Redistricting in Oregon after the 2020 census

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

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

Gov. Kate Brown (D) signed a new congressional map into law on September 27, 2021. The map was approved by the Oregon House of Representatives 33-16, and approved in the Oregon State Senate 18-6.^[1] This was the third time the Oregon State Legislature successfully enacted a congressional redistricting map since 1910 without gubernatorial veto, court ordered re-drawing, or authority for map drawing being passed to the secretary of state.^[2] This map took effect for Oregon’s 2022 congressional elections. Oregon was the first state to enact congressional redistricting after the 2020 census.

Gov. Kate Brown (D) signed new state legislative maps into law on September 27, 2021. The maps were approved by the Oregon House of Representatives, 31-18, and approved in the Oregon State Senate 18-11.^[3] These maps took effect for Oregon’s 2022 legislative elections.

Click here for more information on maps enacted after the 2020 census.

Oregon's six United States representatives and 90 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 Oregon is also provided.

Summary

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

• November 29, 2021: No congressional map challenges were filed with the Oregon Supreme Court by the November 29 deadline, meaning the congressional map would stand as enacted by the legislature.
• November 22, 2021: The Oregon Supreme Court dismissed cases challenging the legislative maps (including Sheehan v. Oregon Legislative Assembly) and ruled that the maps would stand as enacted by the legislature.
• October 25, 2021: A lawsuit was filed challenging the enacted legislative maps (Sheehan v. Oregon Legislative Assembly).
• September 27, 2021: The Oregon State Senate and Oregon House of Representatives voted to approve congressional and legislative map proposals. Gov. Kate Brown (D) signed the bills enacting the congressional and legislative maps into law.
• September 20, 2021: A special session of the Oregon State Legislature began for the purpose of redistricting.
• 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.
• September 3, 2021: The House Special Committee on Redistricting and the Senate Interim Committee on Redistricting released map proposals for congressional and legislative redistricting.
• August 12, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau delivered redistricting data to states in a legacy format.
• April 26, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts.

Enactment

Enacted congressional district maps

Gov. Kate Brown (D) signed a new congressional map into law on September 27, 2021. The map was approved by the Oregon House of Representatives 33-16, and approved in the Oregon State Senate 18-6.^[4] This was the third time the Oregon State Legislature successfully enacted a congressional redistricting map since 1910 without gubernatorial veto, court ordered re-drawing, or authority for map drawing being passed to the secretary of state.^[2] This map took effect for Oregon’s 2022 congressional elections.

Before the maps were approved, all but one House Republican did not attend the special session on Sept. 25, expressing dissatisfaction with the process and proposed maps. Sixteen of the twenty-three House Republicans returned when the session resumed on Sept. 27, meaning the House was able to reach a quorum and move forward with the redistricting votes. Rep. Suzanne Weber (R) said "Many of us [Republicans] are only here because we don’t trust the secretary of state Shemia Fagan (D) to draw these maps."^[5]

The Oregonian said the map created three safe Democratic seats, one safe Republican seat, one seat that leans Democratic, and one seat that is a toss-up.^[5]

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

Reactions

After signing the maps, Gov. Kate Brown (D) released a statement saying: "My office reviewed the maps contained in the bills passed by the Legislature after they were proposed this weekend. Redistricting is a process that necessarily involves compromise, and I appreciate the Legislature working to balance the various interests of all Oregonians."^[6]

House Republican Leader Christine Drazan (R) criticized the maps, saying: "This is by no means over. The illegal congressional map adopted today, clearly drawn for partisan benefit, will not survive legal challenge. Political gerrymandering in Oregon is illegal and drawing congressional lines to ensure five out of six seats for your party long-term is gerrymandering."^[5]

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.^[7] This data was compiled by Daily Kos Elections.^[8]

2020 presidential results by Congressional district, Oregon
District	2022 district		Political predecessor district
	Joe Biden	Donald Trump	Joe Biden	Donald Trump
Oregon's 1st	68.4%	29.1%	63.3%	34.0%
Oregon's 2nd	36.6%	61.1%	42.1%	55.6%
Oregon's 3rd	72.5%	25.2%	74.3%	23.5%
Oregon's 4th	55.1%	42.3%	50.7%	46.7%
Oregon's 5th	53.2%	44.4%	53.6%	43.9%
Oregon's 6th	55.2%	42.1%	---	---

Enacted state legislative district maps

Gov. Kate Brown (D) signed new state legislative maps into law on September 27, 2021. The maps were approved by the Oregon House of Representatives, 31-18, and approved in the Oregon State Senate 18-11.^[9] These maps took effect for Oregon’s 2022 legislative elections.

State Senate

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

State House of Representatives

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

Reactions

Rep. Andrea Salinas (D), chair of the House redistricting committees, said: "As we all know, change can be uncomfortable, and these have been challenging conversations. But our state’s growth and changing demographics require a careful redistricting process that includes the voices, needs, and stories of all Oregonians, including those who have traditionally been shut out of the political process.”

