ict i n g

d
t r
r
d is
Co m mu nity Re
ep o r t C a
R
ABOUT CHARGE
CHARGE, the Coalition Hub for Advancing Redistricting & Grassroots Engagement, is a space for groups that
organize people in the states and in local communities. CHARGE is composed of organizations that have
presence in different states and that deploy different organizing strategies while uniting around the common
goal that redistricting must be transformed to allow more voices to participate, be heard, and be represented.

This coalition held 30 joint trainings, reaching over 2,200 activists and community leaders in all 50 states
through our Redistricting Community College. Individual CHARGE organizations conducted many more
spinoff trainings. In addition to introducing participants to redistricting, our trainings provided the know-how,
strategies, and tools organizations need to be effective advocates. The trainings introduced participants to
the redistricting process in each state, the Voting Rights Act, how to talk about communities, how to work in
coalitions, and how to utilize free online mapping resources.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was co-authored by:

Sarah Andre, Redistricting Demography & Mapping Specialist, Common Cause,

Kathay Feng, Vice President of Programs, Common Cause,
Marijke Kylstra, Redistricting Coordinator, Fair Count,
Elena Langworthy, Deputy Director of Policy, State Voices,
Saundra Mitrovitch, Director, External Engagement, National Congress of American Indians,
Dan Vicuña, Director of Redistricting and Representation, Common Cause, and
Alton Wang, Equal Justice Works Fellow, Common Cause.

We thank Camille Hanson for research support, Kerstin Vogdes Diehn and Kristi Wood for design, Meghan
Kearney for copyediting, Noam Kranin, Talha Muhammad, and Maurice Whitehurst for writing support, and
the time of the hundreds of organizers who completed surveys and interviewed with us. We also thank Fair
Representation in Redistricting for their generous financial support, without which this report nor the organizing
work of CHARGE would have been possible.

Copyright © September 2023 CHARGE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

States:
Alabama. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Montana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Alaska. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Nebraska. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Arizona. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Nevada. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Arkansas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 New Hampshire. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
California. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 New Mexico. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 North Carolina. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Florida. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Georgia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Ohio. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Hawaii. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Idaho. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Oregon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Illinois. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Pennsylvania. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Indiana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Rhode Island. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Iowa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 South Carolina. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Kansas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Tennessee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Louisiana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Texas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Utah. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Maryland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Vermont. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Massachusetts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Virginia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Washington. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Minnesota. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 West Virginia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Mississippi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Missouri. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

chargereportcard.org Community Redistricting Report Card | 1

2 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

THE COMMUNITY REDISTRICTING REPORT CARD STRUCTURE

The Community Redistricting Report Card reflects on this redistricting cycle, rating each state’s
redistricting process based on community feedback. This report is the product of hundreds of on-the-
ground interviews and surveys conducted by CHARGE. By engaging with organizations, advocates, and
organizers from communities in every state, this report represents a holistic view of the redistricting
experience—what worked, what did not work, and what can be done differently in the future.

Each interview and survey asked questions surrounding each state’s redistricting process, including the
transparency and accessibility of the process, the role of community groups, the organizing landscape, and
the use of communities of interest criteria.

This report contains a background on each state’s redistricting scheme, the successes and challenges,
and lessons learned to improve future redistricting cycles. The letter grade given to each state reflects the
aggregate feedback and grades given by our interviewees—how they viewed their state’s redistricting process.

REDISTRICTING CHALLENGES AND REPORT FINDINGS

Under the best of circumstances, public participation in redistricting can be challenging. In states where
legislators draw districts, they jealously guard their power so they can draw districts behind closed doors
to maximize partisan advantage and protect themselves from potential challengers. This cycle, legislators
often achieved that goal by limiting the number of public redistricting hearings, scheduling them when
many potential participants were working, providing limited translation services or disability access, and
simply drawing district maps in secret without regard to public input.

In addition to those challenges, which are common to every redistricting cycle, participants in the 2020
cycle faced unprecedented barriers to public participation. States received census data six months
later than usual due to a pandemic-driven change to the U.S. Census Bureau’s counting schedule. This
condensed the time available to organize communities and provide meaningful feedback in response to
draft maps. The pandemic also made it difficult at certain critical points in the redistricting cycle to host in-
person organizing sessions that are crucial to building power.

Despite these numerous barriers to participation, organizers found creative ways to conduct public
education and engage communities. With the support of CHARGE resources, democracy advocates across
the country trained their fellow citizens on the connection between redistricting and effective democratic
representation, mapping their communities to give those drawing final maps specific and usable feedback,
and giving clear, concise, and compelling testimony at redistricting hearings.

Although efforts to organize communities varied greatly due to local circumstances, some common themes
are discernable.

KEY FINDINGS
✓ Independent citizen redistricting commissions are significantly more likely to seek public feedback
and integrate it into voting maps. The screening process for independent commissions eliminates
individuals with a personal bias in the drawing of districts. As a result, these commissions tend to
attract individuals making a good faith effort to learn about communities and make informed decisions
about how to ensure the fairest representation possible for the highest number of people.

chargereportcard.org Community Redistricting Report Card | 3

✓ Not all redistricting commissions are created equal. Some state redistricting commissions include
elected officials, allow elected officials to have a greater say in the appointment of redistricting
commissioners, or give legislators a final say in the approval of maps. These commissions are far more
likely to suffer from partisan deadlock or produce maps that ignore public input and instead focus on
partisan, racial, or incumbent advantage.
✓ Legislators often seek to make the process of drawing districts as secretive as possible. Advocates
had to engage in intensive organizing to ensure the public would have a meaningful role in redistricting
and that hearings would be accessible to the public. This often meant fighting for proper notice of
hearings, transparent proceedings, translation services, and online testimony options. Moreover, when
opportunities for input did exist, they did not always translate into wins for communities or real changes
to maps. This was sometimes used against communities when redistricting bodies claimed their process
was “the most transparent ever” and provided many opportunities for public input only to ignore the vast
majority of input given. Transparency and input are needed and sorely lacking, but it cannot be the only
marker for an equitable redistricting process.
✓ Effective organizing can result in wins for communities even in states with a partisan and
politician-led process, especially at the local level. Although politician-led redistricting processes
tend to focus almost exclusively on incumbent protection and partisan or racial advantage, that
does not mean all hope is lost. Advocates successfully pushed back on egregious community splits in
several states when demonstrating the legal jeopardy such splits placed maps in, harmful impacts on
those communities, and reasonable alternatives. In states with entrenched single party control and
a politician-controlled process, local organizing resulted in key wins that made real differences in
people’s lives.
✓ Communities of color are still being targeted and left out of the redistricting process. Population
growth in most states was driven by communities of color, but that fact did not guarantee a seat at the
table for those communities when redistricting decisions were made. Entrenched politicians who view
these communities as a threat to their political power made the process inaccessible and then packed
and cracked these communities into districts that limited their political power. Organizing communities
of color to demand a voice in redistricting remains essential because they are often the targets of
political disempowerment. Additionally, legislators are becoming more sophisticated in avoiding
liability for Voting Rights Act violations. Activists should consider ways to collect evidence relevant to
VRA cases when legislators attempt to cover their tracks.
✓ The least-change approach to redistricting limits the ability of communities of color to achieve
effective representation in redistricting. In some states, legislatures and courts adhered to the idea
that new districts should resemble old districts as closely as possible. The Supreme Court in Allen
v. Milligan has rejected this fiction in states where communities of color have driven demographic
changes. Least-change arguments have been used to make previous gerrymanders permanent, making
it a harmful concept that dilutes the votes of communities of color and hinders fair representation.

LOOKING FORWARD
Some common themes regarding organizing successes and challenges also arose in our surveys and
interviews that can help shape the future of redistricting work. These include:

✓ Linking redistricting to census messaging during “get out the count” efforts would have made
subsequent public education easier. Outreach to historically undercounted communities prior to the
census understandably focused on the importance of an accurate count to the allocation of government
resources. However, some organizations expressed regret that they did not discuss the role an accurate
count plays in ensuring effective representation in redistricting. They believe that driving home this
point early and when they had increased resources for census count efforts would have made the task
of inspiring the public to action on redistricting work easier.

4 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org

✓ Earlier funding goes a long way, especially for community-based local organizations. In a charged
political environment in which grassroots activists have many issues to choose from to invest their time
and energy, public education that describes the central role redistricting plays in every substantive
issue is crucial. This requires significant funding and staffing. Activists stated their hope that funding
for public outreach, materials, training on mapping and giving testimony, and other tools might come
earlier in future cycles and focus on local organizations to build greater momentum sooner. Local
organizations are at the forefront of organizing around redistricting and often understand the political
landscape better than national groups, but still can benefit from national support and training. Building
civic engagement infrastructure throughout the 10-year cycle and far in advance of redistricting for
work on related civil and voting rights issues is an important strategy for increasing capacity.
✓ Don’t let a community slip through the cracks just because it is not located in a swing state. Some
organizations felt that it was more difficult to obtain funding and attention for redistricting work if
they were not in a state that is competitive politically between the two major parties. However, as
the full release of this report will make clear, effective representation can be obtained or denied to a
community in any one of the 50 states regardless of its statewide competitiveness.
We hope this report provides both information and inspiration. Community leaders stared down
entrenched politicians and their powerful backers with energy and courage while demanding a seat at the
table. Some succeeded. Some did not. But our collective efforts inspired thousands of people - neighbors,
leaders, family and friends - to find their voice and make it heard in the halls of power, and to stay engaged.
This report is their story.
PAUL BECKER

Organizers in Ohio rallying for fair districts.

chargereportcard.org Community Redistricting Report Card | 5

WHAT DO THESE GRADES MEAN?
States received grades based on several factors related to the redistricting process and mapping
outcomes. These include transparency, opportunities for public input, willingness of decision makers
to draw districts based on that input, adhering to nonpartisanship, empowerment of communities of
color, and policy choices such as rejecting prison gerrymandering.

California, Massachusetts

Alaska, Colorado, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Montana, New Mexico, Vermont

Arizona, Hawaii, Nevada, New Jersey, Washington

Connecticut, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota

Maryland, Missouri, New Hampshire, Virginia

Delaware, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Wyoming

Arkansas, North Dakota, South Carolina

Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, New York, West Virginia

Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas

Alabama, Florida, Illinois, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Wisconsin

6 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org

ALABAMA

BACKGROUND:
The state legislature controls redistricting in Alabama. The legislature drew the maps
with minimal change from maps drawn in previous decades. Despite Alabama’s large
Black population, the congressional map was drawn to only have one district in which
Black voters constituted a majority of the voting age population. In Allen v. Milligan, a
case challenging Alabama’s congressional map under Section 2 of the Voting Rights
Act (VRA), the Supreme Court ruled that Alabama had diluted Black voting power in
its congressional voting map, reaffirming the power and importance of the VRA.1

The decision in Allen v. Milligan was an enormous win for Black Alabamians, voting
rights groups and groups fighting for fair redistricting across the country. However,
the Alabama legislature held a special session in July 2023 to redraw maps and failed
to draw an additional majority-Black district.2 Civil rights groups are objecting to these maps in court as
failing to comply with the Supreme Court ruling, and the matter has not been settled as of July 2023.3

COMMUNITY OF INTEREST STORY

Alabama voters, civil rights groups, and faith groups, including Evan Milligan, Alabama Values, Greater
Birmingham Ministries, and Alabama State Conference of the NAACP, filed a federal lawsuit challenging
the congressional and state legislative lines drawn by Alabama’s legislature. At the core of the challenge
to Alabama’s congressional districts was the packing of the state’s Black population into a single district,
while leaving stranded and dividing communities in Montgomery County where a second majority-
Black congressional district could have been drawn. As Legal Defense Fund (LDF) Senior Counsel Deuel
Ross described these communities, “the Black Belt is a historic and extremely poor community of
substantial significance.”4 In June 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed, issuing a resounding decision
in Allen v. Milligan that affirmed the protections of Voting Rights Act against racial discrimination,
overturning Alabama’s district lines in light of “Alabama’s extensive history of repugnant racial and
voting-related discrimination.”
DEFENSE FUND
ALLISON SHELLEY FOR NAACP LEGAL

DEFENSE FUND
ALLISON SHELLEY FOR NAACP LEGAL

Merrill v. Milligan plaintiff Evan Milligan speaks at the Attendees at a rally prior to oral arguments in Merrill v.
press conference following oral arguments on Oct. 4, Milligan.
2022.

chargereportcard.org Community Redistricting Report Card | 7

OVERALL STATE GRADE: F
Lack of racially polarized voting (RPV) analysis: Given past violations of the Voting Rights Act, many
advocates petitioned repeatedly for the legislature to complete an RPV analysis to ensure that maps
weren’t violating the VRA. The Legislature flatly rejected the request to complete a RPV analysis and the
majority in the Legislature admitted no RPV analysis had been completed to determine whether packing
Congressional District 7 was necessary to satisfy the VRA.

Inaccessible public hearings: While the Legislature held 28 public hearings across the state, none were
accessible. Twenty-seven of the hearings were held during the working hours of 9 a.m. - 5 p.m., when the
public was least able to attend. The only one that was held at 6 p.m. was at the Statehouse in Montgomery.
Some advocates also said the Legislature used Microsoft Teams for their webinar platform, which was
inaccessible to many people.

Rushed timeline: Draft maps weren’t released to the public by the Legislature until the day of their first
meeting about maps. Legislators were only shown their districts, not the map as a whole - leaving many in
the dark about the implications of the entire map.

LOCAL GRADE: B
Advocates reported that it was often easier to hold local officials accountable on local maps, even if results
did not end up being what communities wanted. In Prattville, a network of organizations and advocates
was able to apply pressure in the city council redistricting process and successfully advocated for more
time to analyze the process and proposed maps. Because local redistricting is hyperlocal, it requires careful
observation in each county to ensure a fair process.

LESSONS LEARNED:
✓ Alabama-specific messaging helps: Advocates spoke to the importance of messaging that tied
redistricting to Alabama’s history, culture, and specific issues at play for Alabamians. Alabama Values
was highlighted for their work on Alabama-specific messaging.
✓ Many trainings are needed for the mechanics of map making and interpreting census data:
Interviewees highlighted the importance of multiple trainings on the nuts and bolts of map making and
interpreting data, since this allowed communities to understand the process better and be better able
to analyze maps.
✓ Research and reports specific to Alabama were helpful: Redistricting research, reports, and map
trainings were instrumental in building a base for training people in the future and giving them tools to
use as the base of their testimony.
✓ Hyper-local organizing is a real need: Advocates spoke repeatedly to the need to start local and then
move statewide in future redistricting work. Starting local could help with civic engagement generally
and get groups more invested in local stories and data before moving into big picture and state level
work.
✓ More collaboration on the front-end: Coalition work can be difficult and there is natural division over
different groups’ visions for ideal maps. Taking time for cooperation and tough conversations on the
front end before presenting unity maps could help groups reach a consensus or understand divisions
earlier.
✓ Define goals earlier in coalition: Similar to the previous point, organizations have different relationships
and roles within the advocacy ecosystem. Defining goals earlier would allow groups to ensure they are
bringing their best skills and that they can effectively engage in partnership with other groups.

8 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org

ALASKA

BACKGROUND:
Alaska’s legislative districts are drawn by a five-member Redistricting
Board. Each person is appointed by an elected official, which has resulted
in partisan bias.5 In 2021, two Alaska Natives were appointed to the board –
Nicole Borromeo, Vice President and General Counsel for Alaska Federation
of Natives, and Melanie Bahnke, President of the Kawerak tribal consortium;
both are registered with no party – a first for Alaska. The other three board
members were appointed by Republican elected officials. The leadership
of Borromeo and Bahnke in conducting outreach to Native populations,
actively listening to testimony of far-flung communities, and fighting through
multiple rounds of litigation, was important to a court’s eventual adoption of
maps that would respect Native communities.

COMMUNITY OF INTEREST STORY

The Alaska Native community of Muldoon organized to secure district maps that would give
residents an opportunity to have a vote that counts. The municipality of Anchorage includes over
30 neighborhoods and communities. Muldoon is a neighborhood in northeast Anchorage with a
significant Alaska Native population, and an overall population large enough to be split into two
state house districts. The question arose of how to pair the house districts into one senate district. The
politically appointed redistricting board voted along partisan lines to reject the proposed plan of the two
Alaska Native board members, Borromeo and Bahnke. The board instead adopted a redistricting plan
that split Muldoon into two senate districts and paired the southern portion with the neighborhood of
Eagle River. Board member Borromeo, who was also Executive Vice President and General Counsel for
the Alaska Federation of Natives, said, “I see no reasonable explanation for splitting Muldoon,” noting
that Eagle River’s high income and predominantly white population would submerge Muldoon’s more
racially diverse and middle income population.6

East Anchorage plaintiffs sued, challenging the proposed map as a partisan gerrymander. The Alaska
Supreme Court found, in a 141-page opinion, that the trial court was correct in finding that the maps
were an illegal partisan gerrymander. When the commission redrew the lines, again splitting along
partisan lines, the three-member majority doubled down, again splitting Muldoon, and pairing it with
Girdwood. Alaskans again challenged the maps.

The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the map was a political gerrymander. Ultimately, the minority map
that had been proposed by the Alaska Native commissioners, which unified Muldoon into one senate
district, was adopted.7

OVERALL STATE GRADE: B

The outreach received high marks. Pushed by independent board members Borromeo and Bahnke, the
board held 26 hearings, reaching rural villages in just about every part of the state. The board also provided
a virtual testimony option, which created a COVID-safe and convenient alternative for people who could

chargereportcard.org Community Redistricting Report Card | 9

not travel to the hearing locations. However, the overall process is marred by the political nature of the
appointments to the board which required multiple rounds of court correction before final fair state maps
that recognized Alaska Native communities were adopted.

LESSONS LEARNED:
✓ Reform the Redistricting Board: There must be a Board selection process that does not involve giving
highly partisan elected officials the power to directly appoint. Further, require that the final adoption
of any plan include at least one vote of a board member from each partisan group represented on the
board.
✓ Strengthen Alaskan constitutional language by banning partisan and incumbent gerrymandering
outright: No district shall be drawn that unduly favors or discriminates against a party, incumbent, or
candidate.
✓ Improve public participation: There should be hearings around the state, including many rural areas
and villages, to ensure all Alaskans can participate. In addition, the state must provide virtual options
for public input to allow regular people who cannot travel or take time off to be able to participate
remotely and safely. It is also recommended to conduct outreach in Native Alaskan languages early and
often.

10 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org

ARIZONA

BACKGROUND:
The Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) is responsible for drawing
both congressional and state legislative district lines. The commission is composed
of five members. Of these, four are selected by the majority and minority leaders of
each chamber of the state legislature. The four commission members appointed by
legislative leaders (two Republicans and two Democrats) then select the fifth member
to round out the commission. The fifth member of the commission must belong to a
different political party than the other commissioners. The Arizona State Legislature may
make recommendations to the commission, but ultimate authority is vested with the
commission.

The Arizona Constitution requires that both congressional and state legislative districts be “contiguous,
geographically compact, and respect communities of interest–all to the extent practicable.” The state
constitution further mandates that district lines “should [follow] visible geographic features, city, town, and
county boundaries, and undivided census tracts.” In addition, the constitution requires that “competitive
districts be favored where doing so would not significantly detract from the goals above.”8

After the 2020 United States Census, Arizona was apportioned nine congressional districts, which was
unchanged from the number after the 2010 Census. On January 24, 2022, Arizona enacted its new
congressional map after a unanimous AIRC vote.9

COMMUNITY OF INTEREST STORY

While the AIRC included a Native American commissioner, Native Americans lost political power in this
round of redistricting. In 2011, the AIRC drew a state legislative district, District 7, expressly to empower
Native American voters. In 2021, the AIRC did not need to comply with longstanding Department of
Justice “preclearance” requirements after a landmark provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was
dismantled by a conservative majority in the U.S. Supreme Court in 2013 (Shelby County v. Holder).
The new district, while keeping the same tribal areas together as in 2011, was redrawn without being
grouped with Latinx people and other communities that have similar candidates of choice. This leaves
Native voters in the state with a near guarantee that a bolstered white majority will overpower them for
the next decade.10

OVERALL STATE GRADE: B-

LESSONS LEARNED:
✓ The AIRC encouraged public participation: Despite the pandemic, the AIRC conducted a 17-day tour
with 15 public hearings.11 In addition to public hearings, the AIRC gave the public options to give written
and online testimonies. According to the Community of Interest Report created by the AIRC, there were
910 public submissions. The public can access the submissions and how they overlap on maps using the
AIRC’s tools found on their website.12

chargereportcard.org Community Redistricting Report Card | 11

✓ Increased participation from advocacy groups made a difference: There was an increased effort to
build coalitions and advocate for fair maps. Those engaged with coalitions believed that their efforts
had an impact on final maps. However, not all good government groups were engaged in the coalitions
that were established, and the AIRC did not take all the recommendations on how best to decrease
barriers for community participation.
✓ Coalition building should continue: Coalitions must also engage local organizations representing
diverse communities as well as state-wide organizations. Wins for low-income communities and
communities of color are attainable when communities build power together.
✓ The AIRC should lower barriers for low-income and immigrant communities to participate: This can
be accomplished by ensuring language access, especially for Spanish-speaking communities, providing
more user-friendly mapping tools, holding meetings in more centralized locations, and creating an
easier-to-navigate website.13
✓ Create guardrails that ensure that the AIRC is truly independent from partisan politics: The AIRC
must evolve: this may include increasing the number of commissioners, creating a selection process
that does not involve the state legislature, and/or drafting policies that allow redistricting matters to
only be discussed in public.

12 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org

ARKANSAS

BACKGROUND:
In Arkansas, the state legislature draws and passes congressional maps as regular
legislation. A constitutionally mandated three-member Board of Apportionment,
consisting of the Governor, Secretary of State, and Attorney General, draws state
legislative maps. There were multiple lawsuits filed challenging the 2020 maps,
including Suttlar v. Thurston, Simpson v. Thurston, Christian Ministerial Alliance
v. Thurston, and The Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. The Arkansas Board of
Apportionment. Suttlar v. Thurston and Simpson v. Thurston were both dismissed, but
the other two cases are still pending as of July 7, 2023.14

Christian Ministerial Alliance v. Thurston alleges the new congressional maps intentionally dilutes Black
voting power through cracking Black voters living in Pulaski County. The Arkansas State Conference NAACP
v. The Arkansas Board of Apportionment challenges state maps as racially discriminatory under Section 2 of
the Voting Rights Act and was dismissed by a federal judge, but an appeal is pending before the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.15

OVERALL STATE GRADE: D+

“There were thousands of public comments and only a couple dozen maps, and if you look at
the maps and public comments and compare them to the final maps you can tell the Board of
Apportionment and Legislature put their middle finger up to the comments and said ‘This is how we
feel about the community and [our] job.’” Kwami Abdul-Bey, founder of Arkansas Fair & Equitable
Mapping Awareness, Planning & Action Team and founder of the Arkansas Election Defense Ad-Hoc
Task Force

Advocates in Arkansas spoke to the lack of input considered by the Board of Apportionment (BoA) and the
state legislature. Though thousands submitted public comments, the BoA issued draft maps without ever
acknowledging any community of interest (COI) input they had received. They held hearings before draft
maps were released but were not transparent about what was heard in those hearings. They also never
issued a report on their findings and how it impacted their decisions. The BoA also never responded to
comments after they issued draft maps to explain their thinking, according to advocates.

Structural issues: In Arkansas, the redistricting process for state legislative maps is controlled by the Board
of Apportionment, a board made up of the Governor, Attorney General, and Secretary of State. This year
the entire board was controlled by one party (Republican), and advocates argued this process is ripe for
politicization and gerrymandering. Local maps are approved by the respective county election commission
which is made up of three members, two Republicans and one Democrat.

Limited public hearings: Public hearings were held only before maps were submitted, with no chance
for the public to comment on maps after they had been drafted. One advocate stated, “Hearings were
scripted and performative. They were designed to tell you what they were gonna do. If you watch videos,
[the Board of Apportionment and legislators] were not prepared to answer any questions… Specific things
that people said that would’ve made maps so much better—90% of those comments were ignored.” Only
one hearing was held in the majority-Black Delta, and the BoA should have held more hearings in rural
areas of the state.

chargereportcard.org Community Redistricting Report Card | 13

Disregard of public input: The public was largely shut out of the process, with the BoA not acknowledging
what comments it was taking into account in their decision-making except in rare cases involving powerful
local political interests.

Lack of transparency: The BoA issued draft maps and gave a 30-day comment period but held no hearings
during that time to explain the draft maps. Final maps were issued on the final day of the comment period.
The legislators met on the 30th day, ignored everyone’s comments, and passed the maps that they wanted.
This process shut the public out.

LOCAL GRADE: F
INTERVIEWEES CITED MULTIPLE ISSUES WITH LOCAL MAP DRAWING INCLUDING MAPS APPEARING OUT
OF NOWHERE, AND BLACK AND LATINX CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS THROUGHOUT THE STATE BEING
SHUT OUT OF LOCAL PROCESSES.

LESSONS LEARNED:
✓ Education and engagement: The advocacy community successfully mobilized their communities and
got the general public far more engaged in redistricting and public representation than ever before.
✓ Base for future commission reform: Although a ballot amendment initiative failed this year, advocacy
work for the amendment laid the foundation for potentially passing independent redistricting
commission reform in the future. It also exposed the challenges that stemmed from this attempt.
✓ Begin the process sooner and invest more resources: Advocates noted that there is a need to start
sooner and allocate more resources to this effort to ensure success in future redistricting cycles.
Polling and focus group work could help find messages that resonate with people and cut through
partisanship.
✓ Depoliticize the process: The Board of Apportionment was created by Democrats originally to have
complete control of the process; when they were voted out, Republicans used the same process to flip
the script. The redistricting process cannot be so partisan and must be depoliticized.
✓ Future coalition building: A lot of conservative rural areas were left behind by these maps, as
were Black and Brown communities. Advocates noted that there is room to build unlikely alliances
between rural conservative and urban communities of color, but in order to build working, authentic
relationships, more resources must be devoted to this effort.

14 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org

CALIFORNIA

BACKGROUND:
Since the passage of the Voters First Act in 2008, California has utilized the California
Citizens’ Redistricting Commission (CCRC), a panel of 14 members tasked with the
drawing of the State Assembly, State Senate, and Board of Equalization lines. The
passage of the Voters First Act for Congress in 2010 gave the CCRC the additional
responsibility of drawing the lines for congress. The 14 members include five
Democrats, five Republicans, and four decline-to-state individuals or members of other
parties and are rigorously screened for political ties and conflicts of interest to ensure
the commissioners are unbiased in addition to being well-qualified.

The CCRC are required to adhere to the following ranked map-drawing principles:
geographic contiguity, geographic integrity (minimizing the splitting of cities, counties,
neighborhoods, and communities of interest,16 compactness, and nesting (two
Assembly districts within each senate district, and 10 senate districts within each Board
of Equalization district, where practicable).

COMMUNITY OF INTEREST STORY

Significant and historical work was done to build the political power of Black, African, Middle Eastern,
Muslim, and South Asian (BAMENSA) refugee and immigrant communities in the San Diego region. The
Partnership for the Advancement New Americans (PANA) conducted a broad and sweeping campaign
to engage the BAMENSA community in census and redistricting advocacy by engaging in multilingual
(Arabic, Dari, Oromo, Pashto, Somali, and Swahili) workshops and equipping people with the
technological and legal savvy to self-advocate. The absence of a Middle Eastern or North African (MENA)
census category has thrown roadblocks in BAMENSA advocacy - the lack of this category essentially
whitewashes this community, as people of MENA descent are forced to select the white category, though
they may not identify with that categorization, and Black Africans may not feel the Black category best
reflects their identity. (Of note, from January to April 2023, the Census Bureau sought public feedback
on the potential addition of a MENA category in future federal demographic questionnaires, among
other potential race and ethnicity data collection changes.17) Under the 2011 maps, the BAMENSA
communities at all levels of government were split. As a result of PANA’s advocacy on the 2021 maps,
BAMENSA communities of interest (COIs) are kept whole in Congressional districts, all but one COI
are united in the Assembly, and over 90% of PANA’s mapped COIs are united within a single San Diego
County Supervisorial District.

