Redistricting in Pennsylvania

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 by which new congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn. Pennsylvania's 17 United States representatives and 253 state legislators are elected from political divisions called districts. United States senators are not elected by districts, but by the states at large. District lines are redrawn every 10 years following completion of the United States census. The federal government stipulates that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.

Pennsylvania was apportioned 17 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2020 census, 1 fewer than it received after the 2010 census. Click here for more information about redistricting in Pennsylvania after the 2020 census.

HIGHLIGHTS

Following the 2020 United States Census, Pennsylvania was apportioned 17 congressional seats, one less than the number it had after the 2010 census.

Pennsylvania 's House of Representatives is made up of 203 districts; Pennsylvania's State Senate is made up of 50 districts.

In Pennsylvania, congressional district boundaries are set by the state legislature. State legislative district lines are drawn by a politician commission.

On January 22, 2018, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down the state's congressional district map enacted after the 2010 census, finding that the map constituted an illegal partisan gerrymander. On February 19, 2018, the court adopted a remedial map for use in the 2018 election cycle. Pennsylvania Republicans filed suit in federal district court to prevent implementation of the new map. The district court dismissed the suit on March 19, 2018. State Republicans also petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to stay the state supreme court's order pending appeal. The court rejected this request on March 19, 2018. For more information on this case, click here.

On February 23, 2022, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled to enact a new congressional map. Over a dozen maps were submitted to the supreme court, including the map approved by the legislature. The court ultimately selected the Carter map in a 4-3 ruling, which was submitted by a group of Pennsylvania citizens who were petitioners in a redistricting-related lawsuit. Justices Debra Todd (D), Sallie Mundy (R), and Kevin Brobson (R) dissented. Spotlight PA's Kate Huangpu wrote that the map is "as similar as possible to the current congressional map, with nearly 90% of residents staying in the same district." This map took effect for Pennsylvania's 2022 congressional elections. On February 4, 2022, the Pennsylvania Legislative Reapportionment Commission voted 4-1 to approve new state House and Senate maps. House Majority Leader Kerry Benninghoff (R) voted no, while Senate Majority Leader Kim Ward (R), state Rep. Joanna McClinton (D), state Sen. Jay Costa (D), and chairman Mark Nordenberg voted yes. These maps took effect for Pennsylvania's 2022 legislative elections. Click here for more information on maps enacted after the 2020 census.

See the sections below for further information on the following topics:

1. Background: A summary of federal requirements for redistricting at both the congressional and state legislative levels
2. State process: An overview about the redistricting process in Pennsylvania
3. District maps: Information about the current district maps in Pennsylvania
4. Redistricting by cycle: A breakdown of the most significant events in Pennsylvania's redistricting after recent censuses
5. State legislation and ballot measures: State legislation and state and local ballot measures relevant to redistricting policy
6. Political impacts of redistricting: An analysis of the political issues associated with redistricting

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.

Race and ethnicity

See also: Majority-minority districts

Note: On February 19, 2018, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopted a new congressional district map after ruling that the original map constituted an illegal partisan gerrymander. District locations and numbers were changed by the new map. The demographic data below reflect the original district maps adopted by the legislature in 2011. Updated information, reflecting the maps adopted in 2018, will be added here when it becomes available.

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 mandates that electoral district lines cannot be drawn in such a manner as to "improperly dilute minorities' voting power."

“	No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.	”
—Voting Rights Act of 1965

States and other political subdivisions may create majority-minority districts in order to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. A majority-minority district is a district in which minority groups compose a majority of the district's total population. As of 2015, Pennsylvania was home to two congressional majority-minority districts.

Proponents of majority-minority districts maintain that these districts are a necessary hindrance to the practice of cracking, which occurs when a constituency is divided between several districts in order to prevent it from achieving a majority in any one district. In addition, supporters argue that the drawing of majority-minority districts has resulted in an increased number of minority representatives in state legislatures and Congress.

Critics, meanwhile, contend that the establishment of majority-minority districts can result in packing, which occurs when a constituency or voting group is placed within a single district, thereby minimizing its influence in other districts. Because minority groups tend to vote Democratic, critics argue that majority-minority districts ultimately present an unfair advantage to Republicans by consolidating Democratic votes into a smaller number of districts.