Rep. Christine Goodwin (R) criticized the maps, saying: "These current redistricting maps have an obvious goal to remove all obstacles to Democrat power, and they are a blatant play for one party rule in Oregon."^[2]

Drafting process

In Oregon, congressional and state legislative district lines are drawn by the state legislature. District lines are subject to veto by the governor.^[10]

If the legislature fails to establish a redistricting plan for state legislative districts, it falls to the secretary of state to draw the boundaries.^[10]

State law requires that congressional and state legislative districts meet the following criteria:^[10]

• Districts must be contiguous.
• Districts must "utilize existing geographic or political boundaries."
• Districts should not "divide communities of common interest."
• Districts should "be connected by transportation links."
• Districts "must not be drawn for the purpose of favoring a political party, incumbent or other person."

Timeline

On Sept. 10, Gov. Kate Brown called for a special session of the Oregon legislature to address redistricting that would begin on Sept. 20.^[11]

The Oregon Supreme Court established the following timeline for state legislative redistricting in 2021 and 2022:

The state supreme court also laid out a timeline for the secretary of state to complete state legislative redistricting should the legislature fail to do so:

Neither the Oregon Constitution nor state statutes establish a fixed timeline for congressional redistricting.

Committees and/or commissions involved in the process

In Oregon, the following committees are involved in the redistricting process: the House Special Committee on Redistricting and the Senate Committee on Redistricting. Secretary of State Shemia Fagan (D) announced she would form an advisory citizen committee to weigh in on the redistricting process if the legislature is unable to approve maps.^[12] On Sept. 20, during the first day of the special session on redistricting, Speaker Tina Kotek (D) changed which committees would handle the maps. Rather than have one committee, the House Special Committee on Redistricting, advance both the legislative and congressional maps, she announced the House Special Committee on Congressional Redistricting and the House Special Committee on State Legislative Redistricting would each advance either the congressional maps or the legislative maps, respectively.^[13]

As of June 22, 2021, House Special Committee on Redistricting and the Senate Interim Committee on Redistricting had the following members:^[14][15]

House Special Committee on Congressional Redistricting membership
Name	Partisan affiliation
Andrea Salinas (Chairwoman)	Democratic
Shelly Boshart Davis	Republican
Wlnsvey Campos	Democratic

House Special Committee On State Legislative Redistricting membership
Name	Partisan affiliation
Andrea Salinas (Chairwoman)	Democratic
Daniel Bonham	Republican
Shelly Boshart Davis	Republican
Wlnsvey Campos	Democratic
Christine Drazan	Republican
Paul Holvey	Democratic
Khanh Pham	Democratic
Greg Smith	Republican

House Special Committee on Redistricting membership
Name	Partisan affiliation
Andrea Salinas (Co-Chairwoman)	Democratic
Shelly Boshart Davis (Co-Chairwoman)	Republican
Daniel Bonham	Republican
Wlnsvey Campos	Democratic
Christine Drazan	Republican
Khanh Pham	Democratic

Senate Interim Committee on Redistricting membership
Name	Partisan affiliation
Kathleen Taylor (Chairwoman)	Democratic
Tim Knopp (Vice-Chairman)	Republican
Lee Beyer	Democratic
Lew Frederick	Democratic
Bill Hansell	Republican

Proposed maps

Legislative

On Sept. 3, the Oregon House and Senate redistricting committees met and released map proposals for state legislative redistricting.^[16]

Rep. Andrea Salinas (D) drafts

Rep. Andrea Salinas (D), Co-Chairwoman of the House Special Committee on Redistricting, introduced the maps embedded below for state legislative redistricting.

• Click here to view interactive versions of the maps.

Sen. Kathleen Taylor (D) drafts

Sen. Kathleen Taylor (D), Chairwoman of the Senate Interim Committee on Redistricting, introduced the maps embedded below for state legislative redistricting.

• Click here to view interactive versions of the maps.

Senate Redistricting Committee proposal

On Sept. 20, the first day of the special session on redistricting, Democrats in the Oregon Senate considered the following set of legislative redistricting proposals.^[17]

Congressional

On Sept. 3, the Oregon House and Senate redistricting committees met and released map proposals for congressional redistricting.^[16]

Sen. Kathleen Taylor (D) draft

Sen. Kathleen Taylor (D), Chairwoman of the Senate Interim Committee on Redistricting, introduced the map embedded below.

• Click here to view an interactive version of the map.

Rep. Shelly Boshart Davis (R) draft

Rep. Shelly Boshart Davis (R), Co-Chairwoman of the House Special Committee on Redistricting, introduced the map embedded below.

• Click here to view an interactive version of the map.

