Redistricting in Oklahoma after the 2020 census

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Election Policy Logo.png
Redistricting after the 2020 census
The 2020 cycle
Congressional apportionment
Redistricting before 2024 elections
Redistricting committees
Deadlines
Lawsuits
Timeline of redistricting maps
2022 House elections with multiple incumbents
New U.S.House districts created after apportionment
Congressional maps
State legislative maps
General information
State-by-state redistricting procedures
United States census, 2020
Majority-minority districts
Gerrymandering
Ballotpedia's election legislation tracker


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

Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) signed a new congressional map into law on November 22, 2021. [1] On November 17, 2021, the Oklahoma House of Representatives voted 75-19 to approve the map.[2] On November 19, 2021, the Oklahoma State Senate voted to approve the map 36-10.[3]This map took effect for Oklahoma's 2022 congressional elections.

Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) signed new legislative maps into law on November 22, 2021.[1] The Senate approved the Senate map in a 46-1 vote on November 17, 2021, and the House approved the Senate map 95-1 on November 19, 2021.[4] The House approved the House map 88-3 on November 17, 2021, and the Senate approved the House map 44-2 on November 19, 2021.[5]These maps took effect for Oklahoma's 2022 legislative elections.

Click here for more information.

Oklahoma's five United States representatives and 149 state legislators are all elected from political divisions called districts. District lines are redrawn every 10 years following completion of the United States census. Federal law stipulates that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.

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

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

Timeline

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

  • November 22, 2021: Governor Kevin Stitt (R) signed new congressional and legislative maps into law.
  • November 19, 2021: The Oklahoma State Senate voted to approve the congressional map 36-10. The Senate also voted 44-2 to approve the House map, and the House voted 95-1 to approve the Senate map.
  • November 17, 2021: The Oklahoma House of Representatives voted 75-19 to approve the congressional map. The House also voted 88-3 to approve the House map, and the Senate voted 46-1 to approve the Senate map.
  • November 15, 2021: The Oklahoma State Legislature began a special session to discuss redistricting.
  • November 1, 2021: State lawmakers released their first congressional map proposal and new legislative proposals drawn using census data.
  • September 16, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau released data from the 2020 census in an easier-to-use format to state redistricting authorities and the public.
  • August 23, 2021: Members of the House and Senate redistricting committees announced the legislative maps would need to be redrawn using 2020 census data.
  • August 12, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau delivered redistricting data to states in a legacy format.
  • May 13, 2021: Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) signed new legislative maps into law.
  • April 26, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts. Oklahoma was apportioned five 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.
  • April 21, 2021: State lawmakers in Oklahoma released their proposed maps for the Oklahoma State Senate and the Oklahoma House of Representatives, becoming the first state in the 2020 redistricting cycle to produce draft maps.

Enactment

Enacted congressional district maps

See also: Congressional district maps implemented after the 2020 census

Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) signed a new congressional map into law on November 22, 2021. [1] On November 17, 2021, the Oklahoma House of Representatives voted 75-19 to approve the map.[6] On November 19, 2021, the Oklahoma State Senate voted to approve the map 36-10.[7]This map took effect for Oklahoma's 2022 congressional elections.

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

Oklahoma Congressional Districts
until January 2, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Oklahoma Congressional Districts
starting January 3, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.



2020 presidential results

The table below details the results of the 2020 presidential election in each district at the time of the 2022 election and its political predecessor district.[8] This data was compiled by Daily Kos Elections.[9]

2020 presidential results by Congressional district, Oklahoma
District 2022 district Political predecessor district
Joe Biden Democratic Party Donald Trump Republican Party Joe Biden Democratic Party Donald Trump Republican Party
Oklahoma's 1st 38.0% 59.4% 37.3% 60.1%
Oklahoma's 2nd 22.4% 75.8% 22.1% 76.1%
Oklahoma's 3rd 26.5% 71.2% 23.1% 74.6%
Oklahoma's 4th 33.0% 64.6% 32.0% 65.6%
Oklahoma's 5th 40.3% 57.1% 46.0% 51.3%

Enacted state legislative district maps

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

Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) signed new legislative maps into law on November 22, 2021.[1] The Senate approved the Senate map in a 46-1 vote on November 17, 2021, and the House approved the Senate map 95-1 on November 19, 2021.[10] The House approved the House map 88-3 on November 17, 2021, and the Senate approved the House map 44-2 on November 19, 2021.[11]These maps took effect for Oklahoma's 2022 legislative elections.

