Redistricting lawsuits in the 2020 redistricting cycle
Redistricting is the process of drawing new congressional and state legislative district boundaries. This article details the lawsuits that arose during the course of the 2020 redistricting cycle.
Lawsuits by state
Below are written summaries of redistricting lawsuits challenging enacted congressional or legislative maps after the 2020 census. States are listed in alphabetical order. Lawsuits within states are listed in reverse chronological order, with the most recent lawsuit appearing first.
Alabama
Post-enactment lawsuits (see Allen v. Milligan)
This section provides overviews of lawsuits challenging redistricting maps that were filed after Alabama enacted maps for the 2020 redistricting cycle.
U.S. Supreme Court rejects revised congressional map
On September 26, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the state's request to use the district boundaries overturned by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The decision was unanimous, with none of the justices dissenting. The ruling allowed for the continued consideration of Special Master Richard Allen's proposed district maps by a panel of federal judges. Lead plaintiff Evan Milligan said the ruling was a "victory for all Alabamians" and "definitely a really positive step." Attorney General Steve Marshall’s office had not issued a statement on the decision as of September 26.[1]
Federal court panel overturns Alabama’s revised congressional redistricting plan
A three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama ruled on September 5, 2023, that the revised congressional district boundaries that the Alabama legislature enacted on July 21, 2023, were not in accordance with the Voting Rights Act.[2] The federal district court's order said, "this Court concluded that the 2023 Plan did not remedy the likely Section 2 violation found by this Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court. We, therefore, preliminarily enjoined Secretary Allen from using the 2023 Plan in Alabama’s upcoming 2024 congressional elections."[2] The federal district court ordered its Special Master to submit three proposed remedial plans with the court by September 25, 2023, that comply with the Voting Rights Act and "traditional redistricting principles to the extent reasonably practicable."[2] On September 5, 2023, Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen's office said it would appeal the federal court's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. A spokesperson for Allen issued a statement which said, "While we are disappointed in today’s decision, we strongly believe that the legislature’s map complies with the Voting Rights Act and the recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. We intend to promptly seek review from the Supreme Court to ensure that the State can use its lawful congressional districts in 2024 and beyond."[3] Special Master Richard Allen submitted the three maps for the judges' consideration on September 25. One map would create a second congressional district in southeastern Alabama with a 50.1% Black voting-age population, while the other two would create districts with either a 48.7% or 48.5% Black population.[4]
Plaintiffs file objection to state's 2023 revised map
On July 28, 2023, the plaintiffs in Allen v. Milligan objected to the revised congressional district boundaries that the state enacted on July 21, 2023.[5] The plaintiffs' objection argued, "Alabama’s new congressional map ignores this Court’s preliminary injunction order and instead perpetuates the Voting Rights Act violation that was the very reason that the Legislature redrew the map. The new map (known as SB5) fails to address this Court’s ruling that the 2021 congressional map likely violates § 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA)."[6] The plaintiffs requested that the court prohibit the state from using the new boundaries and appoint a special master to draw a new congressional map that the state would use for the remainder of the decade.[5]
U.S. Supreme Court rules Alabama’s congressional map violates the Voting Rights Act
- See also: Allen v. Milligan
On June 8, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 5-4 that Alabama's congressional map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and must be redrawn to include a second majority-black district. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett formed the minority.[7]
U.S. Supreme Court stays injunction against Alabama’s congressional map
On February 7, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States stayed a preliminary injunction that a three-judge federal district court panel had issued enjoining Alabama from using the congressional redistricting plan that the state had enacted on November 4, 2021. The Supreme Court’s stay meant that the congressional district boundaries adopted by the state will be used for the 2022 elections. The Court also granted a petition for a writ of certiorari in the case, meaning that the Court accepted the case challenging the congressional district maps for either the 2021-2022 term or the 2022-2023 term.[8]
The Court’s majority did not post a full opinion in the case. Four of the nine justices wrote or joined in dissenting opinions, meaning the vote to stay the district court’s injunction was 5-4. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion on granting the stay, which was joined by Justice Samuel Alito. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan issued dissenting opinions, with Kagan’s dissent joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.
Federal court panel blocks Alabama’s congressional redistricting plan
A three-judge federal court panel issued a preliminary injunction on Jan. 24 enjoining Alabama Secretary of State John Merrill (R) from conducting the state’s 2022 elections using the congressional redistricting plan that the state adopted on November 4, 2021.[9]
The judges unanimously ruled that the plaintiffs in Milligan v. Merrill are substantially likely to establish, among other factors, “that Black Alabamians are sufficiently numerous to constitute a voting-age majority in a second congressional district,” and “Black voters have less opportunity than other Alabamians to elect candidates of their choice to Congress.” Four sets of plaintiffs had filed lawsuits challenging Alabama’s new congressional districts for violating Section Two of the Voting Rights Act.[10]
The panel’s decision pushed back the deadline for U.S. House candidates to qualify to run from the state’s original deadline of January 28 to February 11. It also directed the state legislature to devise a congressional redistricting plan “that includes either an additional majority-Black congressional district, or an additional district in which Black voters otherwise have an opportunity to elect a representative of their choice.”[10]
The panel’s three judges were Senior Justice Stanley Marcus of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, and District Court Justices Anna Manasco and Terry Moorer. Marcus was first appointed to a federal district court judgeship by President Ronald Reagan (R) in 1985 and to the 11th Circuit by President Bill Clinton (D) in 1997. Manasco and Moorer were appointed as federal judges by President Donald Trump (R) in 2020 and 2018, respectively.
In an email to media outlets on January 24, 2022, a spokesperson for Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall (R) wrote that, “The Attorney General’s Office strongly disagrees with the court’s decision and will be appealing in the coming days.”[11]
Thomas v. Merrill
On Nov. 15, 2021, James Thomas and three voters, Greater Birmingham Ministries, and the Alabama NAACP filed a lawsuit against Secretary of State John Merrill (R) and the House and Senate redistricting chairmen, Rep. Chris Pringle (R) and Sen. Jim McClendon (R).[12] Plaintiffs filed their lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama challenging the state House and Senate maps enacted on Nov. 4, 2021, by Gov. Kay Ivey (R). Plaintiffs alleged that 21 of the House districts and 11 of the Senate districts were racial gerrymanders in violation of the 14th Amendment.[13] As relief, plaintiffs asked the court to declare the maps unconstitutional and require legislators to develop new maps addressing the cited districts.[12]
- View the plaintiffs' complaint here.
Milligan v. Merrill
On Nov. 15, 2021, Evan Milligan and four other voters, Greater Birmingham Ministries, and the Alabama NAACP filed a lawsuit against Secretary of State John Merrill (R) and the House and Senate redistricting chairmen, Rep. Chris Pringle (R) and Sen. Jim McClendon (R).[14] Plaintiffs filed their lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama challenging the congressional map enacted on Nov. 4, 2021, by Gov. Kay Ivey (R).[14] Plaintiffs alleged that the congressional map violated the Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the 14th Amendment, saying the map packed Black voters into the 7th Congressional District and cracked Black voters among three other districts.[15] As relief, plaintiffs asked the court to invalidate the enacted congressional map and order a new map with instructions to include a second majority-Black district.[14]
- View the plaintiffs' complaint here.
Caster v. Merrill
On Nov. 4, 2021, Marcus Caster and seven other Alabama voters filed a lawsuit against Secretary of State John Merrill (R) in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama challenging the congressional map enacted on Nov. 4, 2021, by Gov. Kay Ivey (R).[16] In their complaint, plaintiffs alleged that the enacted congressional map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act "because it strategically cracks and packs Alabama's Black communities, diluting Black voting strength and confining Black voting power to one majority-Black district."[17] As relief, plaintiffs asked the court to invalidate the enacted congressional map and order a new map with instructions to include a second majority-Black district.[16] Following the filing of the plaintiffs' complaint, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.[16]
- View the plaintiffs' complaint here.
Alaska
Consolidated legislative redistricting litigation
Alaska Supreme Court issues final order summarizing 2022 redistricting litigation
On April 21, 2023, the Alaska Supreme Court issued a final order in In the Matter of the 2021 redistricting cases that explained the court's decisions issued from March through May 2022. The court also directed what the Alaska Redistricting Board should do regarding state legislative districts for the rest of the decade. The last paragraph of the introduction to the Supreme Court's order said, "We now explain the reasoning behind our summary orders. For context we start with Alaska’s constitutional framework for redistricting. We then detail the parties’ arguments in the first round of petitions for review and explain our first summary order. We next detail the parties’ arguments in the final petition for review and explain our second summary order, including the implementation of an interim redistricting plan for the November 2022 election cycle. Finally, we lift the stay on further redistricting efforts and explain what must be accomplished to successfully implement a final redistricting plan for the remainder of the decade."[18]
The Court's order summarized the legal process and decisions for all of the cases decided before the 2022 elections and directed the Alaska Redistricting Board to determine whether the interim legislative plan that the courts adopted for the 2022 legislative elections should remain in force until the state receives the results form the 2030 census. The state supreme court's order said:
| “ | "The question of a final redistricting plan for the decade remains. Having concluded that the Board engaged in unconstitutional gerrymandering in its initial final redistricting plan and that the Board then did so again
in its amended final redistricting plan, our remanding for yet another redistricting plan may be questioned. Indeed, by clear implication article VI, section 11 authorizes courts to mandate a redistricting plan when, after a remand, the Board develops a new plan that is declared invalid. But we will remand out of respect for the Board’s constitutional role in redistricting. Given that the Board adopted the current interim redistricting plan for its final plan deliberations — confirming the Board’s belief that the interim plan is constitutional —and given that Alaska’s voters have not had a chance to raise challenges to that plan in the superior court: We REMAND for the superior court to order that the Board shall have 90 days to show cause why the interim redistricting plan should not be the Board’s final redistricting plan for the 2020 redistricting cycle: A. Upon a showing by the Board of good cause for a remand, the superior court shall REMAND to the Board for another round of redistricting efforts; or B. Absent a showing by the Board of good cause for a remand, the superior court shall direct the Board to approve the interim redistricting plan as its final redistricting plan, allowing any legal challenges to that plan to be filed in superior court in the normal course.[18][19] |
” |
On May 15, 2023, the Alaska Redistricting Board adopted the interim plan that the state used for the 2022 elections as the Final Proclamation Plan. These boundaries will be used until the state receives new census data after the 2030 census, starting with the 2024 elections.[20]
Click here to read the full summary of the state's final redistricting plan, including district maps and descriptions.
Alaska Supreme Court upholds superior court decision, enacts interim Senate maps
On May 24, 2022, the Alaska Supreme Court upheld a decision by the Third District of Alaska's Superior Court which held that the Alaska Redistricting Board's mapping of state House districts to Senate ones was unconstitutional. The state supreme court also affirmed "the superior court’s order that the Board adopt the Option 2 proclamation plan as an interim plan for the 2022 elections."[21]
In its opinion, the Alaska Supreme Court wrote, "We AFFIRM the superior court’s determination that the Board again engaged in unconstitutional political gerrymandering to increase the one group’s voting power at the expense of others."[21]
Superior Court decision regarding challenge to Senate district pairings
On May 16, 2022, the Third District of Alaska's Superior Court ruled that the revised plan that the Alaska Redistricting Board adopted on April 13, 2022, for mapping state House districts to Senate ones was unconstitutional. The Court's opinion said, "the totality of the circumstances leads this Court to conclude that the majority of the Board acted in concert with at least a tacit understanding that Eagle River would again be paired in such a way as to provide it with two solidly Republican senate seats - an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. The result deprives the voters of District 10 of fair and effective representation - the right to group effectiveness or an equally powerful vote - in violation of the Equal Protection clause of the Alaska Constitution."[22]
To produce legislative districts that can be used for the 2022 elections, the Court's order also said, " Under the circumstances, there must, at a minimum, be an interim map in place in sufficient time for potential candidates to make an informed decision and declare their candidacy. During this phase of the redistricting process, the Board considered two proposals for senate pairings: Option 2 and Option 3B, which has now been declared unconstitutional. Given what has transpired to date, there is simply no practical way for the Board to develop, debate and approve yet another map which would correct the constitutional error.... The only practical solution is for this Court to order the Board to adopt a map of senate pairings. Having determined that Option 3B was an unconstitutional political gerrymander, the Court orders the Board to adopt Option 2 on an interim basis for the 2022 general election. With the time pressure of the impending deadline removed, the matter should then be remanded once again to the Board to correct its constitutional error and adopt a new plan of redistricting for the balance of the decade.[22]
Alaska Supreme Court decision
On March 25, 2022, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that one state House and one state Senate district did not comply with the state constitution and in favor of the Alaska Redistricting Board on all other petitions. In the state House, the court determined that all residents of the Cantwell community should be in the same district and ordered House Districts 30 and 36 to be redrawn. The court ruled that the mapping of state House districts to state Senate ones was an "unconstitutional political gerrymander" and ruled that the mapping of those districts for Senate Districts J and K be changed.[23]
Superior Court decision
On February 16, 2022, the Third District of Alaska's Superior Court ruled in favor of the Alaska Redistricting Board in three lawsuits against the new legislative district boundaries, ruling that they complied with the state constitution. The plaintiff in one lawsuit ended their action. In the fifth lawsuit, the Superior Court ruled that one state House and one state Senate district were drawn improperly. [24]
State judge consolidates lawsuits
On Dec. 14, 2021, Presiding Judge Amy Mead of Alaska's First Judicial District issued an order consolidating the following five lawsuits and transferring them to Anchorage for further proceedings.[25]
City of Valdez v. Alaska Redistricting Board
On Dec. 10, 2021, the City of Valdez filed a lawsuit against the Alaska Redistricting Board in the state's Third Judicial District.[26] The city alleged that the process by which the state House and Senate maps were created violated state open meetings laws. The city also alleged that the maps violated state redistricting principles by including Valdez with the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. As a remedy, the city requested that the new state House and Senate maps be blocked and that the board be ordered to develop new lines.
- View the plaintiff's complaint here.
City of Skagway v. Alaska Redistricting Board
On Dec. 10, 2021, the City of Skagway filed a lawsuit against the Alaska Redistricting Board in the state's First Judicial District.[27] The city alleged that the process by which the state House and Senate maps were created violated state open meetings laws. The borough also alleged that the maps did not maintain the borough's communities of interest. As a remedy, the city requested that the new state House and Senate maps be blocked and that the board be ordered to develop new lines.
- View the plaintiff's complaint here.
Calista Corporation v. Alaska Redistricting Board
On Dec. 10, 2021, the Calista Corporation, an Alaska Native regional corporation, filed a lawsuit against the Alaska Redistricting Board in the state's Fourth Judicial District.[28] The corporation alleged that the new state House and Senate maps diluted the voting power of Alaska Natives "by placing them in districts with different social, political, and economic concerns," in violation of state and federal law.[28] As a remedy, the corporation asked that the state House and Senate maps be blocked and that new lines be created.
- View the plaintiff's complaint here.
Wilson v. Alaska Redistricting Board
On Dec. 9, 2021, Felisa Wilson and two other voters filed a lawsuit against the Alaska Redistricting Board in the state's Third Judicial District.[29] The plaintiffs alleged that the process by which the state legislative maps were created violated state law. Regarding the state Senate map, in particular, plaintiffs said the board's enacted map ignored "the demographic, economic, and geographic characteristics" of the communities in the Anchorage area.[30] As a remedy, the plaintiffs requested that the court block the Senate map and order the board to develop new lines.
- View the plaintiffs' complaint here.
Matanuska-Susitna Borough v. Alaska Redistricting Board
On Dec. 2, 2021, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough filed a lawsuit against the Alaska Redistricting Board in the state's Third Judicial District. On Dec. 10, 2021, a group of Alaska Native organizations and individuals, led by Doyon, Ltd., filed to intervene as defendants.
The plaintiffs alleged malapportionment, writing that, under the newly-enacted state House map, "every state House district within [Matanuska-Susitna Borough] is overpopulated as compared to the rest of Alaska’s House districts and, therefore, the votes of Matanuska-Susitna Borough are diluted."[31] As a remedy, the borough requested that the court declare the newly-enacted House map void and compel the board to develop a new version.[31]
Arizona
This section will include information regarding any legal challenges to enacted maps.
Arkansas
Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment (2021-2023)
On November 20, 2023, the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment that there is no private right of action under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in certain states. As a result of this decision, the U.S. Department of Justice is the only entity qualified to sue the seven states within the 8th Circuit's jurisdiction (Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota) for violations of Section 2. Individual voters and private organizations file the majority of lawsuits for violations of Section 2. 182 of these lawsuits have been argued successfully over the past forty years, and all but 15 of them were filed either by individual voters or private organizations.[32][33]
On Dec. 29, 2021, the Arkansas State Conference NAACP and the Arkansas Public Policy Panel filed a lawsuit with the United States Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas against the Board of Apportionment and its three members—Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R), Sec. of State John Thurston (R), and Atty. Gen. Leslie Rutledge (R)—challenging the enacted state House map.[34] The plaintiffs alleged that the legislative maps diluted the voting power of Black Arkansans in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. As relief, plaintiffs asked the court to reject the enacted House map.[34]
- Read the plaintiffs' complaint here.
California
This section will include information regarding any legal challenges to enacted maps.
Colorado
This section will include information regarding any legal challenges to enacted maps.
