Redistricting in North Carolina after the 2020 census

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

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

Congressional districts
On October 25, 2023, the North Carolina General Assembly adopted new congressional district boundaries. The legislation adopting the new maps passed the State Senate by a vote of 28-18 and the State House by a vote of 64-40. Both votes were strictly along party lines with all votes in favor by Republicans and all votes against by Democrats.

The New York Times' Maggie Astor wrote, "The map creates 10 solidly Republican districts, three solidly Democratic districts and one competitive district. Currently, under the lines drawn by a court for the 2022 election, each party holds seven seats. The Democratic incumbents who have been essentially drawn off the map are Representatives Jeff Jackson in the Charlotte area, Kathy Manning in the Greensboro area and Wiley Nickel in the Raleigh area. A seat held by a fourth Democrat, Representative Don Davis, is expected to be competitive."

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana scheduled a June 2025 trial for two lawsuits challenging the congressional and state legislative maps—Williams v. Hall and NC NAACP v. Berger.

Click here for more information.

Legislative districts
On October 25, 2023, the North Carolina General Assembly adopted new legislative district boundaries. The legislation adopting the new Senate districts passed the State Senate by a vote of 28-17 and the State House by a vote of 63-40. The legislation adopting the new House districts passed the State Senate by a vote of 27-17 and the State House by a vote of 62-44. All four votes were strictly along party lines with all votes in favor by Republicans and all votes against by Democrats. WUNC's Rusty Jacobs wrote that Catawba College Prof. Michael "Bitzer said Republicans have drawn maps that have a strong chance of preserving their veto-proof super majorities in both chambers of the state legislature. Bitzer noted that constitutional provisions, like requiring legislators to keep counties whole when drawing state legislative districts, make it more difficult for lawmakers to gerrymander these maps more aggressively."

Click here to read more about Moore v. Harper and Redistricting in North Carolina after the 2020 census.

North Carolina's 14 United States representatives and 170 state legislators are all elected from political divisions called districts. District lines are redrawn every 10 years following completion of the United States census. Federal law stipulates that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.

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

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

Summary

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

• October 25, 2023: The North Carolina legislature enacted new congressional and legislative maps after the North Carolina Supreme Court directed it to do so in April 2023.
• October 18, 2023: The Senate Redistricting and Elections Committee released two congressional map proposals (CCJ-1 and CBP-5).
• June 27, 2023: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Moore v. Harper that the state supreme court had the authority to decide whether North Carolina's congressional district boundaries complied with state law.
• April 28, 2023: The North Carolina Supreme Court overturned their February 4, 2022, decision that the state's enacted congressional and legislative maps were unconstitutional due to partisan gerrymandering and vacated both the maps the legislature enacted in 2021 and the remedial maps used for the 2022 elections.
• March 14, 2023: The North Carolina Supreme Court re-heard oral arguments in Moore v. Harper.
• February 3, 2023: The North Carolina Supreme Court voted to re-hear the case on March 14, 2023.
• January 20, 2023: The North Carolina legislature petitioned the North Carolina Supreme Court to rehear Moore v. Harper. As a result of the 2022 elections, that court flipped from a 4-3 Democratic majority to a 5-2 Republican majority.
• December 7, 2022 The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Moore v. Harper.
• June 30, 2022: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Moore v. Harper.
• March 17, 2022: Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives Timothy K. Moore (R) appealed the North Carolina Supreme Court's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
• March 7, 2022: The U.S. Supreme Court declined to block the enacted congressional map (Moore v. Harper).
• February 25, 2022: An emergency filing was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the enacted congressional map (Moore v. Harper).
• February 23, 2022: The Wake County Superior Court issued an opinion approving the new state legislative maps drawn by the legislature, and striking down the new congressional map. Instead, it enacted a map drawn by redistricting special masters appointed in the case.
• February 17, 2022: The state House voted to approve a new state Senate map. The state Senate voted to approve new state House and Senate maps. Both chambers of the state legislature also voted to approve a new congressional map.
• February 16, 2022: The state House voted to approve a new state House map.
• February 4, 2022: The North Carolina Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that the state's enacted congressional and legislative maps were unconstitutional and ordered the legislature to re-draw them.
• January 11, 2022: The Wake County Superior Court ruled in support of the newly enacted maps.
• December 8, 2021: The North Carolina Supreme Court ordered that the state's 2022 primary election be postponed from March 8 to May 17. The court issued the order in response to two lawsuits (Harper v. Lewis and North Carolina League of Conservation Voters v. Hall) challenging North Carolina's newly enacted congressional and state legislative district plans.
• December 15, 2021: The remaining plaintiffs in N.C. NAACP v. Berger were allowed to join as intervenors in the joint case of North Carolina League of Conservation Voters v. Hall and Harper v. Lewis.
• November 16, 2021: A lawsuit was filed challenging the state's enacted congressional and legislative redistricting maps (North Carolina League of Conservation Voters v. Hall).
• November 5, 2021: The plaintiffs in Harper v. Lewis filed a supplemental complaint challenging the state's enacted congressional redistricting map.
• November 4, 2021: The North Carolina House of Representatives voted 65-49 to approve the congressional map, and voted 65-49 to approve the Senate map. The North Carolina State Senate voted 25-21 to approve the House map. Since the governor does not have veto authority over the maps, this legislative approval meant the maps were enacted.
• November 3, 2021: The state Senate voted 65-49 to approve the Senate map.
• November 2, 2021: The state Senate voted 27-22 to approve the congressional map. The state House voted 67-49 to approve the House map.
• November 16, 2021: A lawsuit was filed challenging the state's enacted congressional and legislative redistricting maps (N.C. NAACP v. Berger).
• October 22, 2021: The House Redistricting Committee released its first map proposals.
• October 20, 2021: The Senate Redistricting Committee released its first map proposals.
• September 16, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau released data from the 2020 census in an easier-to-use format to state redistricting authorities and the public.
• August 12, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau delivered redistricting data to states in a legacy format.
• June 28, 2021: The state legislature passed a law postponing certain municipal elections in response to delayed census data.
• April 26, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts.