State Senate map

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

Oklahoma State Senate Districts
until November 22, 2022

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Oklahoma State Senate Districts
starting November 23, 2022

Click a district to compare boundaries.

State House map

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

Oklahoma State House Districts
until November 22, 2022

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Oklahoma State House Districts
starting November 23, 2022

Click a district to compare boundaries.


Reactions

After signing the maps into law, Governor Kevin Stitt (R) said: "Following an open and transparent process that included public input, these maps were passed with majority support in both the House and the Senate and I am pleased to execute the will of Oklahomans by signing these new maps into law."[1] Rep. Collin Walke (D) criticized the congressional map, saying: "While I have no doubt that somebody wasn’t sitting there looking at the numbers of Democrats versus Republicans while literally drawing this map, I think we’d all be naive to assume that there weren’t political influences outside of this building dictating what happens inside of this building." Rep. John Pfeiffer (R) supported the map, saying: "We do like to fight about the change and the things that have changed. But the truth be told, although our population has increased, this map hasn’t changed that much."[12]

Enacted state legislative district maps (May 2021)

New state Senate and state House district maps were signed into law by Governor Kevin Stitt (R) on May 13, 2021.[13] On Aug. 23, the House and Senate redistricting committee chairs announced the first round of enacted maps would have to be redrawn following the release of 2020 census data.[14]

Images of the enacted Senate and House maps are embedded below.

Oklahoma State Senate – enacted map (May 13, 2021)
Click the image to expand it.
Oklahoma House of Representatives – enacted map (May 13, 2021)
Click the image to expand it.

Drafting process

In Oklahoma, both congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn by the Oklahoma State Legislature. These lines may be vetoed by the governor.[15]

If the legislature is unable to approve a state legislative redistricting plan, a backup commission must draw the lines. The commission comprises the following seven members:[15]

  1. The governor appoints one Republican and one Democrat.
  2. The majority leader of the Oklahoma State Senate appoints one Republican and one Democrat.
  3. The majority leader of the Oklahoma House of Representatives appoints one Republican and one Democrat.
  4. The lieutenant governor serves as the non-voting chair of the commission.

The Oklahoma Constitution requires that state Senate district boundaries take into account "population, compactness, area, political units, historical precedents, economic and political interests, contiguous territory, and other major factors."[15]

The redistricting committee of the state House adopted redistricting guidelines similar to the senatorial district requirements described above. These guidelines apply to state House and congressional districts, as well. These guidelines may be amended by the state legislature at its discretion.[15]

Timeline

The Oklahoma House of Representatives provided this projected timeline for the 2020 redistricting cycle in Oklahoma.[16] On Sept. 24, Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) called a special session of the legislature to address redistricting that began Nov. 15, 2021.[17]

Projected redistricting timeline for Oklahoma, 2020 cycle
Date Event
April 1, 2020 Census Day
October 15, 2020 Revised deadline for Census to complete collection activities
November 3, 2020 General Election: Last election to be held using the current district boundaries for the state House, Senate, and Congressional seats
December 11, 2020 Bill request deadline for the First Regular Session of the 58th Legislature
January 5, 2021 58th Legislature convenes for Organizational Day
February 1, 2021 Legislature reconvenes
April 1, 2021 Deadline for Census to deliver P.L. 94-171 redistricting data to states
May 28, 2021 Sine die adjournment deadline
April 15, 2022 Filing deadline for 2022 primary elections for federal, state, and legislative offices
June 28, 2022 Primary Election: First election to be held using the new district boundaries for state House, Senate, and Congressional seats


Committees and/or commissions involved in the process

In Oklahoma, the following committees are involved in the redistricting process: the House Redistricting Committee and Senate Redistricting Committee. As of January 7, 2021, these committees had the following members:[18][19]

