Redistricting in Connecticut after the 2020 census
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 Connecticut.
On February 10, 2022, Connecticut enacted new congressional district boundaries when the Connecticut Supreme Court adopted the redistricting plan submitted by a court-appointed special master.[1][2] The court had appointed Nathaniel Persily to that position on December 23, 2021, and Persily submitted his proposed congressional district plan to the court on January 18, 2022. The state supreme court assumed control over congressional redistricting on December 21, 2021, after the Connecticut Reapportionment Commission missed an extended deadline to complete the process by that date. Under state law, the Reapportionment Commission had assumed responsibility over congressional redistricting after the state’s Reapportionment Committee failed to meet a statutory September 15, 2021, deadline due to delays in the release of census data.
The Connecticut Reapportionment Commission voted 8-0 in favor of new maps for the state's 151 House districts and 36 Senate districts on November 18 and November 23, 2021, respectively.[3][4] The commission, made up of four Democratic lawmakers, four Republican lawmakers, and a ninth member selected by the commissioners, took over the redistricting process after the previous Reapportionment Committee failed to meet its Sept. 15 deadline to select maps and win two-thirds approval from both chambers of the Connecticut General Assembly.[5] Census data was not delivered until Sept. 16. Unlike the committee, maps prepared by the Reapportionment Commission did not need to win approval from the General Assembly.[6] This map took effect for Connecticut's 2022 legislative elections.
Click here for more information.
Connecticut's five United States representatives and 187 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:
- Summary: This section provides summary information about the drafting and enacting processes.
- Enactment: This section provides information about the enacted congressional and state legislative district maps.
- Drafting process: This section details the drafting process for new congressional and state legislative district maps.
- Apportionment and release of census data: This section details the 2020 apportionment process, including data from the United States Census Bureau.
- Court challenges: This section details court challenges to the enacted congressional and state legislative district maps.
- 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 Connecticut 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.
- Feb. 10, 2022: The Connecticut Supreme Court adopted the congressional redistricting plan submitted by the court’s appointed special master.
- Jan. 18, 2022: Nathaniel Persily, the special master responsible for congressional redistricting, released his proposed map and report.
- Dec. 23, 2021: The Connecticut Supreme Court appointed Nathaniel Persily as a special master to assist in congressional redistricting.
- Dec. 21, 2021: The Reapportionment Commission announced it had missed the deadline to complete congressional redistricting, returning mapmaking authority to the Connecticut Supreme Court.
- Dec. 9, 2021: The Connecticut Supreme Court granted the commission's petition, setting the deadline for congressional redistricting at Dec. 21, 2021.
- Dec. 2, 2021: The Reapportionment Commission formally petitioned the Connecticut Supreme Court asking for a new Dec. 21 deadline to finish congressional redistricting.
- Dec. 1, 2021: The Reapportionment Commission failed to meet its Nov. 30 deadline to complete congressional maps. Under state law, the Connecticut Supreme Court assumed control over the redistricting process.
- Nov. 23, 2021: The Reapportionment Commission approved new state Senate district maps.
- Nov. 18, 2021: The Reapportionment Commission approved new state House of Representative district maps.
- Nov. 16, 2021: The Reapportionment Commission announced the resignation of Kevin Johnston (D). The eight appointed members selected former state Sen. John McKinney (R) as his replacement as the commission's tie-breaking ninth member.
- Oct. 19, 2021: The eight appointed members of the Reapportionment Commission selected former state Sen. and Auditor Kevin Johnston (D) as its tie-breaking ninth member.
- Sept. 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.
- Sept. 15, 2021: The eight-member Reapportionment Committee disbanded after failing to meet its initial deadline. As a result, the task of redistricting was passed to the nine-member Reapportionment Commission.