Senate Redistricting Committee proposal

On Sept. 20, the first day of the special session on redistricting, Democrats in the Oregon Senate considered the following congressional redistricting proposal.^[17]

Reactions

Before the special session on redistricting began, Sen. Kathleen Taylor (D) said: "I’m hoping that now the [new] maps have been made public, they’ll be reviewed by the public and that folks will understand how fair and balanced they are.” House Minority Leader Christine Drazan (R) said: "It is a heavy-handed partisan map that is all about incumbency protection for a really strong, deep Democratic majority that they’re intent on holding for the next decade."^[18]

The Oregon Senate approved the Senate Redistricting Committee's legislative and congressional redistricting proposals on Sept. 20 in 18-11 votes along party lines, with Democrats supporting the maps. Ten Republicans and one independent legislator voted against the maps.^[17] Before the maps were considered by the House, Speaker Tina Kotek (D) changed which committees would handle the maps. Rather than have one committee, the House Special Committee on Redistricting, advance both the legislative and congressional maps, she announced two committees would each advance either the congressional maps or the legislative maps, respectively.^[13] Kotek appointed two Democrats and one Republican to the House Special Committee on Congressional Redistricting, and appointed four Democrats and four Republicans to the House Special Committee on State Legislative Redistricting.^[19]

In a statement, Kotek said: "Ultimately, we are bound to do our constitutional duty and the job Oregonians elected us to do. Separate committees are the only path the House now has to fulfill its responsibilities." Following the announcement of the committee change, Rep. David Brock Smith (R) said: "What has just occurred is shameful and lacks any integrity, lacks the ability to keep your word."^[20]

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.^[21]

Apportionment following the 2020 census

The U.S. Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts on April 26, 2021. Oregon was apportioned six seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. This represented a net gain of one seat as compared to apportionment after the 2010 census.^[22]

See the table below for additional details.

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.^{[23][24][25][26]} 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.^[27][28]

Court challenges

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

Sheehan v. Oregon Legislative Assembly

On Oct. 25, former state Rep. Patrick Sheehan (R) and Samantha Hazel, a lawyer, filed a lawsuit before the Oregon Supreme Court challenging the validity of the state's enacted legislative maps.^[29] In the suit, the plaintiffs said the redistricting process "limited testimony to partisan maps, resulted in partisan outcomes, and did not follow the hearing requirements of ORS 188.016" and asked the court to "direct the Secretary of State to correct the reapportionment plan pursuant to this Court's opinion and Petitioners' arguments."^[30]

On Nov. 22, the Oregon Supreme Court dismissed the case and ruled that the enacted legislative maps could stand.^[31] Justice Chris Garrett, wrote in the opinion that "The Sheehan petitioners have not demonstrated that SB 882 violates applicable law in any of the ways they have asserted. It follows that their petition must be dismissed."^[32]

Oregon ex rel. Kotek v. Fagan

On March 10, 2021, Oregon House Speaker Tina Kotek (D) and Senate President Peter Courtney (D), on behalf of the Oregon Legislative Assembly, filed suit against Secretary of State Shemia Fagan (D) in the Oregon Supreme Court, asking that the court extend the state legislative redistricting deadlines laid out in the state constitution. In their complaint, attorneys for the plaintiffs said, "[Unless] this Court (1) enjoins the Secretary of State from moving forward with apportionment and (2) extends the deadlines set forth in Article IV, section 6 (and allows reapportionment to occur in a special legislative session), reapportionment will either not be done at all or will be done using old Census data that will result in malapportioned legislative districts. Neither result is constitutionally palatable." Under Article IV, Section 6, the state legislature is given until July 1 of the year following the census to adopt new legislative district maps. If the legislature fails to do so, the secretary of state has until August 15 to adopt a legislative district plan. The plaintiffs asked that the court extend these deadlines to three months following the release of census data (expected by September 30, 2021).^[33]

On April 9, 2021, the Oregon Supreme Court issued an order establishing revised timelines for state legislative redistricting (see here for details). Writing for the court, Chief Justice Martha Walters said, "The deadlines set out [in the court's opinion] provide participants with substantially the same amount of time as they would have had under the deadlines set out in Article IV, section 6, and a plan will be final no later than February 8, 2022. The Legislative Assembly and the Secretary will have less time to work with the census data than would be true in an ordinary year, but the Secretary has assured us that both will have the use of non-census population data that should enable their work to begin well before the census data is delivered."^[34]

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.^[35][36]

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."^[38][39][40]

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."^[40]

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."^[40]

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.^[40][41]
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.^[40][41]
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.^[40][41]
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.^[40][41]

Methods

In general, a state's redistricting authority can be classified as one of the following:^[42]

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.^[43][44]

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

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."^[48] 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.^[49] The U.S. Supreme Court scheduled oral argument on this case for October 11, 2023.^[50]

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.^[51] 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.^[52]

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.^[53]

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.^[54]

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.^[55][56][57]

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.^{[58][59][60][61]}

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.^[62][63][64]

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.^{[65][66][67][68]}

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.

2010 redistricting cycle

Redistricting in Oregon after the 2010 census

Following the 2010 United States Census, Oregon neither gained nor lost congressional seats. On June 10, 2011, the state legislature approved a state legislative redistricting plan. It was signed into law on June 13, 2011. The state legislature approved a congressional redistricting plan on June 30, 2011, and it was signed into law by the governor on the same day.^[10]

See also

• Redistricting in Oregon after the 2010 census
• Redistricting in Oregon
• 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

	v • e State of Oregon Salem (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