Oklahoma Senate Redistricting Committee membership, 2020 cycle
Name Partisan affiliation
Chairman Sen. Lonnie Paxton Republican Party Republican
Co-vice Chairman Sen. Dave Rader Republican Party Republican
Co-vice Chairman Sen. Michael Brooks Democratic Party Democrat
Sen. Julie Daniels Republican Party Republican
Sen. George Burns Republican Party Republican
Sen. Dewayne Pemberton Republican Party Republican
Sen. Casey Murdock Republican Party Republican
Sen. Bill Coleman Republican Party Republican
Sen. John Montgomery Republican Party Republican
Sen. Frank Simpson Republican Party Republican
Sen. Adam Pugh Republican Party Republican
Sen. Kevin Matthews Democratic Party Democrat
Sen. Julia Kirt Democratic Party Democrat


Oklahoma House Redistricting Committee membership, 2020 cycle
Name Partisan affiliation
Chairman Rep. Ryan Martinez Republican Party Republican
Co-vice Chairman Rep. Brad Boles Republican Party Republican
Co-vice Chairman Rep. Emily Virgin Democratic Party Democrat


All members of the Oklahoma House of Representatives were assigned to regional redistricting subcommittees. The subcommittees and members can be found in the tables below.

Drafts and proposals

Congressional district maps

On November 1, state lawmakers released proposed congressional maps.[20] OK Congressional Proposal.jpg

Legislative district maps (November 2021)

On November 1, state lawmakers released new proposed maps for the Oklahoma State Senate and the Oklahoma House of Representatives, which were drawn using 2020 census data.[20]

OK House Proposal (November).jpg
OK Senate Proposal (November).jpg

Legislative district maps (April 2021)

On April 21, 2021, state lawmakers in Oklahoma released their proposed maps for the Oklahoma State Senate and the Oklahoma House of Representatives, becoming the first state in the 2020 redistricting cycle to produce draft maps. In lieu of final 2020 census data, which had not been made available to the states as of April 21, 2021, lawmakers used the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey data for 2015 through 2019 to draft their proposals.[21]

Proposed maps compared to ideal district populations

An ideal district population is equal to a state's population divided by the number of districts. Under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the populations of different state legislative districts can vary within a 10-percent range. For example, if the overall population deviation for a proposed map was four percent, this could mean that the population of at least one district was two percent lower than the ideal, and the population of at least one district was two percent higher than the ideal.

Oklahoma House of Representatives: According to ACS data, the ideal Oklahoma House district population was 38,939. The overall population deviation for the proposed House map was 3.77 percent, ranging from 1.91 percent below to 1.85 percent above the ideal district population.

Oklahoma State Senate: According to ACS data, the ideal Oklahoma Senate district population was 81,935, with an overall population deviation of 3.84 percent, ranging from 1.87 percent below to 1.97 percent above the ideal district population.[22][23]

Map images

Images of the proposed statewide maps are embedded below.

  • Click here for an interactive viewer of the proposed maps.
  • Click here for individual Senate district maps, public submissions, and other documents.
  • Click here for individual House district maps, public submissions, and other documents.
Oklahoma State Senate – proposed map (April 21, 2021)
Click the image to expand it.
Oklahoma House of Representatives – proposed map (April 21, 2021)
Click the image to expand it.
Reactions

Upon announcing the release of the proposed Senate map, Sen. Lonnie Paxton (R), chair of the Senate Select Committee on Redistricting, said, "Throughout the process, the Senate has operated openly and transparently. We held 22 town hall meetings, both virtual and in-person, across Oklahoma in coordination with the House. We sought public input at every stage, including accepting public map submissions, and shared those results through our website. Because of the open and transparent redistricting process, the Senate district maps this year are more compact and better by most criteria than the 2010 district maps."[23]

Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California (Irvine), criticized the proposed maps: "The state house map has an expected pro-Republican efficiency gap of 13%, remaining in double digits in almost any electoral environment. The state senate map has an expected pro-Republican efficiency gap of 15%, also remaining in double digits in essentially all electoral conditions. These are staggeringly bad scores, at the outer edge of the historical distribution. They’re a preview of the ruthless gerrymandering we’re likely to see this cycle in states with single-party control of redistricting."[24]

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.[25]

Apportionment following the 2020 census

The U.S. Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts on April 26, 2021. Oklahoma was apportioned five 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.[26]

See the table below for additional details.