- Aug. 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
On February 10, 2022, Connecticut enacted new congressional district boundaries when the Connecticut Supreme Court adopted the redistricting plan submitted by a court-appointed special master.[7][8] The court had appointed Nathaniel Persily to that position on December 23, 2021, and Persily submitted his proposed congressional district plan to the court on January 18, 2022. The state supreme court assumed control over congressional redistricting on December 21, 2021, after the Connecticut Reapportionment Commission missed an extended deadline to complete the process by that date. Under state law, the Reapportionment Commission had assumed responsibility over congressional redistricting after the state’s Reapportionment Committee failed to meet a statutory September 15, 2021, deadline due to delays in the release of census data.
According to Bloomberg Government's Greg Giroux, the special master's "map moved just 71,736 people into new districts—the minimum number necessary to achieve population equality—and shifted the lines in only four municipalities, all of which are already divided between two districts."[9]Giroux also wrote, "Republicans sought more significant changes to the current map, which Persily drew last decade and under which Democrats won all five districts every two years."[9] Mark Pazniokas of The Connecticut Mirror wrote that in the adopted plan, "Three of the five districts are solidly Democratic, but the 2nd and the 5th are competitive, while leaning Democratic. Republicans have carried those districts in statewide races, including the 2018 gubernatorial election."[10]
Map images
Below are the congressional maps in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.
Connecticut Congressional Districts
until January 2, 2023
Click a district to compare boundaries.
Connecticut Congressional Districts
starting January 3, 2023
Click a district to compare boundaries.
Here's a link to the Connecticut Supreme Court's complete order approving the congressional map, including the Special Master's full report and supporting data:
Connecticut Supreme Court order approving Special Master's proposed redistricting plan
Reactions
During the state supreme court hearing regarding the plan, Aaron Bayer, a lawyer for the commission's Democrats said, "This court gave clear, unequivocal, very precise directives to the special master on how to prepare a reapportionment plan. The special master followed those directives meticulously and produced a plan that complies in every respect with this court’s order."[11]
During that hearing, the attorney representing Republican members of the commission, Proloy K. Das, asked the court to require more changes to the congressional map, since the current process and district boundaries benefits Democrats: "The parties will never reach an agreement. We’ll reach gridlock, and we’ll be back here, because the party that’s advantaged, a party that has a map that produces 5-0 in favor of one party, has no incentive to change."[11]
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.[12] This data was compiled by Daily Kos Elections.[13]
| 2020 presidential results by Congressional district, Connecticut | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| District | 2022 district | Political predecessor district | ||
Joe Biden 
|
Donald Trump 
|
Joe Biden
|
Donald Trump
| |
| Connecticut's 1st | 63.3% | 35.2% | 63.3% | 35.3% |
| Connecticut's 2nd | 54.7% | 43.3% | 54.5% | 43.5% |
| Connecticut's 3rd | 59.2% | 39.5% | 59.9% | 38.8% |
| Connecticut's 4th | 64.8% | 33.8% | 64.2% | 34.5% |
| Connecticut's 5th | 54.6% | 43.9% | 54.6% | 43.9% |
Enacted state legislative district maps
The Connecticut Reapportionment Commission voted 8-0 in favor of new maps for the state's 151 House districts and 36 Senate districts on November 18 and November 23, 2021, respectively.[3][14] The commission, made up of four Democratic lawmakers, four Republican lawmakers, and a ninth member selected by the commissioners, took over the redistricting process after the previous Reapportionment Committee failed to meet its Sept. 15 deadline to select maps and win two-thirds approval from both chambers of the Connecticut General Assembly.[15] Census data was not delivered until Sept. 16. Unlike the committee, maps prepared by the Reapportionment Commission did not need to win approval from the General Assembly.[16] This map took effect for Connecticut's 2022 legislative elections.
State Senate map
Below is the state Senate map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.
Connecticut State Senate Districts
until January 3, 2023
Click a district to compare boundaries.
Connecticut State Senate Districts
starting January 4, 2023
Click a district to compare boundaries.
State House map
Below is the state House map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.
Connecticut State House Districts
until January 3, 2023
Click a district to compare boundaries.
Connecticut State House Districts
starting January 4, 2023
Click a district to compare boundaries.
