Redistricting in Utah 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 Utah.

Utah enacted new congressional districts on November 12, 2021, after Gov. Spencer Cox (R) signed a map proposal approved by the House and the Senate. The enacted map was drafted by the legislature and differed from a proposal the Utah Independent Redistricting Commission released on November 5, 2021.^[1] The congressional map passed the Utah House 50-22 on November 9, 2021, with five Republicans and all Democratic House members voting against it. The Senate approved the map on November 10, 2021, in a 21-7 vote. Before signing the congressional map, Cox said he would not veto any maps approved by the legislature, as “The Legislature is fully within their rights to actually make those decisions and decide where they want to draw those lines."^[2] This map took effect for Utah's 2022 congressional elections.

Gov. Spencer Cox (R) signed new state legislative districts for both chambers into law on November 16, 2021. After Cox called a special session to begin on November 9, 2021, the Utah legislature voted to approve the House and Senate district maps on November 10, 2021. The House districts proposal passed the House in a 60-12 vote and cleared the Senate in a 25-3 vote. The House voted 58-13 to approve the Senate map and the Senate approved the proposal in a 26-2 vote. ^[3][4] These maps took effect for Utah's 2022 legislative elections.

Click here for more information.

Utah's four United States representatives and 104 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 Utah 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 16, 2021: Utah enacted new state legislative districts.
• November 12, 2021: Utah enacted new congressional districts.
• November 10, 2021: Both chambers approved legislative district plans for the House and Senate.
• November 10, 2021: The Senate approved the legislature's congressional map in a 21-7 vote.
• November 9, 2021: The congressional map passed the Utah House in a 50-22 vote, with five Republicans and all Democratic House members voting against it.
• November 5, 2021: The Legislative Redistricting Committee released proposals for legislative and congressional maps.
• November 5, 2021: Gov. Spencer Cox (R) called a special session to begin on November 9, 2021.
• November 1, 2021: The Independent Redistricting Committee presented 12 maps (three each for House, Senate, congressional, and school board districts) to the Legislative Redistricting Committee, one of which was submitted by a citizen.
• October 29, 2021: Utah House Speaker Brad Wilson (R) appointed former Utah Commissioner of Agriculture and Food Logan Wilde (R) to replace Bishop on the Utah Independent Redistricting Commission.
• October 26, 2021: Former U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop resigned from the Utah Independent Redistricting Commission.
• October 12, 2021: The Utah Legislative Redistricting Committee and Utah Independent Redistricting Commission released new district map proposals.
• September 16, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau released data from the 2020 census in an easier-to-use format to state redistricting authorities and the public.
• August 12, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau delivered redistricting data to states in a legacy format.
• April 26, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts.

Enactment

Enacted congressional district maps

See also: Congressional district maps implemented after the 2020 census

Utah enacted new congressional districts on November 12, 2021, after Gov. Spencer Cox (R) signed a map proposal approved by the House and the Senate. The enacted map was drafted by the legislature and differed from a proposal the Utah Independent Redistricting Commission released on November 5, 2021.^[5] The congressional map passed the Utah House 50-22 on November 9, 2021, with five Republicans and all Democratic House members voting against it. The Senate approved the map on November 10, 2021, in a 21-7 vote. Before signing the congressional map, Cox said he would not veto any maps approved by the legislature, as “The Legislature is fully within their rights to actually make those decisions and decide where they want to draw those lines."^[6] This map took effect for Utah's 2022 congressional elections.

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

Reactions

Rep. Chris Stewart (R) said he supported the mix of urban and rural areas in each district. "I know some people will say, 'Well, that's just a way for you guys to protect the Republican interest,' but it's really not. There's only four of us. Only four members of Congress. The rural issues, the public lands and the water issues are so critical to our state," Stewart said. In response to allegations that the map showed partisan bias, Gov. Cox said, "If you have to divide counties, Republicans are always going to divide counties with lots of Democrats in them. And Democrats are always going to divide counties with lots of Republicans in them. It's happening all across the country."^[7]

Katie Wright, executive director of Better Boundaries, said “the total disregard of the Independent Redistricting Commission’s maps is deeply disappointing to Better Boundaries and Utahns statewide. Utahns now have districts that are egregiously partisan gerrymandered, sliced and diced cities and counties, which were drawn behind closed doors.”^[7] Rep. Brian King (D) said "the Congressional map is the product of national Republican groups working to put their self-interested stamp on Utah. I'm disappointed that our Republican colleagues have not pushed back and insisted on Utah decision-makers for the Congressional map," and "The Congressional map recommended by the Legislative Redistricting Committee, surgically cutting Salt Lake County into four separate districts solely to maximize the likelihood of Republicans winning elections, is not something I will support."^[8]

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.^[9] This data was compiled by Daily Kos Elections.^[10]

