Redistricting in Georgia
 in Georgia |
Redistricting is the process by which new congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn. Each of Georgia's 14 United States Representatives and 236 state legislators are elected from political divisions called districts. United States Senators are not elected by districts, but by the states at large. District lines are redrawn every 10 years following completion of the United States census. The federal government stipulates that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.[1][2][3][4]
Georgia was apportioned 14 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2020 census, the same number it received after the 2010 census. Click here for more information about redistricting in Georgia after the 2020 census.
HIGHLIGHTS
On December 8, 2023, Governor Brian Kemp (R) signed revised congressional maps into law. Legislators in the Georgia House of Representatives voted 98-71 to adopt the new congressional map on December 7. The Georgia State Senate voted 32-22 to adopt the congressional map on December 5.[5][6]
On October 26, 2023, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ruled that the state's congressional and legislative district boundaries violated the Voting Rights Act and enjoined the state from using them for future elections.[7] The court directed the Georgia General Assembly to develop new maps by December 8, 2023.[7]
On December 28, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District upheld the maps enacted on December 8 and found them in compliance with the Voting Rights Act.
| “ | The Court finds that the General Assembly fully complied with this Court’s order requiring the creation of a majority-Black congressional district in the region of the State where vote dilution was found. The Court further finds that the elimination of 2021 CD 7 did not violate the October 26, 2023 Order. Finally, the Court declines to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ new Section 2 claim based on a coalition of minority voters. Hence, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs’ objections ... and HEREBY APPROVES SB 3EX.[8][9] | ” |
The district court's approval of remedial state legislative maps was appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral argument was scheduled for January 23, 2025. The district court's approval of remedial state legislative maps is on appeal before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral argument was scheduled for January 23, 2025.[10]
Governor Kemp (R) signed revised legislative maps into law on December 8, 2023. Legislators in the Georgia House of Representatives voted 98-71 to adopt the new state legislative maps on December 5. The Georgia State Senate voted 32-23 to adopt the state legislative maps on December 1. For more information about the enacted legislative maps, click here.[5][6] Click here for more information on maps enacted after the 2020 census.
See the sections below for further information on the following topics:
- Background: A summary of federal requirements for redistricting at both the congressional and state legislative levels.
- State process: An overview about the redistricting process in Georgia
- District maps: Information about the current district maps in Georgia
- Redistricting by cycle: A breakdown of the most significant events in Georgia's redistricting after recent censuses
- State legislation and ballot measures: State legislation and state and local ballot measures relevant to redistricting policy
- Political impacts of redistricting: An analysis of the political issues associated with redistricting
Background
This section includes background information on federal requirements for congressional redistricting, state legislative redistricting, state-based requirements, redistricting methods used in the 50 states, gerrymandering, and recent court decisions.
Federal requirements for congressional redistricting
According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, the states and their legislatures have primary authority in determining the "times, places, and manner" of congressional elections. Congress may also pass laws regulating congressional elections.[11][12]
| “ | The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.[9] | ” |
| —United States Constitution |
Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution stipulates that congressional representatives be apportioned to the states on the basis of population. There are 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives. Each state is allotted a portion of these seats based on the size of its population relative to the other states. Consequently, a state may gain seats in the House if its population grows or lose seats if its population decreases, relative to populations in other states. In 1964, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Wesberry v. Sanders that the populations of House districts must be equal "as nearly as practicable."[13][14][15]
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."[15]
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."[15]
State-based requirements
In addition to the federal criteria noted above, individual states may impose additional requirements on redistricting. Common state-level redistricting criteria are listed below.
- Contiguity refers to the principle that all areas within a district should be physically adjacent. A total of 49 states require that districts of at least one state legislative chamber be contiguous (Nevada has no such requirement, imposing no requirements on redistricting beyond those enforced at the federal level). A total of 23 states require that congressional districts meet contiguity requirements.[15][16]
- 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.[15][16]
- 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.[15][16]
- 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.[15][16]
Methods
In general, a state's redistricting authority can be classified as one of the following:[17]
- Legislature-dominant: In a legislature-dominant state, the legislature retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. Maps enacted by the legislature may or may not be subject to gubernatorial veto. Advisory commissions may also be involved in the redistricting process, although the legislature is not bound to adopt an advisory commission's recommendations.
- Commission: In a commission state, an extra-legislative commission retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. A non-politician commission is one whose members cannot hold elective office. A politician commission is one whose members can hold elective office.
- Hybrid: In a hybrid state, the legislature shares redistricting authority with a commission.
Gerrymandering
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.[1][18]
For additional background information about gerrymandering, click "[Show more]" below.
The phrase racial gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to dilute the voting power of racial minority groups. Federal law prohibits racial gerrymandering and establishes that, to combat this practice and to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act, states and jurisdictions can create majority-minority electoral districts. A majority-minority district is one in which a racial group or groups comprise a majority of the district's populations. Racial gerrymandering and majority-minority districts are discussed in greater detail in this article.[19]
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.[20][21]
Recent court decisions
The Supreme Court of the United States has, in recent years, issued several decisions dealing with redistricting policy, including rulings relating to the consideration of race in drawing district maps, the use of total population tallies in apportionment, and the constitutionality of independent redistricting commissions. The rulings in these cases, which originated in a variety of states, impact redistricting processes across the nation.
For additional background information about these cases, click "[Show more]" below.
Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (2024)
Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP — This case concerns a challenge to the congressional redistricting plan that the South Carolina legislature enacted after the 2020 census. In January 2023, a federal three-judge panel ruled that the state's 1st Congressional District was unconstitutional and enjoined the state from conducting future elections using its district boundaries. The panel's opinion said, "The Court finds that race was the predominant factor motivating the General Assembly’s adoption of Congressional District No. 1...Defendants have made no showing that they had a compelling state interest in the use of race in the design of Congressional District No. 1 and thus cannot survive a strict scrutiny review."[22] 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.[23] The U.S. Supreme Court scheduled oral argument on this case for October 11, 2023.[24]
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.[25] 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.[26]
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.[27]
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.[28]
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.[29][30][31]
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.[32][33][34][35]
Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2016)
Justice Stephen Breyer penned the majority opinion in 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.[37][38]
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015)
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2015. At issue was the constitutionality of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, which was established by state constitutional amendment in 2000. According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, "the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." The state legislature argued that the use of the word "legislature" in this context is literal; therefore, only a state legislature may draw congressional district lines. Meanwhile, the commission contended that the word "legislature" ought to be interpreted to mean "the legislative powers of the state," including voter initiatives and referenda. On June 29, 2015, the court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, finding that "redistricting is a legislative function, to be performed in accordance with the state's prescriptions for lawmaking, which may include the referendum and the governor's veto." The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito dissented.[39][40][41][42]
Race and ethnicity
- See also: Majority-minority districts
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 mandates that electoral district lines cannot be drawn in such a manner as to "improperly dilute minorities' voting power."