Reactions
State legislative redistricting in Connecticut finished with the enactment of the new Senate maps. The CT Mirror's Mark Pazniokas wrote, "Passage of the Senate map came without debate in an 11-minute meeting conducted via Zoom, a reflection that the maps in Connecticut are resolved by negotiation."[17] Senate Minority Leader Kevin Kelly (R) said, "It's a truly bipartisan effort," and Senate President Pro Tempore Martin Looney (D) said, "We have a much better approach than most the country does on this."[17]
Regarding the House map in particular, CT Political Junkie's Susan Bigelow wrote, "[T]he reapportionment process is one controlled by the legislature, which means that the new map is designed to protect incumbents more than anything else."[18] In a separate article on the site, Hugh McQuaid wrote that commissioner and House Minority Leader Vincent Candelora (R) "said the panel tried to avoid disrupting incumbent legislators and their communities."[19]
Candelora said, "I think overall, we made a lot of difficult decisions trying to keep a lot of the core districts intact, but recognizing the fact that with population changes so do come changes to various districts."[20] Commissioner and House Speaker Matthew Ritter (D) said the map either promoted or did not diminish minority communities, saying, "We did not dilute one of those districts ... They're all the same as they were. That was not negotiable for anybody in the room."[21]
Drafting process
In Connecticut, the state legislature is primarily responsible for drawing both congressional and state legislative district lines. Maps must be approved by a two-thirds vote in each chamber. If the state legislature is unable to approve new maps, a backup commission is convened to draw congressional and state legislative district boundaries. The commission consists of nine members. The four legislative leaders (i.e., the majority and minority leaders of each chamber of the legislature) appoint two members each. The ninth member is selected by the eight previously selected commissioners.[22][23] Maps drawn by the nine-member backup commission must be certified by at least five commission members, and are not subject to legislative approval.[24]
The Connecticut Constitution requires that all districts, whether congressional or state legislative, be contiguous. In addition, state House districts must "not divide towns except where necessary to comply with other legal requirements."[25]
Timeline
According to the Connecticut Constitution, the Reapportionment Committee was required to select a map, which needed two-thirds approval from both chambers of the Connecticut General Assembly by Sept. 15, 2021. The committee failed to meet this deadline due to delays in the release of census data and was disbanded.[26]
Under state law, since the initial eight-member Reapportionment Committee failed to meet to Sept. 15 deadline, a nine-member Reapportionment Commission was formed with a final deadline of Nov. 30, 2021.[27] The commission failed to complete congressional redistricting by the Nov. 30 deadline. Under state law, the Connecticut Supreme Court assumed control over the redistricting process on Dec. 1, 2021.[28][29] The Connecticut Supreme Court granted the commission an extended deadline of Dec. 21, but the commission failed to complete a congressional map by that time.[30] Read more here.
The Connecticut Supreme Court must complete congressional redistricting by Feb. 15, 2022.[31]
Committees and/or commissions involved in the process
The following individuals were appointed to the Connecticut Reapportionment Commission.[32] On Oct. 20, commissioners selected Senate Minority Leader Kevin C. Kelly (R) and House Speaker Matthew Ritter (D) to serve as chairs. At the same meeting, the eight appointed members selected Kevin Johnston (D), a former state Senator and state auditor, to fill the ninth spot.[33] Johnston later resigned and the eight appointed members selected former Senate Minority Leader John McKinney (R) as his replacement on Nov. 16.[34] The ninth member of the commission only votes in the event of a 4-4 tie between the eight appointed commissioners.