OVERALL STATE GRADE: A-

LESSONS LEARNED:
✓ Significant public engagement: This cycle, organizers noted a significant increase in public
engagement. At the state level, there were over 30,000 written comments and nearly 4,000 verbal
comments submitted.18 Due to the significant amount of public engagement, organizers noted that
next cycle, more of a systematized effort to aggregate and summarize feedback would be helpful to
incorporate public input into the final maps.

chargereportcard.org Community Redistricting Report Card | 15

✓ Successful advocacy at state level: Broadly, organizers found that the final state maps did respect
and reflect communities of interest. For example, organizers cited successful advocacy for Latinx
communities in the Central Valley, Inland Empire, San Fernando Valley, and Orange County. Further,
organizers found that, in the process of working through COI mapping, communities worked to bridge
differences, identify common problems, and envision common goals, including how to gain electoral
power. Some of this work inspired further advocacy beyond redistricting, for example, language
accessibility advocacy inspired organizing for increased language accessibility for other government
resources.
✓ Improve transparency: Many of those interviewed expressed disappointment that the racially
polarized voting (RPV) analyses were not fully shared. Although some heatmaps were shared, advocates
stressed that even if not all of the material could be shared, summaries of findings and shapefiles could
have been released. Though no legal transparency requirements were violated, advocates also felt that
the mapping process could have been easier to follow as some advocates had to email the commission
periodically for more information to understand what was happening. Some advocates noted that
earlier posting of policies, hearings, and maps would have been helpful, especially in formats that were
easily findable and searchable by the public.
✓ Establish independent redistricting commissions (IRCs) at the local level: Local redistricting
processes functioned more fairly and engaged the public far better when using an independent
redistricting commission. Many organizers noted that many local jurisdictions without an IRC appeared
to violate the FAIR MAPS Act and were hostile to public input. Advisory commissions also fared poorly.
A recent report released by a coalition of civil rights groups outlines this more thoroughly and provides
additional recommendations for reform.19

16 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org

COLORADO

BACKGROUND:
Redistricting in Colorado is conducted by two independent redistricting commissions,
one formed to draw congressional lines and the other to draw state legislative lines.
The composition of the commissions is determined through a combination of random
selection of qualified applicants, selection by legislative leaders, and a panel of retired
judges. Proposed redistricting plans must be approved by the state supreme court, and
both congressional and legislative plans were approved in November 2021.

COMMUNITY OF INTEREST STORY

Community groups submitted maps to the commissions to push for majority-BIPOC districts, with a
particular focus on the congressional map. Although almost a quarter of the population is Latinx, the
congressional commission did not draw even one of the eight congressional districts as majority-Latinx,
however advocates noted that there was an opportunity district created in this current map.

OVERALL STATE GRADE: B

Reliance on estimated data: Due to constitutional deadlines and requirements, early map-drawing
processes had to be done using estimated data before the delayed census data was available. Therefore,
much of the public input that was provided to the commissions was based on the preliminary maps drawn
using estimates instead of the final census data.

Hearings after Census data released: With much of the public input provided for preliminary maps using
estimates instead of the decennial census data, the commissions should have done more hearings for draft
maps based on actual census data. However, the commissions significantly pared down the commitments
they had originally made to receive public input on the maps drawn using decennial census data, resulting
in abbreviated hearings with limited opportunity for public comment.

Majority-minority district: Advocates proposed community-drawn maps that would have provided
for a majority-Latinx congressional district, but the only district that took communities of color into
consideration was an opportunity district. Advocates and organizations argued that the commission could
have drawn a Latinx-majority district.

LESSONS LEARNED
✓ Independent redistricting commissions work: This cycle marked the first time independent
redistricting commissions were used to draw congressional and state legislative lines in Colorado, and
advocates found that, although imperfect, the use of an independent process was a step in the right
direction. Additionally, the commissions did more to ask for community input than in prior cycles.
✓ Communities of interest feedback: The independent commissions received a lot more public input
on communities of interest and collected a lot of COI information. More than 5,000 public comments
and 170 proposed maps were submitted.20 The nonprofit and coalitional infrastructure in the state
encouraged and trained community members on giving COI comments to the commissions.

chargereportcard.org Community Redistricting Report Card | 17

✓ Stronger community engagement: Advocates found that the state did not have sufficient funding for
community outreach, and the public education infrastructure left a void which nonprofit organizations
needed to fill. The state’s public education on the redistricting and commissions process needs to be
amplified in future cycles.
✓ Commission selection process: Although there was robust participation by advocates and
communities once the commissions were seated and drawing maps, some advocates suggested that
there is a need to monitor the commissioner selection process itself more to ensure that those selected
are truly citizen commissioners focused on drawing fair maps. This includes encouraging more people
to apply in order to have a larger pool to select commissioners from.
✓ Focus on drawing districts that protect communities of color: A notable takeaway from the Colorado
commissions process this cycle was that it was possible to draw districts to better provide Latinx
voters with the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice, but that the commission (particularly
the congressional redistricting commission) chose to prioritize creating competitive districts over
protecting minority communities.

Advocates and legislators

celebrate the passage of
legislation ending partisan
gerrymandering in Colorado.
From left to right: Jai Rajagopal,
Colorado Common Cause;
Patrick Potyondy, Colorado
Common Cause; Rep. James
Coleman; Rep. Kerry Tipper;
Karla Gonzales Garcia, Colorado
Organization for Latina
Opportunity and Reproductive
Rights; Amanda Gonzalez,
Colorado Common Cause

18 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org

CONNECTICUT

BACKGROUND:
Connecticut’s state constitution requires that districts must be consistent with federal
standards, districts must minimize town border splits, and representatives must live
within their district. The constitution also specifies the multi-step process to be used to
draw district lines. Via the bipartisan Reapportionment Committee, the state legislature
is tasked with drawing the congressional and state district lines to be approved with a
2/3 majority approval within each chamber. If the Committee is unable to present a set
of maps by a certain date, the task falls to a nine-person bipartisan Reapportionment
Commission consisting of eight legislators (four Democrats and four Republicans) and
one Connecticut voter chosen by the eight legislative leaders. The commission has the authority to both
create and approve maps with no further involvement of the whole Legislature. In 2021, the bi-partisan
commission was able to agree upon maps for the House and Senate districts. A special master, a third tier of
the process, was appointed to create maps for the congressional districts.

Advocacy efforts made by Common Cause Connecticut, ACLU Connecticut, NAACP, and the League of
Women Voters of Connecticut (LWV-CT) to advocate eliminating prison gerrymandering were effective and
implementation was quick. The enacted reform extends to the reallocation of incarcerated people within
state legislative maps.

OVERALL STATE GRADE: C+

Lack of transparency: The Connecticut state constitution stipulates that redistricting must be bipartisan.
There are, however, no constitutional requirements related to public engagement. Redistricting in
Connecticut has been conducted largely behind closed doors. For instance, public hearings were
held only at the outset of the process. The public saw maps only after they had been approved by the
Reapportionment Commission and were not adjustable. This led advocates to feel that their voices were
not taken into significant account.

Lack of accessibility: The state legislature did a poor job communicating updates regarding the
redistricting process to members of the public. Advocates were also unaware of any language assistance
options.

LESSONS LEARNED
✓ Public education and advocacy can make an impact despite roadblocks: Although organizations
like the League of Women Voters of Connecticut (LWV-CT) hosted education events and provided
testimony, its reach was hampered by the COVID-19 pandemic and by issues systemic to the
redistricting process itself. The League noted that the lack of transparency and accountability created
an intentionally opaque process with a correlative lack of public awareness. Nevertheless, one success
from this cycle was the media coverage LWV-CT was able to garner through ongoing Letter to the Editor
campaigns and media interviews during the redistricting cycle. Networking efforts also led to ongoing
collaborations, including one with the Trinity College experts as described below.
✓ Modern mapping tools and analysis to guide districting decisions should be used: The LWV-CT
contracted with experts from Trinity College to conduct an ensemble analysis21 to assess the role
of incumbency in redistricting. The analysis shows that “about 52% of the statistically generated
or “model” maps included a single incumbent. In contrast, about 97% of the maps adopted by the

chargereportcard.org Community Redistricting Report Card | 19

bipartisan commission had a single incumbent.” The use of ensemble analysis confirmed suspicions
of intentional mapmaking patterns that favor keeping incumbents in power. The ensemble analysis
method can generate thousands of theoretical district maps that adhere to the requirements of
population equality and minimization of town border splits. This can be cross referenced to see
where incumbent addresses lie in these theoretical, model maps and be used to record partisan
gerrymandering attempts in the future.
✓ The redistricting process should be brought into greater public view: Despite public hearings, much
of the current redistricting process is still accomplished behind closed doors. Greater transparency is
needed throughout the process including, but not limited to, establishing a delineated set of steps prior
to adopting maps, publishing draft maps, and soliciting public input before final acceptance.
✓ Work must start now to increase public education and advocacy on reform measures: Given the
many competing priorities held by legislators, community members, and organizations, work must start
now to ensure momentum to pass redistricting process alternative measures (such as independent
redistricting commissions) continues ahead of 2031.

20 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org

DELAWARE

BACKGROUND:
Delaware’s state legislative districts are drawn by the legislature. The governor can veto any
maps and the legislature can override any veto with a three-fifths majority. In addition to the
VRA requirements, the Delaware constitution also requires that districts are contiguous and
not “unduly favor any person or political party.”22 In 2010, the state passed legislation ending
prison gerrymandering.

In Delaware, advocacy organizations convened around the Fair Maps Coalition. Through
extensive advocacy, the legislature accepted maps created for communities of interest
for consideration. In previous years, legislators offered no opportunities for public map
submissions.

COMMUNITY OF INTEREST STORY

This cycle, the League of Women Voters of Delaware submitted maps to the legislature. Despite having
a newfound opportunity to submit maps, advocates felt that legislators did not give those maps serious
consideration. One advocate expressed that the legislature already knew what the new districts would
look like ahead of time and that they had been drawn prior to any public hearing. This left the public
and coalition feeling deflated and wanting to see additional reform ahead of 2031 to ensure that public
input is actually considered.

During local redistricting in Wilmington, community-drawn maps were considered. The final state
maps drew district boundaries around incumbents despite the constitutional requirements that district
mapping cannot unduly advantage any party or person. This requirement was raised by the Fair Maps
Coalition in several meetings but was dismissed by legislators who interpreted the language differently.
The final district maps complied with the Voting Rights Act, so the coalition decided not to pursue
litigation.

OVERALL STATE GRADE: C-

“They blatantly drew the districts around incumbents when that’s against the constitution.” - Claire
Snyder Hall, Common Cause Delaware

Incumbency protection: The Fair Maps coalition was not as successful as they hoped in avoiding drawing
district boundaries based on incumbent addresses - by and large, the General Assembly adopted a few
changes from the prior maps and protected incumbents in every remaining district. The maps were
generally unchanged from prior cycles, despite more compact alternatives that would have kept more
communities of interest, particularly municipalities, intact. Incumbent protection appeared to trump
protecting communities of interest or consideration of public testimony.

Inadequate public hearings and commission transparency: Public hearings were limited and community
members were not given sufficient time to evaluate proposed maps or have alternatives considered in

chargereportcard.org Community Redistricting Report Card | 21

public debate. As a result, there were few people, outside of the Fair Maps coalition, that participated in the
process. The legislature created a website for redistricting communications, but all public hearings received
minimal notification and the proposed maps were not publicized. The published draft maps were difficult
to read and the coalition spent an entire weekend reviewing the various maps in order to be able to provide
thoughtful testimony during the remaining public hearings. In Delaware, public comments are limited to
two minutes and advocates expressed frustration that it did not feel like the legislative body was interested
in any of these public comments.

Lack of strong coalition support: Delaware has a history of noncompetitive elections which has led to
minimal participation in the democratic culture. It was challenging for the Fair Maps coalition to engage
communities and create a narrative around why participation in the redistricting process is important.
Events created by the coalition were sparsely attended and organizers felt that people were extremely
fatigued by the ongoing pandemic and the political environment.

LESSONS LEARNED
✓ Increased use of technology improved access: The Fair Maps coalition was successful in advocating
for the creation of a public redistricting website to house draft maps and public hearing information.
✓ This cycle had increased opportunities for public input: The 2021 redistricting cycle offered more
opportunities for the public to engage during the process. The general assembly offered three public
comment hearings throughout the process. The last cycle was a completely secretive process with no
public input, so this cycle was more successful in terms of transparency. However, the public hearings
were pretty limited in terms of access, such as giving people advanced notice and actually listening to
testimony.
✓ Advocacy must continue for the creation of an independent redistricting commission (IRC): During
the 2017 legislative session, state Senator Bryan Townsend (D) introduced a bill to establish an IRC
ahead of 2021 but the bill was killed during legislative session. The sponsor remains interested in
carrying legislation in the senate and recognizes that such advocacy must continue. In addition, Kyra
Hoffner, a leader in the Fair Maps Coalition, was elected to the senate in 2022 and is interested in
adding momentum to this effort. Additional work is required to ensure that there is a path forward for
this proposal. The coalition will remain involved in public education and advocacy for the creation of an
IRC in hopes that the political will may change in time to create a functioning commission.
✓ Build media relationships to increase press awareness of the process: The media was not interested
in covering stories about redistricting nor the public hearing process. Some national press releases
received attention from local outlets, but this is an area that could use improvement ahead of 2031.
Local press releases and testimony during hearings from state-based organizations did not receive
attention. The coalition may need to reconsider a different communications strategy for future
redistricting cycles that is more effective at meeting the average voter and builds ongoing relationships
with reporters to tell a compelling story about the impact redistricting has on the state.
✓ Robust public education and outreach is necessary: Despite the challenge in engaging communities
around redistricting, the final maps were marginally improved by public participation in 2021. The
coalition has recognized that more work could have been done to engage and maintain public interest
in the redistricting process. Understanding the many hurdles facing the 2021 cycle can guide outreach
efforts moving forward. This includes starting earlier on public education, and for redistricting to be
included in future conversations to better prepare communities for 2031.

22 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org

FLORIDA

BACKGROUND:
Florida’s state legislative and congressional maps are drawn by the state
legislature. Congressional maps are subject to a gubernatorial veto. Although
the state legislature adopted state and congressional maps in early 2022,
Governor Ron DeSantis vetoed the congressional map. This forced the
legislature to return in a special session to adopt his map proposal.

This cycle, the redistricting process in Florida was mired in challenges. The legislature
was already secretive about maps even before the governor subverted the process and forced
adoption of a map drawn with no public input. The enacted congressional map is currently subject to
both state and federal court challenges, with the state case challenging the map as a violation of the Fair
Districts Amendment of the Florida Constitution and the federal case challenging the plan as a violation of
the 14th and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

A survey respondent emphasized that the “Fair Districts Amendments were not adhered to.” The federal
case, Common Cause v. Byrd, highlighted that the Governor “bullied the Florida Legislature into adopting
[the] congressional map” that discriminated against Black Floridians by breaking up Black communities
across the Panhandle.

COMMUNITY OF INTEREST STORY

Prior to the current enacted map, Florida’s 5th congressional district in Northern Florida was a critical
district for Black Floridians, encompassing one of the largest and historic Black communities in the
state. During this cycle while the state legislature was drawing the congressional map, they made efforts
to comply with the state’s constitution and the Fair Districts Amendment by preserving this Black
opportunity district across the northern part of the state, efforts that drew opposition from the governor.

Upon the first passage of a congressional map, the governor quickly vetoed the state legislature’s plan
precisely because it did provide for some opportunity for Black representation. The legislature soon
surrendered to the governor’s demands to break up this Black opportunity district, passing the governor’s
proposed map that was created with the intent to destroy this historically performing Black district.

By doing so, Florida has enacted a congressional plan that was adopted for the purpose of disadvantaging
Black voters, despite the opposition from organizations in the state and the communities in the region.
The governor’s plan “cracked” the Black population in Northern Florida, breaking these communities up
into new congressional districts with far larger white voting-age populations. This map is now subject to
litigation in both state and federal court.

OVERALL STATE GRADE: F

“They failed to be transparent… our legislature essentially allowed our governor to take over this
process. So the redistricting process did not result [in] the best for Floridians; it was a political game.”
– Moné Holder, Florida Rising

chargereportcard.org Community Redistricting Report Card | 23

Limited public input: In accepting public input in the process, one community leader remarked that “they
were awful. Historically… there were these listening sessions that happened. The Governor and his party…
decided that they wouldn’t do any of that. So we were responsible for [it].” This cycle, the only possibility of
public testimony came during legislative committee meetings in Tallahassee. Advocates reported that this
made it difficult for people to come from as far as 500 miles away to provide testimony. In addition, due to
the large number of participants and a limited public input period, most testimony was cut short. Advocates
ultimately found that the testimony or public input provided to state legislators were not reflected in the
final adopted maps.

Lack of public education: The state did not provide sufficient information for the public to understand
the process and consequences of redistricting in Florida. Information was largely provided in only English,
denying access to the diverse communities across the state. Additionally, the lack of public hearings across
the state prevented the public from learning about the redistricting process and providing input regarding
their communities.

Lack of transparency: Even the legislature’s gestures toward transparency, such as having limited
hearings and an online mapping tool with limited functions, were rendered meaningless by the governor’s
rejection of the legislatively drawn congressional map and call for a special session to implement a
map that advocates have criticized. No opportunity for public engagement or input was provided for
the congressional map presented at the special session. One community leader remarked, “it was
unprecedented to have a Governor insert himself into the redistricting process the way Ron DeSantis did.”

LESSONS LEARNED
✓ Build a robust coalition across the state: Advocates spoke positively of the statewide coalition that
came together and was able to provide public input where possible, educate communities on the
ground, and draw attention to the many problems that arose throughout this redistricting process.
✓ Advance efforts at the local level: While there was a coordinated effort at the state level to address
state legislative and congressional redistricting, local redistricting advocacy was more region-specific
and depended on the capacity of local organizations. Advocates reported some success in various parts
of the state in moving the needle to more transparent processes and better maps, but that was not
uniform.
✓ Begin the advocacy and education cycle earlier: All advocates recognized the need for continued
engagement and education between redistricting cycles. This includes looking at how the most recent
redistricting cycle impacts local communities now, as well as starting the actual public education and
coalition-building work earlier to be ready when the state begins its processes. One advocate said, “We
don’t want to have to always start from scratch in our advocacy and our engagement.”
✓ Train on mapping and communities of interest: While there was no unified mapping software used
this cycle by advocates, some organizations used various tools to draw draft maps. They suggest that
training on redistricting mapping tools happen earlier so communities are ready to provide input when
the time comes. Additionally, training on what defines a community of interest should be ongoing
between redistricting cycles so people are prepared when community of interest or draft maps are
needed.
✓ Focus on the census: Some advocates pointed to the need to devote resources and begin this
work around the census count and not wait until redistricting happens. This will help to ensure that
communities are properly counted and provide momentum for more effective redistricting efforts.

24 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org

GEORGIA

BACKGROUND:
In Georgia, redistricting is controlled by the state legislature through a joint
Redistricting and Reapportionment Committee. A local redistricting bill, SB 177, passed
in 2019 and requires that all local redistricting bills for school boards and board of
commissioners pass through the state legislature and the Legislative and Congressional
Reapportionment Office.

COMMUNITY OF INTEREST STORY

Powder Springs and Austell, two cities in metro Atlanta with majority Black populations and significant
populations of people of color, were drawn into CD-14, a predominantly white and rural congressional
district in northwest Georgia represented by Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene. When residents
of Austell and Powder Springs found out they would be lumped into a district with interests vastly
different from their own, they came out in droves to public hearings held by the legislature to protest
against this move. Residents argued that they could not be represented by this configuration of CD-
14. Despite significant turnout and organized testimony by residents of color in the area, the state
legislature carried out the redrawing to put their communities in CD-14, splitting them from other
metro Atlanta voters.

OVERALL STATE GRADE: D

Many opportunities for public comment but input largely ignored: There were definite improvements
in opportunities for public input from 2010, and the legislature did provide public hearings throughout
the state that allowed for public comment. However, most of these hearings were held before Census
data came out and no draft maps were released until after the listening tour was over. There was also no
language access provided for non-English speaking Georgians who wished to participate.

Community of interest (COI) maps and unity maps were not considered: The state provided no option to
upload COI maps or unity maps to the public input portal. Groups were able to submit COI and unity maps
directly to legislators or through a legislative sponsor, but advocates stated these maps were not remarked
upon nor given a meaningful response in committee.

Lack of transparency in decision making: Advocates and community members created maps, testified,
and submitted COI maps to the legislature but felt they were sending them into the ether. There was no
clear process for legislators to respond to maps received or show what input they took into account, and
the public was given little opportunity to comment on draft maps before they were passed.

LOCAL GRADE: F
State overreach of local elected officials: With the 2019 passage of SB 177, all local redistricting legislation
must go through the state legislative delegation in Georgia. In key urban metro areas, there were attempts
by the state legislative delegation to usurp local authorities’ efforts for a more fair and transparent process
to force implementation of their own maps. This received the most attention in Cobb, Augusta-Richmond,
Athens-Clarke, and Gwinnett Counties.

Lack of transparency and rushed efforts: One advocate described the county-level process as an “onslaught

chargereportcard.org Community Redistricting Report Card | 25

and ambush”. Almost all local maps passed during the legislative session for the 159 counties in Georgia
without public local hearings and without the public seeing the maps.

Advocacy community stretched thin: Given the sheer number of counties in Georgia and the speed with
which local maps were passed, it was difficult for the advocacy community to catch all local redistricting issues.

LESSONS LEARNED
✓ Successful mobilization is possible
despite push-back: Advocates were
successful in mobilizing and educating
thousands of people to get involved in the
redistricting process this cycle. Many stated
that they believed this made it harder for
the legislature to make blatantly racist
or political decisions and forced them to
temper their gerrymandering to some

GEORGIA REDISTRICTING ALLIANCE

extent. Multiple advocates also spoke to
the improved redistricting ecosystem this
cycle and better coordination between c3
and c4 groups. Public participation was
also made easier by access to technology
and virtual tools as well as free mapping
tools that advocate groups used to reach
communities.
✓ Leverage existing relationships and focus
on local issues: Building on existing partnerships and connections for trainings provided advocates with
great success and the ability to reach people with redistricting messaging. Messaging was especially
effective when it tied redistricting to kitchen table issues and local issues for communities.
✓ More alignment between advocacy and legal groups is needed: Multiple advocates spoke to the
difficulty of alignment between different advocacy and legal groups. Some stated that legal groups were
unwilling to coordinate fully with on-the-ground advocacy groups. Georgia has very quickly launched
into the political spotlight. With this, there is great need for integrating advocacy, lobbying, education,
and litigation efforts. Having more people liaising between c3/c4 groups and legal groups could greatly
strengthen redistricting efforts and make work easier for everyone.
✓ More redistricting technicians are needed: Advocates spoke to the need for more redistricting data,
mapping, and legal experts in Georgia to focus on the specifics of legal language, mapping, and technical
redistricting questions. This would be especially helpful for local level redistricting questions and concerns.
✓ Media training and help with media engagement is needed: Many organizers spoke of the need for
additional media training, especially to get stories placed in harder to reach areas. Multiple advocates
spoke of the need for media relations training for the coalition in pitching stories to reporters and for more
messaging resources to use in coalition - e.g., sample press releases, op-eds, letters to the editor, etc.
✓ Focus on the local: Advocates were so busy with state and congressional redistricting but expressed a
need for more resources to monitor and organize around local redistricting. People often have very specific
local questions based in their area - like who to talk to on their city council, and local knowledge and
organizing is extremely important for being able to engage people in redistricting in the future.

26 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org

HAWAII

BACKGROUND:
In Hawaii, a nine-member commission composed of politicians draws both the
congressional and state legislative districts. The members are selected by legislative
leaders of both chambers of the state legislature.

COMMUNITY OF INTEREST STORY

In 2021, the Native Hawaiian community of Waimanalo came together to voice their concerns about
state house map proposals that would have placed them in a district with the wealthy, predominantly
white neighborhoods of Hawaii Kai and Portlock. The concerns of native Waimanalo residents about
affordable housing and displaced families were different from those of Hawaii Kai, where million-dollar
homes are the norm. Waimanalo residents showed up in force, wrote letters, and testified about their
community - and they were heard. Over 100 oral and written pieces of testimony were submitted. One
organizer stated: “The community actually engaged. In the final version of the map, that particular
district was fixed. The community was very happy [...].”

OVERALL STATE GRADE: B-

Limited public input opportunities: Although the meetings were accessible (most provided access
virtually), they did not allow for meaningful opportunities for the public to comment. Maps were made
public right before meetings, which did not allow for adequate time to review them thoroughly. Further,
at Oahu Island hearings, people could comment only at the beginning of each hearing. Only Hawaii Island
allowed people to listen and comment as each agenda item was discussed.

Lack of transparency: Most discussions about the specific details of the maps were not held publicly. Even
though the maps were posted publicly and public comment was permitted, many commission meetings
were held behind closed doors. As a result, one advocate noted that public distrust in the government was
high.

LESSONS LEARNED:
✓ Increased modes of participation make a difference: Due to the pandemic, many public meetings
were held virtually and were also recorded and posted online. This granted more people the ability to
participate, especially working families strapped for time.
✓ Governmental bodies must invest in outreach and early redistricting engagement: Advocates
felt they shouldered the burden to conduct public outreach and education. A state-led, robust
outreach program - begun early in the redistricting cycle - would enable more people to engage in the
redistricting process and relieve this added burden on community organizations.
✓ Draft maps need to be posted with adequate time to review: Advocates noted the fact that maps
were made public right before meetings were held, which did not allow for adequate time to review
them and give thorough feedback. Maps should be made available days in advance of meetings to
provide sufficient time for review and stronger public input.

chargereportcard.org Community Redistricting Report Card | 27

IDAHO

BACKGROUND:
Idaho’s congressional and legislative redistricting processes are conducted by a six-person
commission. The majority and minority leaders of the state house and senate each choose a
member, and the chairs of the two largest political parties jointly select one member.

COMMUNITY OF INTEREST STORY

Native American communities across the state expressed significant frustration with the failure of the
commission to respect Native communities. Despite a strong effort from organizers (such as Indigenous
Idaho Alliance and Western Native Voice) in mobilizing members of the community to get involved in
the redistricting process and legal action, ultimately the redistricting commission expressed that the
constitutional requirement to keep counties whole trumped respect for sovereign Tribal Nations to keep
reservations whole. The Coeur d’Alene and the Shoshone-Bannock tribal communities have fought since
2001 to keep their communities within one legislative district. In the recently passed map, they are split
into two and three districts, respectively.

OVERALL STATE GRADE: D

Lack of receptiveness to public feedback: As expressed in the COI story above, Native American
communities across the state expressed significant disappointment and frustration in the lack of
responsiveness to their desire to keep their communities whole.

Mixed access to participation: While some organizers appreciated the state’s redistricting website, others
noted that it was not easy to use. Additionally, communities with limited internet access, such as many
tribal communities, could not take advantage of this resource. For those who could, the online options to
watch hearings were helpful, but the hearing schedule was not posted in a timely manner to afford people
time to plan to attend. No meetings were held on reservations. Additionally, there were no resources for
those with limited English proficiency to participate.

LESSONS LEARNED:
✓ The work continues to keep tribal lands whole: Native communities fought arduously to keep their
communities together, but found the commission used the county cohesiveness redistricting criterion
to justify splits. Idahoan legislators must prioritize tribal boundaries within the state’s redistricting
criteria. Fort Hall Business Council lead attorney Bill Bacon expressed frustration with the current
procedure: “The only way that the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes are going to feel that we’re properly
represented is by making sure that we’re collectively in the same area, with proper representation.”23
✓ Redistricting commissioners should be selected to represent the diversity of Idaho: Notably, there
were no people of color on the redistricting committee. It is crucial for committee members to represent a
myriad of communities across the state in order to uplift the concerns and needs of all Idahoans.
✓ Materials should be provided in other languages: This cycle, all redistricting resources and public
hearings were provided and conducted in English. However, over one in ten Idahoans speak a language
other than English at home,24 and 8% of the population over the age of five speaks Spanish.25 Resources
in multiple languages must be provided to make participation as accessible as possible.

28 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org

ILLINOIS

BACKGROUND:
In Illinois, the state legislature draws congressional and state legislative districts through
the normal legislative process, subject to a gubernatorial veto. Illinois legislators used the
redistricting process this cycle to protect a Democratic supermajority in the legislature
and squeeze one additional Democratic congressional district out of the map despite the
state’s loss of one U.S. House seat post-census. Reformers have attempted to put ballot
initiatives creating independent citizen redistricting commissions in front of the voters
twice in the last decade. Both times, Democratic political leaders won favorable rulings from
the Democratic majority on the Illinois Supreme Court. The court struck the measures due
to their assignment of responsibilities to the attorney general and other executive branch
officials. This violated the state constitutional requirement that initiatives must only address
“structural and procedural subjects contained in Article IV” of the Illinois Constitution, which
describes the powers of the legislature.

OVERALL STATE GRADE: F

Illinois represents a nearly perfect model for everything that can go wrong with redistricting. As Jay Young
from Common Cause Illinois stated, “legislators made it very difficult for the public to give input.” Most
hearings were scheduled during the workday and, as Madeleine Doubek from CHANGE Illinois noted,
“there was little done to advertise and promote the hearings.” Very few members of the public participated
in the hearings. There was virtually no language assistance and some locations were not compliant with
Americans with Disabilities Act requirements to provide equal access to participation.

In May of 2021, House Speaker Chris Welch’s staff previewed districts for Democratic House members
behind literal locked doors on the Capitol Complex grounds. Legislators simply did not expect anyone
to show up because they had not encouraged or made it convenient for people to do so. The Legislature
initially used American Community Survey data to draw new state legislative districts before the Census
Bureau released census data to the states. The resulting maps drew a lawsuit from Lawyers’ Committee for
Civil Rights Under Law, Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Cooley LLP on behalf of the East
St. Louis Branch of the NAACP, the Illinois State Conference of the NAACP (Illinois NAACP), and the United
Congress of Community and Religious Organizations (UCCRO).

The lawsuit alleged that the legislature’s Democratic leadership diluted the voting power of Black voters in
East St. Louis to protect Democratic incumbents. The legislature ultimately prevailed in this lawsuit, but not
because no harm to the Black community was found. Instead, the court ruled for the legislature because,
as the Lawyers’ Committee described it, “Illinois lawmakers’ guiding motivation was political and partisan
and thereby shielded from constitutional review despite the impact on Black voters.” The state legislative
maps also drew condemnation and a lawsuit for its reduction in Latinx opportunity districts despite a 15
percent increase in the state’s Latinx population. As Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund
(MALDEF) president Thomas A. Saenz stated when a federal court upheld the districts, “the court reached
conclusions about the extent of crossover voting by non-Latinos to support Latino-supported candidates
that are not accurate under the law.”26

chargereportcard.org Community Redistricting Report Card | 29

LESSONS LEARNED:
Gold standard reform like the creation of an independent citizens redistricting commission is challenging
in Illinois due to the limitations of its ballot initiative process and an entrenched legislature. However, the
failures of this cycle’s process point to more achievable but still important reforms that can help make the
process more transparent and accessible. These could include advocacy for the following:

✓ Hearings that take place after work hours;

✓ Greater language assistance;
✓ Increased accessibility for individuals with disabilities; and
✓ Nonpartisan criteria for drawing districts that could survive state constitutional restrictions on ballot
initiatives like a strict prohibition against partisan gerrymandering and making communities of interest
a higher priority.

Although the landscape for reform is challenging in Illinois, there are important lessons learned from this
cycle and previous legal fights that can provide a path forward for improvement.

30 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org

INDIANA

BACKGROUND:
In Indiana, the General Assembly draws congressional and state legislative districts as
regular legislation, subject to a gubernatorial veto. The process for drawing congressional
districts includes a backup provision to convene a politician commission in the event of a
deadlock, but that provision was unnecessary this cycle.

Indiana’s redistricting reform coalition, All IN For Democracy, created the Indiana Citizens
Redistricting Commission (ICRC). The ICRC was a model commission designed to
demonstrate how a transparent and nonpartisan redistricting process should operate. The
ICRC included an equal number of Democrats, Republicans, and independent voters. The
commission’s strong conflict-of-interest restrictions prohibited political insiders and their close relatives
from serving. Commissioners consulted the public to establish nonpartisan criteria for drawing districts
that prioritized the needs of Indiana’s communities. The ICRC then led a public mapping contest and
selected a winner based on those criteria to propose to the General Assembly. Although the redistricting
process run by the General Assembly was secretive and partisan, this organizing engaged the public in the
mapmaking process and prevented some communities from being split.

OVERALL STATE GRADE: D

A clear partisan gerrymander: With overwhelming Republican majorities in both houses of the Indiana
General Assembly and a Republican governor, fair maps advocates faced an uphill struggle to make their
voices heard. The legislature ultimately drew and passed maps that focused primarily on maximizing the
number of districts that Republicans would win.

Playing an active role in the process: Despite a partisan process, fair maps advocates were active
participants in redistricting hearings and were a much greater and more vocal presence than before thanks
to the ICRC and other organizing. Julia Vaughn of Common Cause Indiana stated that “even legislators had
to admit that the level of public discourse this time was far greater than it had been in previous cycles.”
She added that “we furthered our cause within the legislature for reforming the process and helped a lot
of individual communities around the state get better representation.” Phillip Goodchild of the Indiana
Friends Committee on Legislation stated that advocates were successful “in raising public consciousness
about the importance of redistricting and educated many in our community and beyond in the importance
of participating.” He added that they “got more individuals involved in lobbying efforts and redistricting
coalition events,” which he believes laid important groundwork for the next cycle.

Legislators made it difficult to participate: Legislators erected structural barriers that made it more
difficult for the public to tell the story of their communities. Ranjan Rohatgi, an ICRC commissioner, noted
that legislators only held “a single public meeting in the middle of the day on a weekday to take public
comment on their proposed house map.” Although pre-mapping feedback is important, allowing the public
to provide comments about a draft map can often be more productive because critiques can be detailed
and specific. Another ICRC commissioner, Chip Taylor, added that legislators “had a small number of
public hearings at times that are difficult for many people to attend” and that people “could watch, but not
participate online.”

Advocates scored some important wins: Despite the challenge of one-party control of redistricting,
activating community members to get involved played an important role in several victories at the local
level. For example, the 2011 drawn maps divided the Cambridge Square Apartments in Fort Wayne into

chargereportcard.org Community Redistricting Report Card | 31

four Indiana House districts and the small town of Greencastle was divided between two Indiana Senate
districts. In both cases, advocates pointed to the maps the ICRC selected in the mapping contest and
submitted them to legislators to demonstrate how these communities could be kept together. The 2021
maps passed by the General Assembly addressed both communities’ concerns.

LESSONS LEARNED:
As in many states where legislators control redistricting, the process in Indiana was plagued by secrecy and
indifference to public input. Indiana’s lack of a ballot initiative process makes sweeping change challenging
in the immediate future. However, there are some steps to start or continue toward reform.

✓ Create a culture of support for citizen-led redistricting at the local level: All IN for Democracy played
a key role in creating a citizen-led redistricting process in the city of Bloomington for its city council
districts and a model commission for Marion County. These efforts could have an even greater impact in
the less partisan arena of local government.
✓ Fix discrete problems with the legislature-led process: Pushing legislators to make participation
and public input more convenient is an impactful reform that is achievable in the next redistricting
cycle. This could include improvements in transparency and public participation. Reforms should
require hearings after a draft map has been drawn, meetings to be held at hours that allow the public to
participate in providing feedback, and virtual attendance options.

ALL IN FOR DEMOCRACY

All IN for Democracy packs the Indiana State Legislature to advocate for fair maps.

32 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org

IOWA

BACKGROUND:
Since 1980 in Iowa, the congressional and legislative plans have been drawn by the
state’s nonpartisan Legislative Services Agency (LSA) with input from a five-member
Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission (TRAC). The commission is composed
of four members selected by the majority and minority floor leaders of the General
Assembly, and the fifth member is selected by the aforementioned members. The
TRAC was established to administer and coordinate public hearings and input on the
LSA’s proposed plans. The maps are enacted by the Iowa General Assembly, subject to the governor’s veto.
If they fail to enact legislative plans, the responsibility falls to the Iowa Supreme Court.

In 2020, the Iowa legislature rejected the first set of maps proposed by LSA and the advisory commission.
These maps were criticized as a “radical realignment of the state’s political dynamics.”27 The legislature
subsequently approved the second set of maps which aligned more closely to the state’s 2010
congressional maps. These maps were signed into law by Governor Kim Reynolds on November 4, 2021.28

OVERALL STATE GRADE: B

LESSONS LEARNED:
✓ Opportunities for public input need to be expanded: Organizers noted progress with the amount
and quality of public outreach this redistricting cycle compared to past cycles. In particular, they
expressed satisfaction with the state redistricting website and the virtual public hearings, during which
over 250 public comments were submitted.29 However, advocates still noted that there was room for
improvement. For example, this cycle, the Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission only held
three virtual public hearings, and advocates expressed that there should be more hearings in the future.
Further, while organizers expressed satisfaction with the LSA’s map-drawing, it is recommended that
the LSA allow public input in the form of publicly submitted maps. This would allow for the public a
more direct opportunity to engage the LSA on actual map-drawing and provide direct feedback during
map drafting.
✓ Consider communities of interest as a criterion: The current criteria for redistricting used by the
LSA does not consider communities of interest. The state criteria do not allow consideration for self-
identified groups of individuals who have similar legislative concerns, and who might therefore benefit
from cohesive representation in the legislature. Future cycles should adopt communities of interest as
part of the redistricting criteria.

chargereportcard.org Community Redistricting Report Card | 33

KANSAS

BACKGROUND:
Kansas’ congressional and state legislative lines are drawn and passed by the
legislature and are subject to gubernatorial veto.

This cycle, Governor Laura Kelly vetoed the congressional redistricting map
presented by the state legislature, finding it diluted minority voting strength and
unduly divided Wyandotte County and several Hispanic neighborhoods in Kansas City.30 In response, the
state legislature voted to override the veto. A lawsuit was subsequently launched, and a Kansas state court
judge ruled the map unconstitutional. After Secretary of State Scott Schwab appealed the decision to the
Kansas Supreme Court, the ruling was reversed, with the high court finding the map in compliance with the
state constitution.

COMMUNITY OF INTEREST STORY

This cycle, significant community effort was made to advocate that Wyandotte County - home to Kansas
City - be kept whole within a district. With approximately 165,000 people, the county could be placed
wholly within a single congressional district with more than 700,000 people. With a population made
up of approximately 60% people of color, Wyandotte is also one of the few counties in Kansas that is not
majority white.31

Unlike the court-drawn maps of the 2000’s, the legislature enacted a congressional map that split
Wyandotte County into two districts.32 Organizers thought partisanship motivated the splitting of
Wyandotte, specifically, to dispossess Wyandotte voters who had elected a Democrat by cutting off parts
of Wyandotte to be submerged with the more heavily Republican, rural District 2. One organizer recalled
that the former senate president brazenly stated to a group of Republican colleagues that they should
draw a district to kick out the sole Democratic congressperson from her seat.33 Despite losing their case
at the Kansas Supreme Court and failing to keep the legislature from splitting Wyandotte, organizers are
committed to continuing the fight. As one interviewee stated: “We built lasting power structures that we
will take into the future. We didn’t win on our partisan and racial gerrymandering claims, but the fight
keeps going.”

OVERALL STATE GRADE: D-

Lack of opportunities for public participation: Organizers expressed a litany of complaints regarding the
public participation process. The state legislature did a listening tour in a handful of places across the state;
however, they gave little notice about the meeting dates and conducted many before the 2020 census data
was released. Further, the legislature released a complex set of rules after the hearings began regarding how
to submit public testimony; these rules were incredibly difficult to navigate. As Connie Brown Collins of the
Voter Rights Network of Wyandotte County noted, “public hearings were rushed” and “all hearings across the
state were compacted into five days.” She added that the hearings were a “farce” because legislators were
looking at their phones and not interested in the public input they were receiving. People were prohibited
from submitting redistricting plans unless they were state-wide (that is, all districts in the state had to be

34 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org

mapped), which required a skill level that was not accessible to many people. Those who were able to submit
maps were often professionals who had previous knowledge of redistricting and map-making.

Lack of transparency: Organizers felt there was little to no transparency in the process. Aside from the
short notice on hearings and complex rules in submitting public testimony, the maps that were released
were difficult to understand and did not have enough detail for the geographies to be properly discernable.
One organizer expressed: “I didn’t know if I agreed with the map or not because I couldn’t read it.”

Partisanship: Advocates felt legislators were more interested in gaining partisan advantage than producing
fair maps. Attempts to gerrymander maps were brazen and out in the open. As noted previously, the
legislature diluted the votes of Wyandotte County by splitting it and joining it with a heavily Republican
rural district.

LESSONS LEARNED:
✓ Establish an independent redistricting commission: Kansas’ redistricting process this cycle was
marred with partisan bias and made no serious effort to incorporate public feedback. Advocates
recommended a statewide push for an independent redistricting commission (IRC) to take the power
of drawing lines away from the state legislature. IRC’s often lead to maps that are more fair and less
partisan than those drawn by politicians.34
✓ Provide full transparency in the process: Unnecessarily complex rules for participation and a
lack of transparency in the map-making process characterized this redistricting cycle. Advocates
recommended that the legislature give the public clear guidelines for participation well ahead of the
start of public hearings, and materials (such as proposed maps and district demographics therein) that
are clear, concise, and easy to understand.
✓ Create meaningful opportunities for public participation and input: Despite concerted efforts to
participate, organizers were met with a proverbial brick wall. Advocates stated that the redistricting
body should allow the public to submit partial district maps and community of interest maps, as full
district maps can require a level of skill that is inaccessible to many.

chargereportcard.org Community Redistricting Report Card | 35

KENTUCKY

BACKGROUND:
Kentucky’s congressional and state legislative lines are drawn by the legislature
and are subject to gubernatorial veto.

The state legislative and congressional maps were approved by the state
legislature on January 8, 2022. However, the state house and congressional maps
were vetoed by Governor Andy Beshear. The legislature then subsequently voted
to override the vetoes, and the house and congressional maps became law on January 20, 2022 while the
state senate plan became law the next day.

Kentucky Democrats took the state house and congressional maps to court, where a circuit judge then
ruled that neither violated state law. Kentucky Democrats then appealed to the state Supreme Court. As of
early August 2023, the case is still undecided.

COMMUNITY OF INTEREST STORY

Several areas of the state were observed by community organizers to be disenfranchised, most notably
areas with large Black populations such as Hopkinsville and Bowling Green. Hopkinsville was divided
into two state house districts and Bowling Green was split three times. Both had populations that could
have fit within one or two districts respectively.

OVERALL STATE GRADE: D-

Lack of opportunities for public participation: One advocate was uniquely granted the ability to testify,
and others could use the mapping software Maptitude at the Legislative Research Commission’s library.
However, the state did not encourage the submission of maps by the public, nor were there public hearings
or opportunities to give public comment beyond sending a letter to state legislators. One advocate noted
that at a National Conference of State Legislators convening, members of the Kentucky State House
expressed they planned to hold public hearings across the state before drawing maps, however, this plan
never materialized.

Lack of transparency: Advocates noted that the redistricting process occurred almost exclusively among
legislators. State legislators did not allow adequate time to review the proposed maps before voting on
them, releasing them less than two weeks before they were approved. Maps were released around New
Year’s weekend. This, on top of the fact that people did not have many avenues of submitting public
comment, greatly hindered the public’s ability to track the process and provide feedback.

Partisanship: Community organizers felt legislators were more interested in gaining partisan advantage
than producing fair maps. One organizer recalled that some legislators had publicly expressed that they had
not disenfranchised any incumbents in mapmaking. However, advocates felt that efforts were made to pit
Democratic incumbents against one another, and noted that four Democrat legislators, notably all women,
were drawn out of their districts.

36 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org

LESSONS LEARNED:
✓ Advocacy efforts unite communities on the ground: Despite the great barriers to participation in
the redistricting process, advocates spent considerable energy mobilizing the public to learn about
and engage in the process. For example, community organizers with the League of Women Voters
of Kentucky conducted over 125 online and in-person presentations with members of the public,
educating and engaging over 3,300 people across the state. This group created maps, with the input of
the public, that reflected Kentucky’s communities of interest, and shared these maps with legislators.
✓ Meaningful opportunities for public participation and input are still needed: This cycle, the state
did not encourage the submission of maps by the public, nor were there public hearings or meaningful
opportunities to give public comment on the redistricting process. Opportunities for the public to
participate would encourage public trust in the process and give people opportunities to advocate for
their communities.
✓ Strengthening redistricting coalition(s) would strengthen participation: Community organizers
expressed the need to start coalition building early on, preferably several years before the redistricting
cycle begins. They also expressed the need to start fundraising for this work and to start community of
interest advocacy work early on.
✓ Efforts to establish an independent commission must continue: Organizers worked diligently this
cycle to establish an independent advisory commission through legislation, but were left without the
opportunity for a hearing, and the effort was curtailed. Organizers must not let momentum wane in the
fight for an independent commission.

chargereportcard.org Community Redistricting Report Card | 37

LOUISIANA

“A for effort, F for respecting people.” - M. Christian Green, League of Women Voters of Louisiana

BACKGROUND:
Louisiana’s congressional and state legislative lines are drawn by the legislature, subject to
gubernatorial veto.

The state legislative maps were signed into law on March 14, 2022. The congressional
map was vetoed by Democratic Governor John Bel Edwards, citing the map as “run[ning]
afoul of federal law” due to the fact that only one of its six districts are majority-Black
despite Black voters making up a third of the state according to the latest decennial
Census.35 The Republican-majority legislature overrode the veto; the map was signed
into law on March 30, 2022.

A lawsuit was then filed immediately by the Louisiana State Conference of the NAACP, Power Coalition
for Equity and Justice, and nine voters to overturn the congressional map. The U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Louisiana held that the map was racially discriminatory against Black voters and
likely violated the Voting Rights Act. The district court ordered the creation of a second majority-Black
congressional district. The Louisiana Secretary of State appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit and requested that it place a stay on the district court’s order. The Fifth Circuit denied the stay
request, and the Secretary of State appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. SCOTUS agreed to put a temporary
hold on the lower court’s order until after it decided Allen v. Milligan, a similar case concerning Alabama’s
congressional map. On June 8, 2023, SCOTUS ruled that Alabama’s congressional map likely violated the
Voting Rights Act and maintained a district court’s injunction ordering the creation of a second majority-
Black congressional district. Then, on June 26, 2023, SCOTUS lifted its hold on the lower court’s order
in Louisiana and allowed the state’s appeal to move forward in the Fifth Circuit. SCOTUS noted that it
expected the appellate court to make its final ruling “in advance of the 2024 congressional elections in
Louisiana.”36 As of early August 2023, the case remains in litigation in the Fifth Circuit.

COMMUNITY OF INTEREST STORY

Despite unprecedented community turnout and advocacy this redistricting cycle, the process was
rife with the disregard of public input and the disenfranchisement of Black voters. Legislative leaders
engaged in hostile tactics directed at shutting down dissenting voices. For example, during the
Legislature’s special session following a federal court order to redraw the congressional map with two
majority-Black districts, the livestream microphone and video was cut as members of the Louisiana
Legislative Black Caucus addressed the legislative body, eliminating access to the rest of the meeting for
people watching from home.37 Despite the antagonistic atmosphere, organizers were able to train and
engage thousands of people in giving testimony this cycle, and were able to launch a successful lawsuit
in the Court of Appeals.

38 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org

OVERALL STATE GRADE: D-
Disenfranchisement of Black voters: Despite a slew of testimony and advocacy from both the public and
Governor Edwards asking for the creation of a second majority-Black congressional district, and even a
court order to do so, the state legislature ultimately was steadfast in limiting Black voting opportunity to
one district.

Disregard of communities of interest: Advocates noted that the term “community of interest” was
weaponized against organizers. For example, during federal court proceedings, a demographer testifying
for the state produced an analysis which lobbied for a congressional map that outlined the historic
settlements of groups in the 18th and 19th centuries, rather than outlining the current dispersal of
communities of interest today. While this analysis ultimately was not accepted into the court’s ruling, it did
make it into some of the legislative hearings.

In-person redistricting events provided some opportunities for feedback: The state did provide in-
person events for the public in most major cities to participate and provide testimony on communities
of interest. For example, listening sessions were held across the state in each major city; these were then
recorded and uploaded to the state redistricting website. Unfortunately, there was no indication that this
testimony was considered in the final maps.

LESSONS LEARNED:
✓ Unprecedented advocacy efforts uplift communities: Thousands of people were mobilized and
turned out to give public testimony during this redistricting cycle. Organizations such as The Power
Coalition for Equity and Justice trained and engaged over 1,000 people statewide to participate and
sent over 235 people to the state capitol. Further, the Louisiana Redistricting Coalition submitted to the
legislature 11 maps focused on keeping communities of interest together.
✓ Community of interest testimony must be incorporated: When hundreds of everyday people take
time out of their working day to speak to their elected leaders about how they would like to see
redistricting take their communities into account, the legislature or any decision-making body should
consider the testimony. The legislature, made of people who were elected to represent constituents,
should not and cannot disregard the public, the governor, and the courts.
✓ Wider efforts to encourage public participation are necessary: Advocates noted that the state
did not encourage public participation, nor was the public website easy to understand. Most of the
outreach efforts were done by community organizations. Further, advocates found that the media did
not give sufficient coverage to community organizing efforts. There were also limited virtual options
to participate, which organizers noted they particularly had pushed for - both for the public in general
and as a disability rights access issue. Notably, on June 9, 2023, Governor Edwards signed into law
SB80, written by State Senator Cleo Fields, which codified public access to the redistricting process.38
Amongst other mandates, it requires live, internet broadcasts of public hearings and requires for all
official materials and public testimony presented at hearings to be posted on the official redistricting
website.
✓ Language and disability access must be supported: Nearly 10% of the state speaks a language other
than English at home.39 Yet, all government-led redistricting events were held only in English. An effort
to incorporate more languages in outreach efforts would allow for more public participation and more
robust feedback. Languages such as Spanish, Vietnamese, and French would be particularly useful in
the Greater New Orleans area, for example.40

chargereportcard.org Community Redistricting Report Card | 39

MAINE

BACKGROUND:
In Maine, congressional and state legislative districts are drawn by the state legislature, and the
process is aided by a 15-member advisory commission. If the legislature does not pass a plan,
responsibility falls to the state Supreme Court. In 2021, with the delay of Census Bureau data,
the state legislature had a shortened 45-day window to draw new maps. The Maine coalition,
led by Maine Voices (MV) and the League of Women Voters of Maine (LWV-ME), expressed that
this short timeline did not allow enough time for public feedback. People had very little time
to review maps before they were passed into law. The LWV-ME ended up doing all of the public
outreach communications because the state and commission appeared to have had no interest
in, or ability to, lead this work.

COMMUNITY OF INTEREST STORY

The coalition did not engage in any statewide COI mapping because the state of Maine has such little
diversity that there are no opportunities to draw majority-minority districts. From one coalition
member, “In Maine, there is a sense that redistricting is not a contentious issue since it’s approved by
a bipartisan committee and therefore gets less public participation and media attention.” In Maine, it
takes intentional thinking about how to incorporate fair representation into how districts are being
drawn. The legal requirements for communities of interest in Maine are also unclear, which made it
hard for communities to engage during the short timeline. Overall, the redistricting coalition did not
feel that the commission took COI maps very seriously.

OVERALL STATE GRADE: B

Advocates felt that although the 2021 redistricting process had many challenges and transparency issues,
it was still much fairer and more accessible than in many other states.

Lack of transparency: Organizations in the state expressed that throughout the redistricting process, there
was minimal transparency for the public. A member of the Maine redistricting coalition expressed that
“the commission appeared to keep most of the mapping done in private to keep things collegiate among
legislative staff.” The public comment period was late in the process, which meant that any substantive
feedback was difficult to incorporate. One organization (LWV-ME) indicated that although transparency
could be improved for 2031, the current redistricting procedures include safeguards that ensured the maps
were still moderately fair.

Lack of accessible mapping software: The state also did not provide accessible mapping software. To
address this barrier, LWV-ME created copies of the proposed district maps that people could actually
comment on through Dave’s Redistricting App.

Lack of institutional knowledge within organizations: The main experienced Maine Voices data analyst
was lent out to the state legislature and, therefore, was unable to assist in data support during the bulk
of the redistricting process. This analyst worked to prepare organizational partners on the mapping
and advocacy process prior to their departure to the state legislature. However, within the broad Maine
redistricting coalition, only a handful of people were left afterwards that had prior experience with the
state’s redistricting process and advocacy.

40 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org

Condensed timeline after 2020 census data release: The 2020 census apportionment data delay
significantly impacted Maine. The state ended up having one of the shortest redistricting periods in the
country - just 45 days, which did not leave sufficient time for advocacy and education.

LESSONS LEARNED:
✓ Public pressure can work: Throughout the redistricting process, LWV-ME advocated for stronger public
access and transparency and achieved significant gains from advocacy work. The commission did not
initially have an option for the public to contact members until advocacy from the LWV-ME resulted
in the posting of an email address to receive public comments on the webpage. Halfway through the
redistricting process, the coalition posted an op-ed to highlight that there had not been any scheduled
hearings. Within days of that op-ed, the commission published several virtual hearing opportunities
for community input. In another example, the state House tried to pass maps during an initial review
meeting. The LWV-ME testified to encourage giving more time for the public to weigh in on proposed
maps, and this resulted in a vote to extend and allow one public comment hearing before passing the
maps. The LWV-ME also used press releases to “call out” the state House and Senate commission for
their lack of public transparency.
✓ National organizations have a support role to play: The Redistricting Data Hub (RDH) provided great
data to the state and served as a model for how a national group could provide real, tangible support to
local organizations. The data and analysis through RDH were valuable and could be used throughout the
decade for other advocacy purposes.
✓ Coalitions need to be strengthened: Advocates indicated that the state had a very small coalition
with many organizations new to the topic of redistricting. Will Hayward, from the LWV-ME, noted that
“partners expressed interest and attended meetings but did not have the tools necessary to take
action. This was a new topic for the coalition that we should spend more time expanding before 2031.”
Some coalition calls started in early 2021 but did not continue.
✓ Timeline changes should be anticipated and the process must start earlier: The Maine Voices staff
noted that with the Census Bureau data delays, the state had 45 days to complete the redistricting
process and approve maps. As mentioned above, this ended up being one of the shortest timelines of
any state. Because there were no statutory requirements for public hearings, they often happened very
late and provided minimal ways for the community to provide input. Further, the poor statewide census
completion rates had a large impact on what was possible during redistricting. According to Lydia-Rose
Kesich of Maine Voices, “community organizing around redistricting needs to start earlier and engage
a wider variety of stakeholders initially around the 2030 census.” Organizers also indicated that areas
of the state may have been able to create a Black majority district if the census response had been
stronger in 2020; the coalition is planning to engage more around the 2030 census to combat this
issue in the future.

chargereportcard.org Community Redistricting Report Card | 41

MARYLAND

BACKGROUND:
Maryland’s state redistricting process for state legislative lines begins with the
governor submitting a proposed plan at the start of the legislative session, which the
state legislature can adopt, change, or ignore. If the state legislature does not pass new
redistricting lines within 45 days, the governor’s state legislative maps are enacted.
Congressional maps, on the other hand, are drawn by the state legislature as a typical
state statute through the standard legislative process and are subject to the governor’s veto.

In the 2021 cycle, the governor created an advisory commission to assist with drawing congressional and
state legislative lines that would be submitted to the state legislature. The General Assembly rejected the
governor’s maps and passed separate maps that were upheld by state courts. The legislature also proposed
congressional districts that were vetoed by the governor. Despite overriding the gubernatorial veto, state
courts rejected the maps as unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders. New maps were quickly passed by the
General Assembly and signed into law by the governor, which ended the challenge to the congressional maps.

COMMUNITY ORGANIZER STORY

Joanne Antoine, Executive Director of Common Cause Maryland, shared this story about the redistricting
process that took place this cycle:

“During the General Assembly’s special session there was a floor debate in the Senate about the
congressional map proposal. I had never seen a bill move so quickly. It went from a committee hearing
and vote to third reader and passage on the floor within just a few hours. The map moved so quickly that
no amendments were made in committee even with a significant amount of public input that day.