2020 and 2010 census information for Oklahoma
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
Oklahoma 3,764,882 5 3,963,516 5 198,634 5.28% 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.[27][28][29][30] 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.[31][32]

Court challenges

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

This section will include information regarding legal challenges to enacted maps.

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.[33][34]

“ 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.[35] ”
—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."[36][37][38]

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."[38]

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."[38]

State-based requirements

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

  1. Contiguity refers to the principle that all areas within a district should be physically adjacent. A total of 49 states require that districts of at least one state legislative chamber be contiguous (Nevada has no such requirement, imposing no requirements on redistricting beyond those enforced at the federal level). A total of 23 states require that congressional districts meet contiguity requirements.[38][39]
  2. Compactness refers to the general principle that the constituents within a district should live as near to one another as practicable. A total of 37 states impose compactness requirements on state legislative districts; 18 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.[38][39]
  3. A community of interest is defined by FairVote as a "group of people in a geographical area, such as a specific region or neighborhood, who have common political, social or economic interests." A total of 24 states require that the maintenance of communities of interest be considered in the drawing of state legislative districts. A total of 13 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.[38][39]
  4. A total of 42 states require that state legislative district lines be drawn to account for political boundaries (e.g., the limits of counties, cities, and towns). A total of 19 states require that similar considerations be made in the drawing of congressional districts.[38][39]

Methods

In general, a state's redistricting authority can be classified as one of the following:[40]

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

Gerrymandering

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

The term gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to favor one political party, individual, or constituency over another. When used in a rhetorical manner by opponents of a particular district map, the term has a negative connotation but does not necessarily address the legality of a challenged map. The term can also be used in legal documents; in this context, the term describes redistricting practices that violate federal or state laws.[41][42]

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

Show more

The phrase racial gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to dilute the voting power of racial minority groups. Federal law prohibits racial gerrymandering and establishes that, to combat this practice and to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act, states and jurisdictions can create majority-minority electoral districts. A majority-minority district is one in which a racial group or groups comprise a majority of the district's populations. Racial gerrymandering and majority-minority districts are discussed in greater detail in this article.[43]

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.[44][45]

Recent court decisions

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

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

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

Show more

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

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

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP — This case concerns a challenge to the congressional redistricting plan that the South Carolina legislature enacted after the 2020 census. In January 2023, a federal three-judge panel ruled that the state's 1st Congressional District was unconstitutional and enjoined the state from conducting future elections using its district boundaries. The panel's opinion said, "The Court finds that race was the predominant factor motivating the General Assembly’s adoption of Congressional District No. 1...Defendants have made no showing that they had a compelling state interest in the use of race in the design of Congressional District No. 1 and thus cannot survive a strict scrutiny review."[46] 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.[47] The U.S. Supreme Court scheduled oral argument on this case for October 11, 2023.[48]

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.[49] 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.[50]

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.[51]

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.[52]

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.[53][54][55]

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.[56][57][58][59]

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2016)

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

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts that were created by the commission in 2012. The plaintiffs, a group of Republican voters, alleged that "the commission diluted or inflated the votes of almost two million Arizona citizens when the commission intentionally and systematically overpopulated 16 Republican districts while under-populating 11 Democrat districts." This, the plaintiffs argued, constituted a partisan gerrymander. The plaintiffs claimed that the commission placed a disproportionately large number of non-minority voters in districts dominated by Republicans; meanwhile, the commission allegedly placed many minority voters in smaller districts that tended to vote Democratic. As a result, the plaintiffs argued, more voters overall were placed in districts favoring Republicans than in those favoring Democrats, thereby diluting the votes of citizens in the Republican-dominated districts. The defendants countered that the population deviations resulted from legally defensible efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act and obtain approval from the United States Department of Justice. At the time of redistricting, certain states were required to obtain preclearance from the U.S. Department of Justice before adopting redistricting plans or making other changes to their election laws—a requirement struck down by the United States Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder (2013). On April 20, 2016, the court ruled unanimously that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that a partisan gerrymander had taken place. Instead, the court found that the commission had acted in good faith to comply with the Voting Rights Act. The court's majority opinion was penned by Justice Stephen Breyer.[60][61][62]