| Connecticut Reapportionment Commission, 2020 cycle | ||
|---|---|---|
| Representative Matthew Ritter | Co-chair |  Democratic
|
| Senator Kevin C. Kelly | Co-chair |  Republican
|
| Representative Vincent Candelora | Member | Republican
|
| Senator Bob Duff | Member | Democratic
|
| Senator Paul Formica | Member | Republican
|
| Senator Martin Looney | Member | Democratic
|
| Representative Jason Perillo | Member | Republican
|
| Representative Jason Rojas | Member | Democratic
|
| John McKinney | Member | Republican
|
Click show on the header below to view the members appointed to the Connecticut Reapportionment Committee that was disbanded on September 15, 2021.[35]
| Connecticut Reapportionment Committee, 2020 cycle | ||
|---|---|---|
| Name | Role | Partisan affiliation |
| Senator Kevin C. Kelly | Co-Chairman | Republican
|
| Representative Gregory Haddad | Co-Chairman | Democratic
|
| Senator Douglas McCrory | Member | Democratic
|
| Senator Mary Daugherty Abrams | Member | Democratic
|
| Senator Paul Formica | Member | Republican
|
| Representative Tammy Exum | Member | Democratic
|
| Representative Vincent Candelora | Member | Republican
|
| Representative Jason Perillo | Member | Republican
|
Drafts and proposals
Congressional
On Jan. 18, Nathaniel Persily, the special master appointed by the Connecticut Supreme Court to manage congressional redistricting, released his report and proposal, which can be found here.
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.[36]
Apportionment following the 2020 census
The U.S. Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts on April 26, 2021. Connecticut 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.[37]
See the table below for additional details.
| 2020 and 2010 census information for Connecticut | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | |
| Connecticut | 3,581,628 | 5 | 3,608,298 | 5 | 26,670 | 0.74% | 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.[38][39][40][41] 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.[42][43]
Court challenges
- If you are aware of any relevant lawsuits that are not listed here, please email us at [email protected].
This section will include information regarding any legal challenges to enacted maps.
Noteworthy events
Redistricting Commission petitions Supreme Court for deadline extension
Under state law, the Connecticut Reapportionment Commission was given a deadline of Nov. 30, 2021, to complete redistricting for the state's legislative and congressional districts. The commission enacted state House and Senate maps on Nov. 18 and Nov. 23, 2021, respectively.[3] At that time, the commission also publicly acknowledged that it would not meet the Nov. 30 deadline to finish congressional redistricting.[3] Under state law, when the commission fails to meet the Nov. 30 deadline, the Connecticut Supreme Court assumes authority over the state's redistricting process. After petitioning the court for an extension, the commission was allowed to continue work on congressional maps until Dec. 21. The commission failed to complete congressional maps by the extended deadline, returning mapmaking authority to the state supreme court with a final deadline of Feb. 15, 2022.[44] On Dec. 23, 2021, the supreme court appointed Nathaniel Persily as a special master to assist in the process. Persily, a law professor at Stanford University, previously served as a special master for Connecticut's congressional redistricting following the 2010 census.[45]
More information is included below.
On Nov. 30, the Reapportionment Commission voted 9-0 in favor of requesting an extension to finish congressional redistricting by Dec. 21, 2021.[46] On Dec. 1, following the deadline, redistricting authority was passed to the supreme court and, on Dec. 2, the commission along with Attorney General William Tong (D) formally submitted an extension request to the court.[47] Commissioners said they missed the Nov. 30 deadline due to delays in receiving census data because of the coronavirus pandemic, not because of partisan deadlock.[48]
On Dec. 9, the state supreme court granted the commission's petition thereby returning map-making to the group under the court's supervision. In the order granting the petition, the court set the deadline for congressional redistricting at Dec. 21, 2021. The court also ordered the commission to provide a progress report on Dec. 15, 2021.
The commission failed to complete congressional maps by the Dec. 21 deadline, returning mapmaking authority to the state supreme court with a Feb. 15, 2022, deadline.[49]
On Dec. 23, 2021, the supreme court appointed Nathaniel Persily as a special master to assist in the process. Persily, a law professor at Stanford University, previously served as a special master for Connecticut's congressional redistricting following the 2010 census.[50] Republican members of the commission opposed Persily's appointment and Democratic members were in support.[51]
- View the commission's Dec. 2 petition here.
- View the court's Dec. 9 order here.
- View the commission's Dec. 15 progress report here.
- View the commission's Dec. 21 announcement here.
- View the court's Dec. 23 order appointing a special master here.