State process

See also: State-by-state redistricting procedures

In Pennsylvania, the statutory authority to draw congressional district boundaries is vested with the Pennsylvania General Assembly. These lines are subject to gubernatorial veto.

State legislative district lines are drawn by a politician commission. Established in 1968, the commission comprises five members:

1. The majority leader of the Pennsylvania State Senate appoints one member.
2. The minority leader of the Pennsylvania State Senate appoints one member.
3. The majority leader of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives appoints one member.
4. The minority leader of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives appoints one member.
5. The first four commissioners appoint a fifth member to serve as the commission's chair. If the commission is unable to reach an agreement, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court must appoint a commission chair.

The Pennsylvania Constitution requires that state legislative districts be contiguous and compact. Further, state legislative districts should "respect county, city, incorporated town, borough, township and ward boundaries." There are no such requirements in place for congressional districts.

How incarcerated persons are counted for redistricting

See also: State-by-state redistricting procedures

States differ on how they count incarcerated persons for the purposes of redistricting. In Pennsylvania, inmates who were in-state residents prior to incarceration are counted in their last known residence's district population, and out-of-state residents are excluded from all district populations. Inmates with unknown previous residences and persons serving life sentences are counted at their correctional facility. Pennsylvania's policy does not address federal inmates.

District maps

Congressional districts

See also: United States congressional delegations from Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania comprises 17 congressional districts. The table below lists Pennsylvania's current U.S. Representatives.

 padding-left: 10px !important;
 padding-right: 10px !important;

} } .partytd.Democratic { background-color: #003388; color: white; text-align: center; } .partytd.Republican { background-color: #db0000; color: white; text-align: center; } .partytd.Libertarian { background-color: #fdd007; text-align: center; } .partytd.Green { background-color: #6db24f; color: white; text-align: center; } .partytd.Gray { text-align: center; } .bptable.gray th { background:#4c4c4c;color:#fff; }

Office	Name	Party	Date assumed office	Date term ends
U.S. House Pennsylvania District 1	Brian Fitzpatrick	Republican	January 3, 2019	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Pennsylvania District 2	Brendan Boyle	Democratic	January 3, 2019	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Pennsylvania District 3	Dwight Evans	Democratic	January 3, 2019	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Pennsylvania District 4	Madeleine Dean	Democratic	January 3, 2019	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Pennsylvania District 5	Mary Gay Scanlon	Democratic	January 3, 2019	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Pennsylvania District 6	Chrissy Houlahan	Democratic	January 3, 2019	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Pennsylvania District 7	Susan Wild	Democratic	January 3, 2019	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Pennsylvania District 8	Matt Cartwright	Democratic	January 3, 2019	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Pennsylvania District 9	Dan Meuser	Republican	January 3, 2019	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Pennsylvania District 10	Scott Perry	Republican	January 3, 2019	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Pennsylvania District 11	Lloyd Smucker	Republican	January 3, 2019	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Pennsylvania District 12	Summer Lee	Democratic	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Pennsylvania District 13	John Joyce	Republican	January 3, 2019	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Pennsylvania District 14	Guy Reschenthaler	Republican	January 3, 2019	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Pennsylvania District 15	Glenn Thompson	Republican	January 3, 2019	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Pennsylvania District 16	Mike Kelly	Republican	January 3, 2019	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Pennsylvania District 17	Chris Deluzio	Democratic	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025

State legislative maps

See also: Pennsylvania State Senate and Pennsylvania House of Representatives

Pennsylvania comprises 50 state Senate districts and 203 state House districts. State senators are elected every four years in partisan elections. State representatives are elected every two years in partisan elections. To access the state legislative district maps approved during the 2020 redistricting cycle, click here.

Redistricting by cycle

Redistricting after the 2020 census

See also: Redistricting in Pennsylvania after the 2020 census

Pennsylvania was apportioned 17 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. This represented a net loss of one seat as compared to apportionment after the 2010 census.

Enacted congressional district maps

See also: Congressional district maps implemented after the 2020 census

On February 23, 2022, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled to enact a new congressional map. Over a dozen maps were submitted to the supreme court, including the map approved by the legislature. The court ultimately selected the Carter map in a 4-3 ruling, which was submitted by a group of Pennsylvania citizens who were petitioners in a redistricting-related lawsuit. Justices Debra Todd (D), Sallie Mundy (R), and Kevin Brobson (R) dissented. Spotlight PA's Kate Huangpu wrote that the map is "as similar as possible to the current congressional map, with nearly 90% of residents staying in the same district." This map took effect for Pennsylvania's 2022 congressional elections.