“While the map was on their reader in the Senate, I remember a Senator quoting our testimony in the
midst of their floor debate. It caught me by surprise but was appropriate because it summed up the
redistricting process so well. ‘People are disengaged because they know their feedback will receive very
little consideration… Common Cause MD is taking no position because the outcome is preordained.’
Our testimony, while clearly in opposition, made the impact that we intended. As the Senator stated
during his comment, the maps passed were drawn ‘independent of the people’s comments.’”

OVERALL STATE GRADE: C

Partisan gerrymandering: Both sets of maps passed by the Democratically controlled state legislature
were challenged in state courts. While the state legislative maps passed constitutional muster and were
allowed to take effect, the congressional maps that passed through the state legislature on party lines and
survived a gubernatorial veto were found to violate the state’s constitution due to impermissible partisan
gerrymandering by the Democratic legislature. This also resulted in a change in the election calendar and
moving back the primary to accommodate a redrawing of the congressional maps that would be acceptable
to the state legislature and to the governor.

Commission without mandate: The advisory commission created by the governor lacked power over the
legislature. It consisted of nine members from both major parties and those registered with neither from an

42 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org

open pool of public applications. Commissioners could not be candidates or employees of state or federal
elected leaders, work for political parties, or be lobbyists. Additionally, commissioners could not consider
incumbents’ addresses nor voting patterns. However, the governor’s commission was only advisory,
and citizen commissioners had no mandate to adopt maps, nor were the maps they proposed required
to be considered by the legislature. Many of the commissioners had never engaged in the redistricting
process before. The adopted maps came from the state legislature. Advocates noted that the governor’s
commission managed to draw more majority-minority districts than the legislature did.

Transparency and engagement: Advocates noted that while there were marked improvements in
transparency and engagement in the legislative redistricting process over the 2011 redistricting cycle, the
state legislature still drew lines largely behind closed doors, whereas the governor’s advisory commission
had public deliberations as they drew maps. Therefore, although both the state legislature and the
governor’s commission took public input across the state, the map-drawing by the state legislature that
was ultimately adopted was not done publicly. The state legislature also gave very short notice to the
public about when their hearings were taking place, provided minimal public education and information
dissemination, and provided the public with no justification as to how their maps were drawn and no details
on who worked with them to draw their maps.

LESSONS LEARNED:
✓ There was improvement in receiving public input and draft maps: Both the governor’s advisory
commission and the state legislature took public input and conducted hearings that reached
different parts of the state. While the formation of the governor’s advisory commission was new in
this redistricting cycle and explicitly worked to receive public input, advocates noted that the state
legislature’s redistricting process was far more transparent than in the past cycles. The state legislature
held regional hearings to take public testimony and released interactive draft maps, something that
they did not do in the past.
✓ Local redistricting processes need attention: A key lesson learned by advocates was that the redistricting
advocacy community in Maryland primarily paid attention to the legislative and congressional redistricting
processes. While there was some work done at the local level, including the formation and selection of
redistricting commissions at the county level, advocates noted that much of the monitoring of these
processes was overlooked, and will require more support in future redistricting cycles.
✓ Stronger community engagement and coalition-building is still needed: Advocates noted that the
redistricting ecosystem in the state should be strengthened for future cycles. The coalition should
expand not only to enfranchise more residents to participate in the mapmaking process, but also to
ensure that a more diverse coalition of organizations and communities can work together on defining
communities of interest, calling for transparency, and potentially submitting community-drawn maps
to the state legislature for consideration.
✓ Public education on redistricting must be expanded: This cycle, there was limited public education
on the redistricting process from the state legislature, the entity that ultimately drew all the lines.
Information about hearings needs to be disseminated to communities on the ground and more time
needs to be provided for people to sign up to participate. More work needs to be done to expand the
reach of such education.
✓ Maryland should move to an independent redistricting commission: The advisory commission
formed by the governor was modeled after an independent redistricting commission bill that
redistricting advocates in Maryland have been championing for years. A key recommendation is to pass
such legislation so that in future cycles, the commission will not simply be advisory but have a mandate
to adopt final maps. There is also support for the passage for federal standards for map-drawing.

chargereportcard.org Community Redistricting Report Card | 43

MASSACHUSETTS

BACKGROUND:
The congressional and state maps are drawn by the legislature and are subject to the
governor’s veto. The legislature is also charged with reviewing and approving local
district lines. The state abides by equal population requirements and the state legislative
maps must be drawn in a contiguous manner and must prioritize keeping counties,
towns, and cities intact.

COMMUNITY OF INTEREST STORY

The Drawing Democracy Coalition (DDC) successfully created roughly 100 COI maps and consulted
in drawing a statewide unity map that all partners, except for one organization, agreed upon. The
DDC released their version of House maps, prior to the official commission release, which increased
majority-minority districts from 20 to 29 and included five Latinx-majority districts. Due to the timing
of the coalition’s map release, the House adopted a majority of their district lines in the final map, a
clear indication that House members had seen and incorporated the DDC House maps. Additionally, the
DDC was successful in their advocacy for the creation of a new senate district.

OVERALL STATE GRADE: A-

Strong coalition: The Drawing Democracy Coalition, anchored by the Massachusetts Voter Table, was
created during the 2020 census and successfully transitioned to redistricting advocacy and education.
The coalition was composed of the MIRA coalition, Common Cause Massachusetts, the League of Women
Voters of Massachusetts, MassVOTE, Lawyers for Civil Rights, and ACLU-MA and worked on education,
community of interest mapping, and advocacy during the map drawing process. In-state advocates agreed
that the strong coalition helped to achieve success in the final maps.

Increased representation: The districting process increased majority-minority districts in the house from
20 to 33 and doubled the number of majority-minority districts in the senate. Unfortunately, this was not
possible to do with the congressional map. However, this is encouraging as the percentage of minority
voters has increased upwards of 40% in some communities.

Great public accessibility in legislative hearings: There were many hearings offered at a variety of times,
locations and with language support. Chairs held public hearings once a month for six months, and the
legislature was open to the unity map submitted and incorporated some of the suggestions. Further, all
data was easily accessible.

LESSONS LEARNED:
✓ National resources make an impact: The DDC found national redistricting materials, including the
Redistricting 101 materials created by State Voices and Common Cause and the CHARGE Redistricting
College webinars, to be valuable assets as they created resources for their in-state organizers. In
turn, several states have pointed to Massachusetts as an example of great materials and campaign
resources.

44 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org

✓ Community of interest map submission methods should be improved: The DDC shared one example
of an organization inaccurately explaining the Unity Map at a hearing and ended up advocating for a
district that was not a DDC priority. For future districting, organizations and individuals may require
more education on any Unity Maps and advocacy talking points to support them during hearings.
✓ Mapping and data discrepancies need to be fixed: The coalition noted that some racial data
discrepancies appeared between Dave’s Redistricting App and the state mapping software. The
demographic percentages for Black populations that existed in Maptitude were not the same as
in Dave’s, which left a small discrepancy between the DDC maps and those created by the state.
Standardizing the census categories used across all redistricting mapping tools would eliminate data
discrepancies.
✓ Use census block data first: The opportunity for the legislature to draw districts using census block
data before municipal reprecinting contributed to a higher number of majority minority districts. We
recommend the Commonwealth adopt this change permanently for future redistricting cycles.”

chargereportcard.org Community Redistricting Report Card | 45

MICHIGAN

BACKGROUND:
For the first time in the state’s history, an independent citizens redistricting
commission drew Michigan’s congressional and state legislative maps. State law
required the commission to conduct all of its discussions concerning redistricting
in public hearings conducted around the state. Quentin Turner of Common Cause
Michigan stated that statewide coalition partners “were successful in engaging
the public and developing strong relationships with the commission.” He added
that they generated “high turnout during the pandemic hearings and were able to
advocate for additional community hearing dates, especially in communities of color
like Detroit.”

OVERALL STATE GRADE: B

Unprecedented transparency: A statewide coalition led by Voters Not Politicians passed a ballot initiative
in 2018 creating the Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission (MICRC). As a result, a
process that had been plagued in previous cycles by secrecy and backroom deals was conducted in the
open by decision makers who did not have a personal stake in the outcome.

Extensive public participation: The MICRC held over 120 public hearings and received almost 30,000
public comments in person or electronically.41 Alyson Grigsby of Voters Not Politicians described how the
organization “worked deeply with 12 community organizations in our state and helped them define their
own communities of interest.” They added that, although “opinions regarding the maps were mixed among
the communities, with some organizations seeing their communities accurately represented, and others
wishing their communities were kept in the same district,” they believed that “Michigan’s district maps
were heavily influenced by us empowering local organizations and citizens to submit maps and testimonies
to the redistricting commission.” LGBT Detroit and Southwest Detroit Environmental Vision were just two
examples of organizations representing communities of interest that contributed significant input by
submitting maps and providing testimony to the MICRC through online portals.

Improved partisan fairness: Before the MICRC’s creation and when politicians drew districts during the
2010 cycle, Michigan Republicans intentionally skewed maps to maximize the number of congressional
and state legislative districts their party would win. Before the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Rucho v.
Common Cause prohibiting federal courts from hearing partisan gerrymandering challenges, a federal
district court in Michigan struck down maps from the 2010 cycle as illegal partisan gerrymanders.
Although federal courts could not hear such challenges this cycle due to the Rucho decision, challenges in
state court were an option due to Michigan’s state constitutional prohibition against drawing districts to
benefit a party or candidate. However, no such challenges emerged and none of our interviewees or survey
respondents believed there was any evidence that maps either intentionally or unintentionally provided a
significant advantage to one party or another.

Mixed legacy on Voting Rights Act compliance: An attempt to undo racial discrimination that plagued the
last redistricting cycle might have had the unintentional effect of diminishing Black voting power. During
the 2010 cycle, Republican legislators packed as many of Detroit’s Black residents into as few districts as
possible to limit their influence over surrounding districts. This appears to have led the MICRC to focus
significant attention in the 2020 cycle on unpacking these districts. As Branden Snyder of Detroit Action
describes, the MICRC “created ‘competitive’ maps that unpacked Black districts, but depowered Black
voters by creating Detroit districts that were joined with the suburbs that were 40% or less Black.” This

46 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org

appears to have been based on advice from the MICRC’s counsel to arbitrarily limit the percentage of Black
voters in any one district. This is currently being challenged in federal court as a violation of the Voting
Rights Act. Professor Jon Eguia of Michigan State University conducted an experiment to determine how
many districts Black Michiganders could elect their candidates of choice in 100,000 computer-generated
Michigan Senate and Michigan House maps. He found that the MICRC’s failure to create even one majority-
Black Michigan Senate district and very few with a sufficient number of Black voters to allow the community
to elect its candidate of choice was a significant statistical outlier compared to the computer-generated
maps. Fortunately, he found that the Michigan House map fared much better on this metric.42

LESSONS LEARNED:
✓ Voting Rights Act compliance training should be improved: The MICRC’s extensive focus on
unpacking majority-Black districts from the last cycle likely damaged the ability of Black Michiganders
to elect their candidates of choice and left maps vulnerable to a legal challenge. Future commissions
should be instructed on the proper interpretation of the Gingles requirements to draw districts in which
sufficiently concentrated communities of Black voters can elect their candidates of choice.
✓ Commissioners need help sorting through public input: The nearly 30,000 pieces of public comment
and testimony were invaluable to the mapmaking process. However, such a large volume of materials
can be a challenge to assess effectively. Providing a system or technological tool to maximize the
number of public comments commissioners can meaningfully consider will be essential to fully taking
advantage of this gold standard redistricting reform.

chargereportcard.org Community Redistricting Report Card | 47

MINNESOTA

BACKGROUND:
The Minnesota Constitution empowers the state legislature to draw U.S. House and state
legislative districts, subject to a gubernatorial veto. However, political stalemates have
resulted in an appointed panel of judges drawing at least one set of districts every decade
since the 1960s. Due to Republican control of the Minnesota Senate and Democratic–
Farmer–Labor Party (DFL) control of the Minnesota House, the legislature’s February 2022
constitutional deadline for completing redistricting passed without agreement on a map.
In anticipation of this outcome, the Minnesota Supreme Court appointed the Minnesota
Judicial Branch Special Redistricting Panel several months earlier.

COMMUNITY OF INTEREST STORY

A coalition of organizations, grassroots groups, and community activists called the Minnesota Alliance
for Democracy implemented a grassroots redistricting reform campaign called OurMapsMN. The
campaign focused on empowering communities of color and other impacted communities in the state
in the redistricting process.

This collective effort included engagement with 21 organizations across the state that are focused on
communities of color and approximately 400 community members representative of ten self-identified
racial and ethnic groups. Community meetings were held in 11 cities located in eight target counties to
guide Minnesotans through the process of drawing their communities and developing coalition maps.
The coalition conducted mapping and engagement in five languages. As a result of the more than 100
hours of outreach and trainings, the Alliance submitted 4,200 written statements to the Minnesota
Senate, 1,600 to the Minnesota House, and more than 40 community of interest maps. This organizing
led to an increase in minority opportunity districts in the state legislature.

OVERALL STATE GRADE: C+

The five-judge Special Redistricting Panel held ten public hearings across the state in 15 days and accepted
written statements from the public. In addition, it adjudicated a case with four different plaintiff groups
who proposed principles for drawing districts and sample maps. The Corrie Plaintiffs (Common Cause,
OneMinnesota.org, Voices for Racial Justice, Professor Bruce Corrie, and other individual Minnesotans
of color) were the only parties expressly advocating on behalf of the state’s communities of color. These
plaintiffs submitted maps and arguments in support of its proposed districts based on the extensive
organizing of the Minnesota Alliance for Democracy coalition. Their participation was crucial to the gains in
representation that communities of color made.

Minnesota’s grade this redistricting cycle reflects the fact that the judicial panel heard public input
and helped make important strides toward fair representation, particularly for communities of color.
However, the grade also represents the judicial conservatism that prevented the panel from a wholesale
reconstruction of the state’s maps despite significant demographic shifts.

48 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org

LESSONS LEARNED:
✓ Organizing and joining litigation was crucial to ensuring wins for communities of color: Several
districts reflected community input that the Corrie Plaintiffs presented to the special judicial panel in
charge of drawing districts. Final maps kept three Native American tribes in Northern Minnesota in one
U.S. House district and one Minnesota Senate district. The new state Senate District 2, which includes
reservation lands for the White Earth, Leech Lake and Red Lake Nations, drew two Native candidates:
Republican state Representative Steve Green, a White Earth enrollee who won the race, and Alan Roy,
a Democrat and White Earth Nation tribal leader. The Court also met the Corrie Plaintiffs’ proposed
number of majority-minority POC districts with nine in the Minnesota House and five in the Minnesota
Senate. Overall, the court nearly met the Corrie POC opportunity district numbers with 22 Minnesota
House seats (the plaintiffs sought 24) and 10 Minnesota Senate seats (equal to the plaintiffs’ map).
Also, a Latinx community split between the cities of St. Paul and West St. Paul was put together in one
state legislative district.
✓ The least-change philosophy of redistricting must be attacked directly: Despite these key wins,
advocates were disappointed with the extent to which the new districts reflected the status quo despite
their view that a wholesale change to districts was needed. The judicial panel stated that “courts
lack the ‘political authoritativeness’ of the legislature and must perform redistricting in a restrained
manner,” and that they “must start with the existing districts” before making only minimal changes.43
The growth of Minnesota’s communities of color is solely responsible for the state maintaining the
same number of congressional districts it had last decade. Advocates believed that this profound
change in the state’s demographics justified a wholesale reevaluation of districts that have remained
largely the same for decades. Regardless, the judicial panel maintained a decades-old view that its
hands were tied by previous generations of mapmakers. Minnesota advocates should consider pushing
for a requirement that districts be drawn from scratch based on public input and prohibit the use of a
least-change approach that leaves districts largely intact decade after decade.

chargereportcard.org Community Redistricting Report Card | 49

MISSISSIPPI

BACKGROUND:
Mississippi’s state legislature draws and adopts congressional and state legislative district
maps, which are subject to gubernatorial veto. State legislative maps are adopted by resolution
and do not require the governor’s signature.

Mississippi’s state legislature, with supermajority Republican control, adopted congressional

maps that split the state capitol, Jackson, into two districts, over the protests of the NAACP,
Mississippi’s sole Black and Democratic congressional member and several Black state
legislators. Jackson was split along partisan and racial lines. Mississippi State Conference
of the NAACP v. State Board of Election Commissioners is an ongoing case challenging MS’s
legislative maps as racially discriminatory.44

COMMUNITY OF INTEREST STORY

Local organizing and mapping efforts were the path to organizing wins in Mississippi. Gulfport saw one
of these wins at the City Council level. The City Council had seven seats with two majority-minority
seats. Because of community input, they ended up drawing a third seat that gave Black and Latinx
voters the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. Without this input, long-term relationships,
and organizing and mapping expertise provided by groups organizing in Mississippi, Black and Latinx
residents of Gulfport would not have won more representation on the City Council.

OVERALL STATE GRADE: D-

Lack of public engagement: One advocate noted that the state legislature held public hearings only before
census data was released. The decision-making meetings were performative - three meetings that were
15 minutes each: one to form the map, one to adopt redistricting criteria, and one to adopt the map for the
legislature.

Lack of transparency: Advocates described the legislative committee in charge of redistricting as

extremely non-transparent in their decision-making. The maps were drawn behind closed doors, and the
committee never offered draft maps for public comment.

Timeline issues: The legislature revealed proposed draft maps shortly before they voted on them and never
allowed the public to comment on draft maps. Some advocates stated that the legislature led people to
believe they would not do redistricting until the beginning of 2023, but later “snuck it in at the end of their
session,” proposing and approving a plan within a few days with no opportunity for public comment.

LOCAL GRADE: C
Advocates as a whole found more success in advocacy at the local level. One advocate stated that certain
local jurisdictions provided ample opportunity for public testimony and were responsive to input, while
others were terrible. However, advocates generally found it easier to apply pressure and get wins organizing
for communities around local level maps.

50 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org

LESSONS LEARNED:
✓ Leveraging technology and experts for organizing works: Organizers spoke to the importance of
using technology to empower communities to advocate for themselves. As one advocate stated, “When
we have a map produced in Maptitude, it levels the playing field - that is the game changer for us.”
Empowering community members through training to use Maptitude and other mapping software gives
them greater power to influence the process. Access to local experts who know the geography and
history of Mississippi would also be extremely helpful.
✓ Long-term relationships and networks on the ground were important: Mississippi has a vibrant
organizing ecosystem around civic engagement and redistricting, with some organizations such as
Southern Echo having over 40 years of experience organizing communities around redistricting. Many
successes in organizing directly stemmed from the long-term network, relationships, and history
of organizing around redistricting in Mississippi. These relationships were integral to being able to
organize effectively around maps. External or national groups need to show deference for state groups
and activists. Funders should support local and state organizations earlier, to enable them to organize
more effectively.
✓ There was success at the local level to draw communities of interest (COIs) and minority districts:
By focusing on providing local groups with technology and training to advocate for themselves in local
map-drawing, groups like Southern Echo were able to help communities win representative maps that
protected COI’s and minority districts.
✓ A fair census and funding from the time of the census is critical: In a state like Mississippi, where
4.1% of the population was undercounted in 2020,45 it is crucial to receive funding for Census outreach
to undercounted communities. Having a fair census with accurate counts for Black and Latinx
communities sets the stage for fair and equitable redistricting.

Community Redistricting Report Card | 51

MISSOURI

BACKGROUND:
Missouri has three separate redistricting processes. The congressional district lines are
drawn and adopted by the state legislature, subject to gubernatorial veto. Two politically
appointed commissions — one for the state House and one for the state Senate — draw
and adopt the lines for their respective state legislative maps. The House Commission has
16 people, and the Senate Commission has 20 people — both with an equal number of
Democrats and Republicans, who are nominated by the two major parties and appointed
by the governor. If either commission fails, that chamber’s plan is drafted and adopted by
a six-member backup commission of state appellate court judges.

After a rough start, the House Commission ultimately agreed to have hearings throughout the state and
adopted the final House maps unanimously. The Senate Commission gridlocked and the mapping process
was taken over by the back-up Judicial Redistricting Commission, which drew the final maps. After months
of impasse, Missouri Governor Mike Parson signed a new congressional map into law on May 18, 2022.

“For everything we put in…we actually got decent results.” Caroline Fan, Missouri Asian-American
Youth Foundation

COMMUNITY OF INTEREST STORY

Ferguson, a small racially divided suburb of the city of St. Louis, made national headlines in 2014
with the police shooting of Michael Brown and the subsequent civil rights uprising. At the time of the
shooting, the population was 67% Black, with no Black representatives on the city council.46 A few years
after the surge in community organizing and protests, the city had its first female Black mayor, and half
the city council, the police chief, and the city manager are now people of color. There was an attempt
during state legislative redistricting to split the city; some believed that this cracking effort was a
backlash to the growing influence of people of color and was due to the desire to create a safe district for
Republicans. However, powerful public testimony by the mayor of Ferguson and civic leaders resulted in
the city of Ferguson being made whole in the State Senate and House maps.

OVERALL STATE GRADE: C

B for State House Redistricting - Process managed by politically selected citizen commission.

• After much wrangling, the House Commission held six hearings around the state. In general, the
hearings were minimally accessible, but mapping was transparent. Some public testimony was
considered, including the adjustment of lines to make several communities of color whole.
C for State Senate Redistricting - Process started by politically selected citizen commission, completed by
Judicial Redistricting Commission.

• In general, the Senate hearings were barely accessible. The commission did take some public
testimony into account and adjusted the lines to make several communities of color whole. However,

52 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org

after the citizen commission failed, the Judicial Redistricting Commission scheduled only two hearings
and canceled one of them,47 taking minimal public input before producing the Senate plans that are
now being challenged in court. A ruling in this case is expected in September of 2023 or later.
D for Congressional Redistricting - Process carried out by State Legislature.

• The congressional hearings were minimally accessible. The map drawing was carried out entirely
behind closed doors, accessible only to lobbyists or those with special relationships to legislators.
Even though there was “raw politics” and “epic dysfunction,” according to one organizer, the
Legislature avoided an F grade by working to protect the ability of communities of color to elect
candidates of their choice in St. Louis, Kansas City, and other parts of the state.

LESSONS LEARNED:
✓ Community input made a difference: The high degree of public participation regarding the state
House redistricting resulted in maps containing the first majority Latinx voter district (on the northern
side of Kansas City), more majority Black voter districts, and more competitive districts overall.
✓ More accessible hearings and time for public input must be required: With so few hearings
scheduled, people should have been allowed to join the public input meetings through virtual options.
For everyday people, including those with work obligations or disabilities, the distances were an
insurmountable obstacle to providing input. Additionally, the draft maps needed to be more publicized,
with more time for members of the public to examine and give comments on the maps.
✓ The commission should start with a map drawn by non-partisan experts: The commissioners would
have been aided in their deliberations by having initial draft maps that they could have adjusted based
on public input. The initial maps could be drawn by demographers or mappers that are nonpartisan
state or university employees.
✓ Nonprofit funding should be raised earlier and support POC-led organizations to be part of
redistricting strategies: There are growing Latinx, Asian, and Pacific Islander communities in
Missouri. If there are groups that are given grants to pull together redistricting community mapping
conversations, the coalition needs to be inclusive and to build trusting relationships within diverse
communities. Preferably, funding should go directly to communities of color who are more likely to be
disenfranchised during the redistricting process rather than white-led organizations.

Community Redistricting Report Card | 53

MONTANA

BACKGROUND:
Montana uses a five-member redistricting commission to draw congressional
and state legislative districts. Although the Montana Districting and
Apportionment Commission (MDAC) seeks recommendations from the
legislature, the final plans are approved by a majority of the commission. The
majority and minority leaders of the Montana State Legislature each appoint
one member. Those four appointees appoint the fifth member, who serves as
the chair. According to the Montana Constitution, commissioners may not be
public officials. When the four appointees cannot agree on the fifth member,
the Montana Supreme Court appoints the chair. Historically and with the
2020 commission, all the chairs have been appointed by the Supreme Court.

COMMUNITY OF INTEREST STORY

The MDAC successfully resisted efforts to dilute Native American representation. Unfortunately,
infighting about partisan outcomes had a prominent role in the debate over maps. Although legislators
have no formal say in the approval of new districts, legislative leadership’s direct appointment of MDAC
commissioners means that appointees could share legislators’ views and goals. In this cycle, Native
Montanans faced vocal hostility from some legislators. For example, state Representative Brad Tschida
said that it wasn’t “fair” that Native Americans are “overrepresented” in the Montana Legislature.48
MDAC commissioner Kendra Miller argued that Tschida’s incorrect claim was based on counting only
people who state that they are exclusively Native American while excluding mixed-race Montanans.
State Representative Ed Butcher stated that most legislators from reservations have “room-temperature
IQs” and that “the reservation doesn’t necessarily always send their best and brightest.”49

Native-led organizations and tribal leaders worked actively to fight the attempted dilution of Native
voting power. The organization Red Medicine spoke out against proposals that would have divided
the Fort Peck and Fort Belknap reservations and that would have made it more difficult for Crow and
Northern Cheyenne reservations to elect their preferred candidate. Western Native Voice also vocally
supported maps that maximized Native political power. In a public hearing on a reservation at Salish
Kootenai College in Pablo, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes spoke in favor of preserving
Voting Rights Act state legislative districts that are majority-Native.

These various efforts ultimately paid off. The chair of the MDAC sided with the two Democratic
commissioners to approve state legislative maps that ensured more effective representation for
Montana’s Native residents. In doing so, the chair broke a stalemate that threatened the ability of the
commission to complete its work on time.

OVERALL STATE GRADE: B

54 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org

LESSONS LEARNED:
✓ Direct appointment by legislative leadership can lead to gridlock: While Montana’s citizen
redistricting commission was a model for reform at the time of its creation, it allows much greater
direct participation of legislators in choosing commission members than commission models in other
states. Montana’s legislative leadership directly appoints four of the MDAC’s five members, limited in its
choices only by the requirement that commissioners not be public officials. In other states, legislators
are limited to striking applicants or appointing them from a prescreened list of individuals. Republican
commissioner Dan Stusek succinctly summarized the problematic hyper-partisan perspective this
direct appointment can create among commissioners when he said, “I feel a sense of agency on behalf
of the Republican leadership and the Republican Party as their voice on this commission.”50
✓ Organized public input can make a difference: In a state whose majority party includes members
overtly demonstrating hostility to Native American representation, showing up and providing specific
feedback to draft maps can still tip the scales in favor of fair representation. The participation of tribal
government representatives, Native-led nonprofits, and indigenous community members played a
crucial role in defeating maps that would have diluted the votes of Native Montanans.
✓ Ending prison gerrymandering is an increasingly nonpartisan reform: This redistricting cycle,
the MDAC ended the practice of prison gerrymandering in Montana. Prison gerrymandering skews
representation by artificially inflating the population numbers of communities with prisons by counting
imprisoned people as residents of the location where they are imprisoned instead of their last known
pre-incarceration address. Despite a polarized atmosphere in which commissioners of different parties
were unable to agree on final maps, the MDAC’s vote to end prison gerrymandering was unanimous and
bipartisan.

Community Redistricting Report Card | 55

NEBRASKA

BACKGROUND:
In Nebraska, the Unicameral Legislature draws congressional and state legislative
districts, subject to gubernatorial veto. Reformers attempted to gather signatures
in 2020 for a ballot initiative to create an independent citizens redistricting
commission. However, pandemic restrictions prevented that effort from
succeeding and no subsequent effort has been launched. The effectiveness of
advocates in Nebraska provided some important wins for communities despite a
partisan process. Legislators made clear that they would pay little attention to community of interest and
district maps that advocates submitted, and Republican control of the Unicameral and the governor’s office
ensured that some degree of partisanship would prevail. Despite these obstacles, advocates succeeded in
keeping together several discrete communities of interest after draft maps threatened to split them.