Enactment

Enacted congressional district maps

See also: Congressional district maps implemented after the 2020 census

Congressional map enacted in 2023

On October 25, 2023, the North Carolina General Assembly adopted new congressional district boundaries. The legislation adopting the new maps passed the State Senate by a vote of 28-18 and the State House by a vote of 64-40. Both votes were strictly along party lines with all votes in favor by Republicans and all votes against by Democrats.

The New York Times' Maggie Astor wrote, "The map creates 10 solidly Republican districts, three solidly Democratic districts and one competitive district. Currently, under the lines drawn by a court for the 2022 election, each party holds seven seats. The Democratic incumbents who have been essentially drawn off the map are Representatives Jeff Jackson in the Charlotte area, Kathy Manning in the Greensboro area and Wiley Nickel in the Raleigh area. A seat held by a fourth Democrat, Representative Don Davis, is expected to be competitive."

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana scheduled a June 2025 trial for two lawsuits challenging the congressional and state legislative maps—Williams v. Hall and NC NAACP v. Berger.

Reactions to 2023 congressional map

Democratic Rep. Wiley Nickel wrote, "I don’t want to give these maps credibility by announcing a run in any of these gerrymandered districts. The maps are an extreme partisan gerrymander by Republican legislators that totally screw North Carolina voters."

Senate majority leader Phil Berger said, “We wouldn’t pass these maps if we didn’t think they wouldn’t stand up in court... It wouldn’t surprise me if along the way, before we get a final decision from courts, that you might find a court that has some problem with some part of the maps — but it’s our belief that when all is said and done, these maps will stand.”

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

North Carolina Congressional Districts
until January 2, 2025

Click a district to compare boundaries.

North Carolina Congressional Districts
starting January 3, 2025

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Congressional maps enacted in 2021-2022

On April 28, 2023, the North Carolina Supreme Court overturned their February 4, 2022, decision that the state's enacted congressional and legislative maps were unconstitutional due to partisan gerrymandering and vacated both the maps the legislature enacted in 2021 and the remedial maps used for the 2022 elections. In its ruling, the court said, "we hold that partisan gerrymandering claims present a political question that is nonjusticiable under the North Carolina Constitution. Accordingly, the decision of this Court in Harper I is overruled. We affirm the three judge panel’s 11 January 2022 Judgment concluding, inter alia, that partisan gerrymandering claims are nonjusticiable, political questions and dismissing all of plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice."

The Court's order also said that the legislature's original 2021 maps were developed based on incorrect criteria and ruled that the General Assembly should develop new congressional and legislative boundaries to be used starting with the 2024 elections: "Just as this Court’s Harper I decision forced the General Assembly to draw the 2022 Plans under a mistaken interpretation of our constitution, the Lewis order forced the General Assembly to draw the 2021 Plans under the same mistaken interpretation of our constitution...The General Assembly shall have the opportunity to enact a new set of legislative and congressional redistricting plans, guided by federal law, the objective constraints in Article II, Sections 3 and 5, and this opinion. 'When established' in accordance with a proper understanding of the North Carolina Constitution, the new legislative plans “shall remain unaltered until the return of” the next decennial census."

On February 23, 2022, the Wake County Superior Court had issued a ruling rejecting the North Carolina General Assembly's redrawn congressional map. Instead, the court enacted congressional district boundaries drawn by three court-appointed redistricting special masters. The special masters were three former judges: former Superior Court Judge Tom Ross, a Democrat, former state Supreme Court Justice Bob Orr, an independent, and former state Supreme Court Justice Bob Edmunds, a Republican. This map was used for North Carolina's 2022 congressional elections.

On February 4, 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that the enacted congressional map violated the state constitution and directed the General Assembly to develop new maps by February 18. On February 15, members of the North Carolina State Senate introduced a new congressional map, which the state Senate voted 25-19 to approve and the state House voted 66-53 to approve on February 17.

On November 4, 2021 the North Carolina General Assembly had voted to enact a new congressional map. The map passed the North Carolina State Senate 27-22 on November 2, and the North Carolina House of Representatives 65-49 on November 4.

To read more about the court challenges to North Carolina's congressional maps, click here.

Reactions to 2021-2022 congressional map

Following the enactment of the court-drawn congressional map, North Carolina House Speaker Tim Moore (R) said: "The trial court’s decision to impose a map drawn by anyone other than the legislature is simply unconstitutional and an affront to every North Carolina voter whose representation would be determined by unelected partisan activists." Eric Heberlig, a UNC-Charlotte political scientist, said "The overall representation of the state in Congress is going to align more closely to the statewide vote totals. You're going to have relatively even numbers of Democrats and Republicans representing the state in Congress rather than the lopsided Republican majority that we've seen over the last decade."

2022 congressional map

The map below was enacted by the Wake County Superior Court in February 2022 and was used in the 2022 elections.

2020 presidential results using the 2021 congressional map

The table below details the results of the 2020 presidential election in each district at the time of the 2022 election and its political predecessor district. This data was compiled by Daily Kos Elections.

