Redistricting in New York 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 New York.

Congressional districts
On February 28, 2024, Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) signed a new congressional map into law. The state Assembly voted 115-35 to approve the map on February 27. The state Senate voted 45-18 to approve the map the same day.

According to Nicholar Fandos of The New York Times, "Although a pair of swing districts would become more Democratic, lawmakers in Albany left the partisan makeup of 24 of the state’s 26 districts largely intact. The middle-ground approach reflected a desire to avoid another protracted court fight like the one in New York that helped swing control of the House to Republicans in 2022, while still better positioning Democrats in key districts."

On December 12, 2023, the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, ruled in a 4-3 decision that the independent redistricting commission did not follow the state's congressional redistricting process and ordered the commission to reconvene and re-draw congressional district boundaries by February 28 for use in the 2024 elections. The court's majority opinion stated, "In 2014, the voters of New York amended our Constitution to provide that legislative districts be drawn by an Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC). The Constitution demands that process, not districts drawn by courts. Nevertheless, the IRC failed to discharge its constitutional duty. That dereliction is undisputed. The Appellate Division concluded that the IRC can be compelled to reconvene to fulfill that duty; we agree. There is no reason the Constitution should be disregarded."

Click here for more information.

Legislative districts

State Assembly districts
New York enacted new State Assembly district boundaries on April 24, 2023, when Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) signed legislation establishing them for use starting with the 2024 elections. The bill adopting the districts passed earlier that day in the State Assembly by a vote of 132-13, and it passed the state Senate by a vote of 59-1. The legislation stated, "Vacancies in the Assembly will be filled using existing boundaries until January 1, 2025, at which time vacancies will be filled using the new boundaries."

The state redrew its Assembly district boundaries in response to a June 10, 2022, decision by the appellate division of the New York Supreme Court in Nichols v. Hochul. That court upheld a lower court ruling that declared the state's Assembly district boundaries invalid but determined that they should still be used for the 2022 legislative elections since the lawsuit challenging them was filed too close to those elections for the courts to intervene. The appellate division ruling determined that the Assembly district map was enacted in violation of the state's constitutional redistricting process and ordered a New York City-based state trial court to oversee the redrawing of boundaries for the 2024 elections. On September 29, 2022, that trial court directed the IRC to "initiate the constitutional process for amending the assembly district map based on the 2020 census data by formulating a proposed assembly map" and submit such a plan to the legislature by April 28, 2023.

Click here for more information.

New York's 26 United States representatives and 213 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 New York 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.