Connecticut
This section will include information regarding any legal challenges to enacted maps.
Delaware
This section will include information regarding any legal challenges to enacted maps.
Florida
Common Cause Florida v. Byrd
On March 27, 2024, the U.S. District Court for Northern Florida upheld the state's congressional map after it was struck down by a lower court on Sep. 2, 2023. As a result, this map will be used for Florida's 2024 congressional elections. According to the U.S. District Court for Northern Florida's order:
| “ | This case involves constitutional challenges to the congressional districting map proposed by Governor Ron DeSantis and enacted by the Florida Legislature in 2022 ... Plaintiffs had to prove both discriminatory effects and a discriminatory purpose.
They proved neither. Thus, I concur in the decision to grant judgment in the Secretary’s favor.[35][19] |
” |
Black Voters Matter Capacity Building Inst., Inc. v. Lee
On April 22, 2022, several voting rights groups and Florida voters filed a lawsuit before the Leon County Circuit Court challenging the state's enacted congressional map.[36] The plaintiffs said the map violated the state constitution's Fair Districts Amendment, specifically "by intentionally diminishing the ability of Black voters to elect representatives of their choice" and "by intentionally favoring the Republican Party and disfavoring the Democratic Party." In the suit, the plaintiffs requested the court declare the enacted map invalid and prevent it from being used in U.S. House elections, and order a new map be drawn.[37]
On May 11, Leon County Circuit Judge J. Layne Smith said he would rule against the enacted congressional map. Smith said he would order a new map based on a draft map drawn by Harvard Professor Stephen Ansolabehere be used for the 2022 elections. Ansolabehere's draft map can be viewed here.[38]
On May 12, Secretary of State Laurel Lee (R) appealed the decision to the First District Court of Appeal, triggering an automatic stay on Smith's decision.[39] Smith issued a ruling on May 16 lifting the stay.[40] On May 20, the Florida First District Court of Appeal issued a ruling reinstating the stay.[36]
On May 23, the plaintiffs filed a request asking the Florida Supreme Court to enact a stay on the enacted congressional map.[36] The Florida Supreme Court declined to block Florida's enacted congressional map on June 2.[41]
The First District Court of Appeal issued a ruling striking down Smith's decision to implement a court-drawn congressional map on May 30, 2022.[42]
On October 27, 2022, the plaintiffs dismissed two claims without prejudice that they had originally asserted—that the enacted boundaries are a) not compact and b) do not use existing political and geographic boundaries. They did not dismiss any other counts and claims made in their original complaint.[43]
On September 2, 2023, Leon County Circuit Court Judge J. Lee Marsh overturned Florida's congressional district boundaries in North Florida and enjoined the state from using the current districts in future elections. Marsh declared the current map in violation of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment and directed the legislature to enact new district boundaries. In his order, Marsh wrote, "This case is about whether the Legislature, in enacting its most recent congressional redistricting plan, violated the Florida Constitution by diminishing the ability of Black voters in North Florida to elect representatives of their choice. It is also about whether that provision of the Florida Constitution violates the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In short, the answers are yes and no, respectively. For those reasons, this Court will declare the enacted map unconstitutional and enjoin the Secretary of State from using that map in future congressional elections. This Court will return the matter to the Legislature to enact a new map which complies with the Florida Constitution."[44]
On September 4, 2023, Florida Secretary of State Cord Byrd filed notice that he and the legislature would appeal Marsh's decision to the Florida First District Court of Appeal.[45] Byrd said, "We disagree with the trial court’s decision. This is why the stipulation contemplates an appeal with pass through jurisdiction to the Florida Supreme Court which we will be pursuing.”[46]
Georgia
Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Inc., Grant, and Pendergrass v. Raffensperger
On October 26, 2023, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ruled that the state's congressional and legislative district boundaries violated the Voting Rights Act and enjoined the state from using them for future elections.[47] The court directed the Georgia General Assembly to develop new maps by December 8, 2023.[47]
The court combined three cases that lower courts heard separately: Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Inc. v. Raffensperger, Grant v. Raffensperger, and Pendergrass v. Raffensperger.[48]
Federal District Court Judge Steve C. Jones wrote in his order, "After conducting a thorough and sifting review of the evidence in this case, the Court finds that the State of Georgia violated the Voting Rights Act when it enacted its congressional and legislative maps. The Court commends Georgia for the great strides that it has made to increase the political opportunities of Black voters in the 58 years since the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Despite these great gains, the Court determines that in certain areas of the State, the political process is not equally open to Black voters. . For example, in the past decade, all of Georgia’s population growth was attributable to the minority population, however, the number of majority-Black congressional and legislative districts remained the same. In light of this fact and in conjunction with all of the evidence and testimony in this case, the Court determines that Georgia’s congressional and legislative maps violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and enjoins their use in any future elections."[48]
Georgia State Conference of the NAACP v. Raffensperger
On February 3, 2022, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia consolidated all the cases challenging the state's congressional district boundaries.[49] The federal district court held hearings regarding challenges to the state's congressional and legislative district boundaries beginning on September 5, 2023.[50] The consolidated case included the following filed lawsuits:
- Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Inc. v. Raffensperger
- Common Cause v. Raffensperger
- Georgia State Conference of the NAACP v. Raffensperger
- Grant v. Raffensperger
- Pendergrass v. Raffensperger
Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Inc. v. Raffensperger
On Dec. 30, 2021, the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc., Sixth District of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, and a group of voters filed a lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) challenging the enacted state Senate and House maps.[51] The plaintiffs alleged that the legislative maps diluted the voting power of Black Georgians in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.[52] As relief, plaintiffs asked the court to reject the enacted maps and order the creation of new maps.[52]
In their complaint, plaintiffs wrote:
| “ |
[Georgia's population] growth has been driven entirely by Black Georgians and other Georgians of color ... Yet the new legislative maps for Georgia's General Assembly, which were rushed through the legislative process in a week and a half, do not account for the growth of Georgia's Black population. Rather, the new maps systematically minimize the political power of Black Georgians in violation of federal law.[52][19] |
” |
- Read the plaintiffs' complaint here
On Jan. 3, 2022, Raffensperger responded to lawsuits filed against the enacted maps, saying:
| “ |
Georgia's maps are fair and adhere to traditional principles of redistricting ... These lawsuits are nothing but politically motivated actions from politically motivated groups seeking to further their partisan preferences ... The plaintiffs hide behind lofty rhetoric, but all they care about is entrenching the failed politics of the Biden Administration that are making everything more expensive for Georgia families.[53][19] |
” |
This case was combined with two other cases, Grant v. Raffensperger and Pendergrass v. Raffensperger, and decided by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on October 26, 2023.[48]
Common Cause v. Raffensperger
On Jan. 7, 2022, Common Cause, the League of Women Voters of Georgia, and several registered voters filed a lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) and the chairs of the Senate and House redistricting committees—Sen. John F. Kennedy (R) and Rep. Bonnie Rich (R)—challenging the state's enacted congressional map.[54] The plaintiffs alleged that the map constituted a racial gerrymander in violation of the Voting Rights Act.[54] As relief, plaintiffs asked the court to block three challenged districts—the 6th, 13th, and 14th—and order a new map.[54]
- Read the plaintiffs' complaint here.
Georgia State Conference of the NAACP v. Raffensperger
On Dec. 30, 2021, the Georgia State Conference of the NAACP, the Georgia Coalition for the People's Agenda, Inc., and Galeo Latino Community Development Fund, Inc., filed a lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Governor Brian Kemp (R) and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) challenging the state's enacted legislative and congressional maps.[55] The plaintiffs alleged that the map constituted a racial gerrymander in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.[55] As relief, plaintiffs asked the court to reject a series of identified districts and order the development of new maps.[55]
In their complaint, plaintiffs wrote:
| “ |
[T]he Controlling Party deliberately targeted Black, Latinx, and AAPI Georgians and moved them into and out of districts to deny them equal opportunities to elect candidates of their choice, splitting communities of interest, and ensuring safe districts where White voters can elect their candidates of choice.[55][19] |
” |
- Read the plaintiffs' complaint here.
On Jan. 3, 2022, Raffensperger responded to lawsuits filed against the enacted maps, saying:
| “ |
Georgia's maps are fair and adhere to traditional principles of redistricting ... These lawsuits are nothing but politically motivated actions from politically motivated groups seeking to further their partisan preferences ... The plaintiffs hide behind lofty rhetoric, but all they care about is entrenching the failed politics of the Biden Administration that are making everything more expensive for Georgia families.[53][19] |
” |
Grant v. Raffensperger
On. Jan. 11, 2022, a group of voters led by Annie Lois Grant filed a lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) and four members of the Georgia State Election Board challenging the state's enacted legislative maps.[56] The plaintiffs alleged that the legislative maps diluted the voting power of Black Georgians in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The complaint also alleged that legislators could have created eight additional minority-opportunity districts.[56] As relief, plaintiffs asked the court to block the maps and order them redrawn.[56]
- Read the plaintiffs' complaint here.
This case was combined with two other cases, Grant v. Raffensperger and Pendergrass v. Raffensperger, and decided by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on October 26, 2023.[48]
Pendergrass v. Raffensperger
On Dec. 30, 2021, a group of voters led by Rev. Coakley Pendergrass filed a lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) and four members of the Georgia State Election Board challenging the state's enacted congressional map.[57] The plaintiffs alleged that the legislative maps diluted the voting power of Black Georgians in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.[57] As relief, plaintiffs asked the court to reject the enacted map and order the creation of a new map with an additional majority-Black district.[57]
In their complaint, plaintiffs wrote:
| “ |
Rather than create an additional congressional district i the western Atlanta metropolitan area in which Georgia's growing Black population would have the opportunity to elect candidates of its choice, the General Assembly did just the opposite: it paced and cracked Georgia's Black voters to dilute their influence.[57][19] |
” |
- Read the plaintiffs' complaint here.
On Jan. 3, 2022, Raffensperger responded to lawsuits filed against the enacted maps, saying:
| “ |
Georgia's maps are fair and adhere to traditional principles of redistricting ... These lawsuits are nothing but politically motivated actions from politically motivated groups seeking to further their partisan preferences ... The plaintiffs hide behind lofty rhetoric, but all they care about is entrenching the failed politics of the Biden Administration that are making everything more expensive for Georgia families.[53][19] |
” |
Hawaii
This section will include information regarding any legal challenges to enacted maps.
Idaho
Consolidated lawsuit
On Nov. 23, 2021, the Idaho Supreme Court approved a request from the Idaho Commission for Reapportionment to consolidate two lawsuits filed against the state legislative maps enacted by the commission on Nov. 12.[58] On Dec. 17, 2021, the supreme court consolidated a third lawsuit, Allan v. Idaho Commission for Reapportionment, and designated Durst v. Idaho Commission for Reapportionment as the lead case.[59] The three lawsuits alleged that the commission violated Idaho state law regarding the division of counties during redistricting. The individual lawsuits are described below.
Allan v. Idaho Commission for Reapportionment
On Dec. 16, 2021, Chief Allan and Devon Boyer, chairmen of the Coeur d'Alene and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, respectively, filed a petition on behalf of their tribes with the Idaho Supreme Court against the Reapportionment Commission and Secretary of State Lawerence Denney (R) challenging the enacted state legislative map (L03).[60] The petitioners alleged that the legislative maps focused too heavily on maintaining equal population, which resulted in maps that divided more counties than was necessary in violation of Article III, Section 5 of the Idaho Constitution and Idaho Code § 72-1506.[60] Plaintiffs also alleged that commissioners did not consider communities of interest and that the adopted map divided their tribes into multiple districts in a way that diluted their voting power. They said their were other proposed maps that divided fewer counties and the tribes, specifically citing L078 and L079, both submitted by Idaho Wheat Commissioner Wayne Hurst.[60] As relief, petitioners requested that the court declare the enacted legislative map unconstitutional and remand the matter back to the commission to develop a new map.[60]
- View the plaintiffs' petition here.
Ada County v. Idaho Commission for Reapportionment
On Nov. 17, 2021, Ada County Commissioners filed a petition with the Idaho Supreme Court against the Reapportionment Commission and Secretary of State Lawerence Denney (R) challenging the enacted state legislative map (L03).[61] The commissioners, petitioning on behalf of Ada County, alleged that the legislative maps divided more counties than was necessary in violation of Article III, Section 5 of the Idaho Constitution and Idaho Code § 72-1506.[62] Ada County, the state's most populous, was one of eight counties divided into multiple districts. The petitioners said that there were other proposed maps that divided only seven counties, specifically citing L075 and L076, proposed by former Idaho Democratic Party chairman Larry Grant, and L079, proposed by Idaho Wheat Commissioner Wayne Hurst.[62] As relief, petitioners requested that the court declare the enacted legislative map unconstitutional and remand the matter back to the commission to develop a new map.[62]
- View the plaintiffs' petition here.
Durst v. Idaho Commission for Reapportionment
On Nov. 10, 2021, Branden Durst, a Republican candidate for Superintendent of Public Instruction, filed a petition with the Idaho Supreme Court against the Reapportionment Commission and Secretary of State Lawerence Denney (R) challenging the state legislative map approved by the commission.[63] Durst alleged that the legislative maps divided more counties than was necessary in violation of Article III, Section 5 of the Idaho Constitution.[64] Durst said the commission-drawn L03 map had 13 total divisions whereas the citizen-drawn L084 map, which Durst submitted to the commission, had nine total divisions. As relief, Durst requested that the court declare the legislative map adopted by the commission unconstitutional and either adopt his L084 map or require the commission to redo the map with fewer divisions.[64]
- View the plaintiff's petition here.
Pentico v. Idaho Commission for Reapportionment
On Dec. 15, 2021, Christopher Pentico, a registered voter in Elmore County, filed a petition with the Idaho Supreme Court against the Reapportionment Commission and Secretary of State Lawerence Denney (R) challenging the enacted congressional map (C03).[65] Pentico alleged that the commission failed to meet its deadline to submit the final congressional map. He also alleged that the congressional map unnecessarily split six precincts in Ada County.[65] Pentico requested that the court block the enacted congressional map and either order the commission to develop a new map or adopt a congressional map that he had submitted, C039.[65]
- View the plaintiff's petition here.
Stucki v. Idaho Commission for Reapportionment
On Dec. 1, 2021, Spencer Stucki, a resident of Chubbuck and co-chair of the Committee for Fair Elections, filed a petition with the Idaho Supreme Court against the Reapportionment Commission and Secretary of State Lawerence Denney (R) challenging the enacted state legislative map (L03).[66] Stucki alleged that the approved legislative maps did not give equal consideration to counties, districts, and voters. He also alleged that the commission incorrectly dismissed submitted maps that split more than eight counties.[66] Stucki requested that the court declare L03 inadequate and have the commission consider L074, which Stucki submitted, saying it would better represent the needs of southeastern Idaho.[66] He also requested that the court declare that splitting nine counties would not violate Idaho's constitutional requirements to avoid splitting counties while redistricting.[66]
- View the plaintiff's petition here.
Illinois
Contreras et. al. v. Illinois State Board of Elections
The Illinois State Legislature enacted two sets of state legislative maps during the 2020 redistricting cycle:
- The first, which Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) signed into law on June 4, 2021, redrew state House and Senate lines using data from the American Community Survey (ACS), a demographics survey program conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau but distinct from the decennial census. According to state constitutional requirements, the legislature had a June 30 deadline to complete its maps. If the legislature had missed that deadline, the map-making process would have transferred to a commission.[67]
- The second, which Gov. Pritzker signed into law on Sept. 24, 2021, revised the June maps. Data from the 2020 census was officially released in August 2021, prompting legislators to reconvene in a special session and adopt revised maps based on the official census data. The June maps were never repealed.[68]
On Oct. 19, 2021, a three-judge panel in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois declared that the state legislative maps enacted on June 4, 2021, were unconstitutional based on violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.[67] The Oct. 19 ruling did not declare either the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of the maps enacted in September.[69]
On Dec. 30, 2021, the panel ruled against the plaintiffs and upheld the state legislative maps enacted on Sept. 24, 2021.[70]
To read the court's final opinion, click here.
Case background
Following the enactment of the June maps, plaintiffs filed two lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division: Illinois House and Senate Republican leaders Jim Durkin and Dan McConchie on June 9, 2021, and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) on June 10, 2021.[71][72][73]
The two lawsuits were consolidated in a single case and assigned to a three-judge panel on July 14, 2021.[74][75][76] Robert Dow Jr. of the Northern District of Illinois, Jon E. DeGuilio of the Northern District of Indiana, and Michael B. Brennan of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals were assigned to the case.[74]
In their initial complaints, both sets of plaintiffs alleged that the June maps were malapportioned since they were based on ACS data rather than the data from the official 2020 census.[72][77][78]
In a July 16 motion, the Illinois State Board of Elections and the offices of House Speaker Welch (D) and Senate President Harmon (D) said that neither the Illinois constitution nor the U.S. constitution required census data to be used in redistricting. They also said that until the 2020 census data was released, the court had no way to measure the validity of the plaintiffs' equal protection arguments.[75]
The U.S. Census Bureau released official 2020 census data in August 2021 which prompted the state legislature to reconvene for a special session to revise the June maps based on census data. Those maps were sent to Gov. Pritzker who signed them into law on Sept. 24, 2021.[68]
On Oct. 1, 2021, both sets of plaintiffs filed amended complaints saying the September maps violated the U.S. Constitution, as alleged in the initial complaints, as well as the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Both groups of plaintiffs said that Illinois' Latino population grew over the preceding decade, but the September maps reduced the number of Latino opportunity districts, where Latinos make up more than 50% of the population.[79]
On Oct. 15, the East St. Louis Branch NAACP, among others, filed a separate lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois requesting the court prevent the state from enforcing the state legislative maps approved and enacted in September. Plaintiffs alleged that the September plan constituted an unconstitutional racial gerrymander by cracking predominantly Black communities in East St. Louis into three separate districts: House Districts 112, 113, and 114.[80] The case was reassigned to the three-judge panel overseeing the McConchie and Contreras cases on Oct. 20.[81]
For additional information about the individual lawsuits, including the remedies sought, click "Show more" below.