2020 presidential results by Congressional district, North Carolina
District	2022 district		Political predecessor district
	Joe Biden	Donald Trump	Joe Biden	Donald Trump
North Carolina's 1st	53.2%	45.9%	53.9%	45.3%
North Carolina's 2nd	63.6%	34.8%	64.3%	34.0%
North Carolina's 3rd	36.7%	62.0%	37.7%	60.9%
North Carolina's 4th	66.9%	31.9%	66.6%	32.2%
North Carolina's 5th	38.8%	60.1%	31.6%	67.4%
North Carolina's 6th	55.6%	43.2%	61.6%	37.2%
North Carolina's 7th	43.1%	55.8%	40.7%	58.1%
North Carolina's 8th	32.4%	66.5%	45.5%	53.4%
North Carolina's 9th	45.3%	53.3%	46.1%	52.5%
North Carolina's 10th	29.7%	69.2%	31.2%	67.7%
North Carolina's 11th	44.3%	54.4%	43.3%	55.4%
North Carolina's 12th	64.4%	34.2%	70.1%	28.5%
North Carolina's 13th	50.1%	48.4%	31.8%	67.1%
North Carolina's 14th	57.5%	41.1%	---	---

Enacted state legislative district maps

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

State legislative maps enacted in 2023

On October 25, 2023, the North Carolina General Assembly adopted new legislative district boundaries. The legislation adopting the new Senate districts passed the State Senate by a vote of 28-17 and the State House by a vote of 63-40. The legislation adopting the new House districts passed the State Senate by a vote of 27-17 and the State House by a vote of 62-44. All four votes were strictly along party lines with all votes in favor by Republicans and all votes against by Democrats. WUNC's Rusty Jacobs wrote that Catawba College Prof. Michael "Bitzer said Republicans have drawn maps that have a strong chance of preserving their veto-proof super majorities in both chambers of the state legislature. Bitzer noted that constitutional provisions, like requiring legislators to keep counties whole when drawing state legislative districts, make it more difficult for lawmakers to gerrymander these maps more aggressively."

The state redrew its district boundaries after the state supreme court overturned its 2022 decision that North Carolina's enacted congressional and legislative maps were unconstitutional due to partisan gerrymandering.

As a result of state supreme court elections in 2022, the court flipped from a 4-3 Democratic majority to a 5-2 Republican majority. In its ruling, the court said, "we hold that partisan gerrymandering claims present a political question that is nonjusticiable under the North Carolina Constitution. Accordingly, the decision of this Court in Harper I is overruled. We affirm the three judge panel’s 11 January 2022 Judgment concluding, inter alia, that partisan gerrymandering claims are nonjusticiable, political questions and dismissing all of plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice."

Reactions to 2023 state legislative maps

The Carolina Journal's Alex Baltzegar reported that "The John Locke Foundation recently released its annual Civitas Partisan Index scores for the legislative maps, which found there to be 28 Republican-leaning seats, 17 Democrat-leaning seats, and five toss-ups in the state Senate map." Baltzegar also reported that "The new state House map would yield approximately 69 Republican and 48 Democratic seats, with three being in the swing category, according to Civitas’ CPI ratings. However, state House districts are smaller, and political outcomes vary to a higher degree. Many of the “lean” Republican or Democrat seats could be won by either party, and political shifts and trends will influence certain districts in the future."

State Rep. Tim Longest (D) said, “This map secures more Republican seats than 100,000 randomly generated maps. That is unexplainable by geography, deliberately designed to maximize advantage."

WUNC's Rusty Jacobs wrote that "Republican Sen. Ralph Hise, a co-chair of the Senate's redistricting committee, maintained that the maps were drawn applying traditional redistricting criteria, such as maintaining equal population across districts and minimizing the splitting of municipalities and precincts."

State Senate map

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

North Carolina State Senate Districts
until December 31, 2024

Click a district to compare boundaries.

North Carolina State Senate Districts
starting January 1, 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. The map on the right was in effect for North Carolina’s 2024 state legislative elections.

North Carolina State House Districts
until December 31, 2024

Click a district to compare boundaries.

North Carolina State House Districts
starting January 1, 2025

Click a district to compare boundaries.

State legislative maps enacted in 2021-2022

On April 28, 2023, the North Carolina Supreme Court overturned their February 4, 2022, decision that the state's enacted congressional and legislative maps were unconstitutional due to partisan gerrymandering and vacated both the maps the legislature enacted in 2021 and the remedial maps used for the 2022 elections. In its ruling, the court said, "we hold that partisan gerrymandering claims present a political question that is nonjusticiable under the North Carolina Constitution. Accordingly, the decision of this Court in Harper I is overruled. We affirm the three judge panel’s 11 January 2022 Judgment concluding, inter alia, that partisan gerrymandering claims are nonjusticiable, political questions and dismissing all of plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice."

The Court's order also said that the legislature's original 2021 maps were developed based on incorrect criteria and ruled that the General Assembly should develop new congressional and legislative boundaries to be used starting with the 2024 elections: "Just as this Court’s Harper I decision forced the General Assembly to draw the 2022 Plans under a mistaken interpretation of our constitution, the Lewis order forced the General Assembly to draw the 2021 Plans under the same mistaken interpretation of our constitution...The General Assembly shall have the opportunity to enact a new set of legislative and congressional redistricting plans, guided by federal law, the objective constraints in Article II, Sections 3 and 5, and this opinion. 'When established' in accordance with a proper understanding of the North Carolina Constitution, the new legislative plans “shall remain unaltered until the return of” the next decennial census."

On February 23, 2022, the Wake County Superior Court approved legislative maps that the General Assembly redrew after the North Carolina Supreme Court issued a 4-3 opinion on February 4, 2022, saying the state's enacted legislative maps violated the state constitution. The state house map was approved by the North Carolina House of Representatives in a 115-5 vote on February 16, and by the North Carolina State Senate in a 41-3 on February 17. The state Senate map was approved by the state Senate in a 26-19 vote, and by the state House in a 67-52 vote on February 17. These maps were used for North Carolina's 2022 legislative elections.

On November 4, the North Carolina General Assembly originally voted to enact legislative maps. The house map passed the North Carolina House of Representatives 67-49 on November 2, and the North Carolina State Senate 25-21 on November 4. The senate map passed the North Carolina State Senate 26-19 on November 3 and the North Carolina House of Representatives 65-49 on Nov. 4.