• February 28, 2024: Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) signed a new congressional map into law.
• December 12, 2023: On December 12, 2023, the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, ruled in a 4-3 decision that the independent redistricting commission did not follow the state's congressional redistricting process and ordered the commission to reconvene and re-draw congressional district boundaries by February 28 for use in the 2024 elections.
• July 13, 2023: An appellate division of the New York Supreme Court ruled in Hoffman, et al. v. New York State Independent Redistricting Commission, et al. that the state's congressional redistricting process was not followed when the independent redistricting commission failed to submit a second set of maps to the legislature and ordered the commission to reconvene and re-draw congressional district boundaries for use by the 2024 elections.
• April 24, 2023: Both chambers of the legislature approve and Gov. Hochul signs legislation establishing new Assembly district boundaries for use starting with the 2024 elections.
• April 20, 2023: The New York State Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) voted 9-1 to advance a revised plan for state Assembly district boundaries and submit it to the legislature.
• September 29, 2022: The New York division of the state supreme court directed the IRC to "initiate the constitutional process for amending the assembly district map based on the 2020 census data by formulating a proposed assembly map" and submit such a plan to the legislature by April 28, 2023.
• June 20, 2022: Justice Patrick McAllister issued an order approving technical corrections to New York's enacted congressional district boundaries.
• June 10, 2022: An appellate division of the New York Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that declared the state's Assembly district boundaries invalid but determined that they should still be used for the 2022 legislative elections since the lawsuit challenging them was filed too late to make changes. The appellate division ruling determined that the Assembly district map was enacted in violation of the state's constitutional redistricting process.
• May 20, 2022: Justice Patrick McAllister issued an order adopting new state senate and congressional maps.
• May 4, 2022: A federal judge denied plaintiffs' request for an emergency injunction in De Gaudemar v. Kosinski.
• May 2, 2022: A lawsuit was filed in federal court requesting a ruling that the congressional map approved on Feb. 3, 2022, be used for the 2022 congressional elections in New York (De Gaudemar v. Kosinski).
• April 27, 2022: The New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, ruled to overturn the congressional and state Senate maps.
• April 21, 2022: The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court upheld the Supreme Court's ruling that the enacted legislative and constitutional maps constituted a partisan gerrymander and ordered the legislature to submit new maps to a redistricting special master appointed by the court.
• April 8, 2022: An appellate court issued a second temporary stay through April 20 of the lower court's ruling overturning the enacted legislative and congressional maps.
• April 4, 2022: An appellate court issued a temporary stay of the lower court's ruling overturning the enacted legislative and congressional maps.
• March 31, 2022: A lower court judge struck down the enacted congressional and legislative maps and ordered the state legislature to draw new maps.
• February 3, 2022: A lawsuit was filed challenging the enacted congressional map (Harkenrider v. Hochul).
• February 3, 2022:
  • Both chambers of the New York State Legislature voted to approve the legislative maps bill.
  • Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) signed the congressional and legislative maps into law.
• February 2, 2022: Both chambers of the New York State Legislature voted to approve the congressional map bill.
• January 31, 2022: The New York State Legislature released draft state House and Senate maps.
• January 30, 2022: The New York State Legislature released a draft congressional map.
• January 24, 2022: The New York Independent Redistricting Commission announced it would not be submitting another set of legislative and congressional maps to the state legislature.
• January 10, 2022: The New York State Legislature voted down the commission's congressional and legislative map proposals.
• January 3, 2022: The New York Independent Redistricting Commission vote to decide which maps to submit to the New York State Legislature ended in a 5-5 tie, meaning the commission submitted both sets of map proposals to the legislature.
• September 16, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau released data from the 2020 census in an easier-to-use format to state redistricting authorities and the public.
• September 15, 2021: The New York Independent Redistricting Commission released draft maps for congressional and legislative redistricting.
• August 12, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau delivered redistricting data to states in a legacy format.
• April 26, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts.

Enactment

Enacted congressional district maps

See also: Congressional district maps implemented after the 2020 census

Congressional map enacted in 2024

On February 28, 2024, Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) signed a new congressional map into law. The state Assembly voted 115-35 to approve the map on February 27. The state Senate voted 45-18 to approve the map the same day.

According to Nicholar Fandos of The New York Times, "Although a pair of swing districts would become more Democratic, lawmakers in Albany left the partisan makeup of 24 of the state’s 26 districts largely intact. The middle-ground approach reflected a desire to avoid another protracted court fight like the one in New York that helped swing control of the House to Republicans in 2022, while still better positioning Democrats in key districts."

On December 12, 2023, the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, ruled in a 4-3 decision that the independent redistricting commission did not follow the state's congressional redistricting process and ordered the commission to reconvene and re-draw congressional district boundaries by February 28 for use in the 2024 elections. The court's majority opinion stated, "In 2014, the voters of New York amended our Constitution to provide that legislative districts be drawn by an Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC). The Constitution demands that process, not districts drawn by courts. Nevertheless, the IRC failed to discharge its constitutional duty. That dereliction is undisputed. The Appellate Division concluded that the IRC can be compelled to reconvene to fulfill that duty; we agree. There is no reason the Constitution should be disregarded."

Reactions to 2024 congressional map

Ed Cox, Chairman of the New York Republican Party, released a statement saying they would not continue their litigation.

“

Our victory in the Harkenrider case led to fair lines. Despite Democrats’ ongoing corruption of the process, these lines are not materially different from those drawn by the special master. As such, there is no need for further litigation.

”

Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), U.S. House minority leader, released a statement encouraging Gov. Hochul to sign the congressional map that the state legislature passed on February, 28, 2024, into law:

“

Today, the state legislature has adopted a bipartisan congressional map that more meaningfully delivers the type of fair representation that the people of New York State deserve. This map reunites several communities of interest, reduces the number of counties, towns, and villages that are split and promotes compact congressional districts. For these reasons, New Yorkers from every walk of life, race, region, religion, ethnicity, socioeconomic status and ZIP cope can now more fairly determine who should represent them in Congress.