| “ | No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.[9] | ” |
| —Voting Rights Act of 1965[43] |
States and other political subdivisions may create majority-minority districts in order to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. A majority-minority district is a district in which minority groups compose a majority of the district's total population. As of 2015, Georgia was home to five congressional majority-minority districts.[2][3][4]
Proponents of majority-minority districts maintain that these districts are a necessary hindrance to the practice of cracking, which occurs when a constituency is divided between several districts in order to prevent it from achieving a majority in any one district. In addition, supporters argue that the drawing of majority-minority districts has resulted in an increased number of minority representatives in state legislatures and Congress.[2][3][4]
Critics, meanwhile, contend that the establishment of majority-minority districts can result in packing, which occurs when a constituency or voting group is placed within a single district, thereby minimizing its influence in other districts. Because minority groups tend to vote Democratic, critics argue that majority-minority districts ultimately present an unfair advantage to Republicans by consolidating Democratic votes into a smaller number of districts.[2][3][4]
State process
- See also: State-by-state redistricting procedures
In Georgia, both congressional and state legislative district lines are drawn by the state legislature. A simple majority in each chamber is required to approve redistricting plans, which are subject to veto by the governor.[44]
The Georgia Constitution requires that state legislative districts be contiguous. There are no similar requirements for congressional districts.[44][45]
In 2011, the House redistricting committee released guidelines recommending the following for both congressional and state legislative districts:[44]
- prohibition of multi-member districts
- consideration of county and precinct boundaries
- compactness
- consideration of communities of interest
The committee also suggested that "efforts should be made to avoid the unnecessary pairing of incumbents" within single districts. These are not legal requirements; as such, they may be altered at any time.[44]
How incarcerated persons are counted for redistricting
States differ on how they count incarcerated persons for the purposes of redistricting. In Georgia, incarcerated persons are counted in the correctional facilities they are housed in.
District maps
Congressional districts
Georgia comprises 14 congressional districts. The table below lists Georgia's current U.S. Representatives.
| Office | Name | Party | Date assumed office | Date term ends |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. House Georgia District 1 | Earl Carter | Republican | January 3, 2015 | January 3, 2027 |
| U.S. House Georgia District 2 | Sanford Bishop Jr. | Democratic | January 3, 1993 | January 3, 2027 |
| U.S. House Georgia District 3 | Brian Jack | Republican | January 3, 2025 | January 3, 2027 |
| U.S. House Georgia District 4 | Hank Johnson | Democratic | January 3, 2007 | January 3, 2027 |
| U.S. House Georgia District 5 | Nikema Williams | Democratic | January 3, 2021 | January 3, 2027 |
| U.S. House Georgia District 6 | Lucy McBath | Democratic | January 3, 2025 | January 3, 2027 |
| U.S. House Georgia District 7 | Rich McCormick | Republican | January 3, 2025 | January 3, 2027 |
| U.S. House Georgia District 8 | Austin Scott | Republican | January 3, 2011 | January 3, 2027 |
| U.S. House Georgia District 9 | Andrew Clyde | Republican | January 3, 2021 | January 3, 2027 |
| U.S. House Georgia District 10 | Mike Collins | Republican | January 3, 2023 | January 3, 2027 |
| U.S. House Georgia District 11 | Barry Loudermilk | Republican | January 3, 2015 | January 3, 2027 |
| U.S. House Georgia District 12 | Rick Allen | Republican | January 3, 2015 | January 3, 2027 |
| U.S. House Georgia District 13 | David Scott | Democratic | January 3, 2003 | January 3, 2027 |
| U.S. House Georgia District 14 | Marjorie Taylor Greene | Republican | January 3, 2021 | January 3, 2027 |
State legislative maps
- See also: Georgia State Senate and Georgia House of Representatives
Georgia comprises 56 state Senate districts and 180 state House districts. State senators and representatives are elected every two years in partisan elections. To access the state legislative district maps approved during the 2020 redistricting cycle, click here.
Redistricting by cycle
Redistricting after the 2020 census
Georgia was apportioned 14 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.[46]
Enacted congressional district maps
Congressional map enacted in 2023
On December 8, 2023, Governor Brian Kemp (R) signed revised congressional maps into law. Legislators in the Georgia House of Representatives voted 98-71 to adopt the new congressional map on December 7. The Georgia State Senate voted 32-22 to adopt the congressional map on December 5.[5][6]
On October 26, 2023, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ruled that the state's congressional and legislative district boundaries violated the Voting Rights Act and enjoined the state from using them for future elections.[7] The court directed the Georgia General Assembly to develop new maps by December 8, 2023.[7]
On December 28, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District upheld the maps enacted on December 8 and found them in compliance with the Voting Rights Act.
| “ | The Court finds that the General Assembly fully complied with this Court’s order requiring the creation of a majority-Black congressional district in the region of the State where vote dilution was found. The Court further finds that the elimination of 2021 CD 7 did not violate the October 26, 2023 Order. Finally, the Court declines to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ new Section 2 claim based on a coalition of minority voters. Hence, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs’ objections ... and HEREBY APPROVES SB 3EX.[47][9] | ” |
The district court's approval of remedial state legislative maps was appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral argument was scheduled for January 23, 2025.
Reactions to 2023 congressional map
Several plaintiffs from the cases objecting to the congressional maps asked the court to draw new voting districts in time for the 2024 congressional and legislative elections:[48]
| “ |
"The inescapable conclusion is that the proposed plans do not come close to following the court's order. Putting eyes on the 2023 proposed plans confirms the total failure of compliance. ... The General Assembly's attempt to minimize and zero out minority voting opportunity in a purported 'remedy' to the state's Section 2 violation is precisely the sort of gamesmanship Section 2 was meant to stamp out. ... The General Assembly's purported remedy makes a mockery of that process, the court's ruling and the Voting Rights Act, and reflects the state's continued refusal to afford minority voters equal opportunity to participate in electoral politics."[48][9] |
” |
Below are the congressional maps in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle. The map on the right was in effect for Georgia’s 2024 congressional elections.
Georgia Congressional Districts
until January 2, 2025
Click a district to compare boundaries.
Georgia Congressional Districts
starting January 3, 2025
Click a district to compare boundaries.
Congressional map enacted in 2021
Georgia's congressional district boundaries were originally adopted on December 30, 2021, when Gov. Brian Kemp (R) signed Georgia's earlier congressional map into law. The Georgia General Assembly previously approved the map with the state Senate voting 32-21 in favor of the map on November 19, 2021, followed by the state House voting 96-68 on November 22, 2021.[49][50] This map took effect for Georgia's 2022 congressional elections.