McConchie and Durkin v. Illinois State Board of Elections
The McConchie and Durkin complaint focused on the use of data from the U.S. Census Bureau's five-year American Community Survey (ACS), instead of the data from the 2020 census. Plaintiffs cited undercounts by the ACS compared with the federal data saying, "[ACS] estimates are not intended to be, and are not, a proper substitute for the official census counts." They alleged that "because it uses ACS estimates for population data, the Redistricting Plan does not ensure that the Senate and Representative Districts satisfy the constitutional mandate of substantially equal populations [among districts]."[77][78] They asked the court to declare the enacted maps unconstitutional and to appoint either a bipartisan legislative commission or a special master (outside expert) to draft new maps. Democratic leaders of the Senate Redistricting Committee Omar Aquino and Elgie Sims responded to the lawsuit in a joint statement saying, "We stand by our work to ensure everyone has a voice in state government."[77]
After the release of the US Census Data on August 12, 2021, McConchie and Durkin filed a motion for summary judgment on the case on August 19, 2021. The motion argued that the maps should be ruled unconstitutional ab initio, or from the beginning, for exceeding the maximum 10% deviation permitted, with "29.88% [deviation] for House Districts and 20.25% for Senate Districts."[82]
To read the official complaint filed click here.
Contreras v. Illinois State Board of Elections
The MALDEF complaint alleged the maps were malapportioned because they used data from the ACS instead of data from the 2020 census. They also said the maps violated the Fourteenth Amendment, writing "ACS data are an estimate of population characteristics based on sample data, and not a count of U.S. citizens and non-U.S. citizens."[72] The plaintiffs alleged that "the Enacted Plans purportedly ensure compliance with the 'one-person, one-vote' standard mandated by the Fourteenth Amendment; however, ACS data is inadequate for that purpose."[72] They asked the court to declare that the enacted plans violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, and requested an injunction to prevent the defendants from using the maps in future state General Assembly elections. They also asked for an injunction requiring the defendants to draw new maps based on the data from the 2020 census.[72]
On July 28, 2021, MALDEF attorneys filed an amended complaint saying that, because Contreras, Fuentes, Martinez, Padilla, and Torres lived in the allegedly malapportioned districts, the June maps would dilute their votes in future elections.[83]
To read the official complaint filed click here.
United Congress of Community and Religious Organizations et al v. Illinois State Board of Elections et al
On Oct. 15, the United Congress of Community and Religious Organizations, the East St. Louis Branch NAACP, and the Illinois State Conference of the NAACP filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the state board of elections requesting the court prevent the state from enforcing the state legislative maps approved and enacted in September. The groups alleged that the September plan constituted an unconstitutional racial gerrymander by cracking predominantly Black communities in East St. Louis into three separate districts: House Districts 112, 113, and 114.[80] To read the official complaint filed, click [001.East-St.-Louis-NAACP-v.-ISBE-et-al.Complaint.10.15.2021 here].
On Oct. 20, Judge Jorge L. Alonso granted an unopposed motion filed by the plaintiffs requesting that this case be reassigned to the existing three-judge panel overseeing the McConchie and Contreras cases.[81]
To read the official complaint filed click here.
Illinois African Americans for Equitable Redistricting complaint
On Oct. 11, the Illinois African Americans for Equitable Redistricting (IAAFER) filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice regarding the state legislative maps approved and enacted in September 2021. The Center Square's Kevin Bessler wrote that the group wanted "to ensure that the maps optimize opportunities for minority voters to elect candidates of their choice."[84] Regarding the September, IAAFER released a statement saying:
| “ |
Black people comprised 14% of Illinois’ population in 2011, and still comprise 14% of Illinois’ population in 2021. However, the number of majority Black districts has been cut by 50%. White people comprised 60% of Illinois’ population in 2011, and 58% of Illinois’ population in 2021. Yet, 69% if the districts drawn in the redistricting plan, are majority White. In fact, two new majority White representative districts were formed by dismantling a majority Black district in East St. Louis, Illinois.[85][19] |
” |
Indiana
This section will include information regarding legal challenges to enacted maps.
Iowa
This section will include information regarding legal challenges to enacted maps.
Kansas
Rivera, et al, Alonzo, et al, and Frick, et al v. Schwab, et al
U.S. Supreme Court denies plaintiffs' appeal to hear case
On November 23, 2022, the plaintiffs in Alonzo v. Schwab filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the Kansas Supreme Court's May 2022 decision upholding that state's congressional redistricting plan. The petitioners alleged that the Kansas Supreme Court erroneously ruled "that intentional racial discrimination in redistricting is unconstitutional only if it prevents the formation of a majority-minority district." The petition also states that "The court did not disagree with the district court's factual finding, based upon substantial evidence, that the Legislature split Wyandotte County (home to Kansas City) along starkly racial lines in order to eliminate the ability of minority voters to continue electing their preferred candidate; the court simply held that it was irrelevant because those voters were insufficiently numerous to constitute a majority-minority district."[86] On March 27, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in the case, meaning that it did not agree to hear it.[87] According to Devan Cole of CNN, "The court did not disclose a vote count," and "The court’s decision to not hear the case means that the newly redrawn map will remain in play."[88]
Kansas Supreme Court upholds congressional district boundaries
On May 18, 2022, the Kansas Supreme Court overturned a district court's ruling that found that the state's enacted congressional district boundaries were unconstitutional. In a two-page order, Justice Caleb Stegall wrote for the court, "A majority of the court holds that, on the record before us, plaintiffs have not prevailed on their claims that Substitute for Senate Bill 355 violates the Kansas Constitution."[89]
On June 21, 2022, the Kansas Supreme Court issued its full order overturning the Wyandotte County District Court's decision that had found that the state's congressional district boundaries were unconstitutional. The court's order said, "The record below demonstrates that plaintiffs did not ask the district court to apply the correct applicable legal tests to their race-based claims. The district court, in turn, did not apply these legal tests to plaintiffs' race-based claims. Perhaps unsurprisingly then, the district court did not make the requisite fact-findings to satisfy either legal test applicable to plaintiffs' race-based equal protection claims. Therefore, on the record before us, plaintiffs have failed to satisfy their burden to meet the legal elements required for a showing of unlawful racial gerrymandering or unlawful race-based vote dilution...On review, we find the district court's legal errors fatally undermine its conclusions and, applying the correct legal standards to the facts as found by the lower court, we determine that on the record before us, plaintiffs have not prevailed on any of their claims that Ad Astra 2 violates the Kansas Constitution. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the lower court."[90]
On November 23, 2022, the plaintiffs in Alonzo v. Schwab filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the Kansas Supreme Court's May 2022 decision upholding that state's congressional redistricting plan.[91]
District Court overturns congressional maps
On April 25, 2022, Wyandotte County District Court Judge Bill Klapper struck down Kansas' enacted congressional map. The judge's ruling stated, "The Court has no difficulty finding, as a factual matter, that Ad Astra 2 is an intentional, effective pro-Republican gerrymander that systemically dilutes the votes of Democratic Kansans."[92] Klapper's opinion also said that the state's new district boundaries "intentionally and effectively dilutes minority votes in violation of the Kansas Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection."[92]
Klapper ruled on the case which resulted from the consolidation of three lawsuits challenging district boundaries that were enacted when the legislature overrode Gov. Laura Kelly's (D) veto on February 9, 2022. A total of 20 Kansas voters and the organization Loud Light had argued that the maps violated the state constitution due to political and racial gerrymandering.[93] The ruling enjoined Kansas Secretary of State Scott Schwab (R) and local election officials from using the previously enacted maps for the state's upcoming elections and directs the legislature to "enact a remedial plan in conformity with this opinion as expeditiously as possible."[92] Andrew Bahl of the Topeka Capitol Journal wrote that Republican legislative leaders said they would ask Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt (R) to appeal Klapper's ruling to the Kansas Supreme Court.[93]
Challenges to congressional boundaries (Case No. 2022-CV-000089)
Wyandotte County District Court Judge Bill Klapper consolidated three lawsuits challenging the state's congressional district boundaries that argued that the maps violated the state constitution due to political and racial gerrymandering. Klapper heard four days of oral arguments in the case in April 2022. A total of 20 Kansas voters and the organization Loud Light, which describes itself on its website as a group that "engages, educates, and empowers individuals from underrepresented populations to build community power that has an impact on decision makers," filed the lawsuits against the maps and named Kansas Secretary of State Scott Schwab (R) and election officials from Douglas and Wyandotte counties as defendants.[94]Loud Light, "The Mission," accessed April 25, 2022</ref>
Kentucky
Post-enactment lawsuits
This section provides overviews of lawsuits challenging redistricting maps that were filed after Kentucky enacted maps for the 2020 redistricting cycle.
Graham v. Adams
On January 20, 2022, five voters and the Kentucky Democratic Party filed a lawsuit against Secretary of State Michael Adams (R) and the Kentucky State Board of Elections. Plaintiffs filed their lawsuit in Franklin County Circuit Court challenging the state's congressional and Kentucky House of Representatives redistricting plans enacted on January 20, 2022, when the Kentucky General Assembly overrode Gov. Andy Beshear’s (D) veto of both maps. Plaintiffs allege that the maps are extreme partisan gerrymanders and excessively and unnecessarily split counties into multiple districts without a legitimate purpose. As relief, plaintiffs asked the court to declare the maps unconstitutional, enjoin the state from conducting elections with them, and require the state to use current maps or newly developed maps that comply with the state law for the 2022 elections.[95]
Louisiana
Maine
This section will include information regarding legal challenges to enacted maps.
Maryland
In re 2022 Legislative Districting
On February 10, 2022, several Maryland citizens filed a petition challenging the validity of the state's enacted legislative maps. In the petition, the plaintiffs said that some districts in the map "violate Article III, § 4 of Maryland’s Constitution because they are not contiguous or compact and/or do not give due regard to natural boundaries and the boundaries of political subdivisions. These districts further violate: (a) Articles 7, 24, and 40 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights by infringing on Marylanders’ rights to free elections, freedom of speech, and equal protection; and (b) Article I, § 7 of Maryland’s Constitution by contradicting the General Assembly’s obligation to pass laws ensuring the purity of elections."[96] The plaintiffs requested the court invalidate the enacted plan and order the Maryland General Assembly to draw new maps.
On February 11, the Maryland Court of Appeals consolidated the petition with three other challenges to the legislative maps. On April 13, the Court issued an order upholding the legislative maps and denying the petitions.[97]
Szeliga v. Lamone and Parrott v. Lamone
On December 21, 2021, several Maryland residents filed a lawsuit (Parrott) before a Maryland circuit court challenging the state's enacted congressional map. The lawsuit said, "This action challenges Maryland’s 2021 congressional redistricting plan on the ground that it diminishes Plaintiffs’ rights to participate in elections for the U.S. Congress on an equal basis with other Maryland voters, in violation of Article 7 of the Declaration of Rights of the Maryland Constitution; and on the ground that the Plan’s districts violate the requirements for district boundaries prescribed by Article III, Section 4 of the Maryland Constitution." They requested the court invalidate the congressional map.[98]
On December 23, 2021, several Maryland residents filed another lawsuit before a Maryland circuit court (Szeliga) challenging the state's enacted congressional map. The plaintiffs argued that the "Democrat-controlled General Assembly enacted the 2021 Plan to continue a now decade-long strategy of diluting Republican votes across Maryland and preventing Republican voters, through unconstitutional means, from electing their preferred representatives for Congress." They requested the court invalidate the congressional map.[99]
On February 22, 2022, the court consolidated the Szeliga and Parrott cases.[100] On March 25, Circuit Court Judge Lynne Battaglia overturned the state's congressional map and ordered the Maryland legislature to draw a new map.[101]
In The Matter Of 2022 Legislative Districting Of The State
On February 3, 2022, the Maryland Court of Appeals issued an order directing any registered voter in the state that wished to contest the validity of the state's legislative district boundaries to file such petitions by February 10, 2022. The court further ordered those petitions be consolidated into a single case named, In The Matter Of 2022 Legislative Districting Of The State. That order appointed retired Maryland Appeals Court Justice Alan Wilner to serve as a Special Magistrate to conduct hearings as necessary on such petitions and file a "written Report of findings of fact and conclusions of law."[102]
Four petitions were filed contesting the validity of the state's legislative redistricting plan by the deadline. The Special Magistrate scheduled hearings on the merits of these petitions from March 23, 2022, through March 25, 2022. On March 15, 2022, the Maryland Court of Appeals issued an order postponing the state's primary election from June 28, 2022, to July 19, 2022, and extending the candidate filing deadline from March 22, 2022, to April 15, 2022. It also directed Wilner to file his report by April 5, 2022.[103]
Massachusetts
This section will include information regarding legal challenges to enacted maps.
Michigan
Donald Agee, Jr. v. Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson
On December 21, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan found Michigan's legislative maps to be unconstitutional and ordered the state to draw new maps before the 2024 elections. 13 Senate and House districts were identified as being racially gerrymandered in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[104] In its order, the three-judge panel wrote:
| “ | The record here shows overwhelmingly—indeed, inescapably—that the Commission drew the boundaries of plaintiffs’ districts predominantly on the basis of race. We hold that those districts were drawn in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. ... We enjoin the Secretary of State from holding further elections in these districts as they are currently drawn. And we will direct that the parties appear before this court in early January to discuss how to proceed with redrawing them.[105][19] | ” |
All parties were ordered to file supplementary briefs suggesting remedies for the state's legislative map by January 2, 2024. A hearing to determine a remedy was scheduled for January 5.[104]
On March 23, 2022, several African-American voters, including Donald Agee, Jr., sued Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and Michigan's Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission, challenging the legislative maps that were drawn using data from the 2020 census. The lawsuit argued that Michigan's Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission used race as the predominant factor when drawing legislative districts in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The lawsuit also argued that the commission intentionally reduced the number of majority African-American districts in the state legislature in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The plaintiffs requested that the court block the legislative maps created by Michigan's Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission and order the creation of new maps for the 2024 election cycle. Hearings were held in November of 2023.[104]
League of Women Voters of Michigan, et al v. Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission
On February 1, 2022, the League of Women Voters of Michigan, seven other organizations, and 13 Michigan voters filed a lawsuit against the Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission challenging the State House district boundaries that the commission approved on December 28, 2021. The plaintiffs argued that MICRC adopted a "State House map which provides a disproportionate advantage to the Republican Party" in violation of state laws and the state constitution.[106] On March 25, 2022, the Michigan Supreme Court denied the petition, saying "the Court is not persuaded that it should grant the requested relief."[107]
Robert Davis v. Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission
On September 16, 2021, the Michigan Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit by Robert Davis to force the state's Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission to comply with a Sept. 17 deadline for approving new congressional and legislative district boundaries. Davis had sued the Commission on Sept. 7 asking the court to require the Commission’s compliance with Michigan’s constitutional deadlines to adopt new redistricting plans by November 1, 2021, and to publish plans 45 days before that for a period of public comment.[108][109]
In July 2021, the Michigan Supreme Court rejected a request by the Commission to extend the constitution's redistricting deadlines, saying that it was "not persuaded that it should grant the requested relief." At that time, the Commission said it would not meet the deadlines due to delays in receiving population data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
This is the first redistricting cycle conducted using Michigan Proposal 2, a state constitutional amendment that voters approved in 2018 which transferred the power to draw the state's congressional and legislative districts from the state legislature to an independent redistricting commission.
In re: Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission's duty to redraw districts by November 1, 2021
On April 20, 2021, the Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission petitioned the Supreme Court of Michigan to extend the constitution's redistricting deadline. Under the Michigan Constitution, the commission would be required to adopt new redistricting plans by November 1, 2021. It would be required to publish plans for public comment by September 17, 2021. However, in light of the delayed delivery of detailed redistricting data by the U.S. Census Bureau, the commission argued that it would "not be able to comply with the constitutionally imposed timeline." Instead, the commission asked that the state supreme court issue an order directing the commission to propose plans within 72 days of the receipt of redistricting data and to approve plans within 45 days thereafter.[110]
The state supreme court asked the Office of the Attorney General to assemble two separate teams to make arguments, one team in support of the commission's request and another opposed. The court heard oral arguments on June 21, 2021. Deputy Solicitor General Ann Sherman, speaking in support of the proposed deadline extensions, said "The very maps themselves could be challenged if they are drawn after the November 1 deadline." Assistant Attorney General Kyla Barranco, speaking in opposition, said, "There isn't harm in telling the commission at this point, 'Try your best with the data that you might be able to use and come September 17, maybe we'll have a different case.'"[111]
On July 9, 2021, the state supreme court rejected the commission's request to extend the deadlines. In its unsigned order, the court said that it was "not persuaded that it should grant the requested relief." Justice Elizabeth Welch wrote a concurrence, in which she said, "The Court’s decision is not a reflection on the merits of the questions briefed or how this Court might resolve a future case raising similar issues. It is indicative only that a majority of this Court believes that the anticipatory relief sought is unwarranted."[112]
Daunt v. Benson
On May 27, 2021, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a lower court's judgment that the membership criteria for Michigan's Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments.[113][114]
On November 6, 2018, voters approved Proposal 18-2, a constitutional amendment establishing a "commission of citizens with exclusive authority to adopt district boundaries for the Michigan Senate, Michigan House of Representatives, and U.S. Congress." That amendment set forth the following eligibility criteria for members of the commission, "who must not be currently, or have been in the past six years:"[113][114]
- A declared candidate for partisan federal, state, or local office.