”

Below are the congressional maps in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle. The map on the right was in effect for New York’s 2024 congressional elections.

New York Congressional Districts
before 2020 redistricting cycle

Click a district to compare boundaries.

New York Congressional Districts
after 2020 redistricting cycle

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Congressional maps enacted in 2022

On May 20, 2022, Justice Patrick McAllister ordered the adoption of a new congressional map drawn by redistricting special master Jonathan Cervas. The Associated Press reported that the boundaries that the court enacted "are more favorable to Republicans and more competitive than the previous maps drawn by the Democratically-controlled state Legislature." This map took effect for New York's 2022 congressional elections.

On March 31, 2022, a lower court judge ruled against New York's congressional map and ordered the legislature to draw a new map that "receive[s] bipartisan support among both Democrats and Republicans in both the senate and assembly.". On April 27, the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, affirmed the lower court's ruling overturning the congressional map. House Speaker Carl Heastie (D) and Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins (D) submitted a map draft to the court's redistricting special master on May 5, but Cervas recommended the court enact a different set of boundaries.

Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) signed the state's initial map that the lower court overturned on February 3, 2022. These boundaries were approved by the New York State Senate, 43-20, and by the New York State Assembly 103-45.

Reactions to the May 20, 2022 enacted map

In his order, Justice Patrick McAllister wrote, "the court believes the maps remain almost perfectly neutral, meaning the maps do not favor or disfavor any political party." Susan Lerner, the executive director of Common Cause New York, said, "It's clear he listened to the extensive comments sent to the court, including ours and those of the Unity Maps, as the maps now reflect a deeper understanding of minority and other communities' interests. Ultimately, as he indicates, he valued compactness above all else."

Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) criticized the map, saying, "the court of appeals was wrong in the decision that they made both on the substance and in terms of turning over redistricting to an out of town, unelected special master and a judicial overseer in Steuben County, who was a Republican." Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) also criticized the map, saying "by splitting [Black] communities, the map further alienates them and perpetuates the opportunity for further historical neglect by the electoral system. [...] Their voting power is directly tied to their lives and they deserve a fair chance at electing representatives that take their unique needs into full consideration."

Reactions to the February 3, 2022 enacted map

Following the passage of the map, Hochul said: "These bills are necessary to reapportion districts and to provide certainty and clarity regarding such districts in a timely manner, allowing for efficient administration of the electoral process." Assembly Republican Leader William Barclay criticized the map, saying: "We’re supposed to do it pursuant to the laws in our constitution, and clearly, I think with these congressional lines, I think there is a case for a lawsuit. Ultimately, I think there will be a court that will end up drawing these lines."

2020 presidential results using the February 3, 2022 congressional map

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. This data was compiled by Daily Kos Elections.

2020 presidential results by Congressional district, New York
District	2022 district		Political predecessor district
	Joe Biden	Donald Trump	Joe Biden	Donald Trump
New York's 1st	49.5%	49.3%	47.3%	51.5%
New York's 2nd	48.7%	50.2%	47.4%	51.4%
New York's 3rd	53.6%	45.4%	54.7%	44.3%
New York's 4th	56.8%	42.2%	55.6%	43.4%
New York's 5th	80.9%	18.5%	83.3%	16.2%
New York's 6th	64.7%	34.4%	61.8%	37.4%
New York's 7th	80.8%	18.2%	81.8%	17.3%
New York's 8th	76.3%	23.1%	82.9%	16.5%
New York's 9th	75.4%	23.9%	81.4%	17.8%
New York's 10th	85.1%	13.9%	59.6%	39.4%
New York's 11th	45.7%	53.4%	44.3%	54.8%
New York's 12th	85.2%	13.8%	76.1%	22.9%
New York's 13th	88.1%	11.1%	88.1%	11.1%
New York's 14th	77.9%	21.3%	73.3%	25.9%
New York's 15th	84.7%	14.7%	86.4%	13.0%
New York's 16th	71.4%	27.7%	75.3%	23.8%
New York's 17th	54.5%	44.4%	51.8%	46.8%
New York's 18th	53.4%	45.0%	84.1%	14.8%
New York's 19th	51.3%	46.7%	49.8%	48.3%
New York's 20th	58.6%	39.4%	59.3%	38.7%
New York's 21st	42.8%	55.2%	43.8%	54.2%
New York's 22nd	52.6%	45.2%	53.4%	44.4%
New York's 23rd	40.4%	57.6%	43.3%	54.5%
New York's 24th	40.3%	57.5%	43.2%	54.7%
New York's 25th	58.8%	39.1%	60.1%	37.8%
New York's 26th	60.8%	37.4%	62.6%	35.6%