Reactions to 2021 congressional map
House Minority Leader James Beverly (D) said, "The majority party had an opportunity — indeed, an obligation — to implement a fair and transparent participant process to work across party lines on maps that are equitable for all Georgians ... Instead, they chose the process of closed doors, locked gates, closed processes to deter participation in the democratic process."[49]
House Speaker David Ralston (R) said, "[W]e have released a proposed map that reflects Georgia’s growing, diverse population, respects jurisdictional lines and communities of interest, and conforms to applicable legal standards including the Voting Rights Act."[51]
After Kemp signed the map into law, two lawsuits were filed against the congressional map alleging racial gerrymandering. Marina Jenkins, with the National Democratic Redistricting Committee's National Redistricting Foundation, said, "The congressional map signed into law by Gov. Brian Kemp is a shameless power grab that cheats Black voters out of proper representation."[52]
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.[53] This data was compiled by Daily Kos Elections.[54]
| 2020 presidential results by Congressional district, Georgia | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| District | 2022 district | Political predecessor district | ||
Joe Biden 
|
Donald Trump 
|
Joe Biden
|
Donald Trump
| |
| Georgia's 1st | 42.6% | 56.0% | 43.1% | 55.5% |
| Georgia's 2nd | 54.7% | 44.4% | 55.7% | 43.4% |
| Georgia's 3rd | 34.4% | 64.4% | 36.8% | 62.0% |
| Georgia's 4th | 78.3% | 20.6% | 78.8% | 20.2% |
| Georgia's 5th | 82.6% | 16.2% | 86.2% | 12.6% |
| Georgia's 6th | 41.8% | 56.7% | 52.4% | 46.1% |
| Georgia's 7th | 62.3% | 36.5% | 54.8% | 43.7% |
| Georgia's 8th | 35.7% | 63.3% | 37.0% | 62.0% |
| Georgia's 9th | 30.4% | 68.3% | 22.4% | 76.4% |
| Georgia's 10th | 37.7% | 61.1% | 39.2% | 59.6% |
| Georgia's 11th | 41.5% | 56.8% | 41.5% | 56.9% |
| Georgia's 12th | 44.3% | 54.5% | 43.0% | 55.8% |
| Georgia's 13th | 79.7% | 19.3% | 75.6% | 23.4% |
| Georgia's 14th | 30.7% | 68.1% | 25.3% | 73.4% |
Enacted state legislative district maps
State legislative maps enacted in 2023
The district court's approval of remedial state legislative maps is on appeal before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral argument was scheduled for January 23, 2025.[55]
Governor Kemp (R) signed revised legislative maps into law on December 8, 2023. Legislators in the Georgia House of Representatives voted 98-71 to adopt the new state legislative maps on December 5. The Georgia State Senate voted 32-23 to adopt the state legislative maps on December 1. For more information about the enacted legislative maps, click here.[5][6]
On October 26, 2023, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ruled that the state's congressional and legislative district boundaries violated the Voting Rights Act and enjoined the state from using them for future elections.[7] The court directed the Georgia General Assembly to develop new maps by December 8, 2023.[7]
On December 28, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District upheld the maps enacted on December 8 and found them in compliance with the Voting Rights Act.
| “ | The Court finds that the General Assembly fully complied with this Court’s order requiring the creation of Black-majority districts in the regions of the State where vote dilution was found. Hence, the Court overrules Plaintiffs’ objections (Doc. No. [354]) and hereby approves SB 1EX and HB 1EX.[56][9] | ” |
Reactions to 2023 state legislative maps
On December 20, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District decided to uphold the maps enacted on November 30 and found them in compliance with the Voting Rights Act.
The plaintiffs from the October 26 case objected to the maps and asked the court to draw new voting districts in time for the 2024 congressional and legislative elections:[48]
| “ |
"The inescapable conclusion is that the proposed plans do not come close to following the court's order. Putting eyes on the 2023 proposed plans confirms the total failure of compliance. ... The General Assembly's attempt to minimize and zero out minority voting opportunity in a purported 'remedy' to the state's Section 2 violation is precisely the sort of gamesmanship Section 2 was meant to stamp out. ... The General Assembly's purported remedy makes a mockery of that process, the court's ruling and the Voting Rights Act, and reflects the state's continued refusal to afford minority voters equal opportunity to participate in electoral politics."[48][9] |
” |
State Senate maps
Below is the state Senate map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle. The map on the right was in effect for Georgia’s 2024 state legislative elections.
Georgia State Senate Districts
until January 12, 2025
Click a district to compare boundaries.
Georgia State Senate Districts
starting January 13, 2025
Click a district to compare boundaries.
State House maps
Below is the state House map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle. The map on the right was in effect for Georgia’s 2024 state legislative elections.
Georgia State House Districts
until January 12, 2025
Click a district to compare boundaries.
Georgia State House Districts
starting January 13, 2025
Click a district to compare boundaries.
State legislative maps enacted in 2021
On December 30, 2021, Governor Kemp (R) signed Georgia's Senate and House district maps into law. The state Senate approved its map on November 9, 2021, with a 34-21 vote followed by the state House voting 96-70 in favor on November 15, 2021.[57] The state House approved its map on Nov. 10 with a 99-79 vote followed by the state Senate voting 32-21 in favor on Nov. 12. These maps took effect for Georgia's 2022 state legislative elections.
Drafting process
In Georgia, both congressional and state legislative district lines are drawn by the state legislature. A simple majority in each chamber is required to approve redistricting plans, which are subject to veto by the governor.[44]
The Georgia Constitution requires that state legislative districts be contiguous. There are no similar requirements for congressional districts.[44][58]
On August 30, 2021, the House reapportionment committee approved guidelines for congressional and legislative redistricting.[59] The guidelines were similar to those recommended in 2011, and included:[44]
- prohibition of multi-member districts
- consideration of county and precinct boundaries
- compactness
- consideration of communities of interest
The guidelines restricted public access to redistricting plans so that until they were submitted to the reapportionment committee, the plans would not be subject to public disclosure.[60] The committee also suggested that "efforts should be made to avoid the unnecessary pairing of incumbents." These are not legal requirements; as such, they may be altered at any time.[44]
To read all of the guidelines approved by the committee click here.
Timeline of 2021 map adoption
Georgia did not set a specific redistricting deadline for the 2020 redistricting cycle. The candidate filing deadline for the 2022 election cycle in Georgia was March 3, 2022, an inferred deadline.
On Sept. 23, 2021, Gov. Brian Kemp (R) called for a special session to begin on Nov. 3, 2021, for the purpose of considering and finalizing congressional and state legislative district maps.[61]
Redistricting committees and/or commissions in 2021
Senate
The following individuals were assigned to the Senate Reapportionment and Redistricting Committee in the 2020 cycle.[62]
| Georgia Senate Reapportionment and Redistricting Committee membership, 2020 cycle | ||
|---|---|---|
| Name | Position | Partisan affiliation |
| John F Kennedy | Chairman |  Republican
|
| Bill Cowsert | Vice Chairman | Republican
|
| Jeff Mullis | Ex-Officio | Republican
|
| Tonya Anderson | Member |  Democratic
|
| Dean Burke | Member | Republican
|
| Gloria Butler | Member | Democratic
|
| Greg Dolezal | Member | Republican
|
| Mike Dugan | Member | Republican
|
| Steve Gooch | Member | Republican
|
| Marty Harbin | Member | Republican
|
| Ed Harbison | Member | Democratic
|
| Harold V. Jones II | Member | Democratic
|
| Butch Miller | Member | Republican
|
| Michael 'Doc' Rhett | Member | Democratic
|
| Blake Tillery | Member | Republican
|
House of Representatives
The following individuals were assigned to the House Reapportionment and Redistricting Committee in the 2020 cycle.[63]
| Georgia House Committee on Legislative and Congressional Reapportionment membership, 2020 cycle | ||
|---|---|---|
| Name | Position | Partisan affiliation |
| Bonnie Rich | Chair | Republican
|
| Darlene Taylor | Vice chair | Republican
|
| Susan Holmes | Secretary | Republican
|
| Richard H. Smith | Member | Republican
|
| Lynn Smith | Member | Republican
|
| Carl Gilliard | Member | Democratic
|
| Ed Setzler | Member | Republican
|
| Randy Nix | Member | Republican
|
| Jan Jones | Member | Republican
|
| Mack Jackson | Member | Democratic
|
| Barry Fleming | Member | Republican
|
| Chuck Efstration | Member | Republican
|
| Matt Dollar | Member | Republican
|
| Kimberly Alexander | Member | Democratic
|
| Buddy DeLoach | Member | Republican
|
| Mandi Ballinger | Member | Republican
|
| Sandra Scott | Member | Democratic
|
| Edward Stephens | Member | Democratic
|
Drafts and proposals
Congressional district maps
2023 Approved congressional map
On Dec. 7, 2023, the Georgia House of Representatives voted 98-71 in favor of Senate Bill 3EX (SB 3EX). The Georgia State Senate approved SB 3EX with a 32-22 vote on Dec. 5. Gov. Brian Kemp (R) signed revised congressional and legislative maps into law on Dec. 8.[64][5][6] An image of the approved congressional district map is shown below. More detailed images can be found here.
Click "Show more" to view previously proposed congressional and legislative maps.
On Nov. 22, 2021, the Georgia House of Representatives voted 96-68 in favor of Senate Bill 2EX (SB 2EX), sending the bill redrawing the state's 14 congressional districts to Gov. Brian Kemp (R) for final approval. The Georgia State Senate previously approved SB 2EX on Nov. 19 with a 32-21 vote. An image of the proposed congressional district map is shown below. More detailed images can be found here.
Click "Show more" to view previously proposed congressional and legislative maps.
Legislative district maps
Click on the headers below to view information, images, and reactions to draft state legislative district maps released in Georgia.
State Senate
2023 Approved State Senate map
On Dec. 5, 2023, the Georgia House of Representatives voted 98-71 in favor of Senate Bill 1EX (SB 1EX). The Georgia State Senate approved SB 1EX with a 32-23 vote on Dec. 1. Gov. Brian Kemp (R) signed revised congressional and legislative maps into law on Dec. 8.[68][5][6] An image of the approved congressional district map is shown below. More detailed images can be found here.
Click "Show more" to view previously proposed Senate district maps.
On Nov. 15, 2021, the Georgia House of Representatives voted 96-70 in favor of Senate Bill 1EX (SB 1EX), sending the bill redrawing the state's 56 Senate districts to Gov. Brian Kemp (R) for final approval. The Georgia State Senate had previously approved SB 1EX on Nov. 9 with a 34-21 vote.[69] An image of the approved Senate district map is shown below. More detailed images can be found here and an interactive version is available here.
Click "Show more" to view previously proposed state Senate district maps.
State House
2023 Approved State House map
On Dec. 5, 2023, the Georgia State Senate voted 32-21 in favor of House Bill 1EX (HB 1EX). The Georgia House of Representatives approved HB 1EX with a 101-76 vote on Dec. 1. Gov. Brian Kemp (R) signed revised congressional and legislative maps into law on Dec. 8.[76][5][6] An image of the approved congressional district map is shown below. More detailed images can be found here.
Click "Show more" to view previously proposed House district maps.
On Nov. 12, 2021, the Georgia State Senate voted 32-21 in favor of House Bill 1EX (HB 1EX), sending the bill redrawing the state's 180 House districts to Gov. Brian Kemp (R) for final approval. The Georgia House of Representatives had previously approved HB 1EX on Nov. 10 with a 99-79 vote.[77] An image of the approved House district map is shown below. More detailed images can be found here and an interactive version is available here.
Click "Show more" to view previously proposed State House district maps.
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.[83]
Apportionment following the 2020 census
The U.S. Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts on April 26, 2021. Georgia was apportioned 14 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.[84]
See the table below for additional details.
| 2020 and 2010 census information for Georgia | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | |
| Georgia | 9,727,566 | 14 | 10,725,274 | 14 | 997,708 | 10.26% | 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.[85][86][87][88] 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.[89][90]
Court challenges
- If you are aware of any relevant lawsuits that are not listed here, please email us at editor@ballotpedia.org.
Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Inc., Grant, and Pendergrass v. Raffensperger
On October 26, 2023, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ruled that the state's congressional and legislative district boundaries violated the Voting Rights Act and enjoined the state from using them for future elections.[7] The court directed the Georgia General Assembly to develop new maps by December 8, 2023.[7]
The court combined three cases that lower courts heard separately: Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Inc. v. Raffensperger, Grant v. Raffensperger, and Pendergrass v. Raffensperger.[91]
Federal District Court Judge Steve C. Jones wrote in his order, "After conducting a thorough and sifting review of the evidence in this case, the Court finds that the State of Georgia violated the Voting Rights Act when it enacted its congressional and legislative maps. The Court commends Georgia for the great strides that it has made to increase the political opportunities of Black voters in the 58 years since the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Despite these great gains, the Court determines that in certain areas of the State, the political process is not equally open to Black voters. . For example, in the past decade, all of Georgia’s population growth was attributable to the minority population, however, the number of majority-Black congressional and legislative districts remained the same. In light of this fact and in conjunction with all of the evidence and testimony in this case, the Court determines that Georgia’s congressional and legislative maps violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and enjoins their use in any future elections."[91]
Georgia State Conference of the NAACP v. Raffensperger
On February 3, 2022, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia consolidated all the cases challenging the state's congressional district boundaries.[92] The federal district court held hearings regarding challenges to the state's congressional and legislative district boundaries beginning on September 5, 2023.[93] The consolidated case included the following filed lawsuits:
- Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Inc. v. Raffensperger
- Common Cause v. Raffensperger
- Georgia State Conference of the NAACP v. Raffensperger
- Grant v. Raffensperger
- Pendergrass v. Raffensperger
Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Inc. v. Raffensperger
On Dec. 30, 2021, the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc., Sixth District of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, and a group of voters filed a lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) challenging the enacted state Senate and House maps.[94] The plaintiffs alleged that the legislative maps diluted the voting power of Black Georgians in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.[95] As relief, plaintiffs asked the court to reject the enacted maps and order the creation of new maps.[95]
In their complaint, plaintiffs wrote:
| “ |
[Georgia's population] growth has been driven entirely by Black Georgians and other Georgians of color ... Yet the new legislative maps for Georgia's General Assembly, which were rushed through the legislative process in a week and a half, do not account for the growth of Georgia's Black population. Rather, the new maps systematically minimize the political power of Black Georgians in violation of federal law.[95][9] |
” |
- Read the plaintiffs' complaint here
On Jan. 3, 2022, Raffensperger responded to lawsuits filed against the enacted maps, saying:
| “ |
Georgia's maps are fair and adhere to traditional principles of redistricting ... These lawsuits are nothing but politically motivated actions from politically motivated groups seeking to further their partisan preferences ... The plaintiffs hide behind lofty rhetoric, but all they care about is entrenching the failed politics of the Biden Administration that are making everything more expensive for Georgia families.[96][9] |
” |
This case was combined with two other cases, Grant v. Raffensperger and Pendergrass v. Raffensperger, and decided by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on October 26, 2023.[91]
Common Cause v. Raffensperger
On Jan. 7, 2022, Common Cause, the League of Women Voters of Georgia, and several registered voters filed a lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) and the chairs of the Senate and House redistricting committees—Sen. John F. Kennedy (R) and Rep. Bonnie Rich (R)—challenging the state's enacted congressional map.[97] The plaintiffs alleged that the map constituted a racial gerrymander in violation of the Voting Rights Act.[97] As relief, plaintiffs asked the court to block three challenged districts—the 6th, 13th, and 14th—and order a new map.[97]
- Read the plaintiffs' complaint here.