COMMUNITY OF INTEREST STORY

Several communities of color succeeded in pushing back against early draft maps that would have
diluted their electoral strength. As Spike Eickholt of the ACLU of Nebraska described, “we were generally
successful in protecting communities of interest.” Douglas County has the highest percentage of Black
residents in Nebraska. A draft congressional map would have split the county’s Black residents between
two congressional districts. After significant outcry from residents, advocates, and some legislators, the
legislative committee leading redistricting reversed course. Gavin Geis, executive director of Common
Cause Nebraska, also described key areas in which “maps changed and districts were redrawn in ways
that were more representative of some minority communities in the state.”

In addition to the successful advocacy by Black residents of Douglas County, Geis pointed to Native
American communities in the northeast section of Nebraska and a Latinx community in the city of Grand
Island. In both cases, Common Cause Nebraska worked with local activists to support their advocacy and
won changes to voting maps that kept communities whole.

OVERALL STATE GRADE: C+

Although public advocacy in the form of map submissions may have had little direct influence on legislators
who drafted maps, the organizing it entailed prepared advocates to react swiftly and forcefully to
problematic draft maps. Victories on several fronts to improve representation for communities of color are
rare in states in which legislators draw districts, which is why most of them earned a D or F grade this cycle.
However, Nebraska avoided that fate because of the effectiveness of fights for Black, Native American,
and Latinx voting rights in several pockets of the state. Legislators displayed the usual disinterest in public
input that is standard for politician-led redistricting processes, telling advocates that “they weren’t paying
any attention to the public-created maps,” according to Geis. However, they could not ignore the fierce
response to communities activated by maps that threatened to disenfranchise them.

56 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org

LESSONS LEARNED:
✓ Although a C+ is a decent grade for a legislature, wins for communities of color came only after initial
drafts were drawn poorly and significant public pressure forced legislators’ hands. Nebraska is a ballot
initiative state that allows voters to amend the state constitution. As a result, stripping the power to
draw districts from legislators does not require the assent of those legislators. Building a coalition to
pass a ballot initiative that would create an independent citizens redistricting commission ahead of the
next redistricting cycle is key.
✓ Alternatively, advocates could consider reforms that address the challenges they faced in this
redistricting cycle while leaving the power to draw districts in legislators’ hands. This could include,
for example, adding a legal requirement enforced by state courts that the Unicameral consider maps
submitted by the public. The presence of a ballot initiative option creates significant opportunities to
find the reform that best fits Nebraska’s needs.

Community Redistricting Report Card | 57

NEVADA

BACKGROUND:
In Nevada, both congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn by the state
legislature. The lines are subject to veto by the governor. Under a state law enacted in 2019,
incarcerated individuals in state prisons are counted as residents of their home addresses for
redistricting purposes.

COMMUNITY OF INTEREST STORY

During the 2021 redistricting process, members of the public were given the opportunity to draw
both full redistricting plans and communities of interest maps and to submit them for consideration
through the web-based redistricting application MyDistricting Nevada. Over 500 users registered for
an account with MyDistricting Nevada, and 50 redistricting plans were submitted as public proposals
for Nevada’s congressional, state senate, and state assembly districts. Additionally, 11 communities of
interest maps were submitted.

The Silver State Voices Coalition advocated keeping Asian American Pacific Islander (AAPI), Native, and
Latinx communities together. Though they successfully kept AAPI and Native communities together,
the Latinx community in Las Vegas was split among three congressional districts. The new map
redistributes about one in seven Latinx residents and decreases the demographic group’s share of the
district from 45.1 percent to 35.5 percent. As a result, no district fully represents Latinx individuals, who
account for roughly 4 out of every 10 Nevada residents.

OVERALL STATE GRADE: B-

LESSONS LEARNED:
✓ Cross-community coalition made a difference: Due to the advocacy of the coalition to prioritize
drawing maps around tribal lands over county boundaries, the legislature made changes to keep
tribal communities together. Another win for the coalition was that the legislature made revisions for
reallocating additional incarcerated people to their home communities.
✓ The Nevada Legislature should lower barriers to participation: Participation should be made more
accessible by providing language access, especially to the Spanish-speaking communities, using
more user-friendly mapping tools, holding meetings in more locations (including on tribal lands), and
creating an easier-to-navigate website, especially on mobile devices.
✓ Nevada needs an independent redistricting commission: Organizers must push for an independent
redistricting commission (IRC). IRCs have been found to produce maps that are more competitive and
fair than those drawn by politicians.51

58 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org

NEW HAMPSHIRE

BACKGROUND:
In New Hampshire, the state legislature draws congressional and state legislative districts
through the normal legislative process, subject to a gubernatorial veto. The 2021 redrawing
process extended into late 2022 with Governor Chris Sununu vetoing two rounds of partisan-
drawn maps before a special master, appointed by the state Supreme Court, stepped in to draw
a final map. In one map, vetoed by the governor, the state legislature attempted to pair two
Democratic incumbents into Congressional District 1.

COMMUNITY OF INTEREST STORY

There were some wins made at the House level that kept whole communities together despite legislative
threats to split these areas. Additionally, maps did well in preventing small townships from being
lumped together. Several House committee members made specific comments about the community of
interest (COI) maps submitted by the redistricting coalition. On the senate and congressional side, all
COI mapping failed entirely due to partisan differences.

OVERALL STATE GRADE: C

Improvements from 2011: The legislative committee held the required one hearing per county, had a
website for hearings and public information, and held all meetings in handicap accessible locations. The
committee utilized Zoom as a virtual viewing option but did not allow for any testimony over the platform.
The committee allowed written testimony.

Lack of legislative accountability: Despite improvements to the process compared to the previous cycle,
partisan gerrymandering by Republican legislators was so blatant that Governor Sununu, also a Republican,
vetoed the congressional map. As a result of this stalemate, the New Hampshire Supreme Court ordered
a redraw of the map by a special master. Advocates filed a lawsuit challenging state legislative districts
as an illegal partisan gerrymander. An in-state report found that “While only one-third of New Hampshire
residents have seen the legislative redistricting maps proposed by the State Legislature, nearly all
Democrats and Independents who have seen them consider them to be unfair, while even Republicans are
closely divided.”52 The public testified and presented maps which were largely ignored in favor of partisan
drawn maps. The New Hampshire redistricting coalition lobbied legislators to vote against the partisan
maps and incorporate public testimony. Further, once the final maps were released the committee held
public hearings during the day despite calls from organizations asking for more options.

LESSONS LEARNED:
✓ Public engagement increased this cycle: The Fair Maps coalition successfully engaged the public
throughout the redistricting process. The coalition held a statewide Mapathon event which garnered
members of the public from every county in the state and produced over ten COI maps.
✓ An independent redistricting commission should be established: Although the redistricting
process in New Hampshire improved during 2021, advocates stress that an independent redistricting
commission is still needed to avoid partisan gerrymandering moving forward.

Community Redistricting Report Card | 59

✓ Organizations must be bold in advocacy efforts: In previous cycles, organizations often sat on the
sidelines in hopes that their presence would reduce partisan gerrymandering. In 2021, the Fair Maps
coalition spent a large portion of time on public outreach and education on the state redistricting
process and how the public could affect change. As one advocate expressed, “we got in the faces of
legislators about the need for fair maps”.
✓ There should be an increase in national organizing coordination: The New Hampshire redistricting
coalition was small in 2021 and looked to national organizations for resources and support. National
resources to the state were delayed and the coalition would like to see earlier communication to find
out what resources are needed in a state and create an appropriate timeline for support.

60 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org

NEW JERSEY

BACKGROUND:
New Jersey’s 40 state legislative districts are drawn by a ten-member commission largely
composed of politicians. Each of the state’s two political parties selects five commissioners.
An 11th member is selected by the Chief Justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court to serve as
a tiebreaker if the commission cannot agree on maps by the deadline. Voters in each of the 40
legislative districts elect one senator and two assembly members.

The congressional lines are drawn by a commission composed of 13 political appointees.

Commissioners are chosen by the majority and minority leaders in the state senate and state
assembly and the chairs of the state’s two major political parties, who then collectively choose a
13th commission member. If the partisan appointees to the commissions cannot agree on a 13th member,
the state Supreme Court selects a 13th member from among the names provided to it by the two partisan
delegations. The state must draw all new districts using census data adjusted to count incarcerated
individuals at their last known pre-incarceration address.

The congressional map was challenged by Republican members of the commission, who alleged that the
tiebreaker, former State Supreme Court Justice John Wallace, had ulterior motives in moving forward with
the Democrat-supported map. The New Jersey State Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the lawsuit on
February 3, 2022, finding that the lawsuit did not have legal merit.

COMMUNITY OF INTEREST STORY

During this cycle, considerable effort was made to ensure a proportional number of majority-Black
districts across the state. According to the U.S. Census, 15.3% of the state of New Jersey is Black, yet only
one of 40 state legislative districts is majority Black. Fair Districts New Jersey, a coalition focused on fair,
representative, and community-driven redistricting (and led by the League of Women Voters of New
Jersey) worked to create a map that brought together communities of interest (COIs) while meeting all
legal requirements. The coalition was able to draw three majority-Black state legislative districts in the
Newark metro area.53 Community organizers found the final map to be packed in District 28, which
was about 72% Black. Conversely, the unity map was able to draw three majority-Black districts around
the Newark, Orange, East Orange, and Montclair areas; it was endorsed by a wide swath of civil rights
organizations such as the NAACP State Conference, the Latino Action Network, and the Sikh American
Legal Defense and Education Fund.

Despite the outcome, organizers found that this cycle there was unprecedented public participation, and
expressed hope that raising awareness on these redistricting map concerns will help to mobilize voters,
increase turnout, and spur advocacy for the next redistricting cycle. Coalition members of Fair Districts
New Jersey noted that the group might pivot to redistricting reform in anticipation of the next cycle.

OVERALL STATE GRADE: B-

Disenfranchisement of Black voters: As outlined in the COI story above, community organizers found
the commission was not receptive to public testimony about creating majority-Black districts nor to the
potential configuration of majority-Black districts afforded by the unity map.

Community Redistricting Report Card | 61

Public access: Feedback on public access was mixed; while organizers appreciated the public hearings
and ability to participate virtually, and overall found that the opportunities to participate were greater
than in the past, people expressed the desire for increased transparency and data sharing. These areas are
expanded on in the following section.

LESSONS LEARNED:
✓ Effective coalition work moved the needle: Community organizers noted that the Fair Districts New
Jersey coalition was the largest and most diverse coalition that has ever worked on redistricting in the
state. Despite the challenges of balancing different goals and priorities, the coalition worked together
effectively and is looking towards potentially continuing to work together to advocate for redistricting
reforms to ensure more representative and fair maps in the future.
✓ Multiple modes of public access mattered: Organizers noted that public access to participation was
improved compared to the last cycle. For example, ten public hearings were held this cycle compared
to three in 2011. The public could participate online, in person, or through written testimony. Further,
people were able to submit their own maps and were able to comment after the release of official draft
legislative maps, a first for New Jersey.
✓ An independent redistricting commission is still needed: Studies have found that independent
redistricting commissions produce maps that are more competitive, fair, and less partisan than those
drawn by politicians.54 As outlined above, organizers found this cycle’s state legislative maps, drawn by
elected officials, were not representative nor fair, particularly in regards to voters of color.
✓ Public access and transparency should be expanded: While many were satisfied with some aspects of
the public testimony process, there was room for improvement. Community organizers expressed the
desire for all mapping meetings to be held in public and for the congressional draft maps to be shared.
Further, some found navigating the public map submission process difficult. Lastly, advocates would
like improved communication from the Department of Corrections regarding data used to reallocate
the incarcerated population to their last known address. Receiving data in a timely manner proved to be
a challenge.
✓ Resources must be provided in languages other than English: To further promote public access, the
state should create and disseminate resources in languages other than English. According to a recent
U.S. Census survey, 31.9% of people in New Jersey speak a language other than English at home,55 and
12.1% speak English “less than very well.”56 Redistricting resources should be provided in the following
languages (the top languages other than English spoken in the state) to encourage a broader reach of
participation: Spanish, Filipino (Tagalog), Chinese, Hindi, and Korean.57 It is further emphasized that a
significant portion of the population (16.1%) speaks Spanish, and thus, materials provided in Spanish
would be particularly valuable for a significant portion of the state population.58

62 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org

NEW MEXICO

BACKGROUND:
This redistricting cycle was the first to utilize an advisory commission, the Citizen
Redistricting Committee (CRC) in the drawing of state and congressional district lines.
SB 304, signed into law in April 2021, enacted a seven-member advisory commission
composed of appointed individuals who have not served during the previous two years
as a state or federal legislative employee, lobbyist, or political officeholder, and were
not the relative of an officeholder. The commission is composed of two non-partisan
members selected by the State Ethics Commission, four members selected by each state
legislative leader, and one retired state judge or justice also selected by the State Ethics
Commission.

Notably, the advisory commission can consider maintaining the cores of existing districts and must also
take into consideration the boundaries of reservations.

On January 6, 2022, all New Mexico redistricting plans were signed into law by Governor Michelle Lujan
Grisham. Soon after, New Mexico Republicans filed a lawsuit challenging the congressional map, claiming it
was a partisan (Democratic) gerrymander. In July 2023, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that extreme
partisan gerrymandering violates the New Mexico Constitution and ordered the trial court to complete the
proceedings by October 1, 2023.

COMMUNITY OF INTEREST STORY

This cycle, for the first time, there was a Native American coalition, Native American Voting Alliance,
which pushed for a fair process and representative maps. The coalition mobilized indigenous
communities to give testimony, created a Native American coalition map, and ultimately was key in
passing the final maps. As a result of their steadfast advocacy surrounding the senate map, Native
American voting power was upheld in northwest New Mexico.

OVERALL STATE GRADE: B

Create more opportunities for rural communities to participate: While the COVID-19 pandemic impacted
the redistricting process across the country, many states, including New Mexico, pivoted to virtual and
hybrid meetings. The CRC made efforts to reach rural communities that are less likely to have reliable
broadband access, and were legally obligated to hold one meeting in each of the geographic quadrants of
the state and at least one meeting on tribal lands.59 Organizers were generally satisfied with the amount
and types (virtual, in-person) of meetings, but felt there could be even more outreach to rural areas, citing
the limitations of only requiring four in-person meetings across the vast expanse of the state.

Coalition/unity map efforts pay off: Several organizers shared success stories from this cycle. For
example, a coalition of advocates from Center for Civic Policy, Progress Now, New Mexico Black Voters
Collaborative, and others, successfully mobilized cross-racial communities to advocate for and pass the
first community-drawn congressional map, the People’s Map, which created a POC-majority district in
southeastern New Mexico.

Community Redistricting Report Card | 63

LESSONS LEARNED:
✓ An independent, representative redistricting commission is needed: This cycle, organizers worked to
pass legislation to enact an independent redistricting committee, which ultimately became an advisory
committee. While organizers were generally satisfied with the advisory committee, ultimately, the
power to approve maps still rested with the legislature. Further, the redistricting body must be more
representative of the entirety of the state - this cycle, many felt the redistricting committee had an
over-representation of members from central New Mexico (i.e., Albuquerque), and could benefit from
more members from the southern parts of the state and Native American communities.
✓ Continue to fight to end prison gerrymandering: This cycle, efforts were made to end prison
gerrymandering in the state. While these efforts did make their way to the committee, who advised the
legislature how to end the practice, ultimately, prison gerrymandering was not ended this cycle. While
unsuccessful this time around, the momentum must be continued into 2030.
✓ Start coalition efforts early: Organizers stressed the importance of both starting coalition building
and having concise organizing plans early. Organizers also expressed the importance of tying together
census and redistricting coalition work, as the two impact one another.

64 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org

NEW YORK

BACKGROUND:
In 2021, New York’s redistricting was conducted through a newly formed commission
created to draw the initial maps to be considered by the state legislature. This
commission, failing to meet their duty, submitted two partisan maps. As one
organizer stated, “It was supposed to be an independent commission free from
partisan politics, but it wasn’t free of political power.” The districting process next
moved to the Legislative Task Force on Demographic Research and Reapportionment
(LATFOR) which drew the maps that were adopted by the state legislature.

In February 2022, plaintiffs successfully challenged the LATFOR congressional and state senate maps in
court. A special master was tasked with redrawing the maps ahead of the June 2022 primaries. Separately,
the state assembly maps were challenged and the Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) has been
tasked with creating new maps once again.

As of February 2023, the IRC released a draft map and held hearings in early 2023. However, the IRC
submitted to the Legislature for approval a map that was nearly identical to the challenged LATFOR plan. In
addition, there is a court case challenging the current congressional map requesting that they be redrawn
by the IRC. As summarized by Susan Lerner of Common Cause New York, “The commission was an ultimate
failure and it is unclear what its benefit was; the procedure was lousy from beginning to end.”

COMMUNITY OF INTEREST STORY

During the 2011 redistricting process, in one example of extreme gerrymandering, the Richmond Hill
neighborhood in New York City was divided into seven assembly districts. When the IRC deadlocked
and LATFOR drew the maps, it reduced the number from seven to four assembly districts. When the
court ordered the IRC to redraw the map, the IRC’s draft map of December 1, 2022, put Richmond Hill
in largely one assembly district. This achievement was made possible through relentless advocacy and
public pressure on the IRC by coalitions such as APA VOICE, however the IRC ultimately abandoned
its own draft map for Richmond Hill that had overwhelming public support and submitted a map
for the legislature’s approval that was nearly identical to the one LATFOR drew in February 2022,
splitting Richmond Hill in four. During the community mapping process, the APA Task Force members
took a walking tour of the Richmond Hill neighborhood and as one advocate put it: “We taught each
other about our communities, which was absolutely fascinating…and it was an opportunity for us to
understand the markers of the community.”

In another example, after extensive community advocacy, the new City Council District 43 created
opportunities for Asian American representation. This new district was created with the strong
recognition of the 43% Asian American population growth since 2010. Assembly District 49 remained
a majority-Asian district. The creation of these districts led to the election of new Asian American
representation.

During the 2021 process, Common Cause New York was a leading organization for COI training,
analysis of demographic changes, and analysis of proposed maps. At the end of the cycle, they also
drew congressional and senate maps. The New York Civic Engagement Table (NYCET) also worked with
community stakeholders to educate community organizations on defining and mapping COIs.

Community Redistricting Report Card | 65

OVERALL STATE GRADE: D
• Lack of public access options: The redistricting process was largely inaccessible to the public. The
state offered limited language access despite the state’s diverse population. The commission offered
to provide an interpreter if requested online in advance, which created an unnecessary hurdle for
non-English speaking residents. All hearings were heard during business hours and information
about hearings was not well-promoted. Further in the process, the LATFOR mapping process did not
allow for public hearings and disregarded the hard work of community mapping. After the legislature
announced the new congressional district maps, the APA VOICE Redistricting Task Force hosted an
emergency rally to express the need for public input and the harmful silencing of community voices.
• Lack of interest from the IRC: Although the state commission process mandated public hearings
across the state, many advocates felt as though their testimony was disregarded. As one advocate
explained: “The commission took substantial time with community members. Public hearings were
long and they would ask detailed questions. But if these comments don’t have an impact on final
maps, it is an exercise in publicity only.”
• The IRC was poorly executed: As mentioned throughout this report, the IRC process did not meet
the mission of creating a fair and equitable map-making process. Every organization interviewed
for this report indicated that the IRC needs reform or a complete overhaul in the process before the
2030 redistricting cycle. If the current IRC process is maintained, it will be nearly impossible for
organizations to mobilize communities to engage in this process.

LESSONS LEARNED:
✓ Community-based organization visibility led to critical victories: The largest Asian and Pacific
Islander American coalition, APA VOICE Redistricting Task Force in New York, was able to garner
extensive press coverage, community testimony at hearings, and community visibility in the courts.
This hard work resulted in the Special Master citing the Task Force five times, more than any other
community-based coalition, during the announcement of new maps. A newly created Senate District
17 that has 48% AAPI population led to the election of the first Asian American female state senator.
In addition, State Assembly District 30, which contained 49.5% AAPI led to the election of the first
Filipino American member of the state legislature. Outside of these APA VOICE Redistricting Task Force
victories, the other community organizations felt they did a great job despite the constant challenges in
the process.
✓ Translation services need to be accessible: The available translation services were not well-publicized
on the state redistricting website, and, if a person were to locate the request form, they had to complete
a form in English. This posed a challenge for non-English speaking communities and reduced the trust
among non-English speakers that their voices would be heard. The National Association of Latino
Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) critiqued the lack of language access options in a letter
that received some positive response from commission members. Many of the community-based
organizations (CBOs) had to publish translated materials and act as interpreters due to the lack of
accessibility from the state.
✓ Accessible data and analysis are important for education: Interviews cite free tools like Dave’s
Redistricting App and CUNY’s Redistricting & You website mapping tool being value additive for their
outreach. Common Cause-NY led community mapping workshops to familiarize activists with the
principles of redistricting and mapping to assist communities in participating in redistricting. The NY
Civic Engagement Table (NYCET) released a tool guide sharing helpful training information for the
various mapping tools available to the public. The NYCET noted that the many free mapping tools were
easy for the public to use and prevented a reliance on costly services like Maptitude. Relatedly, some
groups expressed interest in having access to a community mapper outside of a shared demographer
used for traditional unity maps.

66 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org

✓ There is a need for more community education and training: State advocates indicated that
community members needed more education about the New York redistricting process and what
opportunities the public had to impact mapping decisions. As stated previously, there was a significant
barrier in accessing bilingual support through the state redistricting website. Often a community
organization translated for them because they lacked faith that the state would provide reliable access
to translation. As such, CBOs should budget for oral and written translation.
✓ New York needs broad reform of the state redistricting process: All participants in this report agree
that the current version of New York’s redistricting commission is flawed and needs reform to function
in 2031. One advocate noted that Syracuse has a well-functioning citizen commission that could be a
model for statewide reform. Some solutions may be found in legislation; however, most advocates feel
that a campaign to create a truly independent redistricting commission is needed. This level of change
would require a constitutional amendment and at least five years in planning to get a new commission
question on the ballot. New York does not have a culture of ballot referendums during elections so there
would also need to be a great deal of community education and mobilization.
✓ Comprehensive and extended funding beyond a redistricting year is critical: A significant portion
of the funding for New York organizations went to good government and legal groups. While this was
necessary, there may have been gaps in funding to local community organizations. These are the groups
that do education, translation of materials, and organizing of rallies and public hearing testimony.
Because the 2021 IRC process is still ongoing in 2023, community groups have been expected to
stretch redistricting funding while managing competing civic engagement priorities, therefore, there is
a need for increased local funding to ensure community participation. Further, several groups indicated
that the role of CBOs should be elevated moving forward; these groups had to educate and organize
communities amidst the COVID-19 pandemic and competing electoral campaigns.

Community Redistricting Report Card | 67

NORTH CAROLINA

BACKGROUND:
North Carolina’s congressional and state legislative maps are drawn
by the state legislature and are not subject to veto by the governor. The
congressional and state legislative maps originally passed in the 2021
cycle by the General Assembly were struck down by the North Carolina
Supreme Court in 2022 as unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders and
remedial plans were implemented for the 2022 election cycle.

State legislators appealed in Moore v. Harper to the U.S. Supreme Court on a fringe theory known as the
“independent state legislature theory,” arguing they could draw congressional districts with no state
court oversight. The Court fully rejected the appeal in June 2023.60 However, due to a change in partisan
composition of the North Carolina Supreme Court in the 2022 election, a conservative majority reversed
its earlier decision rejecting partisan gerrymanders. This paved the way for new congressional and state
legislative plans to be drawn by the General Assembly ahead of the 2024 election cycle.61

COMMUNITY OF INTEREST STORY

“Ten years ago, no one was paying attention, but now everyone has something to say.” - Tyler Daye
(Common Cause NC) paraphrasing a redistricting committee member

Multiple advocates spoke about the legislature’s disregard for community testimony, and in some cases
the misrepresentation of public comments to argue against the points they originally presented. In the
Triad, an area between Greensboro, High Point, and Winston-Salem, there were numerous comments
from community members asking the legislature to keep the area together in one district due to shared
economic and political interests. Despite the community testimony, the legislature used the advocates’
testimony against them, particularly, the testimony of Southern Coalition for Social Justice (SCSJ)’s
CROWD Academy fellows. They ended up splitting the Triad into four districts with Greensboro itself
split between three districts.

OVERALL STATE GRADE: F

Limited hearings: Advocates stated that there were significantly fewer hearings held this cycle than in the
last cycle. There were only a handful of meetings after maps were made public, and hearings were held in
areas of the state without regard to population centers. Although hearings in rural areas did allow more
participation in rural counties, there were no hearings in some major urban centers, including in Guilford
County, the third largest county in the state and home to Greensboro, which was split into three districts.

Poor accessibility: Hearings were often held in the middle of the day with no language access provided nor
assistance for those who are hard of hearing. There was no effort to make hearings accessible to all areas of
the state.

Disregard of public input: There was no indication that the public input and comments that were received
were being incorporated into the map drawing process. In some cases, the public’s testimony was used
against them to justify gerrymandering.

68 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org

AVERAGE LOCAL: D
Advocates indicated mixed but largely negative experiences of processes with local redistricting. In
North Carolina, as in many other Southern states, there are often issues in counties where Boards of
Commissioners are elected at large. In other areas, there are multi-member districts that pack Black voters
or other voters of color.62 The prevalence of at-large redistricting systems in North Carolina harms minority
representation at the local level.

Some local-level commissions had varying levels of success due to ultimate decision-making power being
in the hands of the city council within their municipalities. Because local redistricting occurs at a smaller
scale, some people did say that the process was easier to follow and to engage in than the state and
congressional process. Organizations said they were often successful when they did catch representation
issues, but they weren’t able to monitor the entire state to address every problem.

COMMON CAUSE NORTH CAROLINA

Students join Common Cause North Carolina at NC A&T State University in Greensboro for a rally to unify the campus, which
was previously split into two congressional districts.

LESSONS LEARNED
✓ Specific examples of local impact work in advocacy: Some organizations, like the Common Cause
North Carolina and Southern Coalition for Social Justice (SCSJ), chose to focus on holding events in
places split by redistricting in the past, such as Concord, North Carolina Central University, and North
Carolina A&T. Being able to speak to the specific local impact of past gerrymandering and give tangible
concrete local examples allowed advocates to better engage local communities.
✓ Framing specific to Southerners is important: Southerners understandably have specific concerns
and interests when it comes to redistricting, particularly due to a history of disenfranchisement and
rigging of the political system that has created cynicism in the ability to make change in the system.
Focusing messaging on access to resources, representation, and responsiveness of elected officials
were helpful framing tools for discussions. Groups like SCSJ would meet with local communities to find
issues specific to those towns and places and frame all trainings in relation to local issues. The South is
not a monolith, and communities within each state have their own concerns. By being able to approach
people where they are, organizations were better able to mobilize people.

Community Redistricting Report Card | 69

✓ Include more hyperlocal messaging and organizing: Every hearing was packed because of grassroots
and hyper-local organizing. Messaging that works in one community may not work in another. It is
necessary to understand the diversity of experiences within the state and to not apply a one-size-fits-all
approach.
✓ Redistricting is a movement-building opportunity: Tens of thousands of people turned out to
get involved in the redistricting process, and more organizations were involved than ever before.
Organizing around redistricting is an opportunity to bring more people into the movement and build
relationships between organizations.
✓ Earlier coalition building is needed: Advocates spoke of the difficulty in establishing and building
momentum as a coalition. Although everyone spoke highly of the strength of the civic engagement
coalition in North Carolina, many wished that coalition building and education on redistricting had
begun earlier, as it took time to build expertise and make sure everyone knew the stakes in order to
make decisions effectively as a group.
✓ More GIS and mapping trainings in future cycles: One advocate noted that drawing your own map
is an empowering experience, especially for Black and brown elders. By providing people with access
to tools and information, you can show people that what they are doing in the legislature is something
you can also do. The issue is access, and training people to draw their own maps can help level the
playing field. Tools like Dave’s Redistricting App, Representable, and District were invaluable for many
advocates during the redistricting cycle in allowing people to draw their own maps.
COMMON CAUSE NORTH CAROLINA

Students join Common Cause North Carolina at NC A&T State University in Greensboro for a rally to unify the campus, which
was previously split into two congressional districts.

70 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org

NORTH DAKOTA

BACKGROUND:
North Dakota has only one congressional district, so there is no congressional
redistricting. State legislative lines are drawn by the legislature and adopted as
regular legislation, subject to gubernatorial veto. There are multiple federal court
cases in progress challenging the state legislative maps as racial gerrymanders or
as diluting Native American votes under the Voting Rights Act.63

COMMUNITY OF INTEREST STORY

“If no one’s watching in Indian County, some local jurisdictions are more than happy to dilute the Native
vote.” - Sam Kelty, Native American Rights Fund

The redistricting process in North Dakota was marred by the significant diminishment of Native
representation in the legislature. One example of this was packing and cracking of the Turtle Mountain
Band of Chippewa and the Spirit Lake Nation. For years, voters on and around the Turtle Mountain
Reservation have been able to elect three representatives of their choice to the state legislature. Despite
an increase in the state’s Native population, the legislature redrew districts in a manner that reduced that
representation from three to one. A federal court case challenging these lines for diluting Native voting
power claims that the new maps packed Turtle Mountain tribal members into one House district and left
Spirit Lake out of a majority-Native district, reducing the voting power of both tribes. As a result of this
and the requirement that two House districts be nested in each Senate district, Native voters in North
Dakota were not able to elect a Native representative to the State Senate for the first time since 1991.64

OVERALL STATE GRADE: D+

Refusal to engage with tribes: One consistent criticism of North Dakota’s redistricting process was the
legislature’s refusal to engage the sizable Native population in the state. The committee did not hold
hearings on reservations despite multiple formal requests to do so and argued that receiving information
from a third-party liaison to tribes was sufficient. As one advocate put it, tribes were begging to speak
directly to the redistricting committee but were largely blocked from the process.

Lack of opportunity for public input: Advocates also spoke to the lack of opportunities to testify about
the maps they wanted. They rated the redistricting committee very poorly across the board for public
outreach and education. They also highlighted that meeting locations were in two urban cities, hundreds
of miles away from reservation communities. Opportunities for remote testimony existed but were not well
publicized, leaving rural Native communities shut out of the process.

LESSONS LEARNED:
✓ Public requests help with legal cases against unfair maps: Ensuring that requests from various tribal
nations to meet or hold hearings on reservations were made formally and publicly creates an effective
record of evidence for legal cases challenging maps unfair to Native communities. Documenting
attempts to engage the legislature, even if they fail, is important to help bolster claims under the Voting
Rights Act against unfair maps.

Community Redistricting Report Card | 71

✓ Add capacity for more mapping and legal experts based in North Dakota: Mapping experts and
analysts were stretched thin during the redistricting process, which often required quick analysis
of draft maps and the rapid dissemination of this analysis to partner groups. Training or hiring more
mapping and legal experts who are local to North Dakota and understand the political landscape would
help greatly with advocacy efforts. Some advocates stated they thought the legislature responded
better to local experts as well, or people who were based in North Dakota and could show up in person
to meetings.
✓ More funding is needed for local groups and lobbyists: Advocates rated the civic infrastructure of
North Dakota very poorly (averaging 3 out of 10) and spoke of the need for more funding for local
organizations engaged in this work. One advocate described the need for funding to hire additional
lobbyists who can work with legislators, as opportunities for public input often excluded people from
the process. Lobbyists can often provide key links between the public and legislators.

72 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org

OHIO

BACKGROUND:

In 2015 and 2018, reformers in Ohio pushed legislators to change how redistricting
is conducted in the state. Facing the prospect of more sweeping reform through
ballot initiatives, legislators agreed to amend Ohio’s constitution to make changes to
redistricting that created greater incentives for bipartisan cooperation while leaving the
power to draw districts in elected officials’ hands. For state legislative districts, the new
redistricting process empowers a seven-member politician commission. If a map passes
with a majority of the commission that includes two or more votes from the minority party,
the map will be in effect until the next decennial census. If it passes with a majority that includes fewer than
two minority party votes, it will go into effect for two election cycles only and the process will be repeated.

For U.S. House districts, the new system gives the Ohio General Assembly the first opportunity to draw a
map. If the legislature fails to approve maps with a supermajority vote, the same seven-member politician
commission described above takes over. If the commission also fails, the General Assembly is again
empowered to draw the map as a regular statute, subject to veto by the governor. If a map passes the
General Assembly or the backup commission with a bipartisan supermajority vote, the map will be in effect
until the next decennial census. If the General Assembly passes a map with a simple majority, it will go into
effect for two election cycles only and the process will be repeated.

COMMUNITY OF INTEREST STORY

Ohio activists energetically organized communities across the state to tell their stories. Unfortunately,
the politician redistricting commission and legislators in charge of drawing maps largely ignored
hundreds of community maps and hours of detailed written and verbal testimony to keep a laser
focus on partisan advantage. However, one success story came through. The Fair Maps Ohio coalition
energized residents of the City of Dayton to push back against a needless city split that would have
divided city residents from the places where they obtain essential goods and services. This placed
Dayton residents at risk of being represented by legislators with less incentive to ensure that the
hospitals, schools, and other locations they depend on received adequate funding. Thanks to extensive
testimony, residents pushed back and demanded inclusion in the same district. Unfortunately, most
communities in Ohio had less luck advocating for a people-first approach to redistricting.

OVERALL STATE GRADE: F

Partisanship trumps reform: Unfortunately, this cycle, the Republican majority in the legislature and the
politician commission showed no interest in bipartisan cooperation and drew maps designed to maximize
the number of Republican seats. The Ohio Supreme Court struck down state legislative maps five times
and the congressional map twice, determining that both violated state constitutional prohibitions against
partisan gerrymandering. Despite these constitutional violations, state law contains no provision for
an alternative body to draw districts. As a result, elected officials ran out the clock by making minimal
boundary adjustments that did not cure the constitutional violations. As a result, in 2022, Ohioans were
forced to vote in congressional and state legislative districts that were unconstitutional.

Community Redistricting Report Card | 73

This redistricting cycle in Ohio provided a textbook example of the lengths elected officials will go to
prioritize partisanship over fair representation for the public. The redistricting reforms Ohioans approved
in 2015 and 2018 included provisions requiring some proportionality in partisan outcomes, which means
that a party that wins 55% of the vote should win about 55% of the seats. A bipartisan majority of the
Ohio Supreme Court held that map drawers ignored this requirement and instead focused on maximizing
the number of Republican seats to the exclusion of all other objectives. As the Dayton example above
illustrates, advocacy made a difference in some small ways. Longtime redistricting reformer Richard
Gunther noted that “the difference between Map 1 and Map 3 showed that we had some impact.” Prentiss
Haney of the Ohio Organizing Collaborative observed that advocacy “made a difference in ensuring that the
worst maps were not passed.”

However, despite some successes on the margins, the process and results were unmitigated disasters.
Common Cause Ohio’s Catherine Turcer summed it up best when she said that legislators are “willing to
violate the Ohio Constitution, the expectations of Ohio voters, and are willing to tell the Ohio Supreme
Court to jump in a lake.” As a result of the complete disregard that the Republican majority on the Ohio
Redistricting Commission and in the General Assembly showed for the rule of law in Ohio, the state’s
redistricting process receives an F grade.

LESSONS LEARNED:
✓ The process must be removed from
legislators’ hands: The primary problem with
Ohio’s existing process for drawing districts
is the active participation of elected officials.
The existing design of Ohio’s redistricting
reform fails to provide sufficient protections
against a partisan process. In addition, the
Ohio Constitution does not empower a court
or any alternative body to draw districts if the

BOB STUDZINSKI
commission or legislature passes an illegal
map. The willingness of Ohio Republicans to
ignore the rule of law this redistricting cycle
provided one of the most vivid examples of the
need to create a redistricting process that fully
excludes self-interested elected officials.
✓ Direct democracy fuels people power: Fortunately, Ohio is a ballot initiative state in which sweeping
reform is more easily accomplished than in states where reform must be passed by legislators.
Redistricting reformers have enjoyed the most success in states with a ballot initiative option because
elected officials jealously guard the power to manipulate voting districts. Notably, attempts were made
to amend the state constitution during an August 8, 2023 special election. HJR 1 would have required
a 60 percent threshold for passing a constitutional amendment by ballot initiative. This measure was
aimed at stopping efforts to strengthen reproductive rights and reform redistricting but was defeated
with 57% of voters opposing the amendment.

74 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org

OKLAHOMA

BACKGROUND:
Oklahoma’s congressional lines are drawn by the state legislature and subject
to a gubernatorial veto. The legislature is also responsible for drawing state level
legislative lines, but if they fail to pass a plan the responsibility passes to a seven-
member backup commission.65

COMMUNITY OF INTEREST STORY

“This process was the most transparent it’s ever been in state history because of advocacy, but the proof is
in the pudding.” - Andy Moore, Let’s Fix This

Multiple subjects interviewed spoke to the splitting of Latinx communities in Oklahoma City in the
state congressional maps. There was a significant gap in civic engagement and outreach to the Latinx
community, and the community ended up getting split in the congressional plan despite extensive
organizing.

OVERALL STATE GRADE: C+

Most transparent process ever, but limitations still existed: The public was invited to submit complete
maps and the state legislature held redistricting town halls throughout the state, which they had never
done before. Redistricting meetings were held at different locations across the state with opportunities for
public comment, but the public comment period was short and not broadcast widely. Additionally, partial
or incomplete maps were not accepted, and the only opportunity to submit community of interest-level
information was to individual legislators.

No opportunity to respond to draft maps: Although there were opportunities to submit draft maps and
public comments, there was no opportunity for the public to comment on draft maps.

Limited town halls: Opportunities for public input were limited to a handful of town halls, with two virtual-
only town halls and several others that were livestreamed but only available for comment in person. The
website was difficult to manage, and there was no opportunity to submit comments virtually.

State legislature exempt from open records requests: One advocate stated this was particularly difficult
and that the legislature would use procedural specifics to avoid transparency.

AVERAGE LOCAL: C
In Oklahoma, each county has only three county commissioners, who each wield significant power at the
county level. The state government offered to use resources to draw Board of Commissioners districts for
all counties - but because state government is exempt from open records requests and county and local
level governments are not, this essentially moved local redistricting behind a curtain and limited public
input. Results varied across the state, but this was a major problem with transparency across the board.

Community Redistricting Report Card | 75

LESSONS LEARNED:
✓ Failed petition for an independent commission still had an impact: Although a petition for an
independent redistricting commission failed due to COVID-19 difficulties and political issues, advocates
believe this attempt did draw attention to redistricting and resulted in the legislature deciding to have
public meetings about redistricting.
✓ Advocacy worked and achieved more transparency and public input: Advocacy efforts in the past
few years have drawn attention to redistricting in Oklahoma, and there was a marked increase in
participation, interest, and transparency in the process.
✓ Larger narrative fails with a partisanship and partisan lens: One advocate stated that the media
often took a partisan lens in covering Oklahoma redistricting, which they believe hurt organizing
efforts by making it seem like a partisan horse-trading game instead of an issue of public interest and
accountability for people across parties.
✓ Advocacy must start earlier: Advocates spoke of the need to get organizing work started years before
the redistricting process, especially if working for a ballot initiative or any reforms.
✓ More education is needed going forward: Most people do not know about redistricting. It is critically
important to create a larger culture of civic engagement and tie redistricting to other, more familiar
topics for people.
✓ Watch for small ways the legislature subverts the process: Advocates spoke to how the legislature
subverted an open process and forced organizers to participate on their terms - through small rules
that allowed for exemptions to open records requests and open meeting and only allowed input in
specific ways (through Dave’s Redistricting App, by email, etc).
✓ Transparency is not enough: Oklahoma had the most transparent process in its history, but as Andy
Moore from Let’s Fix This said, “the proof is in the pudding.” Transparency and significant public
input do not automatically translate into wins and outcomes that protect communities, especially
communities of color.

76 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org

OREGON

BACKGROUND:
In Oregon, the state legislature draws congressional and state legislative
districts, subject to gubernatorial veto. If the legislature fails to approve a map,
the responsibility shifts to a panel of judges (for congressional maps) and to the
Secretary of State (for state legislative maps). Redistricting reformers are currently
working to gather signatures for a 2024 ballot initiative to create an independent
citizens redistricting commission in Oregon.66

COMMUNITY OF INTEREST STORY

Native Americans across the state worked to keep their communities, which were located on and off
reservations, together in the final redistricting maps through public education and testimony-writing
workshops. This work was an extension of previous efforts to boost census completion and increase
voter turnout in Native communities. Jaylyn Suppah of the Tribal Democracy Project said, “We need to…
be a vein of information and resources for things our communities are not part of, where the systems
[were] not built for us and sometimes [were built] against us.” Ultimately, tribal leaders and advocates
were dissatisfied with the lack of genuine outreach by the state, and by the final maps which separated
Native communities that live on and off reservations but interact and are connected day-to-day.
Nevertheless, advocates noted an increase in coalition knowledge around redistricting and an increase
in redistricting advocacy across tribal communities in the state. This work will continue through efforts
such as the Tribal Democracy Project - an effort that increases civic participation, for example, by way of
voter registration and redistricting advocacy.

OVERALL STATE GRADE: C-

Insufficient outreach: Though there was a public website, advocates felt that public outreach was lacking.
Many advocates received state redistricting information through community organizations rather than the
state or local officials. Further, some advocates felt the website was not easy to navigate.

Inadequate incorporation of feedback: Not all advocates believed that public input was adequately
incorporated into the final maps. A community organizer and member of the Confederated Tribe of Warm
Springs (CTWS) believed that legislators tokenized tribal input rather than truly listening to it. For example,
many pieces of public testimony stressed that, while the proposed (and final) maps technically kept tribal
lands together, they split the Warm Springs Reservation from the city of Madras. While Madras is not within
the confines of the reservation, it is a city in which many tribal community members live, shop, and go to
school. Further, in the previous official map, the two were kept together.

Technical barriers: While the public could submit their own maps as a form of public testimony, advocates
did not feel that the process was easy to navigate. For example, submitted maps had to be statewide, rather
than regional, district-by-district, or community maps. Therefore, the task was more time intensive. Further,
some felt that the publicly available mapping tool provided by the state was too complex to use. Advocates
felt that more maps could have been submitted had the process been easier.

Community Redistricting Report Card | 77

LESSONS LEARNED:
✓ Momentum grew for an independent commission ballot measure: Many of those interviewed
expressed concern that the legislature’s involvement in redistricting has led to incumbency protection
and disenfranchisement of voters of color, particularly rural voters of color. This brought to light the
need for an independent redistricting commission in the state, and efforts to establish a commission
have again taken off, with a focus on placing an initiative on the 2024 ballot. A broad coalition of
organizations working in partnership with People Not Politicians supports this effort.
✓ Tribal redistricting advocacy expanded: Advocates noted an increase in coalition knowledge
around redistricting and an increase in redistricting advocacy across tribal communities in the state.
Two advocates highlighted the ongoing Tribal Democracy Project - an effort that increases civic
participation by way of voter registration and voter turnout - and how redistricting folded into that
work.
✓ More outreach should be conducted by the state: Advocates spoke to the lack of adequate outreach
by the state. For example, a member of the Confederated Tribe of Warm Springs recalled that only
about 5% of their community knew about the redistricting process. Once organizers learned about
the process, many wished they had started advocacy efforts sooner within their communities; notably,
advocates also wished they had connected their census outreach to redistricting public education.
✓ Redistricting must respect tribal communities’ sovereign status: Tribal advocates and leaders
repeatedly spoke to the treatment of tribal communities as community organizations rather than
sovereign governments. One organizer noted that, in the only official meeting held with tribal leaders,
which was scheduled last-minute, not all nine tribes could attend. Legislators’ lack of outreach and
their unwillingness to incorporate feedback from Native American leaders led tribal communities to
believe that legislators had little interest in their feedback. It also left them dissatisfied with the final
redistricting maps.

78 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org

PENNSYLVANIA

BACKGROUND:
Congressional redistricting is conducted by the state legislature as a regular
statute and subject to a gubernatorial veto. The Pennsylvania General Assembly is
redistricted by the Legislative Reapportionment Commission, which is a politician
commission. The 2021 commission consisted of five members: the caucus floor
leaders from both the state house and state senate, and a member appointed by the
state supreme court.

OVERALL STATE GRADE: C+

Improved process for state legislative redistricting: Redistricting for the General Assembly was
conducted by a five-person commission, led by a nonpartisan chair appointed by the state supreme court.
Advocates broadly remarked that the line-drawing process for the state senate and state house were
markedly more transparent, open, and responsive than prior cycles. The Legislative Reapportionment
Commission (LRC) conducted various hearings where they explicitly invited advocacy groups to provide
testimony, held meetings at various times with hybrid options to allow for greater participation, and
ensured that transcripts and testimony were made available online. The LRC encouraged the submission
of communities of interest (COI) maps, reassigned most of the prison population back to their home
communities, and incorporated public testimony alongside community map submissions in its decision-
making—all resulting in fairer and more representative maps.

Less transparent congressional redistricting: However, the state legislature-led redistricting of

congressional lines had a markedly different process—one that advocates noted was less transparent, less
responsive to public input, and ultimately required the state supreme court to step in and implement a
map after an impasse between the legislature and the governor. Despite having a public comment portal,
advocates noted it was unclear if any of the comments and testimony provided by the public were actually
taken into consideration in the maps proposed by the state legislature, and that those proposals did little to
incorporate community of interest feedback.

Strong civic engagement ecosystem: Many organizations and coalitions participated in the redistricting
process in Pennsylvania, educating and driving community members to participate in providing testimony
and in hearings, gathering hundreds of community maps to create unity maps, and pushing the LRC to
create a more open and transparent process that ultimately resulted in more representative districts.

LESSONS LEARNED:67
✓ Communities had greater influence in the redistricting process: Advocates all remarked that
community voices, testimony, and community-drawn map submissions had a greater impact on the
outcome of the state legislative maps drawn by the LRC this cycle than in past redistricting cycles.
There were key priorities that were won because of advocacy work, including the partial end of
prison gerrymandering and the reassignment of some of the prison population back to their home
communities and pushing to include experts of color to provide testimony before the LRC. The final
maps adopted by the LRC better reflected communities of interest and advocates widely remarked that
the organizing and advocacy throughout this redistricting cycle made a noticeable difference in the
final state legislative maps.

Community Redistricting Report Card | 79

✓ Organizational and community engagement strengthened: Many advocates noted that organizations
and coalitions were able to work together to advance the interest of communities on the ground, and
to bring community members in and uplift their voices. The cross-pollination between groups and
coalitions and focus on creating the most representative map is possible led to the creation of hundreds
of COI maps, increased engagement in testimonies and public comments, and more robust public
awareness of the redistricting process.
✓ Redistricting process must be improved: Advocates noted that more structural reforms are required
to bring more transparency and public engagement for congressional redistricting, and to ensure
that state legislative redistricting is not wholly dependent on who is appointed to the commission.
These structural reforms may range from legislation clarifying map-drawing criteria to a constitutional
amendment implementing an independent redistricting commission in the state.
✓ Increase transparency within the state legislative redistricting process: While the LRC process was a
marked improvement from past cycles, some changes that would strengthen the process include putting
in place additional transparency and public engagement procedures that would expand in areas such as
language access, the diversity among testifying experts, and more public education from the LRC.
✓ Begin outreach and education sooner: Earlier outreach and education efforts, including tying
redistricting work into the census and including redistricting in voter outreach efforts, would
strengthen advocacy work in future redistricting cycles. Additionally, identifying methods to sustain the
engagement of community members is critical to ensure community voices are heard throughout the
redistricting process.

80 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org

RHODE ISLAND

BACKGROUND:
Rhode Island’s congressional and state legislative lines are drawn by the state legislature as a regular
statute, subject to gubernatorial veto. The state also has an 18-member advisory commission. The
state Senate President and Speaker of the House each choose four commissioners: one member of
the legislature and three non-legislators. The state Senate and state House minority leaders each
choose two additional commissioners. In 2021, this commission recommended congressional and
state legislative plans to the legislature, which could adopt, modify, or ignore the commission’s
proposals.

COMMUNITY OF INTEREST STORY

Organizations noted that prison gerrymandering advocacy was an impactful example of community
involvement. This work was focused on Cranston, RI which houses the state prison system. Common
Cause, ACLU-RI, Prison Policy Initiative, Black Lives Matter PAC, and Direct Action for Rights and
Equality (DARE) coordinated organizing efforts and recruited affected communities to provide
testimony on the impact prison gerrymandering had on their lives. DARE also conducted grassroots
organizing events across Providence.

Outside of prison gerrymandering efforts, very few people were interested and willing to draw COI
maps. The advisory commission held more than a dozen hearings throughout the state which were
simulcast on Capitol TV and live-streamed. The commission only advertised the hearings through
their normal channels (Twitter, Facebook) and did not do any community outreach. Some incumbent
members of the legislature mentioned the hearings in their campaign newsletters. The commission and
Common Cause Rhode Island made an online tool available for drawing COI and full maps. Efforts were
made once the draft maps were released, and some communities were upset about portions of the maps.
Coalition advocates submitted approximately a dozen COI maps on the state website.

OVERALL STATE GRADE: C-

LOCAL GRADE IN PROVIDENCE: B
Inadequate public engagement: The state created a website to store redistricting information but did
almost nothing to promote the site or public hearing schedule. Advocates stated that the commission
did not deliberate about the maps in public or seem to consider any testimony when drawing the final
maps. Additionally, the commission often posted notices or changed sessions at the last minute. This left
organizations feeling unprepared and could have impacted community involvement.

Lack of language accessibility: The state commission featured Spanish speakers, but all hearings were
only broadcast in English, and advocates did not see any interpretation resources available. Although the
state may have struggled to provide language support, the city of Providence encouraged residents to use
Representable because of the platform’s functionality in Spanish.

Community Redistricting Report Card | 81

LESSONS LEARNED:
✓ Shifting priorities during pandemic created challenges: The COVID-19 pandemic created several
challenges during the 2021 redistricting cycle. The organizations working on redistricting stopped
meeting at the beginning of the pandemic and did not find a good virtual platform to continue meeting.
The state commission allowed written testimony to be submitted online but had no opportunity for live
testimony over virtual platforms. The state and organizations should address the need for better tech
and digital options for community involvement in future cycles.
✓ Steps were made towards complete prison gerrymandering reform: In early 2022, the state
redistricting commission voted to count a portion of the Adult Correctional Institute (ACI) population
at their home residence for state and congressional districts. This change accounts for roughly 44% of
people currently incarcerated. Advocates credited the turnout for the special prison gerrymandering
hearing and decades of advocacy as partially responsible for this vote. Organizations continue to press
for complete prison gerrymandering reform ahead of the 2031 process.
✓ More investment in public education is needed: Organizations in the state understand the need
to build organizing capacity for redistricting. In 2021, the state lacked grassroots engagement, and
advocates reflected that they should have prioritized this aspect of the redistricting work.
✓ Clarity on Voting Rights Act analysis is important: Advocates said they needed to be better prepared
to conduct a Voting Rights Act analysis once official maps were released. Several national groups had
initially offered but, due to timelines and other priorities, did not have a chance to help Rhode Island
with this request. It will be important to identify in-state analysts before 2031.

82 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org

SOUTH CAROLINA

BACKGROUND:
In South Carolina, congressional and state legislative lines are drawn by the state legislature
and adopted as a regular statute that is subject to a gubernatorial veto.

OVERALL STATE GRADE: D+

Racial gerrymandering in congressional redistricting: During the redistricting process, advocates in the
state pushed legislators to ensure that a congressional district was preserved to ensure that Black voters
had an effective opportunity to elect their preferred candidates. They also urged legislators not to pack
Black voters in any given district or split them away from their communities of interest. However, in January
2023, a federal district court found that the state engaged in racial gerrymandering when enacting its
congressional map.

Insufficient public input: Although the state legislature conducted some public hearings and there was
opportunity for advocacy groups to submit draft maps, advocates noted that there was no clear indication
of how input was received and integrated into legislative decision-making leading people to believe that
the state legislature did not consider public input. While information on hearings was posted online, there
were few other methods of dissemination, and often hearings were held only days after draft map proposals
were released. Finally, most of the hearings conducted this cycle took place before census data was even
made available, with more limited options during the actual line-drawing process.

LESSONS LEARNED:
✓ Some limited opportunities for public input existed: The state legislature did provide some
opportunity for public testimony and input alongside public-facing websites and publicly released draft
proposals. The state House Redistricting Committee alone conducted eleven public hearings before
any plans were proposed. However, it was clear that the opportunities for the public to give feedback on
drafted maps were insufficient, the timing precluded thorough public review, and many of the meetings
did not provide remote options.
✓ Better outreach and public education are necessary: Although the state legislature had a public-
facing website where information was posted, advocates noted that stronger outreach and public
education were both necessary to ensure that community members had the tools to actually engage in
the redistricting process.
✓ The state needs a more open process that actually incorporates public input: The first proposals
released by the House Redistricting Committee came on December 13, 2021, and a hearing was
scheduled only days later on December 16. This is but one example of this redistricting cycle not
providing sufficient opportunities for public review and input after draft maps were prepared.
Advocates also noted that testimony calling on legislators to keep communities of interest together
often was not taken into account. A more open process that clearly incorporates public testimony and
input is necessary in future redistricting cycles.
✓ Start the education and outreach cycle sooner in the community: Advocates engaged in the
redistricting process during this cycle in South Carolina noted that there needs to be stronger public
education regarding redistricting to make sure that people understand what is at stake and to make
sure that they stay engaged. By starting earlier in future redistricting cycles, this would provide more
time to educate and engage the public.

Community Redistricting Report Card | 83

SOUTH DAKOTA

BACKGROUND:
South Dakota’s state legislative lines are drawn by the legislature as a law subject to
gubernatorial veto. The state has 35 multi-member legislative districts, with each
including two state house members and one state senator. South Dakota only has one
congressional district.

COMMUNITY OF INTEREST STORY

“One of our main strategies was to be present. To ensure that every time a sentence is given talking about
tribes, sovereignty, and rights as a citizen of that state - that Native people were present. - OJ Semans Sr.,
Co-Executive Director, Four Directions

OJ Semans Sr., Co-Executive Director of Four Directions, shared a few key wins for Native communities
of interest in South Dakota. The Crow Creek and Lower Brule reservations were drawn into a single state
legislative district to preserve reservation boundaries. This was a significant win, as state legislators have
usually tried to break up reservation boundaries as much as they could. Additionally, in State Legislative
District 32, which includes part of Rapid City, about 400 tribal members live in a housing community
called Lakota Homes. For years, the community has been divided between three different state
legislative districts, but during this redistricting cycle, they were able to advocate and be drawn into one
single district. Though they are not the majority, Native people are now between 30-40% of the voting
age population of that state legislative district, creating opportunities for Native people to be a political
force. Both of these wins speak to the power of Native organizing in the state.

OVERALL STATE GRADE: C+

Open (to an extent): The legislature held numerous hearings and allowed testimony from community
members, but there was not sufficient local education about redistricting, and legislators did not spend
time engaging publicly on the details of the redistricting process.

Responsive to requests: There was significant pressure on the legislature from the community, especially
Native organizers, for more engagement with tribal leaders and to engage with Native communities
in hearings on reservations. This pressure led to a more responsive legislature. One advocate from the
Native American Rights Fund indicated that this might have been due to fear of being sued and the legacy
of Boneshirt v. Hazeltine, a statewide lawsuit in which judges found the state discriminated against
indigenous South Dakotans by not thoroughly involving them in the 2001 redistricting process.68

Not proactive in engaging tribes: Although the legislature generally responded to requests from tribes,
they were not proactive in actively seeking to hold hearings on reservations nor in engaging directly with
tribal leaders and councils.