The state supreme court took authority over the redistricting process after Gov. Tom Wolf (D) vetoed the legislature's enacted map on January 26. The Pennsylvania House of Representatives voted to approve the initial map 110-91 on January 12, and the Pennsylvania State Senate voted 29-20 to approve the map on January 24. Following Wolf's veto, the authority for determining a new map initially rested with a lower court, but in a February 2 ruling the supreme court ruled that it would have control over the process to select a new congressional map.

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

Pennsylvania Congressional Districts
until January 2, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Pennsylvania Congressional Districts
starting January 3, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Reactions

Governor Tom Wolf (D) said the map was a "fair map that will result in a congressional delegation mirroring the citizenry of Pennsylvania." State Rep. Seth Grove (R) said, "Unfortunately, the map chosen by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court today is nothing but a partisan ploy in a process that should be free of political bias."

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. This data was compiled by Daily Kos Elections.

2020 presidential results by Congressional district, Pennsylvania
District	2022 district		Political predecessor district
	Joe Biden	Donald Trump	Joe Biden	Donald Trump
Pennsylvania's 1st	51.8%	47.2%	52.4%	46.6%
Pennsylvania's 2nd	71.0%	28.3%	70.1%	29.1%
Pennsylvania's 3rd	90.2%	9.3%	91.3%	8.1%
Pennsylvania's 4th	58.9%	40.0%	61.5%	37.4%
Pennsylvania's 5th	65.7%	33.4%	65.1%	34.0%
Pennsylvania's 6th	56.8%	42.0%	56.9%	41.9%
Pennsylvania's 7th	49.7%	49.1%	51.8%	47.0%
Pennsylvania's 8th	48.0%	50.9%	47.3%	51.7%
Pennsylvania's 9th	31.0%	67.5%	34.1%	64.5%
Pennsylvania's 10th	47.2%	51.3%	47.8%	50.7%
Pennsylvania's 11th	38.6%	59.9%	38.3%	60.2%
Pennsylvania's 12th	59.4%	39.5%	64.5%	34.4%
Pennsylvania's 13th	26.8%	72.0%	27.2%	71.6%
Pennsylvania's 14th	33.7%	65.2%	35.7%	63.2%
Pennsylvania's 15th	30.8%	67.8%	27.5%	71.2%
Pennsylvania's 16th	39.0%	59.7%	40.0%	58.7%
Pennsylvania's 17th	52.3%	46.5%	50.7%	48.0%

Enacted state legislative district maps

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

On February 4, 2022, the Pennsylvania Legislative Reapportionment Commission voted 4-1 to approve new state House and Senate maps. House Majority Leader Kerry Benninghoff (R) voted no, while Senate Majority Leader Kim Ward (R), state Rep. Joanna McClinton (D), state Sen. Jay Costa (D), and chairman Mark Nordenberg voted yes. These maps took effect for Pennsylvania's 2022 legislative elections.

State Senate map

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

Pennsylvania State Senate Districts
until November 30, 2022

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Pennsylvania State Senate Districts
starting December 1, 2022

Click a district to compare boundaries.

State House map

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

Pennsylvania State House Districts
until November 30, 2022

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Pennsylvania State House Districts
starting December 1, 2022

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Reactions

Following the approval of the maps, commission Chairman Mark Nordenberg said: "I believe that we have succeeded by virtually any measure. [...] Even if imperfect, these are good maps that are fair, that are responsive to the requirements of the law, and that will serve the interests of the people of Pennsylvania for the next decade." House Majority Leader Kerry Benninghoff (R) criticized the maps, saying: "Our goal is to follow the constitution. [...] This is, in my opinion, trying to make water flow uphill."

Redistricting after the 2010 census

See also: Redistricting in Pennsylvania after the 2010 census

Congressional redistricting, 2010

Following the 2010 United States Census, Pennsylvania lost one congressional seat. At the time of redistricting, Republicans held the governorship and both chambers of the Pennsylvania General Assembly. On December 20, 2011, the state legislature approved a congressional redistricting plan, which was signed into law by Governor Tom Corbett on December 22, 2011.

On January 10, 2018, a three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued a 2-1 ruling finding that Pennsylvania's congressional district map had not been subject to unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering. Judges Edward G. Smith and Patty Shwartz comprised the majority, with Judge Michael Baylson dissenting. Smith wrote the following in his memorandum opinion:

“	Through this lawsuit, Plaintiffs seek a sea change in redistricting. They are forthright about this intention: they desire a judicial mandate that Art I, § 4, of the Constitution prohibits any political or partisan considerations in redistricting. Plaintiffs' ambitious theory suffers from three fatal flaws. First, the Framers provided a check on state power within the text of the Elections Clause, but it is a political one—action by Congress. ... Second, the Elections Clause offers no judicially enforceable limit on political considerations in redistricting. ... Third, Plaintiffs' Elections Clause claim is an unjustifiable attempt to skirt existing Supreme Court precedent.	”
—Judge Edward G. Smith

Baylson wrote the following in his dissent:

“	Gerrymandering is a wrong in search of a remedy. This case is brought under the Elections Clause of Article I of the United States Constitution, which is a novel legal claim, asserting the 2011 map redistricting Pennsylvania's congressional districts was in violation of the United States Constitution. ... Plaintiffs have proven their claim by clear and convincing evidence, which is the appropriate burden of proof.	”
—Judge Michael Baylson

League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

See also: League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

On December 29, 2017, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania issued its "Recommended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law" in League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, a case dealing with alleged partisan gerrymandering of the state's congressional district plan. State Democrats alleged that Pennsylvania's congressional district plan, which was drawn by a Republican-controlled state legislature, gave an unfair advantage to Republicans over Democrats in violation of state and federal law. Judge Kevin Brobson penned the document, which is not itself a binding legal decision. Brobson wrote the following:

“	While Petitioners characterize the level of partisanship evident in the 2011 Plan as 'excessive' and 'unfair,' Petitioners have not articulated a judicially manageable standard by which this Court can discern whether the 2011 Plan crosses the line between permissible partisan considerations and unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering under the Pennsylvania Constitution. ... A lot can and has been said about the 2011 Plan, much of which is unflattering and yet justified. Petitioners, however, have failed to meet their burden of proving that the 2011 Plan, as a piece of legislation, clearly, plainly, and palpably violates the Pennsylvania Constitution. For the judiciary, this should be the end of the inquiry.	”
—Judge P. Kevin Brobson

Suzanne Almeida, the executive director of the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania, said, "While we are disappointed that Judge Brobson did not find that the existing state of Pennsylvania law was violated by the 2011 partisan gerrymander, we are encouraged by the strong findings of fact in our favor and look forward to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s ultimate decision in the case." Drew Compton, an aide to state Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati (R), said, "Even though it's not always a flattering process, [Brobson] found [the map] to be constitutional on all grounds."

According to The Philadelphia Inquirer, "the state Supreme Court can take Brobson's conclusions into account but will ultimately make its own ruling." The high court heard oral argument in the case on January 17, 2018.

On January 22, 2018, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued an order striking down the state's congressional district map, finding that the map "clearly, plainly and palpably violates the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania." The order set the following deadlines for revising the district map:

• February 9, 2018: Deadline for the state legislature to submit a remedial district plan to the governor
• February 15, 2018: Deadline for the governor to submit a remedial plan to the state supreme court
• February 19, 2018: "The Executive Branch Respondents are advised to anticipate that a congressional districting plan will be available by February 19, 2018, and are directed to take all measures, including adjusting the election calendar if necessary, to ensure that the May 15, 2018 primary election takes place as scheduled under that remedial districting plan."

The order noted that the court would adopt a remedial plan on its own if the state legislature and governor did not submit a plan. The order indicated that a full opinion would be forthcoming. On January 25, 2018, state Republicans requested that the Supreme Court of the United States stay the state supreme court's ruling pending an appeal. Attorneys for Republicans argued that the state supreme court overstepped its authority in striking down Pennsylvania's congressional district plan: "This is not simply a question of a state supreme court interpreting its state constitution, but a state supreme court usurping that state legislature's authority expressly granted under Article I, § 4." David Gersch, an attorney for the voters who initially brought the lawsuit challenging the congressional district plan, said that Republicans were making inconsistent arguments, having claimed in a separate lawsuit that the matter should be addressed by state-level authorities: "Now that they have lost in the highest court of the commonwealth, the legislators turn around and say the exact opposite." On January 29, 2018, Associate Justice Samuel Alito requested a response to this request from the other parties involved in the suit by 4:00 on February 2, 2018. On February 5, 2018, the Supreme Court denied Republicans' request for a stay.