Georgia State Conference of the NAACP v. Raffensperger
On Dec. 30, 2021, the Georgia State Conference of the NAACP, the Georgia Coalition for the People's Agenda, Inc., and Galeo Latino Community Development Fund, Inc., filed a lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Governor Brian Kemp (R) and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) challenging the state's enacted legislative and congressional maps.[98] The plaintiffs alleged that the map constituted a racial gerrymander in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.[98] As relief, plaintiffs asked the court to reject a series of identified districts and order the development of new maps.[98]
In their complaint, plaintiffs wrote:
| “ |
[T]he Controlling Party deliberately targeted Black, Latinx, and AAPI Georgians and moved them into and out of districts to deny them equal opportunities to elect candidates of their choice, splitting communities of interest, and ensuring safe districts where White voters can elect their candidates of choice.[98][9] |
” |
- Read the plaintiffs' complaint here.
On Jan. 3, 2022, Raffensperger responded to lawsuits filed against the enacted maps, saying:
| “ |
Georgia's maps are fair and adhere to traditional principles of redistricting ... These lawsuits are nothing but politically motivated actions from politically motivated groups seeking to further their partisan preferences ... The plaintiffs hide behind lofty rhetoric, but all they care about is entrenching the failed politics of the Biden Administration that are making everything more expensive for Georgia families.[96][9] |
” |
Grant v. Raffensperger
On. Jan. 11, 2022, a group of voters led by Annie Lois Grant filed a lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) and four members of the Georgia State Election Board challenging the state's enacted legislative maps.[99] The plaintiffs alleged that the legislative maps diluted the voting power of Black Georgians in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The complaint also alleged that legislators could have created eight additional minority-opportunity districts.[99] As relief, plaintiffs asked the court to block the maps and order them redrawn.[99]
- Read the plaintiffs' complaint here.
This case was combined with two other cases, Grant v. Raffensperger and Pendergrass v. Raffensperger, and decided by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on October 26, 2023.[91] The case is on appeal at the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Oral argument was scheduled for January 23, 2025.[100]
Pendergrass v. Raffensperger
On Dec. 30, 2021, a group of voters led by Rev. Coakley Pendergrass filed a lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) and four members of the Georgia State Election Board challenging the state's enacted congressional map.[101] The plaintiffs alleged that the legislative maps diluted the voting power of Black Georgians in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.[101] As relief, plaintiffs asked the court to reject the enacted map and order the creation of a new map with an additional majority-Black district.[101]
In their complaint, plaintiffs wrote:
| “ |
Rather than create an additional congressional district i the western Atlanta metropolitan area in which Georgia's growing Black population would have the opportunity to elect candidates of its choice, the General Assembly did just the opposite: it paced and cracked Georgia's Black voters to dilute their influence.[101][9] |
” |
- Read the plaintiffs' complaint here.
On Jan. 3, 2022, Raffensperger responded to lawsuits filed against the enacted maps, saying:
| “ |
Georgia's maps are fair and adhere to traditional principles of redistricting ... These lawsuits are nothing but politically motivated actions from politically motivated groups seeking to further their partisan preferences ... The plaintiffs hide behind lofty rhetoric, but all they care about is entrenching the failed politics of the Biden Administration that are making everything more expensive for Georgia families.[96][9] |
” |
This case was combined with two other cases, Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Inc. v. Raffensperger and Grant v. Raffensperger, and decided by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on October 26, 2023.[91]
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.[102][103]
| “ | The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.[9] | ” |
| —United States Constitution |
Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution stipulates that congressional representatives be apportioned to the states on the basis of population. There are 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives. Each state is allotted a portion of these seats based on the size of its population relative to the other states. Consequently, a state may gain seats in the House if its population grows or lose seats if its population decreases, relative to populations in other states. In 1964, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Wesberry v. Sanders that the populations of House districts must be equal "as nearly as practicable."[13][104][15]
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."[15]
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."[15]
State-based requirements
In addition to the federal criteria noted above, individual states may impose additional requirements on redistricting. Common state-level redistricting criteria are listed below.
- Contiguity refers to the principle that all areas within a district should be physically adjacent. A total of 49 states require that districts of at least one state legislative chamber be contiguous (Nevada has no such requirement, imposing no requirements on redistricting beyond those enforced at the federal level). A total of 23 states require that congressional districts meet contiguity requirements.[15][16]
- 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.[15][16]
- 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.[15][16]
- 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.[15][16]
Methods
In general, a state's redistricting authority can be classified as one of the following:[105]
- Legislature-dominant: In a legislature-dominant state, the legislature retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. Maps enacted by the legislature may or may not be subject to gubernatorial veto. Advisory commissions may also be involved in the redistricting process, although the legislature is not bound to adopt an advisory commission's recommendations.
- Commission: In a commission state, an extra-legislative commission retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. A non-politician commission is one whose members cannot hold elective office. A politician commission is one whose members can hold elective office.
- Hybrid: In a hybrid state, the legislature shares redistricting authority with a commission.
Gerrymandering
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.[1][18]
For additional background information about gerrymandering, click "[Show more]" below.
The phrase racial gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to dilute the voting power of racial minority groups. Federal law prohibits racial gerrymandering and establishes that, to combat this practice and to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act, states and jurisdictions can create majority-minority electoral districts. A majority-minority district is one in which a racial group or groups comprise a majority of the district's populations. Racial gerrymandering and majority-minority districts are discussed in greater detail in this article.[19]
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.[106][107]
Recent court decisions
The Supreme Court of the United States has, in recent years, issued several decisions dealing with redistricting policy, including rulings relating to the consideration of race in drawing district maps, the use of total population tallies in apportionment, and the constitutionality of independent redistricting commissions. The rulings in these cases, which originated in a variety of states, impact redistricting processes across the nation.
For additional background information about these cases, click "[Show more]" below.
Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (2024)
Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP — This case concerns a challenge to the congressional redistricting plan that the South Carolina legislature enacted after the 2020 census. In January 2023, a federal three-judge panel ruled that the state's 1st Congressional District was unconstitutional and enjoined the state from conducting future elections using its district boundaries. The panel's opinion said, "The Court finds that race was the predominant factor motivating the General Assembly’s adoption of Congressional District No. 1...Defendants have made no showing that they had a compelling state interest in the use of race in the design of Congressional District No. 1 and thus cannot survive a strict scrutiny review."[22] 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.[108] The U.S. Supreme Court scheduled oral argument on this case for October 11, 2023.[109]
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.[25] 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.[110]
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.[111]
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.[28]
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.[112][113][31]
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.[32][33][34][35]
Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2016)
Justice Stephen Breyer penned the majority opinion in 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.[37][38]
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015)
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2015. At issue was the constitutionality of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, which was established by state constitutional amendment in 2000. According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, "the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." The state legislature argued that the use of the word "legislature" in this context is literal; therefore, only a state legislature may draw congressional district lines. Meanwhile, the commission contended that the word "legislature" ought to be interpreted to mean "the legislative powers of the state," including voter initiatives and referenda. On June 29, 2015, the court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, finding that "redistricting is a legislative function, to be performed in accordance with the state's prescriptions for lawmaking, which may include the referendum and the governor's veto." The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito dissented.[39][40][41][42]
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
Congressional redistricting, 2010
Following the 2010 United States Census, Georgia gained one congressional seat. At the time of redistricting, Republicans controlled both chambers of the state legislature. On August 13, 2011, the legislature approved a new congressional map. It was signed into law on September 6, 2011.[44][114]
State legislative redistricting, 2010
On August 23, 2010, the state legislature approved new state legislative district lines. The maps were signed into law on August 24, 2011. On February 23, 2012, the legislature approved amended House district lines, which were in turn signed by the governor. On March 21, 2012, the legislature passed revised Senate district lines, which the governor signed into law on April 13, 2012.[44]
The revised Senate maps did not take effect until 2014.[44]
See also
- Redistricting in Georgia after the 2010 census
- Redistricting in Georgia
- 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"
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 All About Redistricting, "Why does it matter?" accessed April 8, 2015
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Indy Week, "Cracked, stacked and packed: Initial redistricting maps met with skepticism and dismay," June 29, 2011
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 The Atlantic, "How the Voting Rights Act Hurts Democrats and Minorities," June 17, 2013
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Redrawing the Lines, "The Role of Section 2 - Majority Minority Districts," accessed April 6, 2015
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 Georgia General Assembly, "Legislative and Congressional Reapportionment Office - Proposed Plans," accessed December 11, 2023
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 Twitter, "RedistrictNet," December 7, 2023
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 Reuters, "US judge orders new congressional map in Georgia, citing harm to Black voters," October 27, 2023 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "Reuters" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "Reuters" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, "Case 1:21-cv-05339-SCJ, Document 334" December 28, 2023
- ↑ 9.00 9.01 9.02 9.03 9.04 9.05 9.06 9.07 9.08 9.09 9.10 9.11 9.12 9.13 9.14 9.15 9.16 9.17 9.18 9.19 9.20 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Democracy Docket, "11th Circuit Considers Fate of Georgia Maps in High-Stakes Redistricting Case," January 21, 2025
- ↑ The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, "Election Regulations," accessed April 13, 2015
- ↑ Brookings, "Redistricting and the United States Constitution," March 22, 2011
- ↑ 13.0 13.1 Brennan Center for Justice, "A Citizen's Guide to Redistricting," accessed March 25, 2015
- ↑ The Constitution of the United States of America, "Article 1, Section 2," accessed March 25, 2015
- ↑ 15.00 15.01 15.02 15.03 15.04 15.05 15.06 15.07 15.08 15.09 15.10 15.11 15.12 15.13 All About Redistricting, "Where are the lines drawn?" accessed April 9, 2015
- ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 16.5 16.6 16.7 FairVote, "Redistricting Glossary," accessed April 9, 2015
- ↑ All About Redistricting, "Who draws the lines?" accessed June 19, 2017
- ↑ 18.0 18.1 Encyclopædia Britannica, "Gerrymandering," November 4, 2014
- ↑ 19.0 19.1 Congressional Research Service, "Congressional Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A Legal Overview," April 13, 2015
- ↑ The Wall Street Journal, "Supreme Court to Consider Limits on Partisan Drawing of Election Maps," June 19, 2017
- ↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear potentially landmark case on partisan gerrymandering," June 19, 2017
- ↑ 22.0 22.1 United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Columbia Division, "South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, et al. v. Alexander," January 6, 2023
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Alexander, et al. v. The South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, et al.," February 17, 2023
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP," accessed July 21, 2023
- ↑ 25.0 25.1 SCOTUSblog, "Justices will hear case that tests power of state legislatures to set rules for federal elections," June 30, 2022
- ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, “Moore, in his Official Capacity as Speaker of The North Carolina House of Representatives, et al. v. Harper et al.," "Certiorari to the Supreme Court of North Carolina,” accessed June 16, 2023
- ↑ SCOTUSblog.org, "Supreme Court upholds Section 2 of Voting Rights Act," June 8, 2023
- ↑ 28.0 28.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "Gill v. Whitford: Decision," June 18, 2018
- ↑ Election Law Blog, "Breaking: SCOTUS to Hear NC Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 27, 2016
- ↑ Ballot Access News, "U.S. Supreme Court Accepts Another Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 28, 2016
- ↑ 31.0 31.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "Cooper v. Harris: Decision," May 22, 2017
- ↑ 32.0 32.1 The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear challenge to Texas redistricting plan," May 26, 2015
- ↑ 33.0 33.1 The New York Times, "Supreme Court Agrees to Settle Meaning of ‘One Person One Vote,'" May 26, 2015
- ↑ 34.0 34.1 SCOTUSblog, "Evenwel v. Abbott," accessed May 27, 2015
- ↑ 35.0 35.1 Associated Press, "Supreme Court to hear Texas Senate districts case," May 26, 2015
- ↑ 37.0 37.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Brief for Appellants," accessed December 14, 2015
- ↑ 38.0 38.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission," April 20, 2016
- ↑ 39.0 39.1 The New York Times, "Court Skeptical of Arizona Plan for Less-Partisan Congressional Redistricting," March 2, 2015
- ↑ 40.0 40.1 The Atlantic, "Will the Supreme Court Let Arizona Fight Gerrymandering?" September 15, 2014
- ↑ 41.0 41.1 United States Supreme Court, "Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Opinion of the Court," June 29, 2015
- ↑ 42.0 42.1 The New York Times, "Supreme Court Upholds Creation of Arizona Redistricting Commission," June 29, 2015
- ↑ Yale Law School, The Avalon Project, "Voting Rights Act of 1965; August 6, 1965," accessed April 6, 2015
- ↑ 44.00 44.01 44.02 44.03 44.04 44.05 44.06 44.07 44.08 44.09 44.10 All About Redistricting, "Georgia," accessed April 23, 2015
- ↑ Georgia Constitution, "Article 3, Section 2," accessed April 23, 2015
- ↑ United States Census Bureau, "2020 Census Apportionment Results Delivered to the President," April 26, 2021
- ↑ United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, "Case 1:21-cv-05339-SCJ, Document 334" December 28, 2023
- ↑ 48.0 48.1 48.2 48.3 Georgia Public Broadcasting, "Plaintiffs in a Georgia redistricting case are asking a judge to reject new Republican-proposed maps," December 13, 2023
- ↑ 49.0 49.1 Georgia Public Broadcasting, "Georgia House OKs congressional map that adds to Republican advantage," Nov. 22, 2021
- ↑ Georgia Recorder, "State Senate advances Congressional map increasing GOP edge near finish line," Nov. 19, 2021
- ↑ The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, "New Georgia congressional map aims to increase Republican seats," Nov. 17, 2021
- ↑ 52.0 52.1 52.2 52.3 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, "Georgia redistricting signed into law and lawsuits quickly follow," Dec. 30, 2021
- ↑ Political predecessor districts are determined primarily based on incumbents and where each chose to seek re-election.