LESSONS LEARNED:
✓ Be in the room: One advocate interviewed stated that a main strategy was to be present and ensure
that a Native person was in the room every time the redistricting committee was holding hearings

84 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org

or discussing tribal related issues to hold legislators accountable and remind them of the power and
presence of tribes in their state.
✓ Work with friendly legislators: Successful organizers worked with supportive legislators to find
out what was going on behind the scenes, see proposed maps, and share those maps with coalition
partners. Advocates stated that they drew heavily on the expertise of legislators and other informed and
engaged allies due to the complexity of the redistricting process.
✓ Work together with tribal leaders: Organizations were successful in working with tribal leaders and
tribal councils throughout South Dakota, getting them to show up and testify about redistricting despite
major barriers to access for under-resourced communities.
✓ Funding for local organizations: Advocates spoke of the importance of local organizations leading
the fight in redistricting, and the importance of funding going directly to local organizations. Local
organizations and coalitions know their communities and the political landscape best and would
benefit from receiving more funds directly from funders. More funding would allow them to better do
the work of training people to testify, working with tribes, and bringing tribes together and to the table
that are under-resourced and overworked.
✓ Let local partners take the lead: Leaders also spoke to the importance of having redistricting campaign
coordination led by local partners, with national organizations stepping in for support but not leading.
Letting local organizations take the lead was crucial to organizing successes on the ground.
✓ More education and census focus: Leaders spoke to the importance of public education and the need
for more op-eds, articles, or ads on radio stations and other media outlets to educate people on why
redistricting matters. Some advocates also spoke to the importance of focusing more on the census
in Indian Country and connecting the census to redistricting. Multiple steps need to be taken to make
sure Native people are not undercounted, including tribes taking over the census locally, hiring tribal
members as census workers, or hiring tribal members as escorts to guide census workers around
reservations. All of these strategies can help ensure more equitable redistricting in the future for
indigenous South Dakotans.

Community Redistricting Report Card | 85

TENNESSEE

BACKGROUND:
Tennessee’s state legislative and congressional district boundaries are determined by
the state legislature, subject to a gubernatorial veto.

COMMUNITY OF INTEREST STORY

Tennessee advocates noted blatant and strategic racial gerrymandering on the part of lawmakers,
highlighting an egregious example in North Nashville, a historically Black neighborhood in the state’s
capital. Vincent Dixie, the former head of the Tennessee Legislative Black Caucus and the Chair of the
Democratic Caucus at the time, was drawn out of his district in an early draft map. In the process, a
district that most consistently allowed some of the city’s Black residents to elect their candidate of
choice would have been decimated. Pressure from community advocates and legal questions about
unlawful racial gerrymandering resulted in the legislature reversing course and keeping Dixie’s district
whole. Yet, the legislature’s reversal was an outlier.

Organizers expressed that the legislature stood its ground on the wrong side of the public interest in all
other disputes regarding redistricting. According to advocates, the final maps harmed minority voters
and opportunity districts through excessive partisan gerrymandering and county splitting.

As such, a lawsuit was filed in August 2023 by a coalition of community organizations and voters
(including the League of Women Voters of Tennessee, the Tennessee State Conference of the NAACP, and
the African American Clergy Collective of Tennessee) alleging that Tennessee’s congressional and state
senate redistricting maps were created with the intention of discriminating against Black voters and
other voters of color.

OVERALL STATE GRADE: F

Disregard of public input: Opportunities for input were limited and non-profit groups like the League of
Women Voters of Tennessee, CivicTN, and the NAACP Tennessee State Conference had to step in to fill the
gap.69 Although the legislature allowed for the online submission of draft maps, maps had to be complete
statewide maps and community of interest maps were not allowed. Advocates stated that the legislature’s
attorney rejected all maps submitted, saying they were not compliant with state law without providing
further details. Additionally, there was no evidence that the legislature took public input into account as
they passed final maps that were almost identical to the first draft of maps they shared with the public.

Lack of language access and public participation: Nonprofit organizations and activists had to provide
materials and translation into languages other than English because the legislature failed to do so.70
Legislators only accepted written submissions from the public and did not allow live testimony to be
provided remotely. A Tennessean seeking to provide live testimony on redistricting had to be physically
present at the Tennessee State Capitol in the middle of the day when many people are at work.

Lack of transparency in how input was received: The legislature’s process was secretive and not open to
public feedback. Legislators on the committee sometimes stated they had never seen maps, even as other
legislators claimed they shared them with the entire committee. Coalitions submitted maps but never
received timely feedback on their submissions or an indication of how their maps were taken into account.

86 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org

AVERAGE LOCAL: D-
Advocates gave local redistricting a slightly higher rating at a D-minus. There were more successes in
organizing against egregious racial gerrymandering issues pertaining to Black and Latinx communities at
the local level, but advocates highlighted significant problems with local redistricting in Fayette County,
Clarksville, Covington, and Chattanooga.

LESSONS LEARNED:
✓ Partnerships matter: Relationships with community-based grassroots organizations, national
organizations, and mutual aid organizations were critical in mobilizing community members.
Further, redistricting advocacy strengthened existing relationships among grassroots organizations.
Organizations developed relationships, increased subject matter knowledge, and educated the public
in ways that will continue to bear fruit in the future.
✓ Engaging people directly affected works: One organizer shared that presenting communities with
opportunities to join strategy calls and informational sessions culminated in a rally and approximately
300 people speaking out about unfair maps.
✓ Meaningful public input is needed: Organizers fought for transparency and hearings, however, some
advocates said this was not enough and that the legislature feigned a transparent process despite the
lack of meaningful public input into the process.

Community Redistricting Report Card | 87

TEXAS

BACKGROUND:
In Texas, the state legislature draws congressional and state legislative districts
and adopts the plans through the normal legislative process, subject to a
gubernatorial veto. The congressional maps passed in 2021 were challenged
in federal court for violating the Voting Rights Act’s prohibition of racial
gerrymandering. The state legislative maps passed in 2021 were resubmitted
in 2023 to meet the state constitutional provision that districts be drawn “at
its first regular session after the publication of each United States decennial
census.” [Tx. Const. art. III § 28]. The House and Senate resubmitted maps that
were identical to the maps passed in 2021, despite pressure to make changes
to better represent Black and Latinx voters.71

As of July 7, 2023, multiple court cases are proceeding through federal court challenging the new
congressional maps as racially discriminatory in violation of Section 2 of the VRA. Nine cases were filed
challenging congressional maps and multiple other cases were filed challenging legislative maps as racially
discriminatory. 72

COMMUNITY OF INTEREST STORY

“It’s not that people are apathetic about politics, it’s that the systems are really apathetic to the people.” -
Ashley Cheng, Founding President, Asian Texans for Justice

Immigrant communities fought especially hard for language justice during this redistricting cycle. Many
advocates spoke about the lack of translation service offered and how organizations banded together
to advocate for interpretation services for Spanish-speaking and AAPI communities. The coalition did
succeed in getting a budget rider item to fund translation services for redistricting meetings, but the
legislature still required 72 hours notice to offer a translator, sometimes for meetings that were only
announced 24 hours in advance. Through the Texas AAPI Redistricting Coalition, advocates encouraged
people to testify in their native languages to prove how inaccessible the process was. Advocates were
forced to provide community interpreters for people, assisting in seven languages other than English.
Ashley Cheng from Asian Texans for Justice spoke about how AAPI communities, the fastest growing
population in Texas, were routinely ignored and left out of the process, and how advocates helping
community members provide in-language testimony provided an outlet for people to be heard, despite
the legislature failing to provide equal access to immigrant communities.

OVERALL STATE GRADE: D-

Difficulty in accessing information: Even for people deeply involved with redistricting and actively
seeking information, finding out how to get involved proved difficult. The redistricting section of the Texas
legislature’s website was not well-publicized and it was largely left up to the advocacy community to
translate complex information to the public about the process and how to get involved.

Rushed timeline: There were many opportunities to testify virtually and there was great turnout from
communities of color despite hurdles to participation, but the process for passing maps was rushed.

88 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org

Redistricting occurred during a month-long special session that did a poor job including the public.
Hearings were often held with less than 24 hours notice, and only the House offered the opportunity for
virtual testimony. Maps were passed quickly, within a week or two of the initial proposed maps, with few
changes reflecting input from the community.

Lack of language access: The redistricting committee offered translation services after a public pressure
campaign from immigrant organizations, but the process to request translation for testimony was entirely
in English, difficult to navigate, and required requests 72 hours in advance.

AVERAGE LOCAL: C-
Advocates gave an average grade of C- for local redistricting processes in their areas, citing specific local
wins in Austin, Houston, and other areas that reflected more responsive and transparent processes than the
state as a whole.

LESSONS LEARNED:
✓ Share the nitty-gritty details about how to get involved: Organizations shared they were able to
successfully engage people in the process
by teaching them how to navigate often

FAIR MAPS TEXAS

overlooked barriers to participation - i.e.
how to get around the Capitol, how to get
to meetings, and how to share specific
stories about redistricting in testimony.
Walking people through these processes
built a sense of trust and made it easier
for them to participate in a process not
designed for them.
✓ Education and outreach make an
impact: Texans Against Gerrymandering,
their Fair Maps Texas Coalition partners,
and other organizations were able
to mobilize hundreds of community
members to share testimony virtually and
in person. According to one advocate,
almost all people who testified used
terminology they learned from advocacy
organizations, showing the impact and
importance of community education
efforts.
✓ Virtual testimony and participation succeeded: One huge success from the redistricting coalition in
Texas was the push to allow virtual testimony in the redistricting process. The redistricting committee
was the only committee in the state legislature to offer virtual meetings due to years-long advocacy
work by community organizations. This allowed hundreds more people to participate and was a great
success, regardless of the results.
✓ Maps and data help strengthen testimony: Advocates emphasized that utilizing maps and data
helped strengthen community testimony, and providing members of the public with these tools greatly
strengthened their ability to represent themselves and their communities.
✓ There needs to be more coalition districts and collaborative work across communities of color:
Despite incredible turnout and advocacy by communities of color and organizations fighting for these

Community Redistricting Report Card | 89

communities, advocates lamented that the maps passed ultimately ended up drastically splitting
communities of color, who make up 95% of the state’s total population growth in the past decade.73
There were no new opportunity districts created and house maps actually decreased the amount of
majority Latinx and majority Black citizen voting age population (CVAP) districts.74 Advocates from
different communities of color were successful in advocating together, but there is further opportunity
for pushing for coalition districts in 2030; advocates spoke of an overlap in support across communities
of color on a number of issues.
✓ More training on maps is helpful: Advocates spoke of a learning curve in using maps and how and
when to engage communities in mapping COI’s. Some thought their voices wouldn’t be heard; many
people would speak to the process but not their specific COI, and more training could be helpful to
bridge that gap in the future since maps strengthened community testimony and supported litigation
efforts.
✓ There is a need for funding: Advocacy work around redistricting is time intensive and requires
expertise and deep community relationships. Organizations need to stay engaged in this work despite
the legislature ignoring a lot of the voices of people mobilized by the advocacy community, and that
requires funding for grassroots organizations in the long-term fight for fair redistricting.
✓ Connecting redistricting to other issues helps engagement: Some advocates expressed they wished
that they had done a better job connecting redistricting to voting rights work and voter suppression
laws in Texas. Some advocates stated that they engaged many new people in the process, but it still felt
like a loss, which was difficult for newly engaged activists. By connecting redistricting to other fights,
advocates could keep people engaged for the long haul.

90 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org

UTAH

BACKGROUND:
Historically in Utah, the state legislature draws congressional and state legislative
districts, subject to a gubernatorial veto. In 2018, Utah voters passed Proposition 4 to
create an advisory Independent Redistricting Commission and redistricting standards
that would draw congressional and state election maps based on citizen input, which
would be subject to an up or down vote by the legislature with an explanation for the
vote. The initiative also bound all approved maps to the voter-centered standards
created by Proposition 4. Just two years later, the Utah Legislature passed SB 200 and
repealed Proposition 4, allowing the legislature to reject the commission’s maps with no
explanation or reason and making the standards non-binding.

The Utah Independent Redistricting Commission took extensive public testimony and created what many
hailed to be fair maps. However, the legislature adopted congressional and state legislative lines that it
drew itself. The state house and senate maps secured bipartisan support; the congressional lines were
approved by only Republican legislators.75

COMMUNITY OF INTEREST STORY

Salt Lake County includes Utah’s most populous city, Salt Lake City, and multiple townships. In a
state with over 3.3 million people,76 Salt Lake County has one third of the state’s population, with over
1.1 million people.77 As the only major urban area in the state, it has unique challenges, including
homelessness, water security, and transportation.

The final congressional map split Salt Lake County into four districts. While Salt Lake County’s
population would have required the county to be split into two districts, the four-district split meant
that each congressional district had a piece of urban Salt Lake County combined with a far-flung corner
of rural Utah. There was extensive public protest over the division, including opposition from the mayor
of Salt Lake County and 11 other cities.

Nevertheless, the legislature pushed through its divisive maps, which were challenged in court by
the League of Women’s Voters of Utah and Mormon Women for Ethical Government, represented by
Campaign Legal Center, claiming the new maps were partisan gerrymanders and that the repeal of
Proposition 4 was illegal. The challenge is still pending as of August 2023.78

OVERALL STATE GRADE: C-

Utah was a tale of two committees - the advisory Independent Redistricting Commission and the
Legislative Redistricting Committee. The grade reflected both the best of redistricting and the worst of
redistricting.

The legislature ignored public input: While the Independent Redistricting Commission created an open
public input process, had staff assist people to submit as many as 590 community of interest maps, and
deliberated and drew the maps in public for all to see, the commission’s role was rendered toothless by the
state legislature. The Utah state legislature adopted maps that completely ignored the commission’s maps
and public input and protest over Salt Lake County’s split.

Community Redistricting Report Card | 91

The maps were drawn in secret: The maps that were voted on by the legislature were drawn behind closed
doors, released to the public late on a Friday night. After rushed hearings, the Legislative Redistricting
Committee adopted the plans.79

LESSONS LEARNED:
While the final maps that were adopted by the Legislative Committee were not reflective of public input,
the separate process carried out by the advisory Independent Commission drew substantial public
engagement. According to Katie Wright of Better Boundaries, a Utah-based non-profit that pushed for
an independent commission, the process that the advisory Independent Commission carried out “had
incredible engagement of Utahns. The Independent Commission had approximately 590 maps submitted,
1,000 general comments, and 2,000 comments on specific maps.”

“The public input process carried out by the Utah Independent Advisory Redistricting Commission
was exemplary in providing for citizen input. After each meeting of the commission around the state,
staff and volunteers were available to help citizens draw communities of interest.” – Gigi Brandt,
League of Women Voters of Utah

✓ Public outreach pays off: The Independent Commission encouraged community map drawing and
people submitted 590 community of interest maps. The Independent Commission also held numerous
public hearings to receive input, deliberated and drew lines in public, and adjusted proposed maps
based on public feedback.
✓ The Utah Independent Redistricting Commission needs the final authority to adopt congressional
and state maps: The commissioners worked across partisan lines to draw and recommend maps that
were well-received by Utahns, however, leaving the final authority of map approval to the legislature
still runs the risk of a partisan gerrymander and/or incumbent protection.
✓ Utah court review must be protected: Enshrine in the state constitution that the state courts will be
the final arbiter for whether the maps meet Utah state constitutional standards.

92 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org

VERMONT

BACKGROUND:
Currently, Vermont’s state legislative districts are drawn by the legislature and are subject to
gubernatorial veto. Due to population, Vermont is granted only one congressional representative.
Further, a seven-member advisory board commission, the Vermont Apportionment Board,
recommends maps to the legislature, which can choose to adopt, modify, or disregard their
proposals. The Apportionment Board is composed of a member of each of the state’s political
parties (each qualifying party having had “at least three state legislators for six of the previous
10 years”80) appointed by the governor. The party chairs then each select an additional member,
and the Chief Justice of the state Supreme Court appoints the commission’s chair. Of note,
commissioners cannot be employees or members of the state legislature.

This cycle, a new law was in effect that limited state Senate districts to three-member districts. Previously,
the number of state Senate district representatives were unlimited due to the fact that senate maps have
been drawn to closely follow county lines. Chittenden County district previously held six members, as it is
the most populous county in the state. During this cycle, its senate district was split into three districts to
achieve population equality.

State requirements mandate that legislative districts be contiguous, compact, and “adhere to county and
other political subdivision boundaries, except where necessary to comply with other legal requirements,”
and respect “patterns of geography, social interaction, trade, political ties, and common interests.”81

COMMUNITY OF INTEREST STORY

State redistricting law states that districts must respect “patterns of geography, social interaction, trade,
political ties, and common interests.”82 Advocates have found that this was not always adhered to this
cycle. In 2012, community organizers worked diligently to ensure that the town of Huntington was kept
together with the school district and county (Chittenden) it is zoned with. Unfortunately, it was not
successful, and residents tried again to advocate for this change in 2021. Once again, Huntington was
separated from its county and school district.

OVERALL STATE GRADE: B

Public access was adequate: Advocates found that the state redistricting process allowed the public to
participate. The redistricting advisory board conducted public meetings, took public comments, and then
produced two sets of maps for consideration (one from the majority of board members and the other
from the minority of board members). On top of seeking feedback from the general public, the board
also welcomed input from the local Boards of Civil Authority regarding any concerns over the splitting of
municipalities.

LESSONS LEARNED:
✓ Vermont should retain the single and double-member state house system: Currently, Vermont’s
state house districts are a mix of single and double-member districts; those with two members contain
a population of roughly 8,000, and those with one member contain a population of roughly 4,000.
This cycle, there was a renewed effort to advocate for transitioning to smaller, entirely single-member

Community Redistricting Report Card | 93

districts. However, advocates feel that smaller districts require a level of detail that leads to the splitting
of cities and is conducive to gerrymandering; drawing larger districts prevents this.
✓ An independent redistricting commission should be established: Despite the relative success and
satisfaction with this cycle’s redistricting results, studies have found that independent redistricting
commissions, taking the power of drawing lines away from the legislature, produce maps that are more
competitive, fair, and less partisan than those drawn by state legislatures.83 While Vermont does have
an advisory commission, ultimately, the power to select maps is currently in the legislature’s hands.

94 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org

VIRGINIA

BACKGROUND:
In 2020, Virginia voters passed Amendment 1 to create a political commission
tasked with drawing congressional and state legislative districts. After
taking seven years to reach the ballot, Amendment 1 created the Virginia
Redistricting Commission (VRC). The commission includes eight Republicans
and eight Democrats, with a mix of appointed legislators and community
members. This partisan divide created an opportunity for members of the
commission to simply vote as a partisan bloc against anything they did not explicitly design and endorse. As
a result of this, neither set of maps could be finished as the commission refused to find a compromise. The
maps ended up being drawn by a special master and voted on by the State Supreme Court (SCOVA).

Virginia also ended the practice of prison gerrymandering and established a state Voting Rights Act in
2020. Both went into effect during the 2021 redistricting process. The state utilized ‘last known address’
data from the Department of Corrections to reallocate the prison population into the new state and
congressional district maps.

(proposed State House district map submitted by the Virginia Counts Coalition)84

(proposed congressional district map submitted by the Virginia Counts Coalition)85

Community Redistricting Report Card | 95

COMMUNITY OF INTEREST STORY

The Virginia Counts Coalition (VCC) worked with partners to create COI maps, using a racially polarized
voting analysis, for statewide and congressional districts. To ensure the best possible maps for the
state coalition, the VCC enlisted the help of Geographic Information System (GIS) analysts from the
University of Richmond. This team was initially considered as a potential candidate to aid the work of
the VRC but was dismissed due to a failed vote in which eight commissioners elected to have partisan
map-drawers instead of the non-partisan academic team. The VCC’s GIS team was instructed to help
create maps that explicitly prioritized two criteria:

1. Maximizing the number of districts in which more than 50% of voters are people of color.
2. Maximizing the number of districts in which communities of interest, as advocated for and defined
by coalition members, are kept together.

With these two criteria in mind, the GIS team created initial rough drafts of Virginia State House maps
and US House maps. From here, the team met consistently with VCC partners to receive feedback and
ensure communities of interest were represented in the maps. These efforts totaled 100 hours of work
from the GIS team over the five-week period for which maps needed to be drafted, completed, and
submitted to the commission. It is unclear how, if at all, these maps were considered by the VRC.

While OneVirginia2021, another large redistricting coalition in the state, did not advocate for a
particular community of interest, they did provide resources to empower others to advocate for their
communities. They feel that by facilitating the organization of local groups and helping them effectively
use the tools available, many communities were able to draw a direct line in many cases from public
participation to the final map results.

OVERALL STATE GRADE: C

Strong partisan division: The political commission structure, created less than a year after a divisive
presidential race, could not escape the recent hyper-partisan divide. Both Republicans and Democrats
favored partisan lawyers and map drawers instead of an independent third-party. These partisan divides
made it difficult, if not impossible, for both parties to find consensus. Legislative commission members
introduced maps in which they carved out districts to protect their incumbency. After the commission had
dissolved, all Republican candidates submitted to be special masters were rejected by the SCOVA, which
added to partisan rhetoric about the process. Additionally, a Republican legislator filed a lawsuit, which
was dismissed, claiming that the new process for counting incarcerated populations impacted Republican
districts like the one he represents.

Lack of public accessibility: Because the commission was brand-new and operating during the COVID-19
pandemic, there were no guidelines on public outreach and accessibility. Hearings were held online during
weekdays and many meetings were so poorly attended that commissioners logged out of the virtual
platform early. The Virginia Counts Coalition urged the commission to expand hearings to the evening
and weekends, but that request went unanswered. Spanish interpreters were available for the later online
public hearings, but materials were not made available by the state in languages other than English, despite
calls for such availability by various groups.

LESSONS LEARNED:
✓ An imperfect reform can still make a huge difference: The process to get an established redistricting
commission took an incredible amount of work and public education. While the commission ultimately

96 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org

failed to create maps, the Supreme Court backstop also included in the amendment still produced
strong district maps. Without the newly formed commission, the legislature likely would have drawn
their own maps with little transparency or oversight as they did in previous decades.
✓ Make it a party: The Virginia Counts Coalition (VCC) created an advocacy platform for organizations
across the state. There were thirty-four active members, anchored by the Virginia Civic Engagement
Table, in the coalition during 2021. The VCC hosted watch parties for every hearing and collected
testimony from organizations and community members ahead of each hearing. This allowed a space for
people to react to the hearings and ask questions in real time, which fostered some of the missing ‘in-
person’ connection. Over 500 individual public comments were submitted through these watch party
events.
✓ Focus earlier on public engagement: Although the VCC and other organizations hoped to mobilize
more communities to participate, those who did participate made a difference on the final outcomes.
The coalition organizer, housed at the Virginia Civic Engagement Table, attempted to use a snowflake
model to organize and educate community members. This did not work well because the coalition
organizer had to train each person individually, which cut down on the scale of the campaign. Many
people seemed much more interested in re-litigating the amendment than helping the process work for
the public. The commission eventually brought on a communications firm to boost the commission’s
work and the schedule of meetings and hearings. This firm was intended to proactively reach out to
communities to encourage their participation, but they were hired far too late to be effective.
✓ Statutes can help produce better maps by filling gaps that constitutional language misses:
The Voting Rights Act of Virginia prohibits partisan gerrymandering and provides protections for
communities of interest. The disaggregation of prison population data ensured localities had accurate
data when drawing new districts. Advocates strongly believe the state would have produced worse
maps had those two new criteria not been in place.
✓ The commission process must be reformed: The VA Counts Coalition had a series of suggestions for
commission reform:
1. Remove all elected officials from the commission and specify that serving as an elected office is a
disqualification for serving on the commission.
2. Build in odd numbers of commissioners to help break tied votes.
3. Create nonpartisan or independent commission seats to help break tied votes.
4. Remove super majority expectations for voting by commissioners.
5. Extend the timelines for which redistricting work must be completed.
6. Prohibit partisan map drawers from the commission’s work.
7. Prohibit partisan attorneys from the commission’s work.

8. Build out more specific outreach plans for the commission to engage the public.

✓ Ensure adequate commission staffing throughout the process: The commission’s late start in
community outreach and announcements made on the VRC website and social media created a deficit
in communication on redistricting. This deficit could have been better managed if additional internal
staff could be hired for the commission to help manage redistricting outreach, such as social media
managers or fellows.
✓ Improve data analysis skills: It became increasingly clear how few people understood the work
of drawing racially equitable maps from both a data analysis perspective and a Voting Rights Act
perspective. This greatly limited the number of people to call upon for advice during map review and
testimony. Incorporating a racially polarized voting analysis for coalition mapping purposes would be
extremely helpful. Analyzing VCC maps was relentlessly time consuming. As a result of this, little other
work could be completed at the same time. For future redistricting cycles, the coalition suggests hiring
experts to quickly distill pertinent, highly complex data systems and legal impacts.

Community Redistricting Report Card | 97

WASHINGTON

BACKGROUND:
Congressional and state legislative district lines in Washington are drawn by a five-
member independent redistricting commission. Four of the commissioners are
selected by each of the four legislative leaders in the state legislature, and the four
commissioners in turn select the fifth. If there is no consensus, the state supreme
court selects the fifth commissioner. The commission then submits its redistricting
plan to the state legislature, where the legislators may amend the plan within 30 days
if two-thirds of each chamber votes to do so.

OVERALL STATE GRADE: B-

Lack of transparency: In the eleventh hour as the commission was poised to miss the legal deadlines for
approving a redistricting plan, the members of the commission decided to leave a publicly noticed meeting
and go behind closed doors to negotiate final redistricting plans. In this critical moment, the commission
emerged back into a public meeting only minutes before a midnight deadline to vote on approving a set
of maps that was not written down nor made available to the public, violating Washington’s Open Public
Meetings Act. By doing so, the commission also failed to discuss in public how it reached its decisions.
Advocates noted that much of the substance of the redistricting process was done behind the scenes
instead of in public.

Failure to adequately serve communities of color: Although the members of the commission were warned
during the map-drawing process, advocates in the state ultimately filed a lawsuit against the enacted maps
for failing to adequately draw legislative maps to provide for districts to serve Latinx communities in the
Yakima Valley area. Advocates argue that the legislative districts in the Yakima Valley fail to perform for the
Latinx communities’ candidates of choice. Litigation is ongoing as of August 2023.

LESSONS LEARNED:
✓ Greater outreach to Native communities and tribal governments improves representation: One
of the strongest features of the commission-approved maps was an improvement in keeping tribal
communities together within districts. The recognition of Native reservations and the early engagement
by the commission of Native communities was a positive step to ensure that this commission was more
responsive to Native people and to include that feedback in the final maps. The commission also took
the opportunity to meet and hear from each of the tribal councils.
✓ Collaborative coalition partners make more effective advocates: Advocates noted that there was
a strong working coalition of advocacy and non-profit organizations in the state that fought to keep
communities together, educated their communities about the redistricting process, turned out people
to provide a record number of public comments and public input, and submitted draft maps to the
commission for consideration. The strength of the coalition was reflected in part in its ability to resolve
differences internally, as well as to serve as trusted messengers in the communities they serve to
expand public engagement around redistricting.
✓ Translation services and virtual meetings expand public participation: Despite the stark lack of
transparency in decision-making, there were largely ample opportunities throughout the redistricting
process before the final maps were considered for the public to provide input. Meetings were held
online, making public participation more accessible. There was expansive language assistance in

98 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org

the commission’s work, providing for live translation in Spanish and American Sign Language during
meetings and producing other public content in a dozen languages. Ads were also produced in various
languages and placed on social media.
✓ The commission’s structure can be significantly improved to ensure more independence: Although
Washington’s redistricting commission is represented as an independent commission, its members
are appointed based on party lines by politicians. Furthermore, the redistricting plans adopted by the
commission are open to amendment by the state legislature. Advocates note that this makes the state’s
redistricting commission not independent and are calling for a shift to a fully independent commission
that is made up of citizens, not political appointees, to draw the state’s district lines.
✓ Greater protections against secrecy are needed to ensure transparency: With the violation
of the state’s open meetings laws, future redistricting cycles must operate in public view with
full transparency. The discussions commissioners have regarding their decision-making process
and how they advocate for lines to be drawn must be done in public meetings. The public must
have an opportunity to understand how decisions are made and what factors are influencing the
commissioners’ decisions.

Community Redistricting Report Card | 99

WEST VIRGINIA

BACKGROUND:
Both West Virginia’s state legislature and congressional districts are drawn by the state
legislature and are subject to gubernatorial veto.

Notably, in 2010, the majority of the state house’s 67 districts were multi-member districts,
however, after a change in law in 2018, the 2020 state house was redistricted into 100
single-member districts.