Enacted state legislative district maps

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

State legislative maps enacted in 2022-2023

State Assembly districts
New York enacted new State Assembly district boundaries on April 24, 2023, when Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) signed legislation establishing them for use starting with the 2024 elections. The bill adopting the districts passed earlier that day in the State Assembly by a vote of 132-13, and it passed the state Senate by a vote of 59-1. The legislation stated, "Vacancies in the Assembly will be filled using existing boundaries until January 1, 2025, at which time vacancies will be filled using the new boundaries."

The state redrew its Assembly district boundaries in response to a June 10, 2022, decision by the appellate division of the New York Supreme Court in Nichols v. Hochul. That court upheld a lower court ruling that declared the state's Assembly district boundaries invalid but determined that they should still be used for the 2022 legislative elections since the lawsuit challenging them was filed too close to those elections for the courts to intervene. The appellate division ruling determined that the Assembly district map was enacted in violation of the state's constitutional redistricting process and ordered a New York City-based state trial court to oversee the redrawing of boundaries for the 2024 elections. On September 29, 2022, that trial court directed the IRC to "initiate the constitutional process for amending the assembly district map based on the 2020 census data by formulating a proposed assembly map" and submit such a plan to the legislature by April 28, 2023.

The New York State Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) had voted 9-1 on April 20, 2023, to advance this plan and submit it to the legislature with the Commission stating in its cover letter that the plan "garnered the highest number of votes in support" at its meeting on that date.

According to Giulia Heyward and Jon Campbell at Gothamist, the new districts replaced "a nearly identical set of districts that were just put into place for last year’s races before a court threw them out." Heyward and Campbell also wrote that "The commission had originally put forward a draft that would have made considerable changes before settling on a revised proposal last week mirroring the lines already in place."

Click here to view more information about Assembly districts enacted in 2023, including zoomable maps and links to detailed demographic statistics for each district.'

State Senate districts
On May 20, 2022, Justice Patrick McAllister ordered the adoption of a new state senate map drawn by redistricting special master Jonathan Cervas which took effect for New York's 2022 legislative elections. On April 27, the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, overturned a decision by the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court which overturned a lower court's ruling invalidating the legislature's state Senate boundaries.

Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) had signed new state legislative district boundaries into law on February 3, 2022. The New York State Senate voted 43-20 to approve them, and the New York State Assembly approved them 120-27 on the same day.

Reactions to 2023 state Assembly maps

New York State Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie supported the new districts, saying, "I think the [commission] listened to the testimony that was given to them throughout all of the hearings across the state, and I think they came back with a fair map." Betsy Gotbaum, executive director of Citizens Union, criticized the new boundaries as too similar to the ones already in place: "The new Assembly districts approved by the Independent Redistricting Commission are strikingly similar to the districts drawn by the legislature last year...This similarity suggests that the Commission drew the Assembly maps to please lawmakers." Citizens Union describes itself on its website as a group "committed to reforming New York City and State government by fostering transparency, accountability, accessibility, honesty and the highest ethical standards."

Reactions to 2022 state Senate maps

Following the passage of the map, Hochul said: "These bills are necessary to reapportion districts and to provide certainty and clarity regarding such districts in a timely manner, allowing for efficient administration of the electoral process." State Republican Party Chairman Nick Langworthy said: "There is a wild, partisan gerrymandering that took place here. It violates the state Constitution, and we’re going to try to get justice."

State Assembly map

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

New York State House Districts
before 2020 redistricting cycle

Click a district to compare boundaries.