- ↑ Daily Kos Elections, "Daily Kos Elections 2020 presidential results by congressional district (old CDs vs. new CDs)," accessed May 12, 2022
- ↑ Democracy Docket, "11th Circuit Considers Fate of Georgia Maps in High-Stakes Redistricting Case," January 21, 2025
- ↑ United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, "Case 1:21-cv-05337-SCJ, Document 375" December 28, 2023
- ↑ Georgia General Assembly, "SB 1EX," accessed Nov. 16, 2021
- ↑ Georgia Constitution, "Article 3, Section 2," accessed April 23, 2015
- ↑ The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, "Georgia legislators set guidelines for upcoming redistricting," accessed August 31, 2021
- ↑ Georgia House of Representatives, "2021-2022 Guidelines for the House Legislative and Congressional Reapportionment Committee," accessed August 31, 2021
- ↑ 11Alive, "Gov. Kemp calls for General Assembly special session on redistricting, other matters," Sept. 23, 2021
- ↑ Georgia State Senate Committees, "Senate Reapportionment and Redistricting," accessed June 15, 2021
- ↑ Georgia General Assembly, "House Committee on Legislative & Congressional Reapportionment," accessed June 15, 2021
- ↑ Georgia General Assembly, "SB 3EX," accessed December 11, 2023
- ↑ 65.0 65.1 The Current, "Democrats release their own Congressional map ahead of special session," Oct. 22, 2021
- ↑ Atlanta Journal-Constitution, "Georgia Democrats propose congressional map that creates 50/50 partisan split," Oct. 21, 2021
- ↑ 67.0 67.1 Atlanta Civic Circle, "Redistricting activists, politicians blindsided by proposed Congressional map," Sept. 29, 2021
- ↑ Georgia General Assembly, "SB 1EX," accessed December 11, 2023
- ↑ Georgia General Assembly, "SB 1EX," accessed Nov. 16, 2021
- ↑ Georgia General Assembly, "SB 1EX," accessed Nov. 16, 2021
- ↑ Savannah Morning News, "Rep. Ron Stephens: Redistricting upheld values of fairness and community," Dec. 6, 2021
- ↑ WABE, "Georgia House OKs Senate districts; Congress map to come," Nov. 15, 2021
- ↑ Fox 5 Atlanta, "Georgia House gives final approval to Senate redistricting map," Nov. 15, 2021
- ↑ 74.0 74.1 74.2 74.3 74.4 74.5 74.6 74.7 74.8 Georgia Public Broadcasting, "Here are all of the proposed redistricting maps for Georgia," updated Nov. 9, 2021
- ↑ Georgia Democrats, "Georgia Senate Democratic Caucus Releases Proposed Legislative Map," Oct. 27, 2021
- ↑ Georgia General Assembly, "HB 1EX," accessed December 11, 2023
- ↑ Georgia General Assembly, "HB 1EX," accessed Nov. 16, 2021
- ↑ Georgia General Assembly, "SB 1EX," accessed Nov. 16, 2021
- ↑ Georgia Public Broadcasting, "Here are all of the proposed redistricting maps for Georgia," updated Nov. 9, 2021
- ↑ 80.0 80.1 The Center Square, "New Georgia House legislative map garners Senate approval," Nov. 12, 2021
- ↑ Capitol Beat, "Republicans release proposed Georgia House map on eve of redistricting session," Nov. 2, 2021
- ↑ Georgia Democrats, "Georgia House Democratic Caucus Releases Proposed Legislative Map," Oct. 29, 2021
- ↑ United States Census Bureau, "Apportionment," accessed July 11, 2018
- ↑ United States Census Bureau, "2020 Census Apportionment Results Delivered to the President," April 26, 2021
- ↑ United States Census Bureau, "2020 Census Operational Plan: Executive Summary," December 2015
- ↑ United States Census Bureau, "Census Bureau Statement on Redistricting Data Timeline," February 12, 2021
- ↑ Office of the Attorney General of Ohio, "AG Yost Secures Victory for Ohioans in Settlement with Census Bureau Data Lawsuit," May 25, 2021
- ↑ U.S. Census Bureau, "U.S. Census Bureau Statement on Release of Legacy Format Summary Redistricting Data File," March 15, 2021
- ↑ U.S. Census Bureau, "Decennial Census P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data," accessed August 12, 2021
- ↑ United States Census Bureau, "Census Bureau Delivers 2020 Census Redistricting Data in Easier-to-Use Format," September 16, 2021
- ↑ 91.0 91.1 91.2 91.3 91.4 United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, "Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Inc., et al. v. Raffensperger," October 26, 2023
- ↑ The American Redistricting Project, "Georgia State Conf. of the NAACP v. Georgia," accessed October 27, 2023
- ↑ AP News, "A Georgia trial arguing redistricting harmed Black voters could decide control of a US House seat," September 4, 2023
- ↑ Democracy Docket, "Complaint," Dec. 30, 2021
- ↑ 95.0 95.1 95.2 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedapacomp - ↑ 96.0 96.1 96.2 AllOnGeorgia, "Secretary of State Raffensperger’s Response to Partisan Redistricting Lawsuits," Jan. 3, 2022
- ↑ 97.0 97.1 97.2 Democracy Docket, "Complaint," Jan. 7, 2022
- ↑ 98.0 98.1 98.2 98.3 Democracy Docket, "Complaint," Dec. 30, 2021
- ↑ 99.0 99.1 99.2 Democracy Docket, "Complaint," Jan. 11, 2022
- ↑ Democracy Docket, "Georgia Congressional Redistricting Challenge (Pendergrass)," accessed January 21, 2025
- ↑ 101.0 101.1 101.2 101.3 Democracy Docket, "Complaint," Dec. 30, 2021
- ↑ The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, "Election Regulations," accessed April 13, 2015
- ↑ Brookings, "Redistricting and the United States Constitution," March 22, 2011
- ↑ The Constitution of the United States of America, "Article 1, Section 2," accessed March 25, 2015
- ↑ All About Redistricting, "Who draws the lines?" accessed June 19, 2017
- ↑ The Wall Street Journal, "Supreme Court to Consider Limits on Partisan Drawing of Election Maps," June 19, 2017
- ↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear potentially landmark case on partisan gerrymandering," June 19, 2017
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Alexander, et al. v. The South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, et al.," February 17, 2023
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP," accessed July 21, 2023
- ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, “Moore, in his Official Capacity as Speaker of The North Carolina House of Representatives, et al. v. Harper et al.," "Certiorari to the Supreme Court of North Carolina,” accessed June 16, 2023
- ↑ SCOTUSblog.org, "Supreme Court upholds Section 2 of Voting Rights Act," June 8, 2023
- ↑ Election Law Blog, "Breaking: SCOTUS to Hear NC Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 27, 2016
- ↑ Ballot Access News, "U.S. Supreme Court Accepts Another Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 28, 2016
- ↑ Barone, M. & McCutcheon, C. (2013). The almanac of American politics 2014 : the senators, the representatives and the governors : their records and election results, their states and districts. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
.svg.png)
Redistricting after the 2010 census
Congressional redistricting, 2010
Following the 2010 United States Census, Georgia gained one congressional seat. At the time of redistricting, Republicans controlled both chambers of the state legislature. On August 13, 2011, the legislature approved a new congressional map. It was signed into law on September 6, 2011.[1][2]
State legislative redistricting, 2010
On August 23, 2010, the state legislature approved new state legislative district lines. The maps were signed into law on August 24, 2011. On February 23, 2012, the legislature approved amended House district lines, which were in turn signed by the governor. On March 21, 2012, the legislature passed revised Senate district lines, which the governor signed into law on April 13, 2012.[1]
The revised Senate maps did not take effect until 2014.[1]
Lawsuits backed by National Redistricting Commission
On June 13, 2018, attorneys for Democratic voters in three states (Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana) filed three separate lawsuits in federal court, alleging in each that existing congressional district maps prevented black voters from electing candidates of their choosing, in violation of the Voting Rights Act. The suits were backed by the National Redistricting Commission, a nonprofit affiliate of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, chaired by Eric Holder, former U.S. Attorney General. In a statement, Holder said, "The creation of additional districts in which African Americans have the opportunity to elect their preferred candidates in each of these states will be an important step toward making the voting power of African Americans more equal and moving us closer to the ideals of representative democracy." Matt Walter, president of the Republican State Leadership Committee, denounced the suits: "The cynical lawsuits filed today by Holder and the Democrats are crass attempts to rally the left-wing base and to elect more Democrats through litigation, instead of running winning campaigns on policies and ideas that voters actually want."[3]
The trial involving Alabama's congressional district plan began on November 4, 2019, with Judge Karon Bowdre, of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, presiding.[4]
Political impacts of redistricting
Competitiveness
There are conflicting opinions regarding the correlation between partisan gerrymandering and electoral competitiveness. In 2012, Jennifer Clark, a political science professor at the University of Houston, said, "The redistricting process has important consequences for voters. In some states, incumbent legislators work together to protect their own seats, which produces less competition in the political system. Voters may feel as though they do not have a meaningful alternative to the incumbent legislator. Legislators who lack competition in their districts have less incentive to adhere to their constituents’ opinions."[5]
In 2006, Emory University professor Alan Abramowitz and Ph.D. students Brad Alexander and Matthew Gunning wrote, "[Some] studies have concluded that redistricting has a neutral or positive effect on competition. ... [It] is often the case that partisan redistricting has the effect of reducing the safety of incumbents, thereby making elections more competitive."[6]
In 2011, James Cottrill, a professor of political science at Santa Clara University, published a study of the effect of non-legislative approaches (e.g., independent commissions, politician commissions) to redistricting on the competitiveness of congressional elections. Cottrill found that "particular types of [non-legislative approaches] encourage the appearance in congressional elections of experienced and well-financed challengers." Cottrill cautioned, however, that non-legislative approaches "contribute neither to decreased vote percentages when incumbents win elections nor to a greater probability of their defeat."[7]
In 2021, John Johnson, Research Fellow in the Lubar Center for Public Policy Research and Civic Education at Marquette University, reviewed the relationship between partisan gerrymandering and political geography in Wisconsin, a state where Republicans have controlled both chambers of the state legislature since 2010 while voting for the Democratic nominee in every presidential election but one since 1988. After analyzing state election results since 2000, Johnson wrote, "In 2000, 42% of Democrats and 36% of Republicans lived in a neighborhood that the other party won. Twenty years later, 43% of Democrats lived in a place Trump won, but just 28% of Republicans lived in a Biden-voting neighborhood. Today, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to live in both places where they are the overwhelming majority and places where they form a noncompetitive minority."[8]
State legislatures after the 2010 redistricting cycle
In 2014, Ballotpedia conducted a study of competitive districts in 44 state legislative chambers between 2010, the last year in which district maps drawn after the 2000 census applied, and 2012, the first year in which district maps drawn after the 2010 census applied. Ballotpedia found that there were 61 fewer competitive general election contests in 2012 than in 2010. Of the 44 chambers studied, 25 experienced a net loss in the number of competitive elections. A total of 17 experienced a net increase. In total, 16.2 percent of the 3,842 legislative contests studied saw competitive general elections in 2010. In 2012, 14.6 percent of the contests studied saw competitive general elections. An election was considered competitive if it was won by a margin of victory of 5 percent or less. An election was considered mildly competitive if it was won by a margin of victory between 5 and 10 percent. For more information regarding this report, including methodology, see this article.
There were four competitive elections for the Georgia House of Representatives in 2012, compared to one in 2010. There were four mildly competitive state House races in 2012, compared to five in 2010. This amounted to a net gain of two competitive elections.
There were no competitive elections for the Georgia State Senate in 2012, the same as in 2010. There was one mildly competitive state Senate race in 2012, compared to zero in 2010. This amounted to a net gain of one competitive election.
State legislation and ballot measures
Redistricting legislation
The table below includes bills related to redistricting introduced during (or carried over to) the current session of the Georgia state legislature. The following information is included for each bill:
- State
- Bill number
- Official bill name or caption
- Most recent action date
- Legislative status
- Sponsor party
- Topics dealt with by the bill
Bills are organized by most recent action. The table displays up to 100 results. To view more bills, use the arrows in the upper-right corner. Clicking on a bill will open its page on Ballotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker, which includes bill details and a summary.
Redistricting ballot measures
Ballotpedia has tracked the following ballot measure(s) relating to redistricting in Georgia.
- Georgia Senatorial District Creation, Amendment 5 (1932)
- Georgia Senate Apportionment, Amendment 3 (1968)
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Redistricting Georgia. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
- United States census, 2020
- Redistricting in Georgia after the 2010 census
- Redistricting
- State-by-state redistricting procedures
- Majority-minority districts
- State legislative and congressional redistricting after the 2010 census
- Margin of victory in state legislative elections before and after the 2010 census
- Margin of victory analysis for the 2014 congressional elections
External links
- All About Redistricting
- Dave's Redistricting
- FiveThirtyEight, "What Redistricting Looks Like In Every State"
- National Conference of State Legislatures, "Redistricting Process"
- FairVote, "Redistricting"
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedgaloyola - ↑ Barone, M. & McCutcheon, C. (2013). The almanac of American politics 2014 : the senators, the representatives and the governors : their records and election results, their states and districts. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
- ↑ Associated Press, "Lawsuits: Congressional maps dilute black voters in 3 states," June 13, 2018
- ↑ Associated Press, "Trial begins in challenge to congressional district map," November 3, 2019
- ↑ The Daily Cougar, "Redistricting will affect November election," October 16, 2012
- ↑ The Journal of Politics, "Incumbency, Redistricting, and the Decline of Competition in U.S. House Elections," February 2006
- ↑ Polity, "The Effects of Non-Legislative Approaches to Redistricting on Competition in Congressional Elections," October 3, 2011
- ↑ Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog, "Why Do Republicans Overperform in the Wisconsin State Assembly? Partisan Gerrymandering Vs. Political Geography," February 11, 2021
