.1 43.2 43.3 43.4 43.5 43.6 All About Redistricting, "Washington," accessed May 6, 2015
- ↑ Washington State Redistricting Commission, "Final Legislative District Plan - Amended," accessed May 6, 2015
- ↑ United States Census Bureau, "2020 Census Apportionment Results Delivered to the President," April 26, 2021
- ↑ Washington State Legislature, "HCR 4407 - 2021-22," accessed February 9, 2022
- ↑ The Spokesman-Review, "State Senate passes changes to redistricting process as House approves final maps with changes," February 2, 2022
- ↑ The Spokesman Review, "Washington Senate passes changes to new districts, but not without some disagreement. February 8, 2022
- ↑ The Columbian, "Critics call for reform of Washington redistricting process after commission failure," November 29, 2021
- ↑ The Spokesman-Review, "Washington Supreme Court declines to redraw redistricting maps," December 4, 2021
- ↑ The Spokesman-Review, "State Senate passes changes to redistricting process as House approves final maps with changes," February 2, 2022
- ↑ Washington State Legislature, "HCR 4407 - 2021-22," accessed February 9, 2022
- ↑ The Chronicle, "Washington Redistricting Commission Sued Over Transparency Issues as Behind-the-Scenes Dealings Emerge," December 11, 2021
- ↑ The Columbian, "Wylie, Hoff support Washington redistricting process," November 16, 2021
- ↑ Barone, M. & McCutcheon, C. (2013). The almanac of American politics 2014 : the senators, the representatives and the governors : their records and election results, their states and districts. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
- ↑ The Daily Cougar, "Redistricting will affect November election," October 16, 2012
- ↑ The Journal of Politics, "Incumbency, Redistricting, and the Decline of Competition in U.S. House Elections," February 2006
- ↑ Polity, "The Effects of Non-Legislative Approaches to Redistricting on Competition in Congressional Elections," October 3, 2011
- ↑ Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog, "Why Do Republicans Overperform in the Wisconsin State Assembly? Partisan Gerrymandering Vs. Political Geography," February 11, 2021
| |||||||||||
 |
State of Washington Olympia (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |