Redistricting in Maryland after the 2020 census

Redistricting
State legislative and congressional redistricting after the 2020 census Select your state:AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingSubmit
General information
State-by-state redistricting procedures • Majority-minority districts • Gerrymandering
The 2020 cycle
United States census, 2020 • Congressional apportionment • Redistricting committees • Deadlines • 2022 House elections with multiple incumbents • New U.S.House districts created after apportionment • Congressional maps • State legislative maps • Lawsuits • Status of redistricting after the 2020 census
Redrawn maps
Redistricting before 2024 elections • Redistricting before 2026 elections
Ballotpedia's Election Administration 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 Maryland.

Maryland adopted new congressional district boundaries on April 4, 2022, when Gov. Larry Hogan (R) signed revised redistricting legislation that the General Assembly had finalized on March 30, 2022. Hogan signed the new map after state Attorney General Brian Frosh withdrew his appeal of Circuit Court Judge Lynne Battaglia's ruling overturning the state's previous congressional redistricting plan. The state Senate approved the revised congressional district boundaries 30-13 with all votes in favor by Democrats and all votes opposed by Republicans on March 29, 2022. The House of Delegates approved the revised map on March 30, 2022, by a vote of 94-41 with all 'yes' votes by Democrats and 40 Republicans and one Democrat voting 'no.'

Maryland adopted legislative maps on January 27, 2022, when the Maryland House of Delegates approved new legislative district boundaries that had been approved on January 20, 2022, by the Maryland State Senate. The vote in the state Senate was 32-14 and in the House of Delegates was 95-42, both strictly along party lines.Since legislative maps are not subject to gubernatorial veto, the maps were therefore enacted.

Click here for more information.

Maryland's eight United States representatives and 188 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 Maryland 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.

• April 4, 2022: Gov. Larry Hogan (R) signed the revised congressional map into law.
• March 30, 2022: The Maryland House of Delegates passes the revied congressional map that the state Senate had passed on March 29, 2022.
• March 29, 2022: The Maryland State Senate passes a revised congressional map.
• March 25, 2022: A circuit court judge overturned the state's enacted congressional map and ordered the Maryland legislature to draw a new map.
• January 27, 2022: The Maryland House of Delegates approved new legislative district boundaries by a vote of 95-42. Since legislative maps are not subject to gubernatorial veto, the House of Delegates vote resulted in enacted maps.
• January 20, 2022: The Maryland State Senate approved new legislative district boundaries by a vote of 32-14.
• December 9, 2021: Both chambers of the Maryland legislature vote to override Gov. Larry Hogan's (R) veto of the congressional map.
• December 9, 2021: Gov. Larry Hogan (R) vetoed the congressional district plan approved by both the House and Senate.
• December 8, 2021: The Maryland state Senate approved the final LRAC congressional map.
• December 7, 2021: The Maryland House of Delegates approved the final LRAC congressional map.
• November 23, 2021: The Maryland Legislative Redistricting Advisory Commission released its final congressional district map proposal.
• November 9, 2021: The Maryland Legislative Redistricting Advisory Commission (LRAC) released four proposed congressional district maps.
• November 5, 2021: The Maryland Citizens Redistricting Commission proposed congressional and legislative maps and submitted them to Gov. Larry Hogan (R).
• 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.
• 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

Maryland adopted new congressional district boundaries on April 4, 2022, when Gov. Larry Hogan (R) signed revised redistricting legislation that the General Assembly had finalized on March 30, 2022. Hogan signed the new map after state Attorney General Brian Frosh withdrew his appeal of Circuit Court Judge Lynne Battaglia's ruling overturning the state's previous congressional redistricting plan. The state Senate approved the revised congressional district boundaries 30-13 with all votes in favor by Democrats and all votes opposed by Republicans on March 29, 2022. The House of Delegates approved the revised map on March 30, 2022, by a vote of 94-41 with all 'yes' votes by Democrats and 40 Republicans and one Democrat voting 'no.'

After Gov. Hogan signed the maps, Greg Giroux at Bloomberg Government wrote, "The new map will continue to favor Democrats in seven of eight districts while restoring a strongly Republican district for Rep. Andy Harris (R)....The new map replaces a more aggressive Democratic proposal that the legislature enacted in December over Hogan’s veto. That map created seven safe Democratic districts and converted Harris’ eastern 1st District into a swing district, raising the possibility Democrats could win all eight districts. Democrats won seven of eight districts in the past decade of House elections."

After signing the revised map, Gov. Hogan said, "When these maps came out in December, I said they were unconstitutional and violated the law. The courts agreed, described it as extreme partisan gerrymandering, and a clear violation of the Constitution, ordered the legislature to go back and draw new maps, which they did. Now they weren’t, in my opinion, as good as the ones drawn by the citizen commission, and we shouldn’t have wasted so much time—but they are a huge improvement." After Gov. Hogan announced he would sign the revised district boundaries, Frosh released a statement which said, in part, "We are pleased Governor Hogan has agreed to sign the proposed congressional redistricting map approved by the General Assembly. This map, like the one previously passed by the General Assembly, is constitutional and fair. Both sides have agreed to dismiss their appeals, and our state can move forward to the primary election."

On March 25, 2022, Circuit Court Judge Lynne Battaglia overturned the state's enacted congressional map and ordered the General Assembly to develop a new congressional map. In her ruling, Battaglia said, "It is extraordinarily unlikely that a map that looks like the 2021 Plan could be produced without extreme partisan gerrymandering." Several Maryland residents had filed lawsuits in December 2021 challenging the new congressional map. On December 7, 2021, the House of Delegates passed the redistricting plan, 97-42, with all 'yes' votes coming from Democrats and 41 Republicans and 1 Democrat voting 'no.' The State Senate approved the congressional map, 32-15, on December 8, 2021, in a party-line vote. The Maryland Legislative Redistricting Advisory Commission had released a final draft congressional redistricting proposal on November 23, 2021. Maryland was the 19th state to enact congressional district plans after the 2020 census.

According to David Collins of WBAL-TV, "The map allows Democrats to hold seven of the state's eight congressional seats and the First District on the Eastern Shore, held by Republican Rep. Andy Harris, becomes more competitive." Legislators approved the congressional district plan developed by the Legislative Redistricting Advisory Commission and rejected a map proposal developed by the Maryland Citizens Redistricting Commission, a citizen commission formed by Gov. Hogan. After vetoing the legislatively approved maps, Hogan tweeted, "The gerrymandered map passed by the legislature is an egregious violation of the civil rights of the people of Maryland. Today, we're calling on the Biden administration to immediately add the state of Maryland into their lawsuit." After approving the maps, Senate Majority Leader Nancy King (D) said, "Maryland’s geography is unique, and our population is varied. Taking all that into consideration, I am confident that this map is a fair one, and one that reflects the lived experience of Marylanders."

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

Maryland Congressional Districts
until January 2, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Maryland Congressional Districts
starting January 3, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Reactions

Before the legislature began their special session to consider the congressional district plans, Senate Majority Leader Nancy King said, "The congressional map proposed in the bill has cleaner and significantly more compact districts than the current map. It demonstrates a commitment to the federal Voting Rights Act by ensuring minority voters retain their ability to elect their preferred candidates. And it ensures continuity of representation by keeping a majority of Marylanders in their current districts."In response, Senate Minority Leader Bryan Simonaire (R) said, "When you start with a gerrymandered map as the basis, and you say our goal was to keep as many people in the district as possible, how are you not going to end up with a gerrymandered map again?"

2020 presidential results

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

2020 presidential results by Congressional district, Maryland
District	2022 district		Political predecessor district
	Joe Biden	Donald Trump	Joe Biden	Donald Trump
Maryland's 1st	41.7%	56.3%	39.1%	58.8%
Maryland's 2nd	59.4%	38.6%	65.8%	32.4%
Maryland's 3rd	61.7%	36.2%	68.7%	29.4%
Maryland's 4th	89.6%	8.7%	79.1%	19.2%
Maryland's 5th	67.4%	30.9%	68.6%	29.7%
Maryland's 6th	53.9%	44.1%	60.6%	37.5%
Maryland's 7th	81.0%	17.5%	78.4%	20.0%
Maryland's 8th	80.5%	17.9%	69.3%	28.9%

Enacted state legislative district maps

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

Maryland adopted legislative maps on January 27, 2022, when the Maryland House of Delegates approved new legislative district boundaries that had been approved on January 20, 2022, by the Maryland State Senate. The vote in the state Senate was 32-14 and in the House of Delegates was 95-42, both strictly along party lines.Since legislative maps are not subject to gubernatorial veto, the maps were therefore enacted.

State Senate map

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

Maryland State Senate Districts
until January 10, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Maryland State Senate Districts
starting January 11, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.

State House map

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

Maryland State House Districts
until January 10, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Maryland State House Districts
starting January 11, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Drafting process

In Maryland, the primary authority to adopt both congressional and state legislative district lines rests with the state legislature. The governor submits a state legislative redistricting proposal (an advisory commission appointed by the governor assists in drafting this proposal). The state legislature may pass its own plan by joint resolution, which is not subject to gubernatorial veto. If the legislature fails to approve its own plan, the governor's plan takes effect. Congressional lines are adopted solely by the legislature and may be vetoed by the governor.

The Maryland Constitution requires that state legislative districts be contiguous, compact, and "give 'due regard' for political boundaries and natural features." No such requirements apply to congressional districts.

Maryland Legislative Redistricting Advisory Commission proposals

Congressional district maps

On November 9, 2021, the Maryland Legislative Redistricting Advisory Commission (LRAC) released four proposed congressional district maps. Click here to review the report issued by the LRAC including links to interactive versions of each map.

Legislative district map

On December 20, 2021, the Maryland Legislative Redistricting Advisory Commission (LRAC) released a draft legislative map. Click here to view a static image of the proposed map and here for an interactive version.

Maryland Citizens Redistricting Commission proposals

On November 5, 2021, the Maryland Citizens Redistricting Commission proposed congressional and legislative maps and submitted them to Gov. Larry Hogan (R).

Legislative district maps

Proposed House of Delegates map

Click here for the full set of maps proposed by the Maryland Citizens Redistricting Commission, including individual images for each district.

Timeline

The Maryland Citizens Redistricting Commission published the following timeline for the 2020 redistricting cycle:

Maryland timeline for redistricting, 2020 cycle
Date	Event description
April/May 2021	The Maryland Citizens Redistricting Commission will begin meetings in advance of the 2020 Census data release date in August. Meeting dates will be posted to [redistricting.maryland.gov redistricting.maryland.gov] as they are scheduled. Meetings will continue until a final plan is presented.
January 12, 2022	Legislative district plan due to the Maryland General Assembly. This is applicable to state legislative districts only. As the Maryland Constitution and the Maryland Code are silent as to the process of drawing of Congressional districts, they will also be drawn and submitted prior to this date.
February 26, 2022	Final date for the Maryland General Assembly to act on a legislative redistricting plan.

Committees and/or commissions involved in the process

The table below lists the members of the Maryland Citizens Redistricting Commission in the 2020 cycle:

Maryland Citizens Redistricting Commission, 2020 cycle
Name	Partisan affiliation
Dr. Kathleen Hetherington	Nonpartisan
Walter Olson	Republican
Judge Alexander Williams, Jr.	Democratic
Jay V. Amin	Nonpartisan
Cheryl Brooks	Democratic
Mary G. Clawson	Republican
Kimberly Rose Cummings	Republican
Jonathan Fusfield	Nonpartisan
William Tipper Thomas, III	Democratic

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. Maryland was apportioned eight seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. This represented neither a gain nor a loss of seats as compared to apportionment after the 2010 census.

See the table below for additional details.

2020 and 2010 census information for Maryland
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
Maryland	5,789,929	8	6,185,278	8	395,349	6.83%	0

Redistricting data from the Census Bureau

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

Court challenges

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

In re 2022 Legislative Districting

On February 10, 2022, several Maryland citizens filed a petition challenging the validity of the state's enacted legislative maps. In the petition, the plaintiffs said that some districts in the map "violate Article III, § 4 of Maryland’s Constitution because they are not contiguous or compact and/or do not give due regard to natural boundaries and the boundaries of political subdivisions. These districts further violate: (a) Articles 7, 24, and 40 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights by infringing on Marylanders’ rights to free elections, freedom of speech, and equal protection; and (b) Article I, § 7 of Maryland’s Constitution by contradicting the General Assembly’s obligation to pass laws ensuring the purity of elections." The plaintiffs requested the court invalidate the enacted plan and order the Maryland General Assembly to draw new maps.

On February 11, the Maryland Court of Appeals consolidated the petition with three other challenges to the legislative maps. On April 13, the Court issued an order upholding the legislative maps and denying the petitions.

Szeliga v. Lamone and Parrott v. Lamone

On December 21, 2021, several Maryland residents filed a lawsuit (Parrott) before a Maryland circuit court challenging the state's enacted congressional map. The lawsuit said, "This action challenges Maryland’s 2021 congressional redistricting plan on the ground that it diminishes Plaintiffs’ rights to participate in elections for the U.S. Congress on an equal basis with other Maryland voters, in violation of Article 7 of the Declaration of Rights of the Maryland Constitution; and on the ground that the Plan’s districts violate the requirements for district boundaries prescribed by Article III, Section 4 of the Maryland Constitution." They requested the court invalidate the congressional map.

On December 23, 2021, several Maryland residents filed another lawsuit before a Maryland circuit court (Szeliga) challenging the state's enacted congressional map. The plaintiffs argued that the "Democrat-controlled General Assembly enacted the 2021 Plan to continue a now decade-long strategy of diluting Republican votes across Maryland and preventing Republican voters, through unconstitutional means, from electing their preferred representatives for Congress." They requested the court invalidate the congressional map.

On February 22, 2022, the court consolidated the Szeliga and Parrott cases. On March 25, Circuit Court Judge Lynne Battaglia overturned the state's congressional map and ordered the Maryland legislature to draw a new map.

In The Matter Of 2022 Legislative Districting Of The State

On February 3, 2022, the Maryland Court of Appeals issued an order directing any registered voter in the state that wished to contest the validity of the state's legislative district boundaries to file such petitions by February 10, 2022. The court further ordered those petitions be consolidated into a single case named, In The Matter Of 2022 Legislative Districting Of The State. That order appointed retired Maryland Appeals Court Justice Alan Wilner to serve as a Special Magistrate to conduct hearings as necessary on such petitions and file a "written Report of findings of fact and conclusions of law."

Four petitions were filed contesting the validity of the state's legislative redistricting plan by the deadline. The Special Magistrate scheduled hearings on the merits of these petitions from March 23, 2022, through March 25, 2022. On March 15, 2022, the Maryland Court of Appeals issued an order postponing the state's primary election from June 28, 2022, to July 19, 2022, and extending the candidate filing deadline from March 22, 2022, to April 15, 2022. It also directed Wilner to file his report by April 5, 2022.

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 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 Maryland after the 2010 census

Congressional redistricting, 2010

See also: Maryland Redistricting Referendum, Question 5 (2012) and Benisek v. Lamone

On October 4, 2011, the governor's advisory redistricting commission released a proposal for new congressional districts. Governor Martin O'Malley (D) amended this plan and submitted his final proposal to the state legislature on October 15, 2011. The state legislature made further amendments and approved a final congressional map with a three-fifths majority vote. On October 20, 2011, O'Malley signed the map into law. The map was subject to a series of court challenges.

A referendum on the new maps was added to the November 6, 2012, ballot in Maryland. Voters approved the maps as drawn by the legislature.

On June 18, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a per curiam ruling in Benisek v. Lamone, in which Republicans had alleged that state lawmakers illegally altered the boundaries of the 6th Congressional District in order to dilute the impact of Republican votes. The high court a district court decision that had denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the challenged district map. The court determined that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that they would suffer irreparable harm if an injunction were not granted. The court wrote the following in its unsigned opinion:

“

We now note our jurisdiction and review the District Court's decision for an abuse of discretion, keeping in mind that a preliminary injunction, as 'an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.' As a matter of equitable discretion, a preliminary injunction does not follow as a matter of course from a plaintiff's showing of a likelihood of success on the merits. Rather, a court must also consider whether the movant has shown 'that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.' Plaintiffs made no such showing below. Even if we assume—contrary to the findings of the District Court—that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims, the balance of equities and the public interest tilted against their request for a preliminary injunction.

”

State legislative redistricting, 2010

The governor's advisory redistricting commission released its proposal for new state legislative districts on December 16, 2011. Governor Martin O'Malley (D) amended this plan and submitted his final proposal to the state legislature on January 11, 2012. The state legislature failed to take further action; consequently, the governor's proposal became law on February 24, 2012. The maps were subject to court challenges, but these were ultimately rejected and the maps stood.

See also

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