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

See also: Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2015. At issue was the constitutionality of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, which was established by state constitutional amendment in 2000. According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, "the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." The state legislature argued that the use of the word "legislature" in this context is literal; therefore, only a state legislature may draw congressional district lines. Meanwhile, the commission contended that the word "legislature" ought to be interpreted to mean "the legislative powers of the state," including voter initiatives and referenda. On June 29, 2015, the court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, finding that "redistricting is a legislative function, to be performed in accordance with the state's prescriptions for lawmaking, which may include the referendum and the governor's veto." The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito dissented.[63][64][65][66]

Trifectas and redistricting

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

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

2010 redistricting cycle

Redistricting in Oklahoma after the 2010 census

Congressional redistricting, 2010

Following the 2010 United States Census, Oklahoma neither gained nor lost congressional seats. On May 4, 2011, the state legislature passed a congressional redistricting plan, which was signed into law by the governor on May 10, 2011.[15][67]

State legislative redistricting, 2010

On May 16, 2011, the state legislature passed a state legislative redistricting plan, which was signed into law by the governor on May 20, 2011. The newly approved Senate district boundaries were challenged in state court, but all challenges were ultimately dismissed.[15]

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Oklahoma Office of the Governor, "Governor Kevin Stitt Signs Six Redistricting Bills into Law," November 22, 2021
  2. ↑ Public Radio Tulsa, "House approves congressional redistricting plan favored by GOP," November 17, 2021
  3. ↑ Oklahoma Legislature, "HB1002," accessed November 19, 2021
  4. ↑ Oklahoma Legislature, "SB 1," accessed November 23, 2021
  5. ↑ Oklahoma Legislature, "HB 1001," accessed November 23, 2021
  6. ↑ Public Radio Tulsa, "House approves congressional redistricting plan favored by GOP," November 17, 2021
  7. ↑ Oklahoma Legislature, "HB1002," accessed November 19, 2021
  8. ↑ Political predecessor districts are determined primarily based on incumbents and where each chose to seek re-election.
  9. ↑ Daily Kos Elections, "Daily Kos Elections 2020 presidential results by congressional district (old CDs vs. new CDs)," accessed May 12, 2022
  10. ↑ Oklahoma Legislature, "SB 1," accessed November 23, 2021
  11. ↑ Oklahoma Legislature, "HB 1001," accessed November 23, 2021
  12. ↑ Oklahoma Watch, "In Their Words: What Lawmakers Have to Say As Redistricting Plans Pass," November 19, 2021
  13. ↑ The Purcell Register, "Oklahoma legislative redistricting maps headed to Gov. Kevin Stitt for approval," May 13, 2021
  14. ↑ U.S. News & World Report, "Oklahoma Redistricting Leaders Say Maps Must Be Redrawn," August 23, 2021
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 15.5 All About Redistricting, "Oklahoma," accessed May 6, 2015
  16. ↑ Oklahoma House of Representatives, "Redistricting Timeline in Oklahoma (2020s cycle)," accessed December 10, 2020
  17. ↑ Public Radio Tulsa, "Stitt Calls Special Session For Redistricting," September 27, 2021
  18. ↑ Oklahoma House of Representatives, "HOUSE REDISTRICTING COMMITTEE," accessed January 7, 2021
  19. ↑ Oklahoma Senate, "Redistricting," accessed January 7, 2021
  20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 NonDoc, "Proposed Oklahoma congressional map unveiled," November 2, 2021
  21. ↑ Oklahoma Senate, "Redistricting," accessed April 23, 2021
  22. ↑ Oklahoma House of Representatives Redistricting, "Home," accessed April 23 ,2021
  23. ↑ 23.0 23.1 Oklahoma Senate, "Senate makes public proposed new district maps," April 21, 2021
  24. ↑ Election Law Blog, "The New Oklahoma Maps," April 21, 2021
  25. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "Apportionment," accessed July 11, 2018
  26. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "2020 Census Apportionment Results Delivered to the President," April 26, 2021
  27. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "2020 Census Operational Plan: Executive Summary," December 2015