- An elected partisan federal, state, or local official.
- An officer of member of the governing board of national, state, or local political party.
- An employee of the state legislature.
- "A paid consultant or employee of a federal, state, or local elected official or political candidates, of a federal state or local political candidate's campaign, or of a political action committee."
- "Any person who is registered as a lobbyist agent with the Michigan bureau of elections, or any employee of such person."
- "An unclassified state employee who is exempt from classification in state civil service ... except for employees of courts of record, employees of the state institutions of higher education, and persons in the armed forces of the state."
On July 30, 2019, a group of Michigan voters filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, alleging that "their exclusion from the Commission based on these partisan ties violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments." The district court ultimately dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, a decision which prompted the appeal to the Sixth Circuit.[113][114]
The three-judge panel – Judges Karen Moore, Ronald Gilman, and Chad Readler – unanimously affirmed the district court's decision. Writing for the court, Judge Moore said, "Michigan's interest in cleansing its redistricting process of political conflicts of interest and the appearance thereof is ample justification for the limited burdens that the Amendment's eligibility criteria impose on those who would like to be considered for the Commission. Although claims of unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering may be nonjusticiable, Michigan is free to employ its political process to address the issue head on. It did so, adopting the Amendment after Michiganders overwhelmingly voted in favor of Proposal 18-2, and its eligibility criteria for the Commission do not offend the First or Fourteenth Amendments.[113][114]
Minnesota
This section will be updated to include information regarding legal challenges to enacted maps.
Mississippi
Mississippi State Conference of the NAACP, et al. v. State Board of Election Commissioners, et al.
Lawsuit filed challenging legislative districts
On December 20, 2022, the Mississippi State Conference of the NAACP and five Mississippi voters filed a lawsuit in federal district court challenging the state's legislative district boundaries.[115] The suit argues that the boundaries the legislature enacted in March 2022 violate the 1965 Voting Rights Act and "illegally dilute the voting strength of Black Mississippians and improperly use voters’ race to achieve partisan goals and protect incumbent politicians."[115] The suit also argues that "Mississippi’s Black population could support at least four additional Black-majority Senate districts and at least three additional Black-majority House districts in several areas across the State, where Black voters, despite their numbers, and despite voting cohesively, have previously been unable to elect candidates of their choice, in large part due to the prevalence of racially polarized voting."[115] The plaintiffs asked the court to block the use of the adopted legislative district boundaries in the state's 2023 elections and require Mississippi to enact a new legislative map.
Missouri
This section will include information regarding legal challenges to enacted maps.
Montana
This section will include information regarding legal challenges to enacted maps.
Nebraska
This section will include information regarding legal challenges to enacted maps.
Nevada
This section will include information regarding legal challenges to enacted maps.
New Hampshire
Norelli v. Scanlon
On March 31, 2022, former New Hampshire Speaker of the House Terie Norelli (D) and several voters filed a lawsuit before a New Hampshire Superior Court challenging the state's old congressional map from the 2010 cycle.[116] In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs said "This is an action challenging New Hampshire’s current congressional districts, which have been rendered unconstitutionally malapportioned by a decade of population shifts. Plaintiffs ask this Court to declare New Hampshire’s current congressional districting map unconstitutional; enjoin Defendant from using the map in any future elections; and adopt a new congressional districting map that adheres to the constitutional requirement of one person, one vote in the likely event that the New Hampshire General Court and Governor Chris Sununu ultimately fail to do so."[117]
On April 11, the New Hampshire Supreme Court took up the case, setting a schedule and appointing Stanford Law Professor Nathaniel Persily as a special master in the proceedings.[118]
New Jersey
Steinhardt v. New Jersey Redistricting Commission
On Dec. 30, 2021, Republican members of the New Jersey Congressional Redistricting Commission filed a lawsuit before the New Jersey Supreme Court challenging the state's enacted congressional map. In the suit, the plaintiffs alleged that "Chair John Wallace’s reasoning and actions fail to satisfy any modicum or standard of judicial review that may be held applicable to the NJRC under New Jersey law, including being arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable." The plaintiffs requested the court strike down the map and order the commission to redraw the map.[119]
On Feb. 3, 2022, the New Jersey Supreme Court dismissed the case. Chief Justice Stuart Rabner wrote that "no count in the complaint, however, asserts that the final map itself is unlawful or that it is the result of invidious discrimination" and "this Court has no role in the outcome of the redistricting process unless the map is ‘unlawful.'"[120]
New Mexico
This section will include information regarding legal challenges to enacted maps.
New York
Hoffmann, et al v. The New York State Independent Redistricting Commission, et al
On June 28, 2022, five New York state residents filed a petition for a writ of mandamus against the New York State Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) seeking to compel the commission to submit a second set of redistricting plans for the legislature to consider as part of redistricting after the 2020 census. In January 2022, the IRC was deadlocked 5-5 on two different proposed redistricting maps and submitted both proposals to the legislature on January 3, 2022. The legislature rejected both proposals on January 10, 2022, and under the provisions of the state's redistricting procedures, the IRC had until January 25, 2022, to submit a second proposal. On January 24, 2022, the IRC announced that it would not submit a new set of proposed maps by the deadlines. The plaintiffs argued that "the IRC did not complete its constitutionally required redistricting duties because it failed to submit a second set of plans" and "the Court of Appeals also made clear that the Legislature was powerless to enact a new redistricting plan once the IRC refused to submit a second set of plans."[121] The petition sought to have the New York Independent Redistricting Commission meet and submit new map proposals that would be used for the 2024 elections and beyond.[121]
On September 12, 2022, Albany County Supreme Court justice Peter Lynch dismissed the plaintiffs' petition. He ruled that the state constitution neither required nor permitted the state to re-open its redistricting process after the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, overturned the state's congressional district boundaries as being in violation of New York's constitutional redistricting process in April 2022. Steuben County Surrogate Court justice Patrick McAllister adopted new congressional and state Senate district boundaries on May 20, 2022. Justice Lynch wrote in his order that "In this Court’s view, the Congressional maps approved by the Court on May 20, 2022, corrected by Decision and Order dated June 2, 2022, are in full force and effect, until redistricting takes place again following the 2030 federal census...In turn, there is no authority for the IRC to issue a second redistricting plan after February 28, 2022, in advance of the federal census in 2030, in the first instance, let alone to mandate such plan be prepared."[122]
On October 17, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an appeal of Justice Lynch's decision to the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division.[123]
On July 13, 2023, a five-judge panel of the appellate division of the New York Supreme Court ruled in a 3-2 decision that the state's congressional redistricting process was not followed when the independent redistricting commission failed to submit a second set of maps to the legislature and ordered the commission to reconvene and re-draw congressional district boundaries for use by the 2024 elections.[124] The court's majority opinion stated, "The IRC had an indisputable duty under the NY Constitution to submit a second set of maps upon the rejection of its first set (see NY Const, art III, § 4 [b]). The language of NY Constitution, article III, § 4 makes clear that this duty is mandatory, not discretionary. It is undisputed that the IRC failed to perform this duty...In light of the foregoing, petitioners have demonstrated a clear legal right to the relief sought. This determination honors the constitutional enactments as the means of providing a robust, fair and equitable procedure for the determination of voting districts in New York...Accordingly, we direct the IRC to commence its duties forthwith.[125]
On December 12, 2023, the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, ruled in a 4-3 decision that the independent redistricting commission did not follow the state's congressional redistricting process and ordered the commission to reconvene and re-draw congressional district boundaries by February 28 for use in the 2024 elections.[126] The court's majority opinion stated, "In 2014, the voters of New York amended our Constitution to provide that legislative districts be drawn by an Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC). The Constitution demands that process, not districts drawn by courts. Nevertheless, the IRC failed to discharge its constitutional duty. That dereliction is undisputed. The Appellate Division concluded that the IRC can be compelled to reconvene to fulfill that duty; we agree. There is no reason the Constitution should be disregarded."[127]
Nichols v. Hochul
On May 15, 2022, three New York residents filed a lawsuit in New York State Supreme Court challenging the state's enacted state Assembly maps arguing that the state failed "to Follow Constitutional Procedures for Redistricting Congressional, State Senate, and State Assembly District Maps." The suit stated that courts had already invalidated congressional and state Senate maps and that "This Court should enter judgment declaring that the 2022 State Assembly map violates the New York Constitution and is therefore void ab initio."[128] On May 25, 2022, the state supreme court denied the plaintiffs petition, ruling that the lawsuit was filed too close to this year's elections for the courts to intervene.[129]
The plaintiffs appealed to an appellate division of the New York Supreme Court and on June 10, 2022, that court ruled that the state's Assembly district boundaries were invalid but should still be used for the 2022 legislative elections. The appellate division ruling determined that the Assembly district map was enacted in violation of the state's constitutional redistricting process and that a New York City-based state trial court should oversee new boundaries for the 2024 elections.[130]
De Gaudemar v. Kosinski
On May 2, several New York residents filed a federal lawsuit before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York arguing that it would be unconstitutional to use the 2010 redistricting plan and that there is not sufficient time to draw a new redistricting map before the 2022 elections. The plaintiffs requested the court order the state to implement the congressional plan signed into law by Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) on February 3, 2022, and hold the primary election on June 28, 2022.[131]
On May 4, Judge Lewis Kaplan denied the request for an emergency injunction.[132]
Harkenrider v. Hochul
On Feb. 3, 2022, fourteen New York residents filed a lawsuit challenging the state's enacted congressional and legislative maps.[133] In the suit, the plaintiffs said "the Legislature did not follow the exclusive process for enacting replacement maps that the People enshrined through the 2014 amendments, meaning that the congressional map is entirely void" and "the map is an obviously unconstitutional partisan and incumbent-protection gerrymander."[134] The lawsuit sought a determination that the enacted maps were invalid and could not be used for the 2022 election cycle and that the maps be redrawn.[134]
On March 31, Justice Patrick McAllister ruled against the maps, saying "Part of the problem is these maps were void ab initio for failure to follow the constitutional process of having bipartisan maps presented by the [Independent Redistricting Commission]. The second problem was the Congressional that was presented was determined to be gerrymandered."[135] McAllister ordered the legislature to pass new maps that "receive bipartisan support among both Democrats and Republicans in both the senate and assembly."[135]
On April 4, Justice Stephen Lindley of the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court in Western New York issued a temporary stay of McAllister's ruling overturning the enacted legislative and congressional maps.[136][137] On April 8, Lindley issued a second temporary stay of the ruling through April 20, which would allow election-related deadlines to stand in the state and also allow McAllister to move forward with appointing a neutral expert to draw new maps to be used in the case that the legislature does not draw new maps and the appeal of McAllister's decision is not granted.[138][139]
On April 18, McAllister appointed Jonathan Cervas of the Institute for Politics and Strategy at Carneige Mellon University to act as a special master in the redistricting case.[140]
On April 21, a five-judge panel of the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court upheld McAllister's ruling regarding the congressional map, finding that it was a partisan gerrymander and setting a deadline of April 30 for the legislature to enact a new map. The court reversed McAllister's ruling overturning the state legislative maps, allowing them to stand. The state had the option of appealing the ruling before the New York Court of Appeals.[141]
On April 27, the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, ruled to overturn the state's congressional and state Senate maps. It ruled that both maps were enacted in violation of the state's constitutional redistricting process, and found that the congressional plan was drawn with unconstitutional partisan intent. The court remanded further proceedings to draw a new map back to the Supreme Court.[142]
On April 29, McAllister ruled to postpone New York's primary election date for congress and state senate to August 23. McAllister also ruled to extend the New York State Assembly's deadline to May 20 to submit new maps to the court.[143] House Speaker Carl Heastie (D) and Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins (D) submitted a map draft to the court's redistricting special master on May 5, which can be viewed here. Cervas, the redistricting special master in the case, released a draft congressional map on May 16, which can be viewed here.[144]
On May 20, Cervas released final versions of the congressional and state senate maps. McAllister issued an order the same day adopting the maps.[145]
North Carolina
Moore v. Harper
On Feb. 25, 2022, North Carolina Republican lawmakers filed an emergency filing with the United States Supreme Court challenging the congressional map drawn and enacted by the state court.[146] In their filing, they said, "If a redistricting process more violative of the U.S. Constitution exists, it is hard to imagine it. Without this Court’s emergency intervention, the North Carolina courts’ unconstitutional, judicially created congressional maps will be used to conduct the May 17, 2022 primary election. Time is of the essence to prevent such a profound constitutional violation from occurring." The plaintiffs requested the court stay the North Carolina Supreme Court's orders invalidating the maps enacted by the North Carolina General Assembly and prevent the court-ordered redrawn maps from being used in the 2022 elections.[147]
On March 7, the Supreme Court declined to block the state's enacted congressional map in a 4-3 decision.[148] The majority opinion, penned by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, said "the applicants are asking this Court for extraordinary interim relief—namely, an order from this Court requiring North Carolina to change its existing congressional election districts for the upcoming 2022 primary and general elections. But this Court has repeatedly ruled that federal courts ordinarily should not alter state election laws in the period close to an election." Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch dissented, saying "this case presents an exceptionally important and recurring question of constitutional law, namely, the extent of a state court’s authority to reject rules adopted by a state legislature for use in conducting federal elections. There can be no doubt that this question is of great national importance."[149]
On March 17, 2022, Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives Timothy K. Moore (R) filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted review on June 30, 2022. Oral argument in Moore v. Harper took place before SCOTUS on December 7, 2022.
On December 16, 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court issued an opinion affirming the February 2022 decision of the Wake County Superior Court that rejected the remedial congressional redistricting plan that the General Assembly adopted (RCP) and adopted the Modified remedial congressional redistricting plan (Modified RCP) that the court-appointed special masters developed.[150]
On January 20, 2023, the North Carolina legislature petitioned the North Carolina Supreme Court to rehear Moore v. Harper, and on February 3, 2023, the state supreme court voted to re-hear the case on March 14, 2023. As a result of the 2022 elections, the court flipped from a 4-3 Democratic majority to a 5-2 Republican majority.[151][152] On March 14, 2023, the North Carolina Supreme Court re-heard oral argument in Moore v. Harper.
On April 28, 2023, the North Carolina Supreme Court overruled their February 4, 2023, decision that the congressional map the legislature adopted in November 2021 violated the state constitution and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims in a lawsuit challenging the congressional district boundaries for partisan gerrymandering.[153]
On June 27, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that it had jurisdiction to decide whether the North Carolina Supreme Court had the authority to overturn the state's congressional map, regardless of the state court's subsequent reversal of its original decision (referred to as Harper I).[154] The court's opinion stated, "This Court has jurisdiction to review the judgment of the North Carolina Supreme Court in Harper I that adjudicated the Federal Elections Clause issue...The North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision to withdraw Harper II and overrule Harper I does not moot this case."[154]
The U.S. Supreme Court also affirmed the initial decision of the North Carolina Supreme Court which overturned the state's 2021 congressional map, holding that "State courts retain the authority to apply state constitutional restraints when legislatures act under the power conferred upon them by the Elections Clause."[154] Although the state supreme court later reversed its decision, the court upheld the state court's authority to decide whether the district boundaries complied with state law.[154]
North Carolina League of Conservation Voters v. Hall
On Nov. 16, 2021, the North Carolina League of Conservation Voters filed a lawsuit before the Wake County Superior Court challenging the validity of the state's enacted legislative and congressional maps. In the suit, plaintiffs said "this suit is about harnessing the power of mathematics and computer science to identify and remedy the severe constitutional flaws in the redistricting maps recently enacted by the North Carolina General Assembly," and that the enacted maps " create (and intentionally create) a severe partisan gerrymander" and "dilute the voting power of North Carolina’s black citizens."[155] The plaintiffs asked the court "to set aside the unlawful Enacted Plans and, as interim relief, to enjoin the use of the Enacted Plans in the 2022 primary and general elections" and to require the North Carolina State Legislature to draw new maps.