The Connecticut General Assembly is responsible for redistricting every cycle but, as of 2021, had not produced new maps since 1981. In 1991, 2001, 2011, and 2021, the legislature missed its mid-September deadline to enact maps, passing authority to the commission in each cycle. The commission itself missed its Nov. 30 deadline three decades in a row: 2001, 2011, and 2021. In each cycle, the supreme court granted a Dec. 21 extension. The commission adopted maps before the extended deadline in 2001 but missed the extension in 2011 and 2021.
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.[52][53]
| “ | 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.[54] | ” |
| —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."[55][56][57]
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."[57]
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."[57]
State-based requirements
In addition to the federal criteria noted above, individual states may impose additional requirements on redistricting. Common state-level redistricting criteria are listed below.
- Contiguity refers to the principle that all areas within a district should be physically adjacent. A total of 49 states require that districts of at least one state legislative chamber be contiguous (Nevada has no such requirement, imposing no requirements on redistricting beyond those enforced at the federal level). A total of 23 states require that congressional districts meet contiguity requirements.[57][58]
- 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.[57][58]
- 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.[57][58]
- 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.[57][58]
Methods
In general, a state's redistricting authority can be classified as one of the following:[59]
- Legislature-dominant: In a legislature-dominant state, the legislature retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. Maps enacted by the legislature may or may not be subject to gubernatorial veto. Advisory commissions may also be involved in the redistricting process, although the legislature is not bound to adopt an advisory commission's recommendations.
- Commission: In a commission state, an extra-legislative commission retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. A non-politician commission is one whose members cannot hold elective office. A politician commission is one whose members can hold elective office.
- Hybrid: In a hybrid state, the legislature shares redistricting authority with a commission.
Gerrymandering
- 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.[60][61]
For additional background information about gerrymandering, click "[Show more]" below.
The phrase racial gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to dilute the voting power of racial minority groups. Federal law prohibits racial gerrymandering and establishes that, to combat this practice and to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act, states and jurisdictions can create majority-minority electoral districts. A majority-minority district is one in which a racial group or groups comprise a majority of the district's populations. Racial gerrymandering and majority-minority districts are discussed in greater detail in this article.[62]
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.[63][64]Recent court decisions
The Supreme Court of the United States has, in recent years, issued several decisions dealing with redistricting policy, including rulings relating to the consideration of race in drawing district maps, the use of total population tallies in apportionment, and the constitutionality of independent redistricting commissions. The rulings in these cases, which originated in a variety of states, impact redistricting processes across the nation.
For additional background information about these cases, click "[Show more]" below.
Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (2024)
Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP — This case concerns a challenge to the congressional redistricting plan that the South Carolina legislature enacted after the 2020 census. In January 2023, a federal three-judge panel ruled that the state's 1st Congressional District was unconstitutional and enjoined the state from conducting future elections using its district boundaries. The panel's opinion said, "The Court finds that race was the predominant factor motivating the General Assembly’s adoption of Congressional District No. 1...Defendants have made no showing that they had a compelling state interest in the use of race in the design of Congressional District No. 1 and thus cannot survive a strict scrutiny review."[65] 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.[66] The U.S. Supreme Court scheduled oral argument on this case for October 11, 2023.[67]
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.[68] 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.[69]
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.[70]
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.[71]
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.[72][73][74]
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.[75][76][77][78]
Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2016)
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.[79][80][81]
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015)
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2015. At issue was the constitutionality of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, which was established by state constitutional amendment in 2000. According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, "the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." The state legislature argued that the use of the word "legislature" in this context is literal; therefore, only a state legislature may draw congressional district lines. Meanwhile, the commission contended that the word "legislature" ought to be interpreted to mean "the legislative powers of the state," including voter initiatives and referenda. On June 29, 2015, the court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, finding that "redistricting is a legislative function, to be performed in accordance with the state's prescriptions for lawmaking, which may include the referendum and the governor's veto." The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito dissented.[82][83][84][85]Trifectas and redistricting
In 34 of the states that conducted legislative elections in 2020, the legislatures themselves played a significant part in the subsequent redistricting process. The winner of eight of 2020's gubernatorial elections had veto authority over state legislative or congressional district plans approved by legislatures. The party that won trifecta control of a state in which redistricting authority rests with the legislature directed the process that produces the maps that will be used for the remainder of the decade. Trifecta shifts in the 2010 election cycle illustrate this point. In 2010, 12 states in which legislatures had authority over redistricting saw shifts in trifecta status. Prior to the 2010 elections, seven of these states were Democratic trifectas; the rest were divided governments. After the 2010 elections, seven of these states became Republican trifectas; the remainder either remained or became divided governments. The table below details these shifts and charts trifecta status heading into the 2020 election cycle.