New York State House Districts
after 2020 redistricting cycle

Click a district to compare boundaries.

An interactive map showing the state Assembly districts that were used starting with the 2024 legislative elections is available here

State Senate map

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

New York State Senate Districts
until December 31, 2022

Click a district to compare boundaries.

New York State Senate Districts
starting January 1, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Drafting process

On March 14, 2012, the state legislature approved a constitutional amendment to establish new redistricting procedures beginning in 2020. The New York Constitution requires that two successive legislatures approve an amendment in order to qualify it for final approval by popular vote. The legislature approved the amendment a second time in 2013. On November 4, 2014, voters approved the amendment, the provisions of which were set to take effect during the 2020 redistricting cycle.

The 10-member commission comprises the following members:

1. Two members must be appointed by the temporary president of the New York State Senate.
2. Two members must be appointed by the speaker of the New York State Assembly.
3. Two members must be appointed by the minority leader of the New York State Senate.
4. Two members must be appointed by the minority leader of the New York State Assembly.
5. Two members must appointed by the aforementioned eight commissioners. These two appointees cannot have been enrolled in the top two major political parties in the state.

The legislature must approve the commission's plans by a simple up/down vote. The legislature must reject two separate sets of redistricting plans before it will be able to amend the commission's proposals. All districts will be required "to preserve minority rights, be equally populated, and consist of compact and contiguous territory." Further, state law will require that districts "not be drawn to discourage competition or to favor/disfavor candidates or parties." In prior redistricting cycles, authority for both congressional and state legislative redistricting was vested with the state legislature. An advisory commission participated in the process.

State law requires that state legislative districts be contiguous and compact. State legislative districts must also take into account the "historic and traditional significance of counties."

Timeline of 2022 map adoption

The New York Independent Redistricting Commission released its first redistricting proposals to the public on September 15, 2021. As of the 2020 redistricting cycle, state law provides a deadline of "on or before January 1, 2022, or as soon as practicable thereafter, but no later than January 15, 2022," for the first map submission. If the legislature is unable to approve the plan or the governor vetoes the plan, the commission has 15 days to submit a second plan for consideration. This second plan may be submitted no later than Feb. 28, 2022.

Redistricting committees and/or commissions in 2022

In New York, the Independent Redistricting Commission is involved in the redistricting process. As of July 13, 2021, this committee had the following members:

New York Independent Redistricting Commission membership, 2020 cycle
Name	Appointed by
David Imamura (Chairman)	Senate Temporary President Andrea Stewart-Cousins
Jack Martins (Vice-Chairman)	Senate Minority Leader Robert Ortt
Eugene Benger	Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie
Ross Brady	A vote by the eight members appointed by legislators
John Conway	Senate Minority Leader Robert Ortt
Elaine Frazier	Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie
John Flateau	Senate Temporary President Andrea Stewart-Cousins
Charles Nesbitt	Assembly Minority Leader William Barclay
Wilis Stephens	Assembly Minority Leader William Barclay
Ivelisse Cuevas-Molina	A vote by the eight members appointed by legislators

Proposed maps

Legislative

On Jan. 31, 2022, lawmakers in the New York State Legislature released draft legislative maps. Click here to view the maps.

On Jan. 3, the commission met to vote on legislative maps to recommend to the legislature. The commission's vote was tied 5-5, so it submitted both sets of proposals to the legislature. The proposals can be viewed here. The New York State Legislature voted down the map proposals on Jan. 10, meaning the commission had until Jan. 25 to draw new maps. On Jan. 24, the commission announced it would not be submitting a new set of maps to the legislature. On Jan. 26, state Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins (D) and Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie said the legislature would hold a vote on new maps the following week.

On Sept. 15, 2021, the Independent Redistricting Commission released two sets of map drafts for state legislative redistricting. The Letters maps were proposed by Democrats on the commission, and the Names maps were proposed by Republicans on the commission.

• General Assembly Letters draft (click to expand)
  

• Senate Letters draft (click to expand)
  

• General Assembly Names draft (click to expand)
  

• Senate Names draft (click to expand)
  

Congressional

On Jan. 30, 2022, Democratic lawmakers in the state legislature released a draft congressional map. The map can be viewed here.