On Dec. 8, the North Carolina Supreme Court issued a joint ruling in this case and Harper v. Lewis delaying the state's 2022 candidate filing period and primary elections.[156] This was the fourth in a series of rulings on the issue. Initially, the Wake County Superior Court denied the request to delay the filing period and election on Dec. 3.[157] The North Carolina Court of Appeals then issued a stay on Dec. 6 granting the plaintiffs' request, then issued a second ruling on Dec. 6 reversing its decision.[158][159]
On Jan. 11, 2022, the Wake County Superior Court ruled in support of the new maps.[160] In its opinion, the three-judge panel said: "All of Plaintiffs' claims in these lawsuits, in essence, stem from the basic argument that the 2021 redistricting maps passed by the North Carolina General Assembly are unconstitutional under the North Carolina Constitution. We have taken great lengths to examine that document. At the end of the day, after carefully and fully conducting our analysis, it is clear that Plaintiffs’ claims must fail."[161]
On Feb. 4, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the congressional and legislative maps were unconstitutional, and ordered the maps be redrawn. The ruling established a Feb. 18 deadline for the North Carolina General Assembly and intervenors in the lawsuit to submit new maps to a trial court, which would then adopt a new set of maps by Feb. 23. Challenges to the new maps would also need to be filed by Feb. 23.[154]
Justice Robin Hudson wrote in the ruling that the maps were "unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt under the free elections clause, the equal protection clause, the free speech clause, and the freedom of assembly clause of the North Carolina Constitution." Chief Justice Paul Newby dissented, writing : "I dissent from the decision of the Court which violates separation of powers by effectively placing responsibility for redistricting with the judicial branch, not the legislative branch as expressly provided in our constitution."[154]
On Feb. 15, the Wake County Superior Court appointed three former judges to act as redistricting special masters: former Superior Court Judge Tom Ross, a Democrat, former state Supreme Court Justice Bob Orr, an independent, and former state Supreme Court Justice Bob Edmunds, a Republican.[162]
On Feb. 23, the Wake County Superior Court ruled to approve state legislative maps redrawn by the North Carolina General Assembly. The court struck down the Assembly's redrawn congressional map and instead enacted a map drawn by the redistricting special masters.[163]
On April 28, 2023, the North Carolina Supreme Court overruled their February 4, 2023, decision that the congressional map the legislature adopted in November 2021 violated the state constitution and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims in a lawsuit challenging the congressional district boundaries for partisan gerrymandering.[164]
Harper v. Lewis
On Nov. 5, 2021, the plaintiffs in Harper v. Lewis, a 2019 case that resulted in North Carolina drawing new congressional maps before the 2020 election cycle, filed a supplemental complaint challenging the state's enacted congressional redistricting plan. The supplemental complaint was filed as part of the 2019 Harper v. Lewis case since the case was not closed.[165] The lawsuit alleges the map was an "intentional, extreme partisan gerrymander that dilutes Democratic votes and prevents Democratic voters from electing candidates of their choice." In their request for relief, the plaintiffs asked the court to declare the 2016 and 2021 congressional maps unconstitutional, and to redraw the maps. Additionally, they asked the court to rule the maps could not be used in the 2022 primary and general elections.[166]
On Dec. 8, the North Carolina Supreme Court issued a joint ruling in this case and North Carolina League of Conservation Voters v. Hall delaying the state's 2022 candidate filing period and primary elections.[167] This was the fourth in a series of rulings on the issue. Initially, the Wake County Superior Court denied the request to delay the filing period and election on Dec. 3.[168] The North Carolina Court of Appeals then issued a stay on Dec. 6 granting the plaintiffs' request, then issued a second ruling on Dec. 6 reversing its decision.[169][170]
On Jan. 11, 2022, the Wake County Superior Court ruled in support of the new maps.[171] In its opinion, the three-judge panel said: "All of Plaintiffs' claims in these lawsuits, in essence, stem from the basic argument that the 2021 redistricting maps passed by the North Carolina General Assembly are unconstitutional under the North Carolina Constitution. We have taken great lengths to examine that document. At the end of the day, after carefully and fully conducting our analysis, it is clear that Plaintiffs’ claims must fail."[172]
On Feb. 4, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the congressional and legislative maps were unconstitutional, and ordered the maps be redrawn. The ruling established a Feb. 18 deadline for the North Carolina General Assembly and intervenors in the lawsuit to submit new maps to a trial court, which would then adopt a new set of maps by Feb. 23. Challenges to the new maps would also need to be filed by Feb. 23.[154]
Justice Robin Hudson wrote in the ruling that the maps were "unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt under the free elections clause, the equal protection clause, the free speech clause, and the freedom of assembly clause of the North Carolina Constitution." Chief Justice Paul Newby dissented, writing : "I dissent from the decision of the Court which violates separation of powers by effectively placing responsibility for redistricting with the judicial branch, not the legislative branch as expressly provided in our constitution."[154]
On Feb. 15, the Wake County Superior Court appointed three former judges to act as redistricting special masters: former Superior Court Judge Tom Ross, a Democrat, former state Supreme Court Justice Bob Orr, an independent, and former state Supreme Court Justice Bob Edmunds, a Republican.[173]
On Feb. 23, the Wake County Superior Court ruled to approve state legislative maps redrawn by the North Carolina General Assembly. The court struck down the Assembly's redrawn congressional map and instead enacted a map drawn by the redistricting special masters.[163] This case became Moore v. Harper.
N.C. NAACP v. Berger
On Oct. 29, the Southern Coalition for Justice, the North Carolina NAACP, and Common Cause filed a lawsuit before the Wake County Superior Court challenging North Carolina's redistricting plan.[174] In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs said legislators were "ignoring clear direction from the North Carolina Supreme Court on how to draw constitutional maps" by not considering "racial data nor perform[ing] any kind of racially polarized voting analysis to understand how district lines would affect minority voting strength and representation" and by "unduly delay[ing] the redistricting process and obstruct[ing] public comment." The lawsuit went on to say they sought "a judicial determination that Plaintiffs are entitled to a redistricting process that adheres to the requirements of Article II, Sections 3 and 5 of the North Carolina Constitution and that the use of race-blind redistricting criteria violates North Carolina law and unlawfully harms voters of color."[175]
On Dec. 3, 2021, a lower court judge dismissed the case. The plaintiffs appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court. The court denied the petition, but granted intervention to one plaintiff, Common Cause, in North Carolina League of Conservation Voters v. Hall and Harper v. Hall on Dec. 15.[176]
North Dakota
This section includes information regarding legal challenges to enacted maps.
Turtle Mountain Chippewa Indians v. North Dakota Secretary of State
Template loop detected: Redistricting in North Dakota after the 2020 census
The ruling stemmed from a federal lawsuit brought by the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, the Spirit Lake Tribe and several individual Native American voters. They argued that certain North Dakota legislative districts deprive Native American voters of an equal opportunity to elect their candidates of choice in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Their lawsuit claimed that the new legislative districts pack House Subdistrict 9A with large majority of Native Americans, while dividing the remaining Native American voters into various other districts.
In his opinion, Judge Peter Welte of the U.S. District Court for North Dakota sided with the plaintiffs and enjoined the state's legislative maps.
| “ |
'Determining whether a Section 2 violation exists is a complex, fact-intensive task that requires inquiry into sensitive and often difficult subjects.' ... This case is no exception. It is evident that, during the redistricting process, the Secretary and the Legislative Assembly sought input from the Tribes and other Native American representatives. It is also evident that the Secretary and the Legislative Assembly did carefully examine the VRA and believed that creating the subdistricts in district 9 and changing the boundaries of districts 9 and 15 would comply with the VRA. But unfortunately, as to districts 9 and 15, those efforts did not go far enough to comply with Section 2. ... [T]he 2021 redistricting plan, as to districts 9 and 15 and subdistricts 9A and 9B, prevents Native American voters from having an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice in violation of Section 2 of the VRA.[154][19] |
” |
In response, House Minority Leader Zachary Ista (D) discussed the recruitment of Native American candidates, saying, “The North Dakota Democratic-NPL has a strong tradition of allyship with Native voters in North Dakota ... Certainly there should be a strong candidate for the House or Senate in a redrawn tribal district.”[177]
Ohio
Post-enactment lawsuits
This section provides overviews of lawsuits challenging redistricting maps that were filed after Ohio enacted maps for the 2020 redistricting cycle.
Neiman v. LaRose
- Note: This case was also known as Huffman v. Neiman when Ohio State Senate President Matt Huffman appealed the Ohio Supreme Court's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On March 21, the National Redistricting Action Fund filed a lawsuit before the Ohio Supreme Court on behalf of several Ohio residents, including two who were previously involved in other congressional redistricting lawsuits during the 2020 redistricting cycle, challenging the congressional map approved by the Ohio Redistricting Commission on March 2.[178] In the suit, the plaintiffs said the map "bears a striking resemblance to the plan struck down by the Court on January 14, and is again infused with partisan bias. It is an extreme partisan outlier again. It eschews sensible, compact districts that respect Ohio’s political geography precisely because doing so would not result in extreme partisan advantage at odds with Ohio’s voting patterns." The plaintiffs requested the court invalidate the March 2 congressional map, delay election-related deadlines and the congressional primary, and that the court choose a new map or order the General Assembly to adopt a new congressional map.[179] On March 29, 2022, the court set a schedule for this case in which it expected to review the congressional map after the May 3 primaries.[180]
On July 19, 2022, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled in a 4-3 decision that the congressional district boundaries that the Ohio Redistricting Commission adopted on March 2, 2022, were unconstitutional.[181] The 2022 congressional elections took place using the boundaries the redistricting commission adopted in March 2022 since primary elections were held using those districts on May 3, 2022.[181] Since the congressional district boundaries that the commission enacted did not have support from members of the minority party, the boundaries were in effect for only four years with the commission required to enact a new map after the 2024 elections. The state supreme court's order directed the Ohio General Assembly to pass a compliant plan within 30 days, and if the general assembly fails to do so, the court required that the redistricting commission adopt such a plan within an additional 30 days.[182]
Justices Maureen O'Connor, Michael P. Donnelly, and Melody Stewart signed the court's majority opinion and Justice Jennifer L. Brunner filed a concurring opinion. Justices Sharon L. Kennedy, Pat DeWine, and Pat Fischer wrote or joined dissenting opinions.[181]
In its decision, the court's opinion stated, "Petitioners have satisfied their burden by showing beyond a reasonable doubt that the March 2 plan unduly favors the Republican Party in violation of Article XIX, Section 1(C)(3)(a) of the Ohio Constitution. Comparative analyses and other metrics show that the March 2 plan allocates voters in ways that unnecessarily favor the Republican Party by packing Democratic voters into a few dense Democratic-leaning districts, thereby increasing the Republican vote share of the remaining districts. As a result, districts that would otherwise be strongly Democratic-leaning are now competitive or Republican-leaning districts."[182]
The dissenting opinion signed by Justices Kennedy and DeWine said, "We disagree, however, with the majority’s conclusion that the March 2 plan is invalid because it violates Article XIX, Section 1(C)(3)(a) of the Ohio constitution for “ ‘unduly favor[ing] or disfavor[ing] a political party or its incumbents.’...Therefore, we would hold that the March 2 plan is constitutional and order its use for the 2024 primary and general elections. Because the majority does otherwise, we dissent."[182]
On June 30, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States vacated the Ohio Supreme Court decision and remanded the case for consideration in light of the Moore v. Harper decision.[183] The Ohio Supreme Court reopened the case on August 23, and the petitioners who filed the original lawsuit requested the court to dismiss the case and leave the boundaries in place for the 2024 election, citing the need for voter certainty heading into the 2024 election cycle. The court dismissed the case on September 7.[184]
Gonidakis v. Ohio Redistricting Commission
On Feb. 18, 2022, a group of Ohio citizens filed a lawsuit in federal court asking the court to enact a set of legislative maps drawn by the Ohio Redistricting Commission. In the suit, the plaintiffs allege that the lack of enacted maps "has deprived Plaintiffs the opportunity to run for office, educate themselves about candidates, support candidates, and associate with like-minded voters, among other things" and that the "current state legislative districts (or lack thereof) violate the U.S. Constitution." The plaintiffs requested the court enact the second redistricting plan drawn by the Ohio Redistricting Commission, which had previously been struck down by the Ohio Supreme Court.[185]
On March 14, U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley rejected the request to intervene pending future rulings from the Ohio Supreme Court on the state's legislative maps. He wrote that, "If that decision reveals serious doubts that state processes will produce a state map in time for the primary election, then the stay will be lifted and this case will proceed."[186] On March 18, Marbley lifted the stay on the case after the Ohio Supreme Court rejected the third set of legislative maps.[187]
On March 30, three judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled that at the time they would not select a map or primary election date.[188]
On April 20, the three-judge panel issued an order saying it would not intervene to decide a primary date or map until May 28. If the state court proceedings did not produce a map by May 28, the court said it would order the primary to take place on August 2 using the third set of maps adopted by the Ohio Redistricting Commission.[189] The state court proceedings did not produce a map by May 28, so the order took effect.[190]
Simon v. DeWine
On Nov. 30, 2021, two Ohio residents filed a federal lawsuit challenging the state's enacted congressional and state Senate maps in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. In the suit, the plaintiffs alleged the maps violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the 15th Amendment of the United States Constitution, saying: "the legislature leadership in Ohio intentionally disregarded whether the proposed districts diluted Black voting strength or the existence among other things, of racial block voting." The plaintiffs requested the court strike down the maps and order the maps to be redrawn.[191]
On Jan. 12, 2022, U.S. District Judge John Adams paused proceedings in the case for 60 days, pending the results of state-level lawsuits against the legislative and congressional maps.[192] On Jan. 12, the Ohio Supreme Court struck down the state's enacted legislative maps, and on Jan. 14 the court also struck down the state's enacted congressional map.[193][194]
League of Women Voters of Ohio v. DeWine
On Nov. 30, 2021, League of Women Voters of Ohio and the A. Philip Randolph Institute filed a lawsuit on behalf of Ohio residents challenging the congressional map signed into law on Nov. 20.[195] In the suit, the plaintiffs said "Rather than reflecting voters’ actual preferences, Ohio’s newly enacted congressional map, like elections under gerrymandered systems, systematically locks in candidates from the Republican legislators’ preferred party and discourages electoral competition responsive to voters’ preferences." The lawsuit sought a determination that the enacted map was invalid.[196]
On Dec. 6, the court dismissed members of the Ohio Redistricting Commission from the lawsuit in their capacity as commissioners. The claims remained pending against Frank LaRose (R) in his capacity as secretary of state, Robert Cupp (R) in his capacity as speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives, and Matt Huffman in his capacity as Ohio State Senate president.[197]
In a 4-3 decision, the Ohio Supreme Court struck down the state's enacted congressional map and ordered the Ohio State Legislature to draw and approve a new map.[193] In the Jan. 14, 2022, majority opinion Justice Michael P. Donnelly wrote: "When the dealer stacks the deck in advance, the house usually wins. That perhaps explains how a party that generally musters no more than 55 percent of the statewide popular vote is positioned to reliably win anywhere from 75 percent to 80 percent of the seats in the Ohio congressional delegation. By any rational measure, that skewed result just does not add up."[198]
Justices Sharon L. Kennedy, Pat Fischer, and Pat DeWine jointly dissented, writing: "The majority today declares the congressional-district plan enacted by the legislature to be unconstitutional on the basis that it “unduly” favors a political party and “unduly” splits governmental units. It does so without presenting any workable standard about what it means to unduly favor a political party or divide a county."[198]
The Ohio Redistricting Commission voted to approve a redrawn congressional map on March 2. On March 18, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to overturn the redrawn map in this case and Adams v. DeWine, allowing the redrawn congressional map to stand barring a ruling otherwise in a separate legal challenge.[199]
Adams v. DeWine
On Nov. 22, 2021, a group of Ohio residents represented by the National Redistricting Action Fund filed a lawsuit challenging the congressional map signed into law on Nov. 20.[200] In the suit, the plaintiffs said "the 2021 Congressional Plan unduly favors the Republican Party and its incumbents, while disfavoring the Democratic Party and its incumbents" and "excessively divides communities in northeast and southwest Ohio, despite that no other redistricting criterion (constitutional or otherwise) requires it to do so." The lawsuit sought a determination that the enacted map was invalid.[201]
On Dec. 3, the court dismissed members of the Ohio Redistricting Commission from the lawsuit in their capacity as commissioners, and dismissed Gov. Mike DeWine (R) in his capacity as governor as well. The claims remained pending against Frank LaRose (R) in his capacity as secretary of state, Robert Cupp (R) in his capacity as speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives, and Matt Huffman in his capacity as Ohio State Senate president.[202]
In a 4-3 decision, the Ohio Supreme Court struck down the state's enacted congressional map and ordered the Ohio State Legislature to draw and approve a new map.[193] In the Jan. 14, 2022, majority opinion Justice Michael P. Donnelly wrote: "When the dealer stacks the deck in advance, the house usually wins. That perhaps explains how a party that generally musters no more than 55 percent of the statewide popular vote is positioned to reliably win anywhere from 75 percent to 80 percent of the seats in the Ohio congressional delegation. By any rational measure, that skewed result just does not add up."[198]
Justices Sharon L. Kennedy, Pat Fischer, and Pat DeWine jointly dissented, writing: "The majority today declares the congressional-district plan enacted by the legislature to be unconstitutional on the basis that it “unduly” favors a political party and “unduly” splits governmental units. It does so without presenting any workable standard about what it means to unduly favor a political party or divide a county."[198]
The Ohio Redistricting Commission voted to approve a redrawn congressional map on March 2. On March 18, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to overturn the redrawn map in this case and League of Women Voters of Ohio v. DeWine, allowing the redrawn congressional map to stand barring a ruling otherwise in a separate legal challenge.[199]
Ohio Organizing Collaborative, et al. v. Ohio Redistricting Commission, et al.