On January 26, 2018, the state supreme court issued an order appointing Nate Persily, a Stanford University law professor, "to assist the court in adopting, if necessary, a remedial congressional redistricting plan." The court ordered state lawmakers to turn over digital files containing information on the state's current congressional district boundaries by January 31, 2018. On January 31, 2018, attorneys for Pennsylvania State Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati (R) submitted a letter to the court indicating that Scarnati would not furnish the court with the requested data: "In light of the unconstitutionality of the Court's Orders and the Court's plain intent to usurp the General Assembly's constitutionally delegated role of drafting Pennsylvania's congressional districting plan, Senator Scarnati will not be turning over any data identified in the Court's Orders." The letter also included a footnote indicating that Scarnati did not possess the requested data. According to The Philadelphia Inquirer, an attorney for the Pennsylvania General Assembly, in a separate letter, said, "The General Assembly and its Legislative Data Processing Center do not maintain ESRI shapefiles that contain current boundaries of all Pennsylvania municipalities and precincts."

On February 7, 2018, the state supreme court released the majority opinion explaining its January 22, 2018, order in League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The majority opinion was penned by Justice Debra Todd and read, in part, as follows:

“	In sum, we conclude that the evidence detailed above and the remaining evidence of the record as a whole demonstrates that Petitioners have established that the 2011 Plan subordinates the traditional redistricting criteria in service of achieving unfair partisan advantage, and, thus, violates the Free and Equal Elections Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Such a plan, aimed at achieving unfair partisan gain, undermines voters’ ability to exercise their right to vote in free and 'equal' elections if the term is to be interpreted in any credible way. An election corrupted by extensive, sophisticated gerrymandering and partisan dilution of votes is not 'free and equal.' In such circumstances, a 'power, civil or military,' to wit, the General Assembly, has in fact 'interfere[d] to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage.'	”
—Debra Todd

Chief Justice Thomas Saylor penned a dissenting opinion that read, in part, as follows:

“	In summary, I believe that: the present exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction was improvident; this Court’s review would benefit from anticipated guidance from the Supreme Court of the United States; awaiting such guidance is particularly appropriate given the delay, until 2017, of Petitioners’ challenge to a 2011 redistricting plan; and the appropriate litmus for judicial review of redistricting should take into account the inherently political character of the work of the General Assembly, to which the task of redistricting has been assigned by the United States Constitution.	”
—Thomas Saylor

Justice Sallie Mundy joined Saylor's dissent and penned a separate dissent. Justice Max Baer filed an opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part with the court's majority opinion.

On February 9, 2018, Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati (R) and House Speaker Mike Turzai (R) filed a remedial congressional district plan with Governor Tom Wolf (D). The pair issued a joint statement announcing the plan: "The Republican Legislative Leaders in the House and Senate have agreed to a Congressional District Map that complies fully with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's order and opinion." Senate Minority Leader Jay Costa (D) and House Minority Leader Frank Dermody (D) issued a joint statement that same day denouncing the map: "The Republican leadership in both chambers blocked this process, refused to negotiate, and have now submitted a map directly to [the governor's] office that we have not even seen." J. J. Abbott, a spokesman for Wolf, said, "While the court's order did not appear to allow for two individuals to draw a map on behalf of the entire General Assembly, Gov. Wolf will review Speaker Turzai and President Scarnati's submission in consultation with the experts retained by the administration to determine his next course of action."

On February 13, 2018, Governor Tom Wolf (D) announced that he would not submit the remedial congressional district plan drafted by Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati (R) and House Speaker Mike Turzai (R) to the state supreme court. In a press release, Wolf said, "The analysis by my team shows that, like the 2011 map, the map submitted to my office by Republican leaders is still a gerrymander. Their map clearly seeks to benefit one political party, which is the essence of why the court found the current map to be unconstitutional."

On February 15, 2018, the deadline set by the state supreme court, parties to the suit and state political leaders submitted their proposals to the court. Wolf, Lieutenant Governor Mike Stack (D), House Democrats, Senate Democrats, the petitioners in the suit, and the intervenors all submitted proposals. These are linked below:

• Governor Tom Wolf's proposal
• Lieutenant Governor Mike Stack's proposal
• Senate Democrats' proposal
• House Democrats' proposal
• Petitioners' proposal (i.e., League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania, et al.)
• Intervenors' proposal (i.e., a group of Republican candidates, party officials, and activists)

On February 19, 2018, the state supreme court voted 4-3 to adopt the remedial congressional plan drafted by Nate Persily. District locations and numbers differ between the two maps. The map adopted by the state supreme court split 13 counties; the 2011 map split 28 counties. Had the 2018 map been in place during the 2016 presidential election, Donald Trump (R) would have won 10 districts and Hillary Clinton (D) would have won eight. In 2016, at which time the 2011 map was in place, Trump carried 12 districts to Clinton's six. The full text of the court's ruling, including map images, can be accessed here.

Justices Debra Todd, Christine Donohue, Kevin M. Dougherty, and David N. Wecht formed the court's majority. The majority opinion read, in part, as follows:

“

This Court recognized that the primary responsibility for drawing congressional districts rested squarely with the legislature, but we also acknowledged that, in the eventuality of the General Assembly not submitting a plan to the Governor, or the Governor not approving the General Assembly’s plan within the time specified, it would fall to this Court expeditiously to adopt a plan based upon the evidentiary record developed in the Commonwealth Court. ... The Remedial Plan is superior or comparable to all plans submitted by the parties, the intervenors, and amici, by whichever Census-provided definition one employs. ... The compactness of the plan is superior or comparable to the other submissions[.] ... Finally, no district has more than a one-person difference in population from any other district, and, therefore, the Remedial Plan achieves the constitutional guarantee of one person, one vote.

”

Chief Justice Thomas Saylor filed a dissenting opinion, which read, in part, as follows:

“

The latest round includes: the submission, within the past few days, of more than a dozen sophisticated redistricting plans; the lack of an opportunity for critical evaluation by all of the parties; the adoption of a judicially created redistricting plan apparently upon advice from a political scientist who has not submitted a report as of record nor appeared as a witness in any court proceeding in this case; and the absence of an adversarial hearing to resolve factual controversies arising in the present remedial phase of this litigation. In these circumstances, the displacement to the judiciary of the political responsibility for redistricting -- which is assigned to the General Assembly by the United States Constitution -- appears to me to be unprecedented.

”

Justices Sallie Mundy and Max Baer also penned individual dissents.

In its order, the court set the primary election filing period for congressional candidates to begin on February 27, 2018, and to end on March 20, 2018. By contrast, the filing period for candidates for other offices, such as governor and United States senator, began on February 13, 2018, and ended on March 6, 2018.

Pennsylvania Democrats applauded the remedial map. David Landau, Delaware County Democratic Party chairman, said, "[The remedial map] remedies the outrageous gerrymander of 2011, and that's the important thing, that the gerrymander be over. All that zigging and zagging is gone, and it makes Delaware County a competitive seat now." Meanwhile, Republicans were critical of the map and the process that led to its adoption. Mark Harris, a Republican campaign consultant, said, "It's a straight Democratic gerrymander by a Democratic Supreme Court to help Democrats." Republicans indicated that they planned to challenge the validity of the remedial map in federal court. According to The Washington Post, Drew Compton, an attorney for Senate Republicans, said that "a separation of powers case will form the essence of the GOP's argument."

On February 27, 2018, Turzai and Scarnati petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a stay of the state supreme court's order pending appeal. The petition was filed with Associate Justice Samuel Alito, who reviews emergency appeals from Pennsylvania. Attorneys for Turzai and Scarnati wrote the following in their petition:

“

By promulgating mandatory criteria the General Assembly could not anticipate in 2011, and that are found nowhere in the Pennsylvania Constitution, withholding guidance as to how to achieve compliance with Pennsylvania law until two days before the court's imposed deadline to enact a new plan, creating a proportional-representation criterion that is practically impossible to implement, and imposing a remedial plan that had been in the works all along, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ensured that its desired plan to draft the new map would be successful. This court of action cannot square with either the plain text of the U.S. Constitution's Elections Clause, which delegates redistricting authority to 'the Legislature' of each state, or with this Court's interpretive precedent, which holds that '[r]edistricting involves lawmaking in its essential features and most important aspect.'

”

On March 19, 2018, the Supreme Court issued an order declining to intervene in the case. There were no noted dissents in the order.

On March 20, 2018, Rep. Cris Dush (R) introduced the following impeachment resolutions against the four justices who signed onto the state supreme court's ruling in League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:

• House Resolution 766 (calling for the impeachment of Justice David N. Wecht)
• House Resolution 767 (calling for the impeachment of Justice Debra McCloskey Todd)
• House Resolution 768 (calling for the impeachment of Justice Christine Donohue)
• House Resolution 769 (calling for the impeachment of Justice Kevin M. Dougherty)

Dush argued that these four justices, all Democrats, exceeded their authority by imposing a new district map, an action that, Dush argued, is the prerogative of the legislative and executive branches. In a memorandum accompanying the impeachment resolutions, Dush said, "[The court's action] overrides the express legislative and executive authority, found in Article IV, Section 15 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, concerning the Governor’s veto authority and the General Assembly’s subsequent authority to override such veto. ... [The justices] who signed this order that blatantly and clearly contradicts the plain language of the Pennsylvania Constitution, engaged in misbehavior in office." Eleven other Republicans signed on as co-sponsors of the impeachment resolutions.

House Minority Leader Frank Dermody (D) argued that the impeachment efforts constituted an unfounded attack on the judiciary. Dermody said, "It’s an attack on the independence of every judge in our state, one of the bedrock principles of our democracy. If pursued, this would be a clear and present danger to the administration of justice in Pennsylvania." Chief Justice Thomas Saylor said the following in a statement: "Threats of impeachment directed against Justices because of their decision in a particular case are an attack upon an independent judiciary, which is an essential component of our constitutional plan of government."

On May 29, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States dismissed Agre v. Wolf, a separate suit alleging unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering in the state's congressional district map, as moot.

Corman v. Torres

On February 22, 2018, Pennsylvania State Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman (R), Senate State Government Committee Chairman Mike Folmer (R), and Republican congressmen Lou Barletta, Ryan Costello, Mike Kelly, Tom Marino, Scott Perry, Keith Rothfus, Lloyd Smucker, and Glenn Thompson filed suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, seeking an injunction against implementation of the state supreme court's remedial congressional district plan. The plaintiffs alleged that the state supreme court, in adopting a remedial map, violated the Elections Clause of the United States Constitution by usurping the redistricting authority granted by the Constitution to state legislatures. The plaintiffs requested that a three-judge panel of the court be convened to consider the case. On February 23, 2018, this request was granted; judges Kent Jordan, Christopher Conner, and Jerome Simandle were appointed to the panel. That same day, the court denied the plaintiffs' request for a temporary injunction and set an expedited schedule for review. Oral arguments in the case were heard on March 9, 2018.

On March 19, 2018, the three-judge panel ruled unanimously to dismiss the complaint. The panel's opinion read, in part, as follows:

“

We hold that the federal Elections Clause violations that the Plaintiffs allege are not the Plaintiffs‟ to assert. Because fundamental principles of constitutional standing and judicial restraint prohibit us from exercising jurisdiction, we have no authority to take any action other than to dismiss the Plaintiffs‟ verified complaint. Moreover, the deficiencies identified herein are legal rather than factual in nature. Accordingly, we conclude that leave to amend would be futile. For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiffs‟ verified complaint will be dismissed, and Plaintiffs‟ motion for preliminary injunction will be denied.

”

State legislative redistricting, 2010

On October 31, 2011, the politician redistricting commission issued its state legislative district proposal. The commission approved the proposal by a 4-1 vote on December 12, 2011. On January 25, 2012, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck the map down, ruling that "the lines violated state constitutional requirements of compactness and adherence to the integrity of political subdivisions." The court ordered the commission to redraw the map. The court further ordered that the state legislative district map adopted during the 2000 redistricting cycle would apply to elections taking place in 2012.

On June 8, 2012, the redistricting commission released its amended state legislative district proposal. This map was also subject to court challenges, but these were dismissed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on May 8, 2013. The new map took effect in 2014.

State legislation and ballot measures

Redistricting legislation

See state election laws

The following is a list of recent redistricting bills that have been introduced in or passed by the Pennsylvania state legislature. To learn more about each of these bills, click the bill title. This information is provided by BillTrack50.