| The 12 legislature-redistricting states that saw trifecta shifts in 2010 – subsequent trifecta status | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| State | Primary redistricting authority | Pre-2010 trifecta status | Post-2010 trifecta status | Post-2018 trifecta status |
| Alabama | Legislature | Divided | Republican | Republican |
| Colorado | Congressional maps: legislature State legislative maps: politician commission |
Democratic | Divided | Democratic |
| Indiana | Legislature | Divided | Republican | Republican |
| Iowa | Legislature | Democratic | Divided | Republican |
| Maine | Legislature | Democratic | Republican | Democratic |
| Michigan | Legislature | Divided | Republican | Divided |
| New Hampshire | Legislature | Democratic | Divided | Divided |
| North Carolina | Legislature | Democratic | Divided | Divided |
| Ohio | Congressional maps: legislature State legislative maps: politician commission |
Divided | Republican | Republican |
| Oregon | Legislature | Democratic | Divided | Democratic |
| Pennsylvania | Congressional maps: legislature State legislative maps: politician commission |
Divided | Republican | Divided |
| Wisconsin | Legislature | Democratic | Republican | Divided |
2010 redistricting cycle
Congressional redistricting, 2010
Following the 2010 United States Census, Connecticut neither gained nor lost congressional seats. Although Democrats controlled both chambers of the state legislature, Republican opposition prevented the legislature from achieving the two-thirds vote necessary to approve a congressional redistricting plan. The redistricting backup commission was convened to draw the map.[22][86]
The backup commission ultimately failed to reach an agreement and petitioned the Connecticut Supreme Court to appoint a special master to draw the lines. The court appointed Columbia University law professor Nathaniel Persily. Persily, at the direction of the court, made minimal changes, shifting 28,975 people between districts. Persily released his draft congressional district map on January 13, 2012. The state supreme court approved the plan on February 10, 2012. In November's election, Democrats retained all five of Connecticut's congressional seats.[22][86]
State legislative redistricting, 2010
Although the state legislature failed to achieve the two-thirds vote necessary to approve a state legislative redistricting plan, the state's backup commission approved new maps on November 30, 2011.[22]
See also
- Redistricting in Connecticut after the 2010 census
- Redistricting in Connecticut
- 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
- ↑ Bloomberg Government, "Connecticut U.S. House Map Favoring Democrats OK’d by Top Court," February 10, 2022
- ↑ Supreme Court, State of Connecticut, "In Re Petition of Reapportionment Commission ex rel.," February 10, 2022
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 News 12 Connecticut, "CT Reapportionment Commission unanimously votes to approve new statewide house district map," Nov. 18, 2021
- ↑ CT News Junkie, "Redistricting Commission Tweaks Senate Map," Nov. 23, 2021
- ↑ The ninth member only votes in the event of a tie.
- ↑ Connecticut General Assembly, "Frequently Asked Questions," accessed Oct. 12, 2021
- ↑ Bloomberg Government, "Connecticut U.S. House Map Favoring Democrats OK’d by Top Court," February 10, 2022
- ↑ Supreme Court, State of Connecticut, "In Re Petition of Reapportionment Commission ex rel.," February 10, 2022
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 Bloomberg Government, "Connecticut U.S. House Map Favoring Democrats OK’d by Top Court," February 10, 2022
- ↑ The Connecticut Mirror, "CT court’s reapportionment verdict: The ‘lobster claw’ survives," February 11, 2022
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 The Connecticut Mirror, "Court shows no interest in remaking CT congressional map," January 27, 2022
- ↑ Political predecessor districts are determined primarily based on incumbents and where each chose to seek re-election.