  28. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "Census Bureau Statement on Redistricting Data Timeline," February 12, 2021
  29. ↑ Office of the Attorney General of Ohio, "AG Yost Secures Victory for Ohioans in Settlement with Census Bureau Data Lawsuit," May 25, 2021
  30. ↑ U.S. Census Bureau, "U.S. Census Bureau Statement on Release of Legacy Format Summary Redistricting Data File," March 15, 2021
  31. ↑ U.S. Census Bureau, "Decennial Census P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data," accessed August 12, 2021
  32. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "Census Bureau Delivers 2020 Census Redistricting Data in Easier-to-Use Format," September 16, 2021
  33. ↑ The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, "Election Regulations," accessed April 13, 2015
  34. ↑ Brookings, "Redistricting and the United States Constitution," March 22, 2011
  35. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  36. ↑ Brennan Center for Justice, "A Citizen's Guide to Redistricting," accessed March 25, 2015
  37. ↑ The Constitution of the United States of America, "Article 1, Section 2," accessed March 25, 2015
  38. ↑ 38.0 38.1 38.2 38.3 38.4 38.5 38.6 All About Redistricting, "Where are the lines drawn?" accessed April 9, 2015
  39. ↑ 39.0 39.1 39.2 39.3 FairVote, "Redistricting Glossary," accessed April 9, 2015
  40. ↑ All About Redistricting, "Who draws the lines?" accessed June 19, 2017
  41. ↑ All About Redistricting, "Why does it matter?" accessed April 8, 2015
  42. ↑ Encyclopædia Britannica, "Gerrymandering," November 4, 2014
  43. ↑ Congressional Research Service, "Congressional Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A Legal Overview," April 13, 2015
  44. ↑ The Wall Street Journal, "Supreme Court to Consider Limits on Partisan Drawing of Election Maps," June 19, 2017
  45. ↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear potentially landmark case on partisan gerrymandering," June 19, 2017
  46. ↑ 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
  47. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Alexander, et al. v. The South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, et al.," February 17, 2023
  48. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP," accessed July 21, 2023
  49. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Justices will hear case that tests power of state legislatures to set rules for federal elections," June 30, 2022
  50. ↑ 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
  51. ↑ SCOTUSblog.org, "Supreme Court upholds Section 2 of Voting Rights Act," June 8, 2023
  52. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Gill v. Whitford: Decision," June 18, 2018
  53. ↑ Election Law Blog, "Breaking: SCOTUS to Hear NC Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 27, 2016
  54. ↑ Ballot Access News, "U.S. Supreme Court Accepts Another Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 28, 2016
  55. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Cooper v. Harris: Decision," May 22, 2017
  56. ↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear challenge to Texas redistricting plan," May 26, 2015
  57. ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Agrees to Settle Meaning of ‘One Person One Vote,'" May 26, 2015
  58. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Evenwel v. Abbott," accessed May 27, 2015
  59. ↑ Associated Press, "Supreme Court to hear Texas Senate districts case," May 26, 2015
  60. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "The new look at 'one person, one vote,' made simple," July 27, 2015
  61. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Brief for Appellants," accessed December 14, 2015
  62. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission," April 20, 2016
  63. ↑ The New York Times, "Court Skeptical of Arizona Plan for Less-Partisan Congressional Redistricting," March 2, 2015
  64. ↑ The Atlantic, "Will the Supreme Court Let Arizona Fight Gerrymandering?" September 15, 2014
  65. ↑ United States Supreme Court, "Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Opinion of the Court," June 29, 2015
  66. ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Upholds Creation of Arizona Redistricting Commission," June 29, 2015
  67. ↑ 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.
v • e
Redistricting after the 2020 census
State-by-state
Overviews
Flag of Oklahoma
v • e
State of Oklahoma
Oklahoma City (capital)
Elections

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2024 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy

Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Redistricting_in_Oklahoma_after_the_2020_census&oldid=9359852"