2020 presidential results by Congressional district, Utah
District	2022 district		Political predecessor district
	Joe Biden	Donald Trump	Joe Biden	Donald Trump
Utah's 1st	37.9%	57.8%	31.6%	64.2%
Utah's 2nd	39.5%	56.7%	40.2%	56.1%
Utah's 3rd	38.3%	57.5%	35.2%	60.3%
Utah's 4th	34.8%	60.7%	43.3%	52.4%

Enacted state legislative district maps

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

Gov. Spencer Cox (R) signed new state legislative districts for both chambers into law on November 16, 2021. After Cox called a special session to begin on November 9, 2021, the Utah legislature voted to approve the House and Senate district maps on November 10, 2021. The House districts proposal passed the House in a 60-12 vote and cleared the Senate in a 25-3 vote. The House voted 58-13 to approve the Senate map and the Senate approved the proposal in a 26-2 vote. ^[11][12] These maps took effect for Utah's 2022 legislative elections.

Both proposals differed from those presented to the legislative committee by Utah's Independent Redistricting Commission on November 1, 2021.^[13] The commission presented 12 maps (three each for House, Senate, congressional, and school board districts) to the Legislative Redistricting Committee, one of which was submitted by a citizen.^[14]

State Senate map

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

Lynette Wendel (D), who ran for election to the Utah House of Representatives to represent District 39 and lost by a margin of 0.6 %, said the districts were drawn to maintain Republicans' majorities in the state legislature. “It was a very strategic approach so that very few people who have an insulated agenda can force that agenda continuously on this state,” Wendel said.^[15] Summit County Democratic Party Chair Katy Owens (D) said, “We would love to be able to have the opportunity to elect the representatives that we want but these maps have been deliberately drawn to prevent that.”^[16]

Sen. Scott Sandall (R), who along with Rep. Paul Ray (R) co-chaired the Legislative Redistricting Committee, said the new maps were drawn with citizens' interests in mind. "After listening to Utahns and touring the state, Rep. Ray and I created maps that we believe incorporate the interests of all Utahns,” Sandall said.^[17] Ray said the legislature, not the Independent Redistricting Commission, "has the constitutional responsibility to divide the state into electoral districts" and he and Sandall "have worked tirelessly to come up with boundaries that best represent the diverse interests of the people we were elected to represent."^[18]

Drafting process

In Utah, both congressional and state legislative district boundaries are ultimately enacted by the state legislature. An advisory commission submits proposed maps to the legislature for its approval. This commission comprises the following seven members:^[19]

• One appointed by the governor, to serve as the chair of the commission;
• One appointed by the president of the Utah Senate;
• One appointed by the speaker of the Utah House of Representatives;
• One appointed by the leader of the largest minority political party in the Utah Senate;
• One appointed by the leader of the largest minority political party in the Utah House of Representatives;
• One appointed jointly by the leadership of the majority political party in the Utah Senate, president of the Utah Senate, and the leadership of the same political party in the Utah House of Representatives; and
• One appointed jointly by the leadership of the largest minority political party in the Utah Senate, and the leadership of the same political party in the Utah House of Representatives, including the speaker of the House, if the speaker is a member of the same political party.

The commission is required to select between one and three plans, with the affirmative votes of at least five members, to submit to the chief justice of the Utah Supreme Court. The chief justice is responsible for determining if the commission's plans meet redistricting standards. The commission then forwards the plans to the state legislature, which may decide whether to accept, amend, or reject the plans.

Utah Proposition 4, Independent Advisory Commission on Redistricting Initiative (2018)

See also: Utah Proposition 4, Independent Advisory Commission on Redistricting Initiative (2018)

Utah Proposition 4, the Independent Redistricting Commission Initiative, was on the ballot in Utah as an initiated state statute on November 6, 2018. It was approved and then altered by the legislature.

Timeline

Utah’s Legislative Redistricting Committee released an anticipated redistricting timeline on June 30, 2021.^[20] To see the entire memo, click here. On November 5, 2021, Gov. Spencer Cox called a special legislative session that began on November 9.^[21]

Committees and/or commissions involved in the process

The tables below show the members of the Utah Independent Redistricting Commission and Utah Legislative Redistricting Committee. On October 26, 2021, former U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop quit the committee.^[22] Utah House Speaker Brad Wilson (R) appointed former Utah Commissioner of Agriculture and Food Logan Wilde (R) to replace Bishop on the Utah Independent Redistricting Commission on October 29, 2021.^[23]

Utah Independent Redistricting Commission membership, 2020 cycle
Name	Member type	Partisan affiliation
Logan Wilde	Citizen
Lyle Hillyard	Citizen
N. Jeffrey Baker	Citizen
Christine Durham	Citizen
Karen Hale	Citizen
William Thorne	Citizen
Rex Facer	Citizen	N/a