The Ohio Supreme Court dismissed this lawsuit and upheld the state's legislative maps on November 27, 2023.[203]
On Sept. 27, 2021, the Ohio Organizing Collaborative (OOC) and several other organizations filed a lawsuit against the Ohio Redistricting Commission challenging the state legislative maps approved by the commission on Sept. 16. This was the third lawsuit filed against Ohio's state legislative maps.[204] In the suit, OOC said: "the district plan dilutes the voting power of Ohio voters who tend to support Democrats. [...] These abuses are especially borne by members of Ohio’s growing Black and Muslim communities who, because of Ohio’s political geography, are among the communities that bear the brunt of the enacted partisan gerrymander." The lawsuit sought a determination that the commission's enacted maps are invalid.[205]
In a 4-3 decision, the Ohio Supreme Court struck down the state's enacted legislative maps and ordered the Ohio Redistricting Commission to redraw them within 10 days, at which point the court would review the maps and allow three days for objections to be filed.[194] In the Jan. 12, 2022, majority opinion Justice Melody J. Stewart wrote: "Although respondents have presented evidence showing that Ohio’s political geography and the map-drawing requirements of Article XI, Sections 3 and 4 may naturally lead to a district map’s favoring the Republican candidates, the evidence shows that these factors did not dictate as heavy a partisan skew as there is in the adopted plan. Petitioners have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the commission did not attempt to draw a districting plan that meets the standard articulated in Section 6(A)." Article XI, Section 6(A) of the Ohio State Constitution requires that "[n]o general assembly district plan shall be drawn primarily to favor or disfavor a political party."[206]
Justice Sharon L. Kennedy dissented, writing: "The majority then rewrites the plain language of Section 9(B), which provides for the reconstitution of the commission after a plan has been found invalid, to make itself the object of the provision and grant this court sweeping authority to review any challenge to the General Assembly-district plan."[206]
On Jan. 25, 2022, following the Ohio Redistricting Commission's release of a new map, the plaintiffs in this case filed a complaint against the new map before the Ohio Supreme Court.[207] They alleged the revised maps were unconstitutional in two ways: "First, the Commission enacted the new plan primarily to favor Republicans and disfavor Democrats, in violation of Section 6(A) of Article XI. [...] Second, the Commission’s Senate map does not meet the proportionality standard set out in Section 6(B) of Article XI."[208]
In a 4-3 decision, the Ohio Supreme Court struck down the second set of approved legislative maps and ordered the Ohio Redistricting Commission to redraw them within 10 days, at which point the court would review the maps and allow three days for objections to be filed.[209] The Feb. 7 majority opinion said: "The revised plan does not attempt to closely correspond to that constitutionally defined ratio. Our instruction to the commission is—simply—to comply with the Constitution." Justices Sharon L. Kennedy and Pat DeWine wrote in a joint dissenting opinion: "It is apparent that in disregard of constitutional standards, four members of this court have now commandeered the redistricting process and that they will continue to reject any General Assembly-district plan until they get the plan they want."[154]
On Feb. 17, the Ohio Redistricting Commission announced it would not meet the deadline to draw new maps.[210] On Feb. 18, the Ohio Supreme Court ordered members of the commission to file responses detailing why they did not meet the deadline and why they should not be held in contempt of court.[211] Commissioners filed responses on Feb. 23.[212]The court then ordered the commissioners to appear at a contempt hearing on March 1.[213] On February 25, the court postponed the hearings after the commission formally submitted maps to the court.[214]
On March 16, the Ohio Supreme Court struck down the Ohio Redistricting Commission's legislative maps for the third time. The majority opinion said, "We further order the commission to be reconstituted and to convene and that the commission draft and adopt an entirely new General Assembly–district plan that conforms with the Ohio Constitution." The deadline for the new maps was set for March 28. A dissenting opinion penned by Justices Kennedy and DeWine said, "The majority decrees electoral chaos. It issues an order all but guaranteed to disrupt an impending election and bring Ohio to the brink of a constitutional crisis."[215]
On March 28 the commission submitted new maps that it drew after voting to bypass maps drawn by independent consultants the commission had hired. On March 30, the court asked commission members to respond to claims that they should be held in contempt. The claims alleged that the maps submitted by the commission were too similar to the third set of maps that had been struck down.[216]
On April 14, the Ohio Supreme Court struck down the March 28 maps and ordered the Ohio Redistricting Commission to submit new maps by May 6.[217] On May 5, the Ohio Redistricting Commission voted 4-3 to submit legislative maps to the court that it had previously submitted on February 24.[218] The Ohio Supreme Court struck down the maps on May 25 and ordered the commission to redraw them by June 3.[219]
Bennett, et al. v. Ohio Redistricting Commission, et al.
The Ohio Supreme Court dismissed this lawsuit and upheld the state's legislative maps on November 27, 2023.[203]
On Sept. 24, 2021, the National Redistricting Action Fund (NRAF) filed a lawsuit on behalf of several Ohio citizens against the Ohio Redistricting Commission challenging the state legislative maps approved by the commission on Sept. 16.[220] This was the second lawsuit filed against Ohio's state legislative maps. In the suit, the NRAF said the maps were unconstitutional because "the Commission flatly ignored constitutional deadlines for releasing its proposed maps" and "in blatant violation of its constitutional mandate, the Commission adopted maps without even considering a standard for proportional representation until after voting to approve the maps." The lawsuit sought "a determination that the 2021 Commission Plan is invalid."[221]
In a 4-3 decision, the Ohio Supreme Court struck down the state's enacted legislative maps and ordered the Ohio Redistricting Commission to redraw them within 10 days, at which point the court would review the maps and allow three days for objections to be filed.[194] In the Jan. 12, 2022, majority opinion Justice Melody J. Stewart wrote: "Although respondents have presented evidence showing that Ohio’s political geography and the map-drawing requirements of Article XI, Sections 3 and 4 may naturally lead to a district map’s favoring the Republican candidates, the evidence shows that these factors did not dictate as heavy a partisan skew as there is in the adopted plan. Petitioners have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the commission did not attempt to draw a districting plan that meets the standard articulated in Section 6(A)." Article XI, Section 6(A) of the Ohio State Constitution requires that "[n]o general assembly district plan shall be drawn primarily to favor or disfavor a political party."[206]
Justice Sharon L. Kennedy dissented, writing: "The majority then rewrites the plain language of Section 9(B), which provides for the reconstitution of the commission after a plan has been found invalid, to make itself the object of the provision and grant this court sweeping authority to review any challenge to the General Assembly-district plan."[206]
On Jan. 25, 2022, following the Ohio Redistricting Commission's release of new legislative maps, the plaintiffs in this case filed a complaint against the new maps before the Ohio Supreme Court.[207] They alleged the revised maps violated Ohio Constitution in three ways: "First, the Remedial Plan violates the line-drawing requirements of Article XI, Section 3. [...] Second, the Remedial Plan violates Article XI, Section 6. [...] Third, the Commission violated both the letter and spirit of Article XI, Section 1."[222]
In a 4-3 decision, the Ohio Supreme Court struck down the second set of approved legislative maps and ordered the Ohio Redistricting Commission to redraw them within 10 days, at which point the court would review the maps and allow three days for objections to be filed.[209] The Feb. 7 majority opinion said: "The revised plan does not attempt to closely correspond to that constitutionally defined ratio. Our instruction to the commission is—simply—to comply with the Constitution." Justices Sharon L. Kennedy and Pat DeWine wrote in a joint dissenting opinion: "It is apparent that in disregard of constitutional standards, four members of this court have now commandeered the redistricting process and that they will continue to reject any General Assembly-district plan until they get the plan they want."[154]
On Feb. 17, the Ohio Redistricting Commission announced it would not meet the deadline to draw new maps.[210] On Feb. 18, the Ohio Supreme Court ordered members of the commission to file responses detailing why they did not meet the deadline and why they should not be held in contempt of court.[211] Commissioners filed responses on Feb. 23.[212]The court then ordered the commissioners to appear at a contempt hearing on March 1.[213] On February 25, the court postponed the hearings after the commission formally submitted maps to the court.[214]
On March 16, the Ohio Supreme Court struck down the Ohio Redistricting Commission's legislative maps for the third time. The majority opinion said, "We further order the commission to be reconstituted and to convene and that the commission draft and adopt an entirely new General Assembly–district plan that conforms with the Ohio Constitution." The deadline for the new maps was set for March 28. A dissenting opinion penned by Justices Kennedy and DeWine said, "The majority decrees electoral chaos. It issues an order all but guaranteed to disrupt an impending election and bring Ohio to the brink of a constitutional crisis."[215]
On March 28 the commission submitted new maps that it drew after voting to bypass maps drawn by independent consultants the commission had hired. On March 30, the court asked commission members to respond to claims that they should be held in contempt. The claims alleged that the maps submitted by the commission were too similar to the third set of maps that had been struck down.[216]
On April 14, the Ohio Supreme Court struck down the March 28 maps and ordered the Ohio Redistricting Commission to submit new maps by May 6.[217] On May 5, the Ohio Redistricting Commission voted 4-3 to submit legislative maps to the court that it had previously submitted on February 24.[218] The Ohio Supreme Court struck down the maps on May 25 and ordered the commission to redraw them by June 3.[219]
League of Women Voters of Ohio, et. al. v. Ohio Redistricting Commission, et al.
The Ohio Supreme Court dismissed this lawsuit and upheld the state's legislative maps on November 27, 2023.[203]
On Sept. 23, 2021, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Ohio, on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Ohio, filed a lawsuit with the Ohio Supreme Court against the Ohio Redistricting Commission challenging the state legislative maps approved by the commission on Sept. 16.[223] This was the first lawsuit filed against the Ohio maps specifically, and the first lawsuit filed against redistricting maps after the 2020 census.[224] In the lawsuit, the Ohio ACLU said the map "fails to correspond with voters’ preferences as manifested by the vote share of the two major parties’ candidates over the past decade" and "def[ies] a constitutional amendment adopted overwhelmingly by Ohio voters just six years ago, which sought to put an end to precisely this kind of extreme partisan gerrymandering." The lawsuit sought "a determination that the apportionment plan adopted by the Ohio Redistricting Commission is invalid."[225]
In a 4-3 decision, the Ohio Supreme Court struck down the state's enacted legislative maps and ordered the Ohio Redistricting Commission to redraw them within 10 days, at which point the court would review the maps and allow three days for objections to be filed.[194] In the Jan. 12, 2022, majority opinion Justice Melody J. Stewart wrote: "Although respondents have presented evidence showing that Ohio’s political geography and the map-drawing requirements of Article XI, Sections 3 and 4 may naturally lead to a district map’s favoring the Republican candidates, the evidence shows that these factors did not dictate as heavy a partisan skew as there is in the adopted plan. Petitioners have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the commission did not attempt to draw a districting plan that meets the standard articulated in Section 6(A)." Article XI, Section 6(A) of the Ohio State Constitution requires that "[n]o general assembly district plan shall be drawn primarily to favor or disfavor a political party."[206]
Justice Sharon L. Kennedy dissented, writing: "The majority then rewrites the plain language of Section 9(B), which provides for the reconstitution of the commission after a plan has been found invalid, to make itself the object of the provision and grant this court sweeping authority to review any challenge to the General Assembly-district plan."[206]
On Jan. 25, 2022, following the Ohio Redistricting Commission's release of new legislative maps, the plaintiffs in this case filed a complaint against the new maps before the Ohio Supreme Court.[207] They alleged the revised maps violated Article XI of the Ohio Constitution in three ways: "First, the Revised Senate Map violates Section 6(B) because in drawing the map, the Commission deviated further from proportionality than required by any other provision of Article XI. Second, the Revised House Map also violates Section 6(B) because it also deviates further from proportionality than required by any other provision of Article XI. Third, the Commission drew its Revised House Map to primarily favor the Republican Party, in violation of Section 6(A)."[226]
In a 4-3 decision, the Ohio Supreme Court struck down the second set of approved legislative maps and ordered the Ohio Redistricting Commission to redraw them within 10 days, at which point the court would review the maps and allow three days for objections to be filed.[209] The Feb. 7 majority opinion said: "The revised plan does not attempt to closely correspond to that constitutionally defined ratio. Our instruction to the commission is—simply—to comply with the Constitution." Justices Sharon L. Kennedy and Pat DeWine wrote in a joint dissenting opinion: "It is apparent that in disregard of constitutional standards, four members of this court have now commandeered the redistricting process and that they will continue to reject any General Assembly-district plan until they get the plan they want."[154]
On Feb. 17, the Ohio Redistricting Commission announced it would not meet the deadline to draw new maps.[210] On Feb. 18, the Ohio Supreme Court ordered members of the commission to file responses detailing why they did not meet the deadline and why they should not be held in contempt of court.[211] Commissioners filed responses on Feb. 23.[212] The court then ordered the commissioners to appear at a contempt hearing on March 1.[213] On February 25, the court postponed the hearings after the commission formally submitted maps to the court.[214]
On March 16, the Ohio Supreme Court struck down the Ohio Redistricting Commission's legislative maps for the third time. The majority opinion said, "We further order the commission to be reconstituted and to convene and that the commission draft and adopt an entirely new General Assembly–district plan that conforms with the Ohio Constitution." The deadline for the new maps was set for March 28. A dissenting opinion penned by Justices Kennedy and DeWine said, "The majority decrees electoral chaos. It issues an order all but guaranteed to disrupt an impending election and bring Ohio to the brink of a constitutional crisis."[215]
On March 28 the commission submitted new maps that it drew after voting to bypass maps drawn by independent consultants the commission had hired. On March 30, the court asked commission members to respond to claims that they should be held in contempt. The claims alleged that the maps submitted by the commission were too similar to the third set of maps that had been struck down.[216]
On April 14, the Ohio Supreme Court struck down the March 28 maps and ordered the Ohio Redistricting Commission to submit new maps by May 6.[217] On May 5, the Ohio Redistricting Commission voted 4-3 to submit legislative maps to the court that it had previously submitted on February 24.[218] The Ohio Supreme Court struck down the maps on May 25 and ordered the commission to redraw them by June 3.[219]
Pre-enactment lawsuits
This section provides overviews of lawsuits related to redistricting that were filed before Ohio enacted congressional or legislative maps for the 2020 redistricting cycle.
Ohio v. Raimondo
On February 25, 2021, the state of Ohio filed suit against Census Bureau officials in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. In his complaint, Ohio Solicitor General Benjamin Flowers said, "The unavailability of decennial census data irreparably harms the State: the Ohio Constitution requires the State to use decennial census data during redistricting if the data is available, and allows the use of alternative data sources only as a second-best option. By blocking the State from conducting redistricting using decennial census data, the Census Bureau's decision prevents the State from conducting redistricting in the constitutionally preferred manner." The state asked that the court "issue an injunction either prohibiting the defendants from delaying the release of Ohio's redistricting data beyond March 31, 2021, or else requiring the defendants to provide the State with Ohio's population data at the earliest date this Court deems equitable." The case was assigned to Judge Thomas Rose, a George W. Bush (R) appointee. Rose dismissed the lawsuit on March 24, 2021, writing, "The Court will therefore reject Ohio's request for an order that pretends that the Census Bureau could provide census-based redistricting data by March 31, 2021. The Court cannot 'order a party to jump higher, run faster, or lift more than she is physically capable.'"[227][228]
On March 25, 2021, the state appealed Rose's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Oral argument before the Sixth Circuit was scheduled for May 12, 2021. On May 18, 2021, a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit ruled that Ohio met all three requirements for standing to bring a lawsuit: "First, Ohio suffered (and continues to suffer) an informational injury because the Secretary failed to deliver Ohio's data as the Census Act requires. Second, the injury is traceable to the Secretary because Ohio's informational injury is the direct result of the Secretary's failure to produce the required data. And third, Ohio's injury is redressable." The panel unanimously remanded the case to the district court for further consideration. The three judges on the panel were Martha Daughtrey (a Bill Clinton (D) appointee), David McKeague (a George W. Bush (R) appointee), and Amul Thapar (a Donald Trump (R) appointee).[229][230][231]
On May 25, 2021, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (R) announced that the state had reached a settlement agreement with the Census Bureau. Under the terms of the settlement, the Census Bureau agreed to deliver redistricting data, in a legacy format, by August 16, 2021. A legacy format presents the data in raw form, without data tables and other access tools. The Census Bureau also agreed to deliver biweekly updates (and, in August, weekly updates) on its progress. Yost said, "This administration tried to drag its feet and bog this down in court, but Ohio always had the law on its side and now the federal government has finally agreed. It’s time to cough up the data." As of May 26, 2021, the Census Bureau had not commented publicly on the settlement.[232]
The Census Bureau had previously indicated that redistricting data would be made available to states in a legacy format by mid-to-late August 2021, saying the following in a statement released on March 15, 2021: “In declarations recently filed in the case of Ohio v. Raimondo, the U.S. Census Bureau made clear that we can provide a legacy format summary redistricting data file to all states by mid-to-late August 2021. Because we recognize that most states lack the capacity or resources to tabulate the data from these summary files on their own, we reaffirm our commitment to providing all states tabulated data in our user-friendly system by Sept. 30, 2021.”[233]
Oklahoma
This section will include information regarding legal challenges to enacted maps.