On Jan. 3, the commission met to vote on congressional maps to recommend to the legislature. The commission's vote was tied 5-5, so it submitted both sets of proposals to the legislature. The proposals can be viewed here. The New York State Legislature voted down the map proposals on Jan. 10, meaning the commission had until Jan. 25 to draw new maps. On Jan. 24, the commission announced it would not be submitting a new map to the legislature. On Jan. 26, state Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins (D) and Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie said the legislature would hold a vote on a new map the following week.

On Sept. 15, the Independent Redistricting Commission released two sets of map drafts for congressional redistricting. The Letters maps were proposed by Democrats on the commission, and the Names maps were proposed by Republicans on the commission.

• Letters draft (click to expand)
  

• Names draft (click to expand)
  

Reactions

Following the commission's tie vote, Commission Vice Chair Jack Martins, a Republican, said: "We didn’t reach agreement, simply because one side turned their backs and walked away." Commission Chair David Imamura, a Democrat, said: "I did not join this commission to allow my Republican colleagues to hold hostage the hopes of New York’s most disadvantaged voters in an effort to regain GOP majorities." The Buffalo News editorial board wrote of the tie vote: "That outcome was baked into the system created by a 2014 constitutional amendment. With both parties angling for advantage, the failure of Republicans and Democrats to agree was inevitable. Balanced is not the same as independent."

At the meeting when map proposals were released, David Imamura, Chairman of the New York Independent Redistricting Committee, said: "The draft plans we release today attempt to incorporate the public input we received, but they should be considered only what they are called in the [state] Constitution--drafts. [...] I would be the first to say these plans are imperfect, and that, based on public input, they can, should, and will change." Regarding the release of two sets of maps, Steven Romalewski, director of CUNY Mapping Service at the Center for Urban Research, said: "It’s unfortunate, because it doesn’t bode well for the commission acting independently to come up with district proposals that reflect communities and local stakeholders — rather than political interests."

Rep. Claudia Tenney (R) said in a statement: "In 2014, New Yorkers across the state voted overwhelmingly to end partisan gerrymandering and supported an independent, nonpartisan commission to draw fair district lines. It’s clear Democrats in Albany and Washington are trying to undermine this process at every turn." State Rep. Marianne Buttenschon (D) released a statement saying: "The draft maps were released Wednesday and there is much more work that needs to be done before they are final. I had concerns regarding this process when it was first introduced, unfortunately my concerns have become a reality."

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.

Apportionment following the 2020 census

The U.S. Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts on April 26, 2021. New York was apportioned 26 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. This represented a net loss of one seat as compared to apportionment after the 2010 census.

See the table below for additional details.

2020 and 2010 census information for New York
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
New York	19,421,055	27	20,215,751	26	794,696	4.09%	-1

On April 27, 2021, Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) told reporters that he was considering the state's "legal options" with respect to New York's loss of one congressional seat. According to estimates by the U.S. Census Bureau, New York could have kept this seat if 89 additional residents had been counted in New York. Cuomo said, "Do I think it was accurate within 89? No. And we're looking at legal options. Because when you're talking about 89, that could be a minor mistake in counting."

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. 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.

Court challenges

If you are aware of any relevant lawsuits that are not listed here, please email us at [email protected].

Hoffmann, et al v. The New York State Independent Redistricting Commission, et al

On June 28, 2022, five New York state residents filed a petition for a writ of mandamus against the New York State Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) seeking to compel the commission to submit a second set of redistricting plans for the legislature to consider as part of redistricting after the 2020 census. In January 2022, the IRC was deadlocked 5-5 on two different proposed redistricting maps and submitted both proposals to the legislature on January 3, 2022. The legislature rejected both proposals on January 10, 2022, and under the provisions of the state's redistricting procedures, the IRC had until January 25, 2022, to submit a second proposal. On January 24, 2022, the IRC announced that it would not submit a new set of proposed maps by the deadlines. The plaintiffs argued that "the IRC did not complete its constitutionally required redistricting duties because it failed to submit a second set of plans" and "the Court of Appeals also made clear that the Legislature was powerless to enact a new redistricting plan once the IRC refused to submit a second set of plans." The petition sought to have the New York Independent Redistricting Commission meet and submit new map proposals that would be used for the 2024 elections and beyond.