Reactions to 2021-2022 state legislative maps

Regarding the first set of maps approved by the General Assembly in November, the Rep. Destin Hall (R), chair of the House Redistricting Committee, said: "This is the most transparent process in the history of this state. We voluntarily chose to be out in public and not use election data, even though by law we didn't have to do that. We chose to do that because that's the right thing to do." Sen. Ralph Hise (R), co-chairman of the Senate Redistricting and Elections Committee, said: "I feel that we have complied with the law" in drawing the maps. Rep. Kandie Smith (D) criticized the maps, saying: "People don't want gerrymandering. That's what we have, People don't want us packing. That's what we're doing. People don't want us to separate people with the same interest. That's what we're doing." Sen. Jay Chaudhuri (D) said: "Is it going to come down to litigation being filed? Yes — and what the courts have to say about it."

Following the enactment of the redrawn legislative maps, Governor Roy Cooper (D) issued a statement saying, "Today’s decision allows a blatantly unfair and unconstitutional State Senate map that may have been the worst of the bunch. Our elections should not go forward until we have fair, constitutional maps." State Senator Phil Berger (R) said, "The General Assembly’s remedial legislative map met all of the court-mandated tests and were constitutionally compliant. A bipartisan panel of Special Masters affirmed that. We’re thankful for the trial court’s ruling today."

Drafting process

In North Carolina, the state legislature is responsible for drawing both congressional and state legislative district lines. District maps cannot be vetoed by the governor. State legislative redistricting must take place in the first regular legislative session following the United States Census. There are no explicit deadlines in place for congressional redistricting.

State law establishes the following requirements for state legislative districts:

• Districts must be contiguous and compact.
• Districts "must cross county lines as little as possible." If counties are grouped together, the group should include as few counties as possible.
• Communities of interest should be taken into account.

There are no similar restrictions in place regarding congressional districts.

Timeline of 2021-2022 map adoption

On February 23, 2021, Karen Brinson Bell, executive director of the state board of elections, recommended that state lawmakers postpone North Carolina's 2022 primary election, scheduled for March 8, 2022, by two months. Lauren Horsch, a representative for Senate Majority Leader Phil Berger (R), said. “Legislators are currently evaluating the impact of the delayed census on the 2021 elections. There are no plans to move the primaries.”

Redistricting committees and/or commissions in 2021-2022

In North Carolina, the following committees are involved in the redistricting process: the House Redistricting Committee and the Senate Redistricting and Elections Committee. As of June 17, 2021, these committees had the following members:

North Carolina House Redistricting Committee membership, 2020 cycle
Name	Partisan affiliation
Rep. Destin Hall (Chairman)	Republican
Rep. William Richardson (Vice-Chairman)	Democratic
Rep. Jason Saine (Vice-Chairman)	Republican
Rep. John Torbett (Vice-Chairman)	Republican
Rep. Cecil Brockman	Democratic
Rep. Becky Carney	Democratic
Rep. Linda Cooper-Suggs	Democratic
Rep. Jimmy Dixon	Republican
Rep. Jon Hardister	Republican
Rep. Pricey Harrison	Democratic
Rep. Kelly Hastings	Republican
Rep. Zack Hawkins	Democratic
Rep. Grey Mills	Republican
Rep. Robert Reives	Democratic
Rep. David Rogers	Republican
Rep. John Sauls	Republican
Rep. John Szoka	Republican
Rep. Harry Warren	Republican
Rep. Lee Zachary	Republican

North Carolina Senate Redistricting and Elections Committee membership, 2020 cycle
Name	Partisan affiliation
Sen. Warren Daniel (Chairman)	Republican
Sen. Ralph Hise (Chairman)	Republican
Sen. Paul Newton (Chairman)	Republican
Sen. Dan Blue	Democratic
Sen. Ben Clark	Democratic
Sen. Don Davis	Democratic
Sen. Chuck Edwards	Republican
Sen. Carl Ford	Republican
Sen. Kathy Harrington	Republican
Sen. Brent Jackson	Republican
Sen. Joyce Krawiec	Republican
Sen. Paul Lowe	Democratic
Sen. Natasha Marcus	Democratic
Sen. Wiley Nickel	Democratic
Sen. Jim Perry	Republican
Sen. Bill Rabon	Republican

Criteria

Adopted criteria (August 12, 2021)

The House Redistricting Committee and Senate Redistricting and Elections Committee adopted redistricting criteria on August 12, 2021.

Criteria Adopted by the Committees

• Equal Population. The Committees will use the 2020 federal decennial census data as the sole basis ofpopulation for the establishment of districts in the 2021 Congressional, House, and Senate plans. The number of persons in each legislative district shall be within plus or minus 5% of the ideal district population, as determined under the most recent federal decennial census. The number of persons in each congressional district shall be as nearly as equal as practicable, as determined under the most recent federal decennial census.
• Contiguity. No point contiguity shall be permitted in any 2021 Congressional, House, and Senate plan. Congressional, House, and Senate districts shall be compromised of contiguous territory. Contiguity by water is sufficient.
• Counties, Groupings, and Traversals. The Committees shall draw legislative districts within county groupings as required by Stephenson v. Bartlett, 355 N.C. 354, 562 S.E.2d 377 (2002) (Stephenson I), Stephenson v. Bartlett, 357 N.C. 301, 582 S.E.2d 247 (2003) (Stephenson II), Dickson v. Rucho, 367 N.C. 542, 766 S.E.2d 238 (2014) (Dickson I) and Dickson v. Rucho, 368 N.C. 481, 781 S.E. 2d 460 (2015) (Dickson II). Within county groupings, county lines shall not be traversed except as authorized by Stephenson I, Stephenson II, Dickson I, and Dickson II. Division of counties in the 2021 Congressional plan shall only be made for reasons of equalizing population and consideration of double bunking. If a county is of sufficient population size to contain an entire congressional district within the county’s boundaries, the Committees shall construct a district entirely within that county.
• Racial Data. Data identifying the race of individuals or voters shall not be used in the construction or consideration of districts in the 2021 Congressional, House, and Senate plans. The Committees will draw districts that comply with the Voting Rights Act.
• VTDs. Voting districts (“VTDs”) should be split only when necessary.
• Compactness. The Committees shall make reasonable efforts to draw legislative districts in the 2021 Congressional, House and Senate plans that are compact. In doing so, the Committee may use as a guide the minimum Reock (“dispersion”) and Polsby-Popper (“permiter”) scores identified by Richard H. Pildes and Richard G. Neimi in Expressive Harms, “Bizarre Districts,” and Voting Rights: Evaluating ElectionDistrict Appearances After Shaw v. Reno, 92 Mich. L. Rev. 483 (1993).
• Municipal Boundaries. The Committees may consider municipal boundaries when drawing districts in the 2021 Congressional, House, and Senate plans.
• Election Data. Partisan considerations and election results data shall not be used in the drawing of districts in the 2021 Congressional, House, and Senate plans.
• Member Residence. Member residence may be considered in the formation of legislative and congressional districts.
• Community Consideration. So long as a plan complies with the foregoing criteria, local knowledge of the character of communities and connections between communities may be considered in the formation of legislative and congressional districts.

Proposed criteria (August 9, 2021)

The House Redistricting Committee and Senate Redistricting and Elections Committee released a redistricting criteria proposal on August 9, 2021.

2021 JOINT REDISTRICTING COMMITTEE PROPOSED CRITERIA

• Equal Population. The Committees will use the 2020 federal decennial census data as the sole basis of population for the establishment of districts in the 2021 Congressional, House and Senate plans. The number of persons in each legislative district shall be within plus or minus 5 percent of the ideal district population, as determined under the most recent federal decennial census. The number of persons in each congressional district shall be as nearly as equal as practicable, as determined under the most recent federal decennial census.
• Contiguity. Legislative and congressional districts shall be comprised of contiguous territory. Contiguity by water is sufficient.
• Counties, Groupings and Traversals. The Committees shall draw legislative districts within county groupings as required by Stephenson v. Bartlett, 355 N.C. 354, 562 S.E. 2d 377 (2002) (Stephenson I), Stephenson v. Bartlett, 357 N.C. 301, 582 S.E.2d 247 (2003) (Stephenson II), Dickson v. Rucho, 367 N.C. 542, 766 S.E.2d 238 (2014) (Dickson I) and Dickson v. Rucho, 368 N.C. 481, 781 S.E.2d 460 (2015) (Dickson II). Within county groupings, county lines shall not be traversed except as authorized by Stephenson I, Stephenson II, Dickson I, and Dickson II. Division of counties in the 2021 Congressional plan shall only be made for reasons of equalizing population and consideration of double bunking. If a county is of sufficient population size to contain an entire congressional district within the county’s boundaries, the Committees shall construct a district entirely within that county.
• Racial Data. Data identifying the race of individuals or voters shall not be used in the construction or consideration of districts in the 2021 Congressional, House and Senate plans.
• VTDs. Voting districts (“VTDs”) should be split only when necessary.
• Compactness. The Committees shall make reasonable efforts to draw legislative districts in the 2021 Congressional, House and Senate plans that are compact. In doing so, the Committee may use as a guide the minimum Reock (“dispersion”) and Polsby-Popper (“perimeter”) scores identified by Richard H. Pildes and Richard G. Neimi in Expressive Harms, "Bizarre Districts," and Voting Rights: Evaluating Election-District Appearances After Shaw v. Reno, 92 Mich. L. Rev. 483 (1993).
• Municipal Boundaries. The Committees may consider municipal boundaries when drawing districts in the 2021 Congressional, House and Senate plans.
• Election Data. Partisan considerations and election results data shall not be used in the drawing of districts in the 2021 Congressional, House and Senate plans.
• Member Residence. Member residence may be considered in the formation of legislative and congressional districts.
• Community Consideration. So long as a plan complies with the foregoing criteria, local knowledge of the character of communities and connections between communities may be considered in the formation of legislative and congressional districts.

Proposed maps

Legislative

On Oct. 20, 2021, the Senate Redistricting and Elections Committee released a senate map proposal (SST-4). On Oct. 22, the House Redistricting Committee released a house map proposal (HBK-11).

Senate Redistricting and Elections Committee proposals

• SST-4 senate proposal (click to expand)
  

House Redistricting Committee proposals

• HBK-11 house proposal (click to expand)
  

Congressional

On Oct. 18, 2023, the Senate Redistricting and Elections Committee released two congressional map proposals (CCJ-1 and CBP-5). Senate Redistricting and Elections CommitteeOn Oct. 20, 2021, the Senate Redistricting and Elections Committee released five congressional map proposals (CST-2, CMT-9, CBK-4, CBK-5, and CBK-3). On Oct. 22, the House Redistricting Committee released a congressional map proposal (CBA-2).

Senate Redistricting and Elections Committee proposals

• CCJ-1 congressional proposal (click to expand)
  

• CBP-5 congressional proposal (click to expand)
  

• CST-2 congressional proposal (click to expand)
  

• CMT-9 congressional proposal (click to expand)
  

• CBK-4 congressional proposal (click to expand)
  

• CBK-5 congressional proposal (click to expand)
  

• CBK-3 congressional proposal (click to expand)
  

House Redistricting Committee proposals

• CBA-2 congressional proposal (click to expand)
  

Apportionment and release of census data

Apportionment is the process by which representation in a legislative body is distributed among its constituents. The number of seats in the United States House of Representatives is fixed at 435. The United States Constitution dictates that districts be redrawn every 10 years to ensure equal populations between districts. Every ten years, upon completion of the United States census, reapportionment occurs.

Apportionment following the 2020 census

The U.S. Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts on April 26, 2021. North Carolina was apportioned 14 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. This represented a net gain of one seat as compared to apportionment after the 2010 census.

See the table below for additional details.

2020 and 2010 census information for North Carolina
State	2010 census		2020 census		2010-2020
	Population	U.S. House seats	Population	U.S. House seats	Raw change in population	Percentage change in population	Change in U.S. House seats
North Carolina	9,565,781	13	10,453,948	14	888,167	9.28%	1

Redistricting data from the Census Bureau

On February 12, 2021, the Census Bureau announced that it would deliver redistricting data to the states by September 30, 2021. On March 15, 2021, the Census Bureau released a statement indicating it would make redistricting data available to the states in a legacy format in mid-to-late August 2021. A legacy format presents the data in raw form, without data tables and other access tools. On May 25, 2021, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (R) announced that the state had reached a settlement agreement with the Census Bureau in its lawsuit over the Census Bureau's timetable for delivering redistricting data. Under the terms of the settlement, the Census Bureau agreed to deliver redistricting data, in a legacy format, by August 16, 2021. The Census Bureau released the 2020 redistricting data in a legacy format on August 12, 2021, and in an easier-to-use format at data.census.gov on September 16, 2021.

Court challenges

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

Moore v. Harper

On Feb. 25, 2022, North Carolina Republican lawmakers filed an emergency filing with the United States Supreme Court challenging the congressional map drawn and enacted by the state court. In their filing, they said, "If a redistricting process more violative of the U.S. Constitution exists, it is hard to imagine it. Without this Court’s emergency intervention, the North Carolina courts’ unconstitutional, judicially created congressional maps will be used to conduct the May 17, 2022 primary election. Time is of the essence to prevent such a profound constitutional violation from occurring." The plaintiffs requested the court stay the North Carolina Supreme Court's orders invalidating the maps enacted by the North Carolina General Assembly and prevent the court-ordered redrawn maps from being used in the 2022 elections.

On March 7, the Supreme Court declined to block the state's enacted congressional map in a 4-3 decision. The majority opinion, penned by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, said "the applicants are asking this Court for extraordinary interim relief—namely, an order from this Court requiring North Carolina to change its existing congressional election districts for the upcoming 2022 primary and general elections. But this Court has repeatedly ruled that federal courts ordinarily should not alter state election laws in the period close to an election." Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch dissented, saying "this case presents an exceptionally important and recurring question of constitutional law, namely, the extent of a state court’s authority to reject rules adopted by a state legislature for use in conducting federal elections. There can be no doubt that this question is of great national importance."

On March 17, 2022, Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives Timothy K. Moore (R) filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted review on June 30, 2022. Oral argument in Moore v. Harper took place before SCOTUS on December 7, 2022.

On December 16, 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court issued an opinion affirming the February 2022 decision of the Wake County Superior Court that rejected the remedial congressional redistricting plan that the General Assembly adopted (RCP) and adopted the Modified remedial congressional redistricting plan (Modified RCP) that the court-appointed special masters developed.

On January 20, 2023, the North Carolina legislature petitioned the North Carolina Supreme Court to rehear Moore v. Harper, and on February 3, 2023, the state supreme court voted to re-hear the case on March 14, 2023. As a result of the 2022 elections, the court flipped from a 4-3 Democratic majority to a 5-2 Republican majority. On March 14, 2023, the North Carolina Supreme Court re-heard oral argument in Moore v. Harper.

On April 28, 2023, the North Carolina Supreme Court overruled their February 4, 2023, decision that the congressional map the legislature adopted in November 2021 violated the state constitution and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims in a lawsuit challenging the congressional district boundaries for partisan gerrymandering.

On June 27, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that it had jurisdiction to decide whether the North Carolina Supreme Court had the authority to overturn the state's congressional map, regardless of the state court's subsequent reversal of its original decision (referred to as Harper I). The court's opinion stated, "This Court has jurisdiction to review the judgment of the North Carolina Supreme Court in Harper I that adjudicated the Federal Elections Clause issue...The North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision to withdraw Harper II and overrule Harper I does not moot this case."

The U.S. Supreme Court also affirmed the initial decision of the North Carolina Supreme Court which overturned the state's 2021 congressional map, holding that "State courts retain the authority to apply state constitutional restraints when legislatures act under the power conferred upon them by the Elections Clause." Although the state supreme court later reversed its decision, the court upheld the state court's authority to decide whether the district boundaries complied with state law.

North Carolina League of Conservation Voters v. Hall

On Nov. 16, 2021, the North Carolina League of Conservation Voters filed a lawsuit before the Wake County Superior Court challenging the validity of the state's enacted legislative and congressional maps. In the suit, plaintiffs said "this suit is about harnessing the power of mathematics and computer science to identify and remedy the severe constitutional flaws in the redistricting maps recently enacted by the North Carolina General Assembly," and that the enacted maps " create (and intentionally create) a severe partisan gerrymander" and "dilute the voting power of North Carolina’s black citizens." The plaintiffs asked the court "to set aside the unlawful Enacted Plans and, as interim relief, to enjoin the use of the Enacted Plans in the 2022 primary and general elections" and to require the North Carolina State Legislature to draw new maps.

On Dec. 8, the North Carolina Supreme Court issued a joint ruling in this case and Harper v. Lewis delaying the state's 2022 candidate filing period and primary elections. This was the fourth in a series of rulings on the issue. Initially, the Wake County Superior Court denied the request to delay the filing period and election on Dec. 3. The North Carolina Court of Appeals then issued a stay on Dec. 6 granting the plaintiffs' request, then issued a second ruling on Dec. 6 reversing its decision.

On Jan. 11, 2022, the Wake County Superior Court ruled in support of the new maps. In its opinion, the three-judge panel said: "All of Plaintiffs' claims in these lawsuits, in essence, stem from the basic argument that the 2021 redistricting maps passed by the North Carolina General Assembly are unconstitutional under the North Carolina Constitution. We have taken great lengths to examine that document. At the end of the day, after carefully and fully conducting our analysis, it is clear that Plaintiffs’ claims must fail."