Note: Due to the nature of the sorting process used to generate this list, some results may not be relevant to the topic. If no bills are displayed below, no legislation pertaining to this topic has been introduced in the legislature recently.

Redistricting ballot measures

See also: Redistricting measures on the ballot and List of Pennsylvania ballot measures

Ballotpedia has tracked the following ballot measure(s) relating to redistricting in Pennsylvania.

1. Pennsylvania Question 1, State Senate Elections Following Redistricting Amendment (May 2001)
2. Pennsylvania Question 3, Legislative Reapportionment Commission Amendment (1981)
3. Pennsylvania Convention Proposals 1 and 2, State Legislature Size and Apportionment Amendment (April 1968)

Political impacts of redistricting

Competitiveness

There are conflicting opinions regarding the correlation between partisan gerrymandering and electoral competitiveness. In 2012, Jennifer Clark, a political science professor at the University of Houston, said, "The redistricting process has important consequences for voters. In some states, incumbent legislators work together to protect their own seats, which produces less competition in the political system. Voters may feel as though they do not have a meaningful alternative to the incumbent legislator. Legislators who lack competition in their districts have less incentive to adhere to their constituents’ opinions."

In 2006, Emory University professor Alan Abramowitz and Ph.D. students Brad Alexander and Matthew Gunning wrote, "[Some] studies have concluded that redistricting has a neutral or positive effect on competition. ... [It] is often the case that partisan redistricting has the effect of reducing the safety of incumbents, thereby making elections more competitive."

In 2011, James Cottrill, a professor of political science at Santa Clara University, published a study of the effect of non-legislative approaches (e.g., independent commissions, politician commissions) to redistricting on the competitiveness of congressional elections. Cottrill found that "particular types of [non-legislative approaches] encourage the appearance in congressional elections of experienced and well-financed challengers." Cottrill cautioned, however, that non-legislative approaches "contribute neither to decreased vote percentages when incumbents win elections nor to a greater probability of their defeat."

In 2021, John Johnson, Research Fellow in the Lubar Center for Public Policy Research and Civic Education at Marquette University, reviewed the relationship between partisan gerrymandering and political geography in Wisconsin, a state where Republicans have controlled both chambers of the state legislature since 2010 while voting for the Democratic nominee in every presidential election but one since 1988. After analyzing state election results since 2000, Johnson wrote, "In 2000, 42% of Democrats and 36% of Republicans lived in a neighborhood that the other party won. Twenty years later, 43% of Democrats lived in a place Trump won, but just 28% of Republicans lived in a Biden-voting neighborhood. Today, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to live in both places where they are the overwhelming majority and places where they form a noncompetitive minority."

State legislatures after the 2010 redistricting cycle

See also: Margin of victory in state legislative elections

In 2014, Ballotpedia conducted a study of competitive districts in 44 state legislative chambers between 2010, the last year in which district maps drawn after the 2000 census applied, and 2012, the first year in which district maps drawn after the 2010 census applied. Ballotpedia found that there were 61 fewer competitive general election contests in 2012 than in 2010. Of the 44 chambers studied, 25 experienced a net loss in the number of competitive elections. A total of 17 experienced a net increase. In total, 16.2 percent of the 3,842 legislative contests studied saw competitive general elections in 2010. In 2012, 14.6 percent of the contests studied saw competitive general elections. An election was considered competitive if it was won by a margin of victory of 5 percent or less. An election was considered mildly competitive if it was won by a margin of victory between 5 and 10 percent. For more information regarding this report, including methodology, see this article.

Pennsylvania was not included in this study.

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Redistricting Pennsylvania. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Redistricting in Pennsylvania - Google News

See also

• United States census, 2020
• Redistricting in Pennsylvania after the 2010 census
• Redistricting
• State-by-state redistricting procedures
• Majority-minority districts
• State legislative and congressional redistricting after the 2010 census
• Margin of victory in state legislative elections before and after the 2010 census
• Margin of victory analysis for the 2014 congressional elections

External links

• All About Redistricting
• Dave's Redistricting
• FiveThirtyEight, "What Redistricting Looks Like In Every State"
• National Conference of State Legislatures, "Redistricting Process"
• FairVote, "Redistricting"