On September 12, 2022, Albany County Supreme Court justice Peter Lynch dismissed the plaintiffs' petition. He ruled that the state constitution neither required nor permitted the state to re-open its redistricting process after the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, overturned the state's congressional district boundaries as being in violation of New York's constitutional redistricting process in April 2022. Steuben County Surrogate Court justice Patrick McAllister adopted new congressional and state Senate district boundaries on May 20, 2022. Justice Lynch wrote in his order that "In this Court’s view, the Congressional maps approved by the Court on May 20, 2022, corrected by Decision and Order dated June 2, 2022, are in full force and effect, until redistricting takes place again following the 2030 federal census...In turn, there is no authority for the IRC to issue a second redistricting plan after February 28, 2022, in advance of the federal census in 2030, in the first instance, let alone to mandate such plan be prepared."

On October 17, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an appeal of Justice Lynch's decision to the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division.

On July 13, 2023, a five-judge panel of the appellate division of the New York Supreme Court ruled in a 3-2 decision that the state's congressional redistricting process was not followed when the independent redistricting commission failed to submit a second set of maps to the legislature and ordered the commission to reconvene and re-draw congressional district boundaries for use by the 2024 elections. The court's majority opinion stated, "The IRC had an indisputable duty under the NY Constitution to submit a second set of maps upon the rejection of its first set (see NY Const, art III, § 4 [b]). The language of NY Constitution, article III, § 4 makes clear that this duty is mandatory, not discretionary. It is undisputed that the IRC failed to perform this duty...In light of the foregoing, petitioners have demonstrated a clear legal right to the relief sought. This determination honors the constitutional enactments as the means of providing a robust, fair and equitable procedure for the determination of voting districts in New York...Accordingly, we direct the IRC to commence its duties forthwith.

On December 12, 2023, the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, ruled in a 4-3 decision that the independent redistricting commission did not follow the state's congressional redistricting process and ordered the commission to reconvene and re-draw congressional district boundaries by February 28 for use in the 2024 elections. The court's majority opinion stated, "In 2014, the voters of New York amended our Constitution to provide that legislative districts be drawn by an Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC). The Constitution demands that process, not districts drawn by courts. Nevertheless, the IRC failed to discharge its constitutional duty. That dereliction is undisputed. The Appellate Division concluded that the IRC can be compelled to reconvene to fulfill that duty; we agree. There is no reason the Constitution should be disregarded."

Nichols v. Hochul

On May 15, 2022, three New York residents filed a lawsuit in New York State Supreme Court challenging the state's enacted state Assembly maps arguing that the state failed "to Follow Constitutional Procedures for Redistricting Congressional, State Senate, and State Assembly District Maps." The suit stated that courts had already invalidated congressional and state Senate maps and that "This Court should enter judgment declaring that the 2022 State Assembly map violates the New York Constitution and is therefore void ab initio." On May 25, 2022, the state supreme court denied the plaintiffs petition, ruling that the lawsuit was filed too close to this year's elections for the courts to intervene.

The plaintiffs appealed to an appellate division of the New York Supreme Court and on June 10, 2022, that court ruled that the state's Assembly district boundaries were invalid but should still be used for the 2022 legislative elections. The appellate division ruling determined that the Assembly district map was enacted in violation of the state's constitutional redistricting process and that a New York City-based state trial court should oversee new boundaries for the 2024 elections.

De Gaudemar v. Kosinski

On May 2, several New York residents filed a federal lawsuit before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York arguing that it would be unconstitutional to use the 2010 redistricting plan and that there is not sufficient time to draw a new redistricting map before the 2022 elections. The plaintiffs requested the court order the state to implement the congressional plan signed into law by Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) on February 3, 2022, and hold the primary election on June 28, 2022.

On May 4, Judge Lewis Kaplan denied the request for an emergency injunction.

Harkenrider v. Hochul

On Feb. 3, 2022, fourteen New York residents filed a lawsuit challenging the state's enacted congressional and legislative maps. In the suit, the plaintiffs said "the Legislature did not follow the exclusive process for enacting replacement maps that the People enshrined through the 2014 amendments, meaning that the congressional map is entirely void" and "the map is an obviously unconstitutional partisan and incumbent-protection gerrymander." The lawsuit sought a determination that the enacted maps were invalid and could not be used for the 2022 election cycle and that the maps be redrawn.