Oregon
Sheehan v. Oregon Legislative Assembly
On Oct. 25, former state Rep. Patrick Sheehan (R) and Samantha Hazel, a lawyer, filed a lawsuit before the Oregon Supreme Court challenging the validity of the state's enacted legislative maps.[234] In the suit, the plaintiffs said the redistricting process "limited testimony to partisan maps, resulted in partisan outcomes, and did not follow the hearing requirements of ORS 188.016" and asked the court to "direct the Secretary of State to correct the reapportionment plan pursuant to this Court's opinion and Petitioners' arguments."[235]
On Nov. 22, the Oregon Supreme Court dismissed the case and ruled that the enacted legislative maps could stand.[236] Justice Chris Garrett, wrote in the opinion that "The Sheehan petitioners have not demonstrated that SB 882 violates applicable law in any of the ways they have asserted. It follows that their petition must be dismissed."[237]
Oregon ex rel. Kotek v. Fagan
On March 10, 2021, Oregon House Speaker Tina Kotek (D) and Senate President Peter Courtney (D), on behalf of the Oregon Legislative Assembly, filed suit against Secretary of State Shemia Fagan (D) in the Oregon Supreme Court, asking that the court extend the state legislative redistricting deadlines laid out in the state constitution. In their complaint, attorneys for the plaintiffs said, "[Unless] this Court (1) enjoins the Secretary of State from moving forward with apportionment and (2) extends the deadlines set forth in Article IV, section 6 (and allows reapportionment to occur in a special legislative session), reapportionment will either not be done at all or will be done using old Census data that will result in malapportioned legislative districts. Neither result is constitutionally palatable." Under Article IV, Section 6, the state legislature is given until July 1 of the year following the census to adopt new legislative district maps. If the legislature fails to do so, the secretary of state has until August 15 to adopt a legislative district plan. The plaintiffs asked that the court extend these deadlines to three months following the release of census data (expected by September 30, 2021).[238]
On April 9, 2021, the Oregon Supreme Court issued an order establishing revised timelines for state legislative redistricting (see here for details). Writing for the court, Chief Justice Martha Walters said, "The deadlines set out [in the court's opinion] provide participants with substantially the same amount of time as they would have had under the deadlines set out in Article IV, section 6, and a plan will be final no later than February 8, 2022. The Legislative Assembly and the Secretary will have less time to work with the census data than would be true in an ordinary year, but the Secretary has assured us that both will have the use of non-census population data that should enable their work to begin well before the census data is delivered."[239]
Pennsylvania
Post-enactment
Toth v. Chapman
On February 28, 2022, a group of Pennsylvanians, including two Republican candidates for U.S. Congress, filed an emergency filing before the United States Supreme Court challenging the enacted congressional map.[240] The filing said "this course of action is flagrantly unconstitutional and should be swiftly enjoined. Under the Elections Clause, it is 'the Legislature'—and not the judiciary—that must prescribe 'the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives,' and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has no authority to impose a congressional map unless 'the Legislature' has authorized it to do so." The plaintiffs requested the court issue an injunction preventing the implementation of the congressional map the Pennsylvania Supreme Court enacted and holding Pennsylvania's 2022 congressional elections under a map drawn by the Pennsylvania General Assembly.[241]
On March 7, the Supreme Court declined to block Pennsylvania's congressional map.[242]
Pre-enactment
Carter v. Degraffenreid
On April 26, 2021, a group of registered Pennsylvania voters filed suit against Acting Secretary of the Commonwealth Veronica Degraffenreid in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, asking that the court "declare Pennsylvania's current congressional district plan unconstitutional; enjoin Respondents from using the current plan in any future elections; and implement a new congressional district plan that adheres to the constitutional requirement of one-person, one-vote should the General Assembly and Governor fail to do so." The plaintiffs argued that the apportionment counts released by the U.S. Census Bureau on April 26, 2021, "confirm the inevitable reality that population shifts that occurred during the last decade have rendered Pennsylvania's congressional plan unconstitutionally malapportioned." The plaintiffs added, "There is no reasonable prospect that Pennsylvania's political branches will reach consensus to enact a lawful congressional district plan in time to be used in the upcoming 2022 elections," citing partisan differences between Governor Tom Wolf, a Democrat, and the Pennsylvania General Assembly, where Republicans have majorities in both chambers. In light of these circumstances, the plaintiffs asked that the court "assume jurisdiction now and establish a schedule that will enable the Court to adopt its own plan in the near-certain event that the political branches fail to timely do so."[243]
Rhode Island
This section will include information regarding legal challenges to enacted maps.
South Carolina
This section will include information regarding legal challenges to enacted maps.
South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. Alexander
U.S. Supreme Court upholds South Carolina's congressional map
On May 23, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a lower court's Jan. 6, 2023, decision striking down South Carolina's congressional map as unconstitutional. As a result, this map will be used for South Carolina's 2024 congressional elections. According to the U.S. Supreme Court's majority opinion:
| “ | A plaintiff pressing a vote-dilution claim cannot prevail simply by showing that race played a predominant role in the districting process. Rather, such a plaintiff must show that the State 'enacted a particular voting scheme as a purposeful device to minimize or cancel out the voting potential of racial or ethnic minorities.' ... In other words, the plaintiff must show that the State’s districting plan 'has the purpose and effect' of diluting the minority vote.[244][19] | ” |
U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear case
On May 15, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the South Carolina legislature's appeal of the federal three-judge panel's ruling that the state's 1st Congressional District was unconstitutional.[245] On February 17, 2023, Thomas Alexander (R)—in his capacity as South Carolina State Senate president—appealed the federal court's ruling that required the state to redraw its congressional district boundaries to the U.S. Supreme Court. Alexander's appeal argues: In striking down an isolated portion of South Carolina Congressional District 1 as a racial gerrymander, the panel never even mentioned the presumption of the General Assembly’s “good faith.”...The result is a thinly reasoned order that presumes bad faith, erroneously equates the purported racial effect of a single line in Charleston County with racial predominance across District 1, and is riddled with “legal mistake[s]” that improperly relieved Plaintiffs of their “demanding” burden to prove that race was the “predominant consideration” in District 1.[246]
Federal three-judge panel rules state's 1st Congressional District unconstitutional
On January 6, 2023, a federal three-judge panel ruled that South Carolina's 1st Congressional District was unconstitutional and enjoined the state from conducting future elections using its district boundaries. The panel's opinion said, "The Court finds that race was the predominant factor motivating the General Assembly’s adoption of Congressional District No. 1. With the movement of over 30,000 African American residents of Charleston County out of Congressional District No. 1 to meet the African American population target of 17%, Plaintiffs’ right to be free from an unlawful racial gerrymander under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has been violated. Defendants have made no showing that they had a compelling state interest in the use of race in the design of Congressional District No. 1 and thus cannot survive a strict scrutiny review."[247] The ruling ordered the General Assembly to submit a remedial map for its review by March 31, 2023, and said, "the Court hereby enjoins the conducting of an election under congressional District No. 1 until a constitutionally valid apportionment plan is approved by this Court."[247]
The three-judge federal panel also determined that the state's 2nd and 5th District boundaries were constitutional and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims regarding those: "Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden to prove that race was the predominant factor in the design of Congressional District Nos. 2 and 5. Consequently, Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law regarding the claims of racially discriminatory intent under Count Two of the Third Amended Complaint concerning Congressional Districts Nos. 2 and 5."[247]
Complaint amended to include congressional map
On February 10, 2022, the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and a South Carolina voter filed an amended complaint against State Senate President Thomas Alexander (R), four other state legislators, and the members of the South Carolina State Election Commission challenging the congressional district boundaries the state enacted on January 26, 2022. The complaint argued that South Carolina's enacted congressional map "discriminates on the basis of race by appearing to preserve the ability of Black voters to elect in Congressional District 6 (“CD”) while working adeptly to deny the ability of Black voters to elect or even influence elections in any of the other six congressional districts. For example, S.865 purposefully moves a disproportionate number of white voters from CD 1 and CD 2 into CD 6, as compared to Black voters from the same areas."[248] The complaint also argued that "the Legislature subordinated racially redistricting principles and used race as a predominant factor to enact South Carolina Congressional Districts 1, 2, and 5 (the “Challenged Congressional Districts”). The Challenged Congressional Districts are not narrowly tailored to comply with Section 2 of the VRA or any other compelling governmental interest."[248]
ACLU lawsuit
On December 24, 2021, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against the State of South Carolina arguing that the state's legislative maps were illegally drawn. The organization said the state House map "dilute[s] the voting strength of Black voters and undermine[s] the political power of communities of color by denying us equal participation in the political process," and that legislators "largely avoided public input and left electoral districts wildly out of proportion just months before election season.”[249] The ACLU previously sued the South Carolina Legislature in federal court on October 12. The organization asked the court to set a deadline for legislators to return to session and said a delay in redistricting procedures would prevent any potential lawsuits from being resolved before the new districts take effect.[250]
South Dakota
This section will include information regarding legal challenges to enacted maps.
Tennessee
Davidson County Chancery Court declares state senate map unconstitutional
On November 22, 2023, the Davidson County Chancery Court struck down the state senate map, declaring it unconstitutional. The court ordered the state to create a new state senate map by January 31, 2024.[251]
On April 13, 2022, the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed a ruling by the Davidson County Chancery Court on April 6 blocking the same state senate map.[252] Three individuals filed the original lawsuit on February 23, saying the state's legislative maps violated the Tennessee constitution by non-consecutively numbering Senate districts in Davidson County. The state filed a motion to appeal on April 7 with the Tennessee Court of Appeals.[253]
Texas
U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit
The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Texas on December 6, 2021, saying the state’s newly enacted congressional and legislative maps violate the Voting Rights Act by failing to account for the growth of Latino and Black populations. “The Legislature refused to recognize the state’s growing minority electorate,” the complaint said. “Although the Texas congressional delegation expanded from 36 to 38 seats, Texas designed the two new seats to have Anglo voting majorities.”
In a press conference, Attorney General Merrick Garland said "The complaint we filed today alleges that Texas has violated Section Two by creating redistricting plans that deny or bridge the rights of Latino and Black voters to vote on account of their race, color or membership in a language-minority group." Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta said "our investigation determined that Texas' redistricting plans will dilute the increased minority voting strength that should have developed from these significant demographic shifts."
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) said the lawsuit was the "Biden Administration's latest ploy to control Texas voters" and he was “confident that our legislature's redistricting decisions will be proven lawful, and this preposterous attempt to sway democracy will fail."[254] Renae Eze, a spokeswoman for Gov. Greg Abbott (R), said, “It’s no surprise that Democrats in Washington are attacking our state’s redistricting plans. We are confident that Texas’ redistricting plans will be upheld by the courts, and our office continues working with the Office of the Attorney General to ensure Texans are represented fairly.”[255]
November 16, 2021, lawsuit
On November 16, 2021, several civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Texas, Our Vote Texas, and the Southern Coalition for Social Justice (SCSJ), filed a lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas against Gov. Greg Abbott (R) and Secretary of State John Scott (R) alleging the congressional map enacted by the state is racially discriminatory. The plaintiffs argued that the legislature "refused to create minority opportunity districts required by the Voting Rights Act," and asked the court to "develop redistricting plans that do not dilute minority voting strength for the Texas House and Senate and the United States Congress."[256]
November 2, 2021, lawsuits
On November 2, 2021, Texas Democratic lawmakers filed three separate lawsuits seeking to overturn the enacted redistricting maps. Two were filed by the Texas House Mexican American Legislative Caucus, one in federal court and other in state court, and State Sen. Beverly Powell (D) along with six Tarrant County voters filed a federal lawsuit.[257]
Mexican American Legislative Caucus lawsuits
The 41-member Texas House Mexican American Legislative Caucus filed a lawsuit against the state with the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in which the caucus members said the newly enacted maps "discriminate on the basis of race and impermissibly dilute the vote of Latino populations." The complaint said that the maps " strategically pair areas which grapple with low turnout rates, as a result of historical and current socio-economic conditions, barriers to participation, and discrimination, with areas that have extremely high and extremely polarized Anglo bloc voting to create districts that are nominally majority-minority but do not perform to elect candidates of choice for minority voters."[258]
The caucus also filed a state court lawsuit in Travis County arguing that Texas House districts were drawn in violation of Article 3 of the Texas Constitution. In the complaint, the caucus members argued "The county line rule generally requires that state representative districts must either be made up of entire counties or wholly contained within the boundaries of a single county," and said the new House maps violate this rule because "HB 1 on its face violates the express, plain language of the county line rule by splitting the Cameron County line twice, extending in two different directions into two different contiguous counties to form two distinct state representative districts: House Districts 35 and 37.[259]
Powell lawsuit
Sen. Powell and six Tarrant County voters filed a federal lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in which they said the new Senate map involved a "racially discriminatory scheme to dismantle Senate District 10 (“SD10”) as a performing crossover district for Tarrant County’s minority voters that a federal court declared intentionally discriminatory last decade." In the complaint, the plaintiffs argued that "the mapdrawers acted with racially discriminatory intent in drawing Plan S2168, which cracks apart Tarrant County’s Black, Latino, and Asian voters and submerges them in Anglo-dominated districts in which they will have no opportunity to elect their preferred candidates."[260]
Voto Latino lawsuit
On October 25, 2021, Voto Latino, a Latino civil rights group, and 13 Texas voters filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas asking the court to overturn the state's redrawn congressional districts, saying that the new maps dilute the voting power of non-white voters. The suit argued that although people of color accounted for the majority of Texas' population growth, which gained the state two additional congressional districts, "Senate Bill 6 appropriates those additional districts — and more — for white Texans. Senate Bill 6 does so by packing and cracking communities of color along racial lines to ensure that those groups’ growing populations will not translate to increased political influence."[261]
Utah
This section will include information regarding legal challenges to enacted maps.
Vermont
This section will include information regarding legal challenges to enacted maps.
Virginia
Thomas v. Beals
On June 8, 2022, a Virginia voter filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against Susan Brink, Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Elections, and Robert Brink, Chairman of the Virginia Department of Elections, arguing that the state's 2021 legislative elections were conducted using invalid and unconstitutional districts that were adopted after the 2010 census.[262] The United States Census Bureau released block-level data from the 2020 census to the states on August 12, 2021. The lawsuit asked the court to order Virginia to hold elections for the House of Delegates using boundaries enacted after the 2020 census at the next possible general election in November 2022, rather than at the next scheduled date in November 2023.[262] On August 1, 2022, the federal district court dismissed the lawsuit, saying, "The global pandemic delayed the reapportionment process, just as it disrupted nearly every aspect of American life. As a result of this disruption, and through no fault of Defendants, Virginia held an election using districts previously redrawn by this Court. And, it will hold the next election using different maps drawn by the Supreme Court of Virginia in accord with the Constitution of Virginia...At bottom, Plaintiffs claim an injury that Defendants did not cause and that the Court cannot redress. Accordingly, Plaintiffs lack standing to bring these claims, and the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate them."[263]
Washington
Susan Soto Palmer v. Steven Hobbs and Jose Trevino
On March 15, 2024, Judge Robert Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington ordered the state to adopt a new legislative map named Remedial Map 3B that complies with the Voting Rights Act. Judge Lasnik ordered Washington to redraw a legislative district in the Yakima Valley region because its boundaries undermined the ability of Latino voters to participate equally in elections. According to the district court's decision:[264][265]
| “ | The task of fashioning a remedy for a Voting Rights Act violation is not one that falls within the Court’s normal duties. It is only because the State declined to reconvene the Redistricting Commission – with its expertise, staff, and ability to solicit public comments – that the Court was compelled to step in. Nevertheless, with the comprehensive and extensive presentations from the parties, the participation of the Yakama Nation, and the able assistance of Ms. Mac Donald, the Court is confident that the adopted map best achieves the many goals of the remedial process. The Secretary of State is hereby ORDERED to conduct future elections according to Remedial Map 3B...[265][19] | ” |
On August 10, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington struck down the state's legislative maps, which were drawn by the bipartisan state Redistricting Commission in 2021, after finding that they discriminate against Latino voters in violation of the Voting Rights Act. At the time, the 15th district encompassed parts of five counties in south-central Washington and was represented by three Republicans.[264]
“The question in this case is whether the state has engaged in line-drawing which, in combination with the social and historical conditions in the Yakima Valley region, impairs the ability of Latino voters in that area to elect their candidate of choice on an equal basis with other voters. The answer is yes,” Judge Lasnik wrote in the district court's 32-page decision.[264]
Washington Coalition for Open Government v. Washington
On December 9, 2021, the Washington Coalition for Open Government filed a lawsuit against the Washington Redistricting Commission alleging that the commission failed to comply with Washington's Open Public Meetings Act during the redistricting process. "Defendants failed to fulfill their constitutional obligations to timely set redistricting boundaries publicly but feigned to have met its obligations by voting on a measure that had been formulated and agreed upon in private, or alternatively had yet to be formulated and agreed upon in private such that there was no public consensus on any measure as required." The suit requested that the Washington Supreme Court invalidate the commission's final vote and fine each commissioner $500.[266]
On January 7, 2022, the Washington Supreme Court unanimously declined a request to hear the case. The court's decision would require the lawsuit to go through lower trial courts before it could be heard by the state's Supreme Court.[267]
West Virginia
This section will include information regarding legal challenges to enacted maps.