- ↑ Daily Kos Elections, "Daily Kos Elections 2020 presidential results by congressional district (old CDs vs. new CDs)," accessed May 12, 2022
- ↑ CT News Junkie, "Redistricting Commission Tweaks Senate Map," Nov. 23, 2021
- ↑ The ninth member only votes in the event of a tie.
- ↑ Connecticut General Assembly, "Frequently Asked Questions," accessed Oct. 12, 2021
- ↑ 17.0 17.1 The CT Mirror, "Bridgeport, New Haven and Hartford each keep 2 Senate seats in new map," Nov. 23, 2021
- ↑ CT News Junkie, "New House District Map Invests in Status Quo, But Sets Up Fairfield County Conflict," Nov. 19, 2021
- ↑ CT News Junkie, "Fairfield County Gains A House Seat, Eastern Connecticut Loses One," Nov. 18, 2021
- ↑ The Trumbull Times, "Bipartisan redistricting plan for Connecticut House approved," Nov. 18, 2021
- ↑ The CT Mirror, "Hartford, Stamford winners in House redistricting," Nov. 18, 2021
- ↑ 22.0 22.1 22.2 22.3 All About Redistricting, "Connecticut," accessed April 22, 2015
- ↑ Connecticut Constitution, "Article XXVI, Section 2.b," accessed April 22, 2015
- ↑ Connecticut Office of Legislative Research, "Connecticut's Redistricting Procedures and Deadlines," accessed September 9, 2021
- ↑ All About Redistricting, "Who draws the lines?" accessed March 25, 2015
- ↑ CT News Junkie, "Redistricting Moves Beyond Deadline To Next Phase," Sept. 17, 2021
- ↑ Connecticut General Assembly, "Frequently Asked Questions," accessed Oct. 12, 2021
- ↑ The Westerly Sun, "Connecticut redistricting commission seeks more time to redraw congressional lines," Dec. 1, 2021
- ↑ CT Mirror, "Bipartisan deal struck on CT state House redistricting," Nov. 17, 2021
- ↑ CT Mirror, "CT Supreme Court leans on lawmakers to produce congressional districts map," Dec. 9, 2021
- ↑ Connecticut General Assembly, "Frequently Asked Questions," accessed Dec. 21, 2021
- ↑ Connecticut General Assembly, "Frequently Asked Questions," accessed Oct. 12, 2021
- ↑ CT News Junkie, "The Redrawing of Political Lines Continues," Oct. 20, 2021
- ↑ Hartford Courant, "Connecticut redistricting panel chooses replacement tie-breaking member," Nov. 17, 2021
- ↑ Connecticut General Assembly, "Reapportionment Committee," accessed June 17, 2021
- ↑ United States Census Bureau, "Apportionment," accessed July 11, 2018
- ↑ United States Census Bureau, "2020 Census Apportionment Results Delivered to the President," April 26, 2021
- ↑ United States Census Bureau, "2020 Census Operational Plan: Executive Summary," December 2015
- ↑ United States Census Bureau, "Census Bureau Statement on Redistricting Data Timeline," February 12, 2021
- ↑ Office of the Attorney General of Ohio, "AG Yost Secures Victory for Ohioans in Settlement with Census Bureau Data Lawsuit," May 25, 2021
- ↑ U.S. Census Bureau, "U.S. Census Bureau Statement on Release of Legacy Format Summary Redistricting Data File," March 15, 2021
- ↑ U.S. Census Bureau, "Decennial Census P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data," accessed August 12, 2021
- ↑ United States Census Bureau, "Census Bureau Delivers 2020 Census Redistricting Data in Easier-to-Use Format," September 16, 2021
- ↑ Connecticut General Assembly, "Frequently Asked Questions," accessed Dec. 21, 2021
- ↑ Newsweek, "Court Rejects Connecticut GOP's Effort to Remove Man Appointed to Redraw Congressional Map," Dec. 28, 2021
- ↑ CT News Junkie, "Redistricting Panel Request For More Time Goes To Supreme Court," Dec. 8, 2021
- ↑ Connecticut Judicial System, "Petition of Reapportionment Commission, Ex. Rel.," Dec. 2, 2021
- ↑ CT Mirror, "CT Supreme Court leans on lawmakers to produce congressional districts map," Dec. 9, 2021
- ↑ Bloomberg Government, "Connecticut Misses Redistricting Deadline: Ballots & Boundaries," Dec. 21, 2021
- ↑ Newsweek, "Court Rejects Connecticut GOP's Effort to Remove Man Appointed to Redraw Congressional Map," Dec. 28, 2021
- ↑ Newsweek, "Court Rejects Connecticut GOP's Effort to Remove Man Appointed to Redraw Congressional Map," Dec. 28, 2021
