Five Things Every American Should Understand About Congressional Redistricting

Controversial rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court and the Virginia Supreme Court in the last several weeks have thrust redistricting into the spotlight.

Why this list matters: Redistricting typically follows the national census, but this year several states are redrawing congressional district lines ahead of the midterm elections. Two major court decisions have complicated the process even more. Most of the rhetoric in the news cycle, however, obscures what redistricting is and what is at stake.

The Constitution mandates that congressional seats be apportioned on the basis of population “in such manner as [the states] shall by law direct.” This typically happens every ten years following the census, but President Trump encouraged Texas to redistrict this year to shore up GOP control of several House seats. Other states followed suit. A legal challenge in Louisiana changed the landscape around the country, and another in Virginia rejected a Democrat-friendly electoral map.

1. The number, size, and shape of House districts has evolved since the Founding.

The Constitution was adopted when the population was significantly smaller, and it envisioned one representative for no more than 30,000 people. Congress passed various Apportionment Acts providing guidance for how districts should be drawn as the country grew. Currently, the size of the House is capped at 435 by the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. Today, each member of the House represents about 775,000 citizens.

2. Federal law dictates the criteria for how states should draw congressional district lines.

Since the Founding, various court decisions and acts of Congress have set guidelines that states must follow while redistricting. Generally, district lines must be contiguous, compact, and equally populated. These requirements seek to limit gerrymandering, which involves drawing district lines primarily to achieve a political advantage or to disenfranchise particular groups. Generally, claims of gerrymandering are not reviewable in federal court, but states cannot use discriminatory or other unconstitutional criteria to draw district lines.

3. There is no single scheme that states use for redistricting.

For six states with single at-large House districts, redistricting is not an issue. Twenty-five states assign responsibility to their legislatures. Thirteen other states have bipartisan, independent commissions that redraw the district lines. The remaining states have similar commissions that propose new district maps to the legislature. Most states allow redistricting at any time, but several states specifically tie it to a specific year related to the national census when a state may lose or gain seats on the basis of population shifts.

4. Scott v. McDougle, which overturned a new Virginia district map, protected the rights of Virginia voters.

Last month, Virginia voters narrowly approved a referendum adopting a congressional map that would have given Democrats ten of the state’s eleven congressional seats. Last week, the Virginia Supreme Court invalidated the new law because the amendment process had been violated. The legislature must pass an amendment twice, with an intervening election, but the the first vote occurred after ballots had been cast. The court determined that Virginia voters were deprived of considering the referendum when casting their votes. Critics called the decision political and undemocratic, but it preserves the democratic process of amending the Virginia constitution.

5. “Mid-decade” redistricting is controversial for a reason.

Only a few states forbid redistricting at any time other than in immediate response to the national census. Most states have no similar limitations. The current spate of redistricting battles began in Texas and spread to California and beyond with a clear view of controlling power in the House of Representatives. This political maneuvering, however, will probably spark regular battles over mid-decade redistricting that will only destabilize our political system and erode civic trust further.

THE BOTTOM LINE

The race to redistrict ahead of the midterm elections will not only impact the balance of power in the next Congress, but has opened an unnecessary new front in this nation’s bitter political battles. Battles over redistricting can easily become contests to guarantee the outcomes of elections, which will significantly erode the power of voters to select those who represent them in Washington.