On Feb. 4, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the congressional and legislative maps were unconstitutional, and ordered the maps be redrawn. The ruling established a Feb. 18 deadline for the North Carolina General Assembly and intervenors in the lawsuit to submit new maps to a trial court, which would then adopt a new set of maps by Feb. 23. Challenges to the new maps would also need to be filed by Feb. 23.

Justice Robin Hudson wrote in the ruling that the maps were "unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt under the free elections clause, the equal protection clause, the free speech clause, and the freedom of assembly clause of the North Carolina Constitution." Chief Justice Paul Newby dissented, writing : "I dissent from the decision of the Court which violates separation of powers by effectively placing responsibility for redistricting with the judicial branch, not the legislative branch as expressly provided in our constitution."

On Feb. 15, the Wake County Superior Court appointed three former judges to act as redistricting special masters: former Superior Court Judge Tom Ross, a Democrat, former state Supreme Court Justice Bob Orr, an independent, and former state Supreme Court Justice Bob Edmunds, a Republican.

On Feb. 23, the Wake County Superior Court ruled to approve state legislative maps redrawn by the North Carolina General Assembly. The court struck down the Assembly's redrawn congressional map and instead enacted a map drawn by the redistricting special masters.

On April 28, 2023, the North Carolina Supreme Court overruled their February 4, 2023, decision that the congressional map the legislature adopted in November 2021 violated the state constitution and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims in a lawsuit challenging the congressional district boundaries for partisan gerrymandering.

Harper v. Lewis

On Nov. 5, 2021, the plaintiffs in Harper v. Lewis, a 2019 case that resulted in North Carolina drawing new congressional maps before the 2020 election cycle, filed a supplemental complaint challenging the state's enacted congressional redistricting plan. The supplemental complaint was filed as part of the 2019 Harper v. Lewis case since the case was not closed. The lawsuit alleges the map was an "intentional, extreme partisan gerrymander that dilutes Democratic votes and prevents Democratic voters from electing candidates of their choice." In their request for relief, the plaintiffs asked the court to declare the 2016 and 2021 congressional maps unconstitutional, and to redraw the maps. Additionally, they asked the court to rule the maps could not be used in the 2022 primary and general elections.

On Dec. 8, the North Carolina Supreme Court issued a joint ruling in this case and North Carolina League of Conservation Voters v. Hall delaying the state's 2022 candidate filing period and primary elections. This was the fourth in a series of rulings on the issue. Initially, the Wake County Superior Court denied the request to delay the filing period and election on Dec. 3. The North Carolina Court of Appeals then issued a stay on Dec. 6 granting the plaintiffs' request, then issued a second ruling on Dec. 6 reversing its decision.

On Jan. 11, 2022, the Wake County Superior Court ruled in support of the new maps. In its opinion, the three-judge panel said: "All of Plaintiffs' claims in these lawsuits, in essence, stem from the basic argument that the 2021 redistricting maps passed by the North Carolina General Assembly are unconstitutional under the North Carolina Constitution. We have taken great lengths to examine that document. At the end of the day, after carefully and fully conducting our analysis, it is clear that Plaintiffs’ claims must fail."

On Feb. 4, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the congressional and legislative maps were unconstitutional, and ordered the maps be redrawn. The ruling established a Feb. 18 deadline for the North Carolina General Assembly and intervenors in the lawsuit to submit new maps to a trial court, which would then adopt a new set of maps by Feb. 23. Challenges to the new maps would also need to be filed by Feb. 23.

Justice Robin Hudson wrote in the ruling that the maps were "unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt under the free elections clause, the equal protection clause, the free speech clause, and the freedom of assembly clause of the North Carolina Constitution." Chief Justice Paul Newby dissented, writing : "I dissent from the decision of the Court which violates separation of powers by effectively placing responsibility for redistricting with the judicial branch, not the legislative branch as expressly provided in our constitution."

On Feb. 15, the Wake County Superior Court appointed three former judges to act as redistricting special masters: former Superior Court Judge Tom Ross, a Democrat, former state Supreme Court Justice Bob Orr, an independent, and former state Supreme Court Justice Bob Edmunds, a Republican.

On Feb. 23, the Wake County Superior Court ruled to approve state legislative maps redrawn by the North Carolina General Assembly. The court struck down the Assembly's redrawn congressional map and instead enacted a map drawn by the redistricting special masters. This case became Moore v. Harper.

N.C. NAACP v. Berger

On Oct. 29, the Southern Coalition for Justice, the North Carolina NAACP, and Common Cause filed a lawsuit before the Wake County Superior Court challenging North Carolina's redistricting plan. In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs said legislators were "ignoring clear direction from the North Carolina Supreme Court on how to draw constitutional maps" by not considering "racial data nor perform[ing] any kind of racially polarized voting analysis to understand how district lines would affect minority voting strength and representation" and by "unduly delay[ing] the redistricting process and obstruct[ing] public comment." The lawsuit went on to say they sought "a judicial determination that Plaintiffs are entitled to a redistricting process that adheres to the requirements of Article II, Sections 3 and 5 of the North Carolina Constitution and that the use of race-blind redistricting criteria violates North Carolina law and unlawfully harms voters of color."

On Dec. 3, 2021, a lower court judge dismissed the case. The plaintiffs appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court. The court denied the petition, but granted intervention to one plaintiff, Common Cause, in North Carolina League of Conservation Voters v. Hall and Harper v. Hall on Dec. 15.

Noteworthy events

Supreme Court of North Carolina postpones 2022 primaries

On Dec. 8, 2021, the Supreme Court of North Carolina ordered that the state's 2022 primary election be postponed from March 8 to May 17.

The court issued the order in response to two separate lawsuits challenging North Carolina's newly enacted congressional and state legislative district plans. The court cited "great public interest in the subject matter of these cases, the importance of the issues to the constitutional jurisprudence of this State, and the need for urgency in reaching a final resolution on the merits" as its rationale for ordering the postponement. 