- ↑ The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, "Election Regulations," accessed April 13, 2015
- ↑ Brookings, "Redistricting and the United States Constitution," March 22, 2011
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Brennan Center for Justice, "A Citizen's Guide to Redistricting," accessed March 25, 2015
- ↑ The Constitution of the United States of America, "Article 1, Section 2," accessed March 25, 2015
- ↑ 57.0 57.1 57.2 57.3 57.4 57.5 57.6 All About Redistricting, "Where are the lines drawn?" accessed April 9, 2015
- ↑ 58.0 58.1 58.2 58.3 FairVote, "Redistricting Glossary," accessed April 9, 2015
- ↑ All About Redistricting, "Who draws the lines?" accessed June 19, 2017
- ↑ All About Redistricting, "Why does it matter?" accessed April 8, 2015
- ↑ Encyclopædia Britannica, "Gerrymandering," November 4, 2014
- ↑ Congressional Research Service, "Congressional Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A Legal Overview," April 13, 2015
- ↑ The Wall Street Journal, "Supreme Court to Consider Limits on Partisan Drawing of Election Maps," June 19, 2017
- ↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear potentially landmark case on partisan gerrymandering," June 19, 2017
- ↑ United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Columbia Division, "South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, et al. v. Alexander," January 6, 2023
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Alexander, et al. v. The South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, et al.," February 17, 2023
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP," accessed July 21, 2023
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Justices will hear case that tests power of state legislatures to set rules for federal elections," June 30, 2022
- ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, “Moore, in his Official Capacity as Speaker of The North Carolina House of Representatives, et al. v. Harper et al.," "Certiorari to the Supreme Court of North Carolina,” accessed June 16, 2023
- ↑ SCOTUSblog.org, "Supreme Court upholds Section 2 of Voting Rights Act," June 8, 2023
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Gill v. Whitford: Decision," June 18, 2018
- ↑ Election Law Blog, "Breaking: SCOTUS to Hear NC Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 27, 2016
- ↑ Ballot Access News, "U.S. Supreme Court Accepts Another Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 28, 2016
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Cooper v. Harris: Decision," May 22, 2017
- ↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear challenge to Texas redistricting plan," May 26, 2015
- ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Agrees to Settle Meaning of ‘One Person One Vote,'" May 26, 2015
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Evenwel v. Abbott," accessed May 27, 2015
- ↑ Associated Press, "Supreme Court to hear Texas Senate districts case," May 26, 2015
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "The new look at 'one person, one vote,' made simple," July 27, 2015
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Brief for Appellants," accessed December 14, 2015
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission," April 20, 2016
- ↑ The New York Times, "Court Skeptical of Arizona Plan for Less-Partisan Congressional Redistricting," March 2, 2015
- ↑ The Atlantic, "Will the Supreme Court Let Arizona Fight Gerrymandering?" September 15, 2014
- ↑ United States Supreme Court, "Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Opinion of the Court," June 29, 2015
- ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Upholds Creation of Arizona Redistricting Commission," June 29, 2015
- ↑ 86.0 86.1 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.
 |
State of Connecticut Hartford (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 |