COMMUNITY OF INTEREST STORY

“Procedurally, they ticked the boxes. But then behind closed doors, they did what they wanted to do.” - Ken
Martis, West Virginia Fair Maps Committee

Advocates were disappointed by the excessive splitting of cities and counties, which divided
communities with unique economic needs. For example, the county of Kanawha was split into three
senate districts and the county of Putnam, which has the state capitol Charleston, was split into
two. This is particularly troubling in this area of the state, as efforts are being made to economically
develop southern West Virginia.86 Since the closure of several coal mines in the area, many counties
have cut resources for municipal services such as libraries, parks, volunteer fire departments, and
trash removal.87 The decline of these services adds an increased burden in a state already facing a
disproportionately high poverty rate; West Virginia’s poverty rate is a staggering 16.8%, 5.4% higher
than the national average.88

OVERALL STATE GRADE: D

Disregard of criteria: It appeared that both legal and commonly accepted redistricting criteria were not
considered in the drawing of the maps. For example, West Virginia’s state constitution explicitly calls for
county boundaries to be respected when redistricting, however, advocates noted that the state senate
maps, in particular, did not appear to adhere to this requirement. Furthermore, advocates noted that other
criteria were not respected, such as compactness and physical and other municipal boundaries.

Partisanship: Advocates felt that legislators drew lines to secure a partisan advantage rather than creating
fair districts. Left-leaning populations such as Charleston/Putnam County were cracked, impacting voters’
ability to have fair representation.

Lack of transparency: Advocates were surprised and disappointed that draft maps were not shared during
public meetings. The public had no way of commenting on the maps before the legislature adopted them.

LESSONS LEARNED:
✓ Sufficient funding is ideal but is not a prerequisite for advocacy: Despite having very limited budgets,
advocacy groups across the state like the West Virginia League of Women Voters’ Fair Maps Committee
rallied to engage volunteers in the redistricting process. The committee held events, shared resources,
and encouraged West Virginians to participate in public hearings.

100 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org

✓ Flexible meeting options increased public participation: Even though the redistricting process was
not ideal, procedurally, the state did have virtual meetings, recorded meetings, opportunities to provide
feedback online, and meetings all over the state.
✓ West Virginia needs nonpartisan redistricting: Community organizers stressed the importance of
establishing an independent redistricting commission free from partisan influence.
✓ The public needs technology and training to provide effective input: Advocates were disappointed
that public meetings did not provide the technology for the public to adequately express their
opinions about the maps. At public meetings, all feedback was given verbally, and no maps or mapping
technology was provided to aid in members of the public’s testimony. Further, organizers felt that the
state could have invested more in public outreach and education; most of the public education efforts
were led by nonprofit organizations.
✓ Engage people where they gather: Local leaders noted that outreach efforts could have been
expanded. Specifically, it was expressed that greater outreach could have been done with churches,
which were emphasized as a common place where communities gather around the state.

Community Redistricting Report Card | 101

WISCONSIN

BACKGROUND:
Wisconsin’s state legislative and congressional district boundaries are determined by
the state legislature, subject to a gubernatorial veto. Separately, Governor Tony Evers
ordered the creation of the People’s Maps Commission, an advisory redistricting body
designed to be a vehicle for public input and engagement. In November 2021, Governor
Evers vetoed maps legislators produced after calling them “gerrymandering 2.0.”89 As a
result of this stalemate, the selection of maps was left to the Wisconsin Supreme Court,
which stated that it would seek a “least-change” approach and choose maps that made as
few changes to the existing map as possible. Governor Evers submitted a state legislative
map for consideration that would have increased the number of majority-Black Assembly
districts from six to seven while the map legislators submitted would have reduced that number from six
to five. Although the Wisconsin Supreme Court originally selected the governor’s map, legislators won a
victory in the U.S. Supreme Court that resulted in a ruling that the governor’s attempt to improve Black
representation in the state legislature was an illegal racial gerrymander. As a result of the U.S. Supreme
Court’s ruling, the Wisconsin Supreme Court selected the legislature’s map and reduced the number of
majority-Black Assembly districts. The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s least-change mandate resulted in
congressional and state legislative maps that largely recreated the previous cycle’s gerrymander.

OVERALL STATE GRADE: F

Wisconsin’s Fair Maps Coalition was very active in both lobbying the legislature and providing testimony
to the governor’s People’s Maps Commission. Carlene Bechen, the Organizing Director of the Fair Maps
Coalition (FMC) noted that the FMC held dozens of trainings using Districtr and submitted over 1,000
community of interest maps, exceeding their goal of submitting 800, at least 100 from each congressional
district. The FMC organized a virtual lobby day just before the start of the joint legislative session on
redistricting. About 200 people participated in the lobby day, and more than 150 testified to legislators at
the single public hearing on the new voting district maps. In addition, the FMC organized 17 simultaneous
rallies at the Capitol and around the state with more than 1,000 participants calling on the legislature and
courts to create fair voting maps.

Advocates faced significant challenges in dealing with both the governor’s commission and the legislature.
The People’s Maps Commission struggled to find its footing early due to a lack of budget and support.
However, it eventually held public hearings across the state and solicited input from a wide range of
stakeholders, including members of the public, interest groups, and local officials. The coalition did
extensive work to generate applicants to the commission, which resulted in three of nine commissioners
coming from the ranks of Fair Maps activists. The commission’s goal was to create a fair and transparent
redistricting process, in contrast to the legislature’s closed-door approach. Unfortunately, the legislature
did not consider the commission’s maps and instead passed their own partisan maps. Debra Cronmiller of
the League of Women Voters summarized the process by stating that “I gave the process a B, though our
enacted maps are a fail.”

LESSONS LEARNED:
✓ Limit the influence of elected officials in redistricting: Wisconsin legislators have focused their
redistricting efforts almost exclusively on manipulating districts for partisan advantage. They have
proven themselves to be incapable of prioritizing fair representation for Wisconsin communities.

102 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org

The advocacy community’s long-term strategy is, and should continue to be, changing who draws
Wisconsin’s voting maps. Although passing gold standard reform that empowers an independent
citizens redistricting commission could be difficult due to the absence of a ballot initiative option in
Wisconsin, it is not the only viable approach to reform. For example, Iowa has provided an alternative
model that Wisconsin advocates have supported in previous legislative sessions. Under this model,
a citizen advisory commission obtains public input for nonpartisan legislative staff who draw maps.
Those maps go to legislators for up or down approval. Limiting the influence of legislators will be key to
creating a process that puts the public first.
✓ Improve redistricting criteria:

WI FAIR MAPS COALITION

Wisconsin Republicans have
used aggressive partisan
gerrymandering to give
themselves nearly veto-
proof majorities in both state
legislative chambers. An
explicit prohibition against
partisan gerrymandering would
empower Wisconsin courts
to stop this assault on voting
rights. Passing a prohibition
through the legislature would be
a challenging task, so litigation
seeking a pro-democracy
interpretation of the Wisconsin
Constitution that prohibits
the practice could provide
an alternative path forward.
Advocates recently filed such
a challenge in state court. A new provision of Wisconsin law requiring the protection of communities
of interest would also address some of the worst excesses of politician-drawn maps. It would mandate
consideration of community testimony both by initial decision makers and courts if a stalemate or legal
challenge requires judicial action.
✓ Challenge the court’s least-change redistricting preference: The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that
one of its primary criteria for drawing districts after the deadlock between the governor and legislators
would be to seek a map that made minimal changes to the existing districts. This criterion established
a thin veneer of impartiality while entrenching extreme gerrymanders that reinforce the racial and
partisan power of the past. Driving home the harmful effect of the least-change criterion should be a
central part of any litigation strategy and policy advocacy.
✓ Increase transparency throughout the redistricting process: The People’s Maps Commission
provided a significantly improved model for public input and transparency relative to the partisan and
secretive work of the legislature. Permanent implementation of an official structure for seeking and
obtaining public input and minimum requirements for public hearings would be an important first step
toward increasing transparency.

chargereportcard.org Community Redistricting Report Card | 103

WYOMING

BACKGROUND:
The lines for Wyoming’s state legislature are drawn by the legislature as a regular
statute, subject to a gubernatorial veto. The state has one congressional district.

OVERALL STATE GRADE: C-

Responded to some public input and population shifts: Advocates noted that there was opportunity for
the public and county clerks to provide input during the redistricting process, and that some of those calls
to action were heeded by the legislature in preserving some communities of interest. The state legislature
also provided free mapping tools with Maptitude for community members to submit draft maps and
made information available online on their website. Additionally, legislators increased the size of the state
legislature this redistricting cycle to account for the population shift to more urban areas of the state, while
attempting to avoid enlarging the size of rural districts. Instead of allowing significant population deviation
between rural and urban areas, the state legislature chose to increase the size of its two bodies—from 60 to
62 members in the state house, and from 30 to 31 members in the state senate.

Incumbency protection and population deviation requirements: While the growth in the size of the
legislature avoided leaving districts with a varied population deviation beyond the constitutional limits, the
ultimate maps still reflected the clear priority for legislators to protect incumbents. Discussions amongst
legislators and decisions to draw lines that considered the residences of other legislators prioritized
their incumbency and future re-elections over drawing the best maps possible for local communities.
Additionally, a few districts in the final maps still had deviations that slightly surpassed federal
constitutional requirements.

LESSONS LEARNED:
✓ Improvements are possible through community of interest advocacy: A push from the community in
South Cheyenne saw some success in this redistricting cycle, where more of the community was held
together in fewer legislative districts instead of splitting the more predominantly Latinx community
among many districts. Advocates reflected that the new maps were better than before and afforded
more opportunity for representation from South Cheyenne.
✓ Advocates cannot rely on the legislature for public education: While there were some instances, like
in South Cheyenne, where advocates saw that public input improved the final maps, they largely argued
that there needs to be more direct public engagement from the state legislature as a whole. In this
cycle, much of the engagement had to fall on individual legislators or candidates to educate the public
and bring more community members into the conversation.
✓ Incumbent protection is one of the primary obstacles to community-led redistricting in Wyoming: A
major theme of this redistricting cycle in Wyoming saw legislators prioritizing preservation of their own
districts over making the best decisions for local communities. Much of the debate between the state
house and state senate over whether to expand the size of both chambers revolved around the impacts
a new map would have on existing legislators. The state cannot continue to consider incumbency to
protect their own seats.

104 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org

ENDNOTES
1. Liptak, Adam. “Supreme Court Rejects Voting Map That Diluted Black Voters’ Power.” The New York Times, June 8, 2023.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/08/us/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-alabama.html.
2. Chandler, Kim, and Jeff Amy. “The Fight over Alabama’s Congressional Redistricting Now Shifts back to Federal Court.” AP
News. July 22, 2023. https://apnews.com/article/alabama-legislature-redistricting-voting-rights-181dc7b8172a39e4bb83c
97bff4404c8.
3. Schouten, Fredreka. “Alabama’s Redistricting Fight Heads for Another Court Showdown -- with Control of US House
Potentially on the Line.” CNN. July 26, 2023. https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/26/politics/alabama-congressional-maps-
court-showdown/index.html.
4. “Merrill v. Milligan: LDF’s Work to Safeguard the VRA and Black Political Power Legal Defense Fund.” Legal Defense Fund.
https://www.naacpldf.org/merrill-v-milligan-supreme-court/.
5. “Governing Law.” Alaska Redistricting Board. https://www.akredistrict.org/governing-law/.
6. Estus, Joaqlin. “Critics Accuse Alaska Redistricting Board of Gerrymandering.” ICT News, November 29, 2021. https://
ictnews.org/news/i-certainly-dont-see-people-in-that-area-by-race.
7. Brooks, James. “Alaska Redistricting Board Picks New Senate Map after Supreme Court Finds a Gerrymander.” Alaska
Beacon. May 25, 2022. https://alaskabeacon.com/2022/05/24/alaska-supreme-court-finds-republican-gerrymander-in-
anchorage-districts-orders-new-map/.
8. “Redistricting in Arizona.” Ballotpedia. https://ballotpedia.org/Redistricting_in_Arizona.
9. Oxford, Andrew. “New Congressional, Legislative Districts Approved.” AZPM News, December 22, 2021. https://news.
azpm.org/p/newsfeature/2021/12/22/204933-new-arizona-congressional-districts-approved/.
10. Wyloge, Evan. “Redrawn Arizona Congressional Map Drains Native American Voting Power.” The Guardian, May 23, 2022.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/23/native-americans-arizona-redistricting-congressional-map.
11. Haas, Kyra. “Redistricting Panel Hits Road for Map Input.” Arizona Capitol Times, July 30, 2021. https://azcapitoltimes.
com/news/2021/07/30/redistricting-panel-hits-road-for-map-input/.
12. “Communities of Interest Report.” Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. https://storymaps.arcgis.com/
stories/962c25f0866e49c9bb8751831678524b.
13. “The Yearlong Arizona Redistricting Process Is Finally Over. Here’s How It Happened.” Fronteras, December 24, 2021.
https://fronterasdesk.org/content/1742821/yearlong-arizona-redistricting-process-finally-over-heres-how-it-happened.
14. “Redistricting Litigation Roundup,” Brennan Center for Justice. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-
reports/redistricting-litigation-roundup-0.
15. Ibid.
16. “Legal Handbook for the Citizens Redistricting Commission.” https://wedrawthelines.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/
sites/64/2011/03/legal_guide.pdf.
17. “Initial Proposals For Updating OMB’s Race and Ethnicity Statistical Standards.” Federal Register, January 27, 2023.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/01/27/2023-01635/initial-proposals-for-updating-ombs-race-and-
ethnicity-statistical-standards.
18. “Redistricting Public Input Data Dashboard.” California Citizens Redistricting Commission. https://wedrawthelines.
ca.gov/data-dashboard/.
19. Heidorn, Nicolas. “The Promise of Fair Maps.” California Common Cause, January 31, 2023. https://www.commoncause.
org/california/the-promise-of-fair-maps-2/.
20. “Final Approved Congressional Plan.” Colorado Independent Redistricting Commissions. https://redistricting.colorado.
gov/content/congressional-final-approved.
21. Evans, Kyle, and Katherine T. Chang. “Connecticut Redistricting Analysis.” May 2022. https://app.box.com/s/23tuohcxgt4
9d5rr8wey3ie6el5xoku8.
22. Del. Const. art. II, § 2A. https://delcode.delaware.gov/constitution/constitution-03.html.
23. Nelson, Rett. “Tribal Leaders Say Idaho Supreme Court Ruling Upholding New Legislative District Map Is ‘Discriminatory’.”
East Idaho News, January 29, 2022. https://www.eastidahonews.com/2022/01/tribal-leaders-say-idaho-supreme-court-
ruling-upholding-new-legislative-district-map-is-discriminatory/.
24. “Quickfacts: Idaho.” U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/ID.
25. Table S1601. U.S. Census Bureau. https://data.census.gov/table?q=language&g=040XX00US16&tid=ACSST1Y2021.S1601.
26. ​​“MALDEF Statement on Ruling in Illinois Redistricting Lawsuit.” MALDEF, December 30, 2021. https://www.maldef.

chargereportcard.org Community Redistricting Report Card | 105

org/2021/12/maldef-statement-on-ruling-in-illinois-redistricting-lawsuit/.
27. Pfannenstiel, Brianne, Stephen Gruber-Miller, and Ian Richardson. “Iowa’s Proposed Political Boundaries Set off
Debate as Power Hangs in Balance.” Des Moines Register, September 17, 2021. https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/
news/politics/2021/09/16/iowa-redistricting-first-maps-shift-congressional-legislative-boundaries-approval-elections-
voting/8263210002/.
28. “Iowa’s 2nd Redistricting Maps Could Mean a 2022 Election Race between US Reps. Cindy Axne, Mariannette Miller-
Meeks.” Des Moines Register, October 22, 2021. https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2021/10/21/
nonpartisan-agency-releasing-second-set-iowa-redistricting-maps-october-21/8522097002/.
29. Sostaric, Katarina. “Iowa’s Public Hearings on Redistricting End With Majority Supporting First Maps.” Iowa Public
Radio, January 5, 2022. https://www.iowapublicradio.org/state-government-news/2021-09-23/iowas-public-hearings-on-
redistricting-end-with-majority-supporting-first-maps.
30. “Governor Laura Kelly Vetoes Congressional Redistricting Map, Senate Bill 355.” Governor of the State of Kansas, Feb. 3,
2022. https://governor.kansas.gov/governor-laura-kelly-vetoes-congressional-redistricting-map-senate-bill-355/.
31. Table P11. U.S. Census Bureau. https://data.census.gov/
table?q=pl&g=040XX00US20$0500000&tid=DECENNIALDHC2020.P11.
32. Boschma, Janie, Renée Rigdon, Byron Manley, and Ethan Cohen. “Kansas Redistricting 2022: Congressional Maps by
District.” CNN, Nov. 8, 2022. https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2022/politics/us-redistricting/kansas-redistricting-map/.
33. Smith, Sherman. “Senate President Susan Wagle Embraces Gerrymandering to Benefit GOP in Kansas.” Kansas Reflector,
Oct. 9, 2020. https://kansasreflector.com/2020/10/09/senate-president-susan-wagle-embraces-gerrymandering-to-
benefit-gop-in-kansas/.
34. Warshaw, Christopher, Eric McGhee, and Michal Migurski. “Districts for A New Decade—Partisan Outcomes and Racial
Representation in the 2021–22 Redistricting Cycle.” Publius 52, no. 3 (June 17, 2022): 428–51. https://doi.org/10.1093/
publius/pjac020.
35. “Gov. Edwards Vetoes Proposed Congressional District Map, Announces Other Action on Newly Drawn District Maps.”
Office of the Governor, Mar. 9, 2022. https://gov.louisiana.gov/index.cfm/newsroom/detail/3585.
36. Order, Ardoin v. Robinson, No. 21-1596 (2023). https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/062623zor_7m58.
pdf.
37. Braun, Paul. “Louisiana Lawmakers End Court-Ordered Redistricting Session Without Passing New Congressional Map.”
WWNO, June 20, 2022. https://www.wwno.org/2022-06-18/louisiana-lawmakers-end-court-ordered-redistricting-session-
without-passing-new-congressional-map.
38. S.B. 80, 2023 Session. https://legis.la.gov/legis/BillInfo.aspx?s=23RS&b=SB80&sbi=y.
39. “Quickfacts: Louisiana.” U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/LA.
40. Stacker. “Most Common Languages Spoken at Home in Greater New Orleans and Surrounding Regions.” Stacker, Oct.
19, 2022. https://stacker.com/louisiana/new-orleans/most-common-languages-spoken-home-greater-new-orleans-and-
surrounding-regions.
41. “Report on 2021 Redistricting.” Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission, Aug. 18, 2022. https://www.
michigan.gov/micrc/-/media/Project/Websites/MiCRC/MISC8/Commission-Report.pdf.
42. Motion for Leave to File Brief of Amici Curiae Common Cause and Professor Jon Eguia in Support of Neither Party, Agee
v. Benson, No. 22-cv-00272 (Aug. 26, 2022). https://www.commoncause.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/michigan_
brief_8.26.pdf.
43. Wattson v. Simon, 970 N.W.2d 56 (Minn. 2022).
44. “Redistricting Litigation Roundup.” Brennan Center for Justice. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-
reports/redistricting-litigation-roundup-0.
45. “U.S. Census Bureau Releases 2020 Undercount and Overcount Rates by State and the District of Columbia.” U.S. Census
Bureau, June 2, 2022. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2022/pes-2020-undercount-overcount-by-state.
html.
46. Lieberman, Denise. Interview. February 15, 2023.
47. Missouri Judicial Redistricting Commission Hub. https://missouri-redistricting-commission-portal-redistrictmo.hub.
arcgis.com/pages/judicial-redistricting.
48. Girten, Nicole. “Republican State Reps Comment on Native Communities in Redistricting.” Daily Montanan, Aug. 30,
2022. https://dailymontanan.com/2022/08/30/republican-state-reps-comment-on-native-communities-in-redistricting/.
49. Dempsey, Sierra. “Far-Right Lawmakers Voice ‘Anti-tribal’ Sentiment While Voting Power of Tribal Nations Is Debated in

106 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org

District Maps.” Char-Koosta News. http://www.charkoosta.com/news/tribal-representation-in-montana-state-legislature-
questioned-targeted/article_d75adcda-5103-11ed-8d31-bb7fea53706d.html
50. Kimbel-Sannit, Arren, and Arren Kimbel-Sannit. “Explaining the Why and the Where of Montana’s New Legislative
Districts.” Montana Free Press, Feb. 14, 2023. https://montanafreepress.org/2023/02/13/montana-redistricting-
commission-finalizes-new-house-senate-maps/.
51. Washaw, Christopher, Eric McGhee, and Michal Migurski. “Districts for A New Decade—Partisan Outcomes and Racial
Representation in the 2021–22 Redistricting Cycle.” Publius 52, no. 3 (June 17, 2022): 428–51. https://academic.oup.com/
publius/article-abstract/52/3/428/6609878?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false.
52. UNH Survey Center. “Bipartisan Support for NH Marijuana Legislation; Most Consider Legislature’s Redistricting Maps
Unfair 2/25/2022.” All UNH Survey Center Polls. https://scholars.unh.edu/survey_center_polls/689.
53. “New Jersey Legislative Unity Map.” Fair Districts New Jersey. https://www.fairdistrictsnj.org/state-legislative-unity-
map. “Coalition Final Map January 28.” Dave’s Redistricting. https://davesredistricting.org/join/929cb107-3a73-44bb-af04-
faf46771b65b.
54. Washaw, Christopher, Eric McGhee, and Michal Migurski. “Districts for A New Decade—Partisan Outcomes and Racial
Representation in the 2021–22 Redistricting Cycle.” Publius 52, no. 3 (June 17, 2022): 428–51. https://academic.oup.com/
publius/article-abstract/52/3/428/6609878?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false.
55. Table S0501. U.S. Census Bureau. https://data.census.gov/table?q=language+new+jersey&tid=ACSST1Y2021.S0501.
56. Table S0501. U.S. Census Bureau. https://data.census.gov/table?q=language+new+jersey&tid=ACSST1Y2021.S0501.
57. “Language Access.” State of New Jersey Department of Health. https://www.nj.gov/health/ommh/resources/language-
access/
58. Table S1601. U.S. Census Bureau. https://data.census.gov/table?q=languages+spoken+at+home&g=040XX00US34
59. “Meetings & Transparency.” New Mexico Citizens Redistricting Committee. https://www.nmredistricting.org/meetings-
transparency/.
60. Sherman, Mark. “Supreme Court Rejects GOP in North Carolina Case That Could Have Reshaped Elections
beyond the State.” AP News, June 27, 2023. https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-elections-state-legislatures-
a620db8c1ad30fc34b3ab0c81b29b87c.
61. Wines, Michael. “North Carolina Gerrymander Ruling Reflects Politicization of Judiciary Nationally.” The New York Times,
May 2, 2023. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/28/us/north-carolina-supreme-court-gerrymander.html.
62. For a list of all North Counties and the system they use for electing county commissioners, see more at: “All Counties.”
Fair Counties NC. https://faircountiesnc.org/counties/all-counties/.
63. Cases include Walen v. Burgum and Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Jaeger.
64. Native American Rights Fund. “North Dakota On Trial for Native Vote Dilution,” Aug. 7, 2023. https://narf.org/nd-
redistricting-challenge/.
65. “Oklahoma.” All About Redistricting, July 15, 2023. https://redistricting.lls.edu/state/oklahoma/.
66. Shumway, Julia. “Oregon Independent Redistricting Proposal Clears Key Hurdle in Path to 2024 Ballot.” Oregon Capital
Chronicle, Dec. 6, 2022. https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2022/12/06/oregon-independent-redistricting-proposal-
clears-key-hurdle-in-path-to-2024-ballot/.
67. The overview of the redistricting cycle as reported by organizations on the ground, including in Pennsylvania Voice’s
campaign assessment, was an invaluable resource in the preparation of this report. “Maps for the People Redistricting
Campaign Assessment.” Pennsylvania Voice.
68. Plenty, Candy Brings. “South Dakota’s Redistricting Process Should Be Fair and Equal.” ACLU of South Dakota, September
2, 2021. https://www.aclusd.org/en/news/south-dakotas-redistricting-process-should-be-fair-and-equal.
69. The League of Women Voters of Tennessee, CivicTN, the Tennessee Conference of the
70. Ponce, Rosa. “Redistricting Testimony.” 2021. https://drive.google.com/file/d/10TSuxmqld8-V3iYP4nvxkHMJ4S1Ph_9r/
view.
71. Ura, Alexa. “Texas House Reaffirms the Political Maps It Drew in 2021.” The Texas Tribune, April 26, 2023. https://www.
texastribune.org/2023/04/26/texas-house-redistricting/.
72. “Redistricting Litigation Roundup,” Brennan Center for Justice, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-
reports/redistricting-litigation-roundup-0.
73. Astudillo, Carla, Chris Essig, Jason Kao, and Alexa Ura. “People of Color Drive 95% of Texas’ Population Boom, 2020
Census Shows.” The Texas Tribune, September 17, 2021. https://www.texastribune.org/2021/08/12/texas-2020-census/.
74. See Complaint, Fair Maps Texas Action Committee v. Abbott, no. 1:21-cv-01038 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 16, 2021), https://www.

chargereportcard.org Community Redistricting Report Card | 107

commoncause.org/texas/wp-content/uploads/sites/27/2022/02/Texas-litigation-complaint-Dan-Vicuna.pdf.
75. McKellar, Katie. “Redistricting Utah: New Congressional Map Clears Full Utah Legislature.” Deseret News, November 11,
2021. https://www.deseret.com/utah/2021/11/10/22774645/redistricting-utah-congressional-map-that-splits-salt-lake-
county-four-ways-gov-cox-gerrymandering.
76. “Quickfacts: Utah,” U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/UT/PST045222.
77. “Quickfacts: Salt Lake County, Utah,” U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/
saltlakecountyutah/PST045222.
78. “The map slices Utah’s capital, the Democratic stronghold of Salt Lake City, and dissects areas like Sugar House,
Millcreek, Murray and Holladay into four congressional districts. Other burgeoning Democratic areas like Sandy and Draper
were lumped into the same district as conservative Utah County’s Provo, as well as Vernal in the far east corner of the state
and Moab in the far southeast corner.” Tan, Chin Tung. “Utah Supreme Court to Hear Redistricting Lawsuit.” ABC4, Jan. 9,
2023. https://www.abc4.com/news/local-news/utah-supreme-court-to-hear-redistricting-lawsuit/.
79. Hutson, Sonja. “Salt Lake County Split into Four Congressional Districts in Legislative Committee’s Proposed Maps.”
KUER, November 8, 2021. https://www.kuer.org/politics-government/2021-11-06/salt-lake-county-split-into-four-
congressional-districts-in-legislative-committees-proposed-maps.
80. “Vermont State Legislature.” Ballotpedia. https://ballotpedia.org/Vermont_State_Legislature.
81. Ibid.
82. Ibid.
83. Warshaw, Christopher, Eric McGhee, and Michal Migurski. “Districts for A New Decade—Partisan Outcomes and Racial
Representation in the 2021–22 Redistricting Cycle.” Publius 52, no. 3 (June 17, 2022): 428–51. https://doi.org/10.1093/
publius/pjac020.
84. “Virginia Counts Coalition State House Map.” My Districting Virginia. https://www.virginiaredistricting.org/legdistricting/
comments/plan/224/1.
85. “Virginia Counts Coalition Congressional District Map.” MyDistricting Virginia. https://www.virginiaredistricting.org/
legdistricting/comments/plan/478/1.
86. Tierney, Brendan. “First West Virginia Redistricting Maps Released.” WSAZ, September 30, 2021. https://www.wsaz.
com/2021/09/30/first-west-virginia-redistricting-maps-released/.
87. “Crisis in West Virginia’s Coal Counties.” National Association of Counties, Oct. 17, 2016. https://www.naco.org/articles/
crisis-west-virginia%E2%80%99s-coal-counties.
88. “Quickfacts: West Virginia.” U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/WV/IPE120221. Shrider
Emily A., Melissa Kollar, Frances Chen, and Jessica Semega. “Income and Poverty in the United States: 2020.” U.S. Census
Bureau, June 9, 2022. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2021/demo/p60-273.html.
89. Bauer, Scott, and Scott Bauer. “Democrat Evers Vetoes Republican-Drawn Redistricting.” AP News, August 15, 2023.
https://apnews.com/article/elections-wisconsin-legislature-redistricting-wisconsin-supreme-court-29104625c253dce689
d662383a9a50ab.

108 | Community Redistricting Report Card chargereportcard.org