On March 31, Justice Patrick McAllister ruled against the maps, saying "Part of the problem is these maps were void ab initio for failure to follow the constitutional process of having bipartisan maps presented by the [Independent Redistricting Commission]. The second problem was the Congressional that was presented was determined to be gerrymandered." McAllister ordered the legislature to pass new maps that "receive bipartisan support among both Democrats and Republicans in both the senate and assembly."

On April 4, Justice Stephen Lindley of the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court in Western New York issued a temporary stay of McAllister's ruling overturning the enacted legislative and congressional maps. On April 8, Lindley issued a second temporary stay of the ruling through April 20, which would allow election-related deadlines to stand in the state and also allow McAllister to move forward with appointing a neutral expert to draw new maps to be used in the case that the legislature does not draw new maps and the appeal of McAllister's decision is not granted.

On April 18, McAllister appointed Jonathan Cervas of the Institute for Politics and Strategy at Carneige Mellon University to act as a special master in the redistricting case.

On April 21, a five-judge panel of the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court upheld McAllister's ruling regarding the congressional map, finding that it was a partisan gerrymander and setting a deadline of April 30 for the legislature to enact a new map. The court reversed McAllister's ruling overturning the state legislative maps, allowing them to stand. The state had the option of appealing the ruling before the New York Court of Appeals.

On April 27, the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, ruled to overturn the state's congressional and state Senate maps. It ruled that both maps were enacted in violation of the state's constitutional redistricting process, and found that the congressional plan was drawn with unconstitutional partisan intent. The court remanded further proceedings to draw a new map back to the Supreme Court.

On April 29, McAllister ruled to postpone New York's primary election date for congress and state senate to August 23. McAllister also ruled to extend the New York State Assembly's deadline to May 20 to submit new maps to the court. House Speaker Carl Heastie (D) and Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins (D) submitted a map draft to the court's redistricting special master on May 5, which can be viewed here. Cervas, the redistricting special master in the case, released a draft congressional map on May 16, which can be viewed here.

On May 20, Cervas released final versions of the congressional and state senate maps. McAllister issued an order the same day adopting the maps.

Noteworthy events

Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) signs change in redistricting process into law

On November 24, 2021, Gov. Kathy Hochul signed SB S7150 into law, which allowed the New York State Legislature to consider redistricting maps that were either voted on or drafted by the New York Independent Redistricting Commission in the event that the commission does not approve maps by the deadline. Previously in such circumstances, the commission was only required to submit maps that it held a vote on and that received the highest number of approval votes.

The New York State Senate approved the bill 43-20 on June 9, 2021. The New York State Assembly approved the bill 103-45 on June 9, 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.

“	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.	”
—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."

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."

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."

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.
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.
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.
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.

Methods

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

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.

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

Show more

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

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.

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." 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. The U.S. Supreme Court scheduled oral argument on this case for October 11, 2023.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Trifectas and redistricting

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

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

2010 redistricting cycle

Redistricting in New York after the 2010 census

Congressional redistricting, 2010

Following the 2010 United States Census, New York lost two congressional seats. At the time of redistricting, Democrats controlled the governor's mansion and the New York State Assembly, but Republicans held a majority in the New York State Senate. The legislature proved unable to pass its own congressional redistricting plan. A panel of three federal judges appointed federal magistrate judge Roanne Mann to implement a map. On March 7, 2012, Mann issued her map, which was drawn by Nathaniel Persily, a professor at Columbia Law School.

State legislative redistricting, 2010

The advisory redistricting commission issued its state legislative district proposal on January 26, 2012. On March 11, 2012, the state legislature approved a revised version of this proposal, which was signed into law by the governor on the same day. Technical corrections to the maps were approved by the legislature on March 15, 2012, and signed into law on March 27, 2012. The maps were subject to litigation; ultimately, however, the maps were upheld.

See also

• Redistricting in New York after the 2010 census
• Redistricting in New York
• 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"