Wisconsin
Clarke v. Wisconsin Elections Commission (2023)
In a 4-3 decision on Dec. 22, 2023, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the state’s legislative maps violated the state constitution and ordered the state to draw new maps for the 2024 elections. The justice wrote the following in their majority opinion:[268]
| “ |
We hold that the contiguity requirements in Article IV, Sections 4 and 5 mean what they say: Wisconsin's state legislative districts must be composed of physically adjoining territory. The constitutional text and our precedent support this common-sense interpretation of contiguity. Because the current state legislative districts contain separate, detached territory and therefore violate the constitution's contiguity requirements, we enjoin the Wisconsin Elections Commission from using the current legislative maps in future elections ... Because we enjoin the current state legislative district maps from future use, remedial maps must be drawn prior to the 2024 elections.[269][19] |
” |
The original petitioners argued that Wisconsin’s legislative districts violated multiple provisions of the state constitution, including equal protection, freedom of speech and association, separation of powers, and contiguous legislative districts. The state's legislative maps were ordered to be enacted by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in April 2022 after the governor vetoed them and the state legislature failed to override that veto.[268]
Wisconsin Legislature v. Wisconsin Elections Commission (2022)
On March 23, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision adopting Gov. Tony Evers' state house and senate redistricting maps and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court found that the Wisconsin Supreme Court erred in its analysis of U.S. Supreme Court precedents on how the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause should be applied in race-based districting cases.[270] In its opinion, the court wrote:[270]
| “ | The question that our [Voting Rights Act of 1965] precedents ask and the court failed to answer is whether a race-neutral alternative that did not add a seventh majority-black district would deny black voters equal political opportunity. Answering that question requires an “‘“intensely local appraisal”’ of the challenged district.” LULAC, 548 U. S., at 437. When the Wisconsin Supreme Court endeavored to undertake a full strict-scrutiny analysis, it did not do so properly under our precedents, and its judgment cannot stand.[19] | ” |
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote an opinion dissenting from the court's judgment, joined by Justice Elena Kagan. In her dissent, Sotomayor wrote:[270]
| “ | The Court’s action today is unprecedented. In an emergency posture, the Court summarily overturns a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision resolving a conflict over the State’s redistricting, a decision rendered after a 5-month process involving all interested stakeholders. Despite the fact that summary reversals are generally reserved for decisions in violation of settled law, the Court today faults the State Supreme Court for its failure to comply with an obligation that, under existing precedent, is hazy at best. ... |
” |
| —Justice Sonia Sotomayor | ||
Wyoming
This section will include information regarding legal challenges to enacted maps.
Background
Redistricting lawsuits, 2010-2020
In the aftermath of the 2010 redistricting cycles, several lawsuits bearing on the conduct of the 2020 redistricting cycle were decided by state and federal courts. Below are summaries of some of these lawsuits, listed in reverse chronological order.
Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek (2019)
- See also: Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek
On June 27, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a joint ruling in Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek, finding that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions that fall beyond the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary. The court ruled 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts penning the majority opinion, joined by Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh. In the court's opinion, Roberts noted that the framers of the United States Constitution, "aware of electoral districting problems … [assigned] the issue to the state legislatures, expressly checked and balanced by the Federal Congress, with no suggestion that the federal courts had a role to play." He went on to say, "To hold that legislators cannot take their partisan interests into account when drawing district lines would essentially countermand the Framers' decision to entrust districting to political entities." Associate Justice Elena Kagan wrote the following in her dissent, which was joined by Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor: "The partisan gerrymanders in these cases deprived citizens of the most fundamental of their constitutional rights: the rights to participate equally in the political process, to join with others to advance political beliefs, and to choose their political representatives. In so doing, the partisan gerrymanders here debased and dishonored our democracy, turning upside-down the core American idea that all governmental power derives from the people." The court remanded both cases to their respective lower courts with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.[271]
Cooper v. Harris (2017)
- See also: Cooper v. Harris
In Cooper v. Harris, decided on May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the judgment of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, finding that two of North Carolina's congressional districts, the boundaries of which were set following the 2010 United States Census, had been subject to an illegal racial gerrymander, in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the court's majority opinion, which was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor (Thomas also filed a separate concurring opinion). In the court's majority opinion, Kagan described the two-part analysis utilized by the court when plaintiffs allege racial gerrymandering as follows: "First, the plaintiff must prove that 'race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature's decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district.' ... Second, if racial considerations predominated over others, the design of the district must withstand strict scrutiny. The burden shifts to the State to prove that its race-based sorting of voters serves a 'compelling interest' and is 'narrowly tailored' to that end." In regard to the first part of the aforementioned analysis, Kagan went on to note that "a plaintiff succeeds at this stage even if the evidence reveals that a legislature elevated race to the predominant criterion in order to advance other goals, including political ones." Justice Samuel Alito delivered an opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part with the majority opinion. This opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy.[272][273][274]
Evenwel v. Abbott (2016)
- See also: Evenwel v. Abbott
In Evenwel v. Abbott, decided on April 4, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 8-0 that a state or locality can use total population counts for redistricting purposes. The plaintiffs to the lawsuit, Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger, had argued that district populations should take into account only the number of registered or eligible voters residing within those districts. Total population tallies, which have traditionally been used for redistricting purposes include non-voting residents, such as prisoners, children, and individuals residing in the country without legal authorization. The plaintiffs alleged that this tabulation method dilutes the voting power of citizens residing in districts that are home to smaller concentrations of non-voting residents. In Evenwel, the court unanimously rejected this argument. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the following in the court's opinion: "What constitutional history and our prior decisions strongly suggest, settled practice confirms. Adopting voter-eligible apportionment as constitutional command would upset a well-functioning approach to districting that all 50 states and countless local jurisdictions have followed for decades, even centuries. Appellants have shown no reason for the court to disturb this longstanding use of total population."[275][276][277][269]
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2016)
In Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, decided on June 29, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 5-4 that "redistricting is a legislative function, to be performed in accordance with the state's prescriptions for lawmaking, which may include the referendum and the governor's veto." At issue was the constitutionality of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, which was created via state constitutional amendment in 2000. According to Article 1, Section 4, of the United States Constitution, "the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." State lawmakers had argued that the use of the word "legislature" in this context is literal; therefore, only a state legislature may draw congressional district lines. Meanwhile, the commission contended that the word "legislature" ought to be interpreted more broadly to mean "the legislative powers of the state," including voter initiatives and referenda. The court majority sided with the commission. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, wrote the following in the court's majority opinion: "The people of Arizona turned to the initiative to curb the practice of gerrymandering and, thereby, to ensure that Members of Congress would have 'an habitual recollection of their dependence on the people.' In so acting, Arizona voters sought to restore 'the core principle of republican government,' namely, 'that the voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around.' The Elections Clause does not hinder that endeavor." Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented. In his dissent, Roberts argued that the word "legislature" in Article 1, Section 4, of the United States Constitution ought to be interpreted narrowly to mean the "representative body which makes the laws of the people."[269][278]
See also
- Partisan composition of redistricting committees, 2020 cycle
- State legislative and congressional redistricting after the 2020 census
- Congressional district maps implemented after the 2020 census
- State legislative district maps implemented after the 2020 census
- State redistricting deadlines after the 2020 census
External links
- All About Redistricting
- Dave's Redistricting
- FiveThirtyEight, "What Redistricting Looks Like In Every State"
- National Conference of State Legislatures, "Redistricting Process"
- FairVote, "Redistricting"
Footnotes
- ↑ Associated Press, "The Supreme Court will let Alabama’s congressional map be redrawn to better represent Black voters," September 26, 2023
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, "Milligan, et. al v. Allen, et. al," September 5, 2023
- ↑ USA Today, "Federal court smacks down Alabama congressional maps in showdown over Black voting power," September 5, 2023
- ↑ CNN, "Special master in Alabama redistricting case proposes three House maps in a closely watched voting rights fight," September 25, 2023
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 CNN, "Plaintiffs in high-profile redistricting case urge judges to toss out Alabama’s controversial congressional map," July 29, 2023
- ↑ United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Milligan v. Allen, July 28, 2023
- ↑ MSN, "Supreme Court rules in favor of Black voters in Alabama redistricting case," June 8, 2023
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Merrill v. Milligan, February 7, 2022
- ↑ Montgomery Advertiser, "Federal court blocks Alabama's new congressional district map, saying it's not fair to Blacks," January 25, 2022
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 United States District Court Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division, Bobby Singleton, et al., and Evan Milligan, et al., v. John H. Merrill, in his official capacity as Secretary of State of Alabama, et al., January 24, 2022
- ↑ Associated Press, "Alabama’s new congressional districts map blocked by judges," January 25, 2022
- ↑ 12.0 12.1 Democracy Docket, "Alabama Legislative Redistricting Challenge," accessed Nov. 18, 2021
- ↑ Democracy Docket, "Thomas complaint," Nov. 15, 2021
- ↑ 14.0 14.1 14.2 Democracy Docket, "Alabama Congressional Redistricting Challenge (Milligan)," accessed Nov. 18, 2021
- ↑ Democracy Docket, "Milligan complaint," Nov. 15, 2021
- ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 Democracy Docket, "Alabama Congressional Redistricting Challenge (Caster)," accessed Nov. 18, 2021
- ↑ Democracy Docket," Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief," Nov. 4, 2021
- ↑ 18.0 18.1 Alaska Supreme Court, "In the Matter of the 2021 redistricting cases," April 21, 2023
- ↑ 19.00 19.01 19.02 19.03 19.04 19.05 19.06 19.07 19.08 19.09 19.10 19.11 19.12 19.13 19.14 19.15 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Alaska Redistricting Board, "2023 Final Proclamation Packet, signed PDF," May 15, 2023
- ↑ 21.0 21.1 Alaska Supreme Court, "In the Matter of the 2021 Redistricting Cases," May 24, 2022
- ↑ 22.0 22.1 Alaska Superior Court, Third Judicial District, "In the Matter of the 2021 Redistricting Plan," May 16, 2022
- ↑ Alaska Supreme Court, "In the Matter of the 2021 Redistricting Cases," March 25, 2022
- ↑ Alaska Superior Court, Third Judicial District, "In the Matter of the 2021 Redistricting Plan," February 15, 2022
- ↑ Alaska Redistricting Board, "Amend Presiding Judges' Statewide Consolidation and Venue Order," Dec. 14, 2021
- ↑ Democracy Docket, "City of Valdez v. Alaska Redistricting Board complaint," Dec. 10, 2021
- ↑ Democracy Docket, "Skagway v. Alaska Redistricting Board complaint," Dec. 10, 2021
- ↑ 28.0 28.1 Democracy Docket, "Calista Corp. v. Alaska Redistricting Board complaint," Dec. 10, 2021
- ↑ Democracy Docket, "Alaska Legislative Redistricting Challenge (Wilson)," accessed Dec. 15, 2021
- ↑ Democracy Docket, "Wilson v. Alaska Redistricting Board complaint," Dec. 9, 2021
- ↑ 31.0 31.1 Democracy Docket, "Complaint in the Nature of an Expedited Application to Compel Correction of Error in Redistricting Plan," Dec. 2, 2021
- ↑ Election Law Blog, "Divided 8th Circuit panel finds Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not allow private plaintiffs to sue," November 20, 2023
- ↑ Election Law Blog, "Divided 8th Circuit panel finds Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not allow private plaintiffs to sue," November 20, 2023
- ↑ 34.0 34.1 Democracy Docket, "Complaint," Dec. 29, 2021
- ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedmarorder - ↑ 36.0 36.1 36.2 The American Redistricting Project, "Black Voters Matter Capacity Building Inst., Inc. v. Lee," accessed May 11, 2022
- ↑ The American Redistricting Project," "Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief," accessed May 11, 2022
- ↑ Florida Politics, "Judge says Gov. DeSantis’ congressional map violates state constitution," May 11, 2022
- ↑ Florida Politics, "Florida officials appeal redistricting decision, putting judge’s call for a new map on hold," May 13, 2022
- ↑ News 4 Jax, "Judge lifts stay on Florida redistricting ruling," May 16, 2022
- ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedfsc - ↑ Florida Politics, "Appellate court strikes down decision to replace Gov. DeSantis’ congressional map," May 30, 2022
- ↑ In the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, In and for Leon County, Florida, "Black Voters Matter Capacity Building Inst., Inc., et al v. Byrd," October 27, 2022
- ↑ In the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, In and for Leon County, Florida, "Black Voters Matter Capacity Building Inst., Inc., et al v. Byrd," September 2, 2023
- ↑ In the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, In and for Leon County, Florida, "Black Voters Matter Capacity Building Inst., Inc., et al v. Byrd," September 4, 2023
- ↑ Florida Politics, "Florida appeals court ruling tossing congressional map," September 5, 2023
- ↑ 47.0 47.1 Reuters, "US judge orders new congressional map in Georgia, citing harm to Black voters," October 27,, 2023
- ↑ 48.0 48.1 48.2 48.3 United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, "Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Inc., et al. v. Raffensperger," October 26, 2023
- ↑ The American Redistricting Project, "Georgia State Conf. of the NAACP v. Georgia," accessed October 27, 2023
- ↑ AP News, "A Georgia trial arguing redistricting harmed Black voters could decide control of a US House seat," September 4, 2023
- ↑ Democracy Docket, "Complaint," Dec. 30, 2021
- ↑ 52.0 52.1 52.2 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedapacomp - ↑ 53.0 53.1 53.2 AllOnGeorgia, "Secretary of State Raffensperger’s Response to Partisan Redistricting Lawsuits," Jan. 3, 2022
- ↑ 54.0 54.1 54.2 Democracy Docket, "Complaint," Jan. 7, 2022
- ↑ 55.0 55.1 55.2 55.3 Democracy Docket, "Complaint," Dec. 30, 2021
- ↑ 56.0 56.1 56.2 Democracy Docket, "Complaint," Jan. 11, 2022
- ↑ 57.0 57.1 57.2 57.3 Democracy Docket, "Complaint," Dec. 30, 2021
- ↑ Associated Press, "Idaho Supreme Court consolidates redistricting map lawsuits," Nov. 26, 2021
- ↑ Democracy Docket, "Idaho Legislative Redistricting Challenge (Allan)," accessed Dec. 22, 2021
- ↑ 60.0 60.1 60.2 60.3 Democracy Docket, "Verified Petition for Review of the Idaho Commission for Reappoartionment's Plan L03 and for a Writ of Prohibition," Dec. 16, 2021
- ↑ The Associated Press, "Idaho’s new redistricting map faces second legal challenge," Nov. 18, 2021
- ↑ 62.0 62.1 62.2 Idaho Supreme Court, "Ada County petition," Nov. 17, 2021
- ↑ Democracy Docket, "Idaho Legislative Redistricting," accessed Nov. 18, 2021
- ↑ 64.0 64.1 Democracy Docket, "Durst petition," Nov. 10, 2021
- ↑ 65.0 65.1 65.2 Democracy Docket, "Verified Petition for Review," Dec. 15, 2021
- ↑ 66.0 66.1 66.2 66.3 Democracy Docket, "Petition Challenging Adopted Redistricting Plan L03," Dec. 1, 2021
- ↑ 67.0 67.1 Court Listenener, "Memorandum Opinion and Order," Oct. 19, 2021
- ↑ 68.0 68.1 Capitol News Illinois, "Pritzker signs revised state legislative maps," Sept. 24, 2021
- ↑ Politico, "Court puts Illinois legislative map on hold," Oct. 20, 2021
- ↑ Longview News-Journal, "Court upholds Illinois legislative redistricting plan," Jan. 4, 2021
- ↑ WGEM, "Illinois Republicans file lawsuit against new redistricting maps," accessed June 9, 2021
- ↑ 72.0 72.1 72.2 72.3 72.4 United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division, "Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund v. Illinois State Board of Elections," accessed June 15, 2021
- ↑ The MALDEF filing was on behalf of five registered voters: Contreras, Fuentes, Martinez, Padilla, and Torres. Martinez later left the lawsuit.
- ↑ 74.0 74.1 Daily Herald, "Federal 3-judge panel to decide whether state redistricting plan is constitutional," accessed July 15, 2021
- ↑ 75.0 75.1 The State Journal-Register, "Illinois Democratic legislative leaders file motion to dismiss GOP redistricting lawsuit," accessed July 22, 2021
- ↑ The News Gazette, "Latino-rights group says Illinois' redrawn legislative maps still unfair," accessed September 2, 2021
- ↑ 77.0 77.1 77.2 Chicago Tribune, "Illinois Republicans sue in federal court to try to overturn Democratic-drawn legislative maps," accessed June 9, 2021
- ↑ 78.0 78.1 United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, "Durkin and McConchie v. Illinois State Board of Elections," accessed June 9, 2021
- ↑ Capitol News Illinois, "Plaintiffs: New legislative maps dilute Latino vote," Oct. 6, 2021
- ↑ 80.0 80.1 LawyersCommittee.org, "Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief," Oct. 15, 2021
- ↑ 81.0 81.1 Pacer Monitor, "United Congress of Community and Religious Organizations et al v. Illinois State Board of Elections et al," Oct. 20, 2021
- ↑ United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division, "Case No. 1:21-cv-03091: Motion for Summary Judgment," accessed August 24, 2021
- ↑ Capitol News Illinois, "MALDEF amends redistricting complaint," accessed August 3, 2021
- ↑ gmtoday.com, "Another group challenges Illinois’ legislative maps," Oct. 13, 2021
- ↑ The Illinoize, "African American Group Asks Justice