Utah Legislative Redistricting Committee membership, 2020 cycle
Name	Member type	Partisan affiliation
Sen. Scott Sandall (R), Chair	Legislative
Rep. Paul Ray (R), Chair	Legislative
Sen. Kirk Cullimore (R)	Legislative
Sen. Gene Davis (D)	Legislative
Sen. Lincoln Fillmore (R)	Legislative
Sen. Don Ipson (R)	Legislative
Sen. Karen Mayne (D)	Legislative
Sen. Mike McKell (R)	Legislative
Rep. Carl R. Albrecht (R)	Legislative
Rep. Jefferson Burton (R)	Legislative
Rep. Joel Ferry (R)	Legislative
Rep. Sandra Hollins (D)	Legislative
Rep. Brad Last (R)	Legislative
Rep. Steven Lund (R)	Legislative
Rep. Ashlee Matthews (D)	Legislative
Rep. Merrill Nelson (R)	Legislative
Rep. Val Peterson (R)	Legislative
Rep. Candice Pierucci (R)	Legislative
Rep. Robert Spendlove (R)	Legislative
Rep. Andrew Stoddard (D)	Legislative
Joseph T. Wade, Policy Analyst	Citizen	N/A
Michael E. Curtis, Associate General Counsel	Citizen	N/A
Thomas R. Vaughn, Associate General Counsel	Citizen	N/A
Naomi Garrow, Executive Assistant	Citizen	N/A
Jerry D. Howe, Strategic Initiatives Manager	Citizen	N/A

Pre-drafting developments

The Utah Legislative Redistricting Committee began holding town halls September 2, 2021. Committee Co-Chair Rep. Paul Ray (R) invited community members to submit their own district maps. "If you have maps, please draw maps and submit them. You know, I would like to adopt all the maps from the public if we could. And so you know, that's one of the things that we'll be looking at trying to do," Ray said.^[24] See the commission's website for more information on how to participate.

The committee launched its official website on June 28, 2021. The website features updates on the redistricting process and information on how citizens can participate.^[25] Click here to visit the website. More information will be added here as it becomes available.

Drafts and proposals

The Utah Legislative Redistricting Committee and Independent Redistricting Commission released new publicly submitted district map proposals on October 12, 2021.^[26][27] On November 1, 2021, the Independent Redistricting Commission presented 12 maps (three each for House, Senate, congressional, and school board districts) to the Legislative Redistricting Committee, one of which was submitted by a citizen.^[28]

None of these maps were approved by the legislature, which released its own set of proposed maps on November 5, 2021. The congressional map passed the Utah House 50-22 on November 9, 2021, with five Republicans and all Democratic House members voting against it. The Senate approved the map on November 10, 2021, in a 21-7 vote. Gov. Cox said that he would not veto the congressional maps or any state legislative maps the legislature approved. “The Legislature is fully within their rights to actually make those decisions and decide where they want to draw those lines," Cox said. Both chambers also approved legislative district plans for the House and Senate on November 10.^[29]

Utah Independent Redistricting Commission maps

Click the links below to view the congressional, House, and Senate district map proposals.

• Congressional maps
• House maps
• Senate maps

Utah Legislative Redistricting Committee maps

View the congressional, House, and Senate district map proposals drawn by the ULRC by clicking on the link below.

• All ULRC proposed maps
• Approved congressional map
• Approved House map
• Approved Senate map

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.^[30]

Apportionment following the 2020 census

The U.S. Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts on April 26, 2021. Utah was apportioned four 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.^[31]

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.^{[32][33][34][35]} 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.^[36][37]

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.^[38][39]

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."^[41][42][43]

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."^[43]

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."^[43]

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.^[43][44]
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.^[43][44]
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.^[43][44]
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.^[43][44]

Methods

In general, a state's redistricting authority can be classified as one of the following:^[45]

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.^[46][47]

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."^[51] 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.^[52] The U.S. Supreme Court scheduled oral argument on this case for October 11, 2023.^[53]

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.^[54] 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.^[55]

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.^[56]

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.^[57]

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.^[58][59][60]

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.^{[61][62][63][64]}

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.^[65][66][67]

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.^{[68][69][70][71]}

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 Utah after the 2010 census

Congressional redistricting, 2010

Following the 2010 United States Census, Utah gained one congressional seat. On October 17, 2011, the state legislature approved new congressional district boundaries, which were signed into law on October 20, 2011.^[19][72]

State legislative redistricting, 2010

On October 4, 2011, the state legislature approved new state Senate and House district maps. The House maps were signed into law on October 19, 2011. The Senate maps were signed into law the following day. On January 27, 2012, the legislature passed amendments to these boundaries, which were signed into law on January 30, 2012.^[19]

See also

• Redistricting in Utah after the 2010 census
• Redistricting in Utah
• 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 Utah Salt Lake 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