The postponement applied to all primaries originally scheduled for March 8, 2022. The court suspended candidate filing, which had been scheduled to close on Dec. 17. However, any candidate whose filing had already been accepted by the appropriate state or local board of elections "will be deemed to have filed for the same office under the new election schedule for the May 2022 primary." The court did not set a new candidate filing deadline, instead directing the trial court to "issue any orders necessary to accomplish the resulting changes in the election schedule, including implementing shortened filing periods and other administrative adjustments." The court directed the trial court to reach a ruling on the merits of the plaintiffs' claims by Jan. 11, 2022.

Following a ruling from the Wake County Superior Court upholding the state's enacted congressional and legislative maps, the North Carolina State Board of Elections that the candidate filing period would resume Feb. 24, 2022, through Mar 4.

Law passed postponing certain 2021 municipal elections

On June 28, 2021, SB722 was signed into law, postponing elections in at least 35 North Carolina municipalities, including Charlotte, Durham, Greensboro, and Raleigh, due to the delayed release of census data.

SB722 applies to "any municipality where there is an election of municipal officers scheduled for 2021 and where less than the entire jurisdiction is eligible to vote for candidates for one or more offices on the 2021 ballot." SB722 allows municipalities to conduct elections for at-large offices, such as mayors and citywide council members, as scheduled in 2021. SB722 also directs municipalities to "review and revise [their] electoral districts in accordance with state and federal law" once the U.S. Census Bureau releases raw 2020 block-level data in mid-August. In previous census cycles, the bureau delivered block-level data in the spring.

Current mayors and city council members in affected jurisdictions will remain in office until their successors are elected in 2022. A full list of affected municipalities and a revised election schedule can be found here.

The bill (SB722) became law without Gov. Roy Cooper's (D) signature. Cooper said, "While delays to census data caused by the pandemic necessitate changes to local elections, decisions about local elections like these should involve more open discussion and public input, and therefore, these changes will become law without my signature." The North Carolina House of Representatives unanimously approved SB722 on June 9. The North Carolina Senate approved the bill 33-14 on June 14. All votes opposed came from Democrats. Republicans control the chamber 28-22.

Background

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

Federal requirements for congressional redistricting

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

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

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

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

Federal requirements for state legislative redistricting

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

State-based requirements

In addition to the federal criteria noted above, individual states may impose additional requirements on redistricting. Common state-level redistricting criteria are listed below.

1. Contiguity refers to the principle that all areas within a district should be physically adjacent. A total of 49 states require that districts of at least one state legislative chamber be contiguous (Nevada has no such requirement, imposing no requirements on redistricting beyond those enforced at the federal level). A total of 23 states require that congressional districts meet contiguity requirements.
2. Compactness refers to the general principle that the constituents within a district should live as near to one another as practicable. A total of 37 states impose compactness requirements on state legislative districts; 18 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.
3. A community of interest is defined by FairVote as a "group of people in a geographical area, such as a specific region or neighborhood, who have common political, social or economic interests." A total of 24 states require that the maintenance of communities of interest be considered in the drawing of state legislative districts. A total of 13 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.
4. A total of 42 states require that state legislative district lines be drawn to account for political boundaries (e.g., the limits of counties, cities, and towns). A total of 19 states require that similar considerations be made in the drawing of congressional districts.

Methods

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

1. Legislature-dominant: In a legislature-dominant state, the legislature retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. Maps enacted by the legislature may or may not be subject to gubernatorial veto. Advisory commissions may also be involved in the redistricting process, although the legislature is not bound to adopt an advisory commission's recommendations.
2. Commission: In a commission state, an extra-legislative commission retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. A non-politician commission is one whose members cannot hold elective office. A politician commission is one whose members can hold elective office.
3. Hybrid: In a hybrid state, the legislature shares redistricting authority with a commission.

Gerrymandering

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

See also: Gerrymandering

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

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

Show more

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

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

Recent court decisions

See also: Redistricting cases heard by the Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States has, in recent years, issued several decisions dealing with redistricting policy, including rulings relating to the consideration of race in drawing district maps, the use of total population tallies in apportionment, and the constitutionality of independent redistricting commissions. The rulings in these cases, which originated in a variety of states, impact redistricting processes across the nation.

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

Show more

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

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

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

Moore v. Harper (2023)

See also: Moore v. Harper

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

Merrill v. Milligan (2023)

See also: Merrill v. Milligan

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

Gill v. Whitford (2018)

See also: Gill v. Whitford

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

Cooper v. Harris (2017)

See also: Cooper v. Harris

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

Evenwel v. Abbott (2016)

See also: Evenwel v. Abbott

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

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2016)

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

See also: Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

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

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

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

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

Trifectas and redistricting

In 34 of the states that conducted legislative elections in 2020, the legislatures themselves played a significant part in the subsequent redistricting process. The winner of eight of 2020's gubernatorial elections had veto authority over state legislative or congressional district plans approved by legislatures. The party that won trifecta control of a state in which redistricting authority rests with the legislature directed the process that produces the maps that will be used for the remainder of the decade. Trifecta shifts in the 2010 election cycle illustrate this point. In 2010, 12 states in which legislatures had authority over redistricting saw shifts in trifecta status. Prior to the 2010 elections, seven of these states were Democratic trifectas; the rest were divided governments. After the 2010 elections, seven of these states became Republican trifectas; the remainder either remained or became divided governments. The table below details these shifts and charts trifecta status heading into the 2020 election cycle.

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

2010 redistricting cycle

Redistricting in North Carolina after the 2010 census

North Carolina's congressional and state legislative district maps adopted in the aftermath of the 2010 census were subject to litigation. For more information, see this article.

See also

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

External links

• Search Google News for this topic
• All About Redistricting
• Dave's Redistricting
• FiveThirtyEight, "What Redistricting Looks Like In Every State"
• National Conference of State Legislatures, "Redistricting Process"
• FairVote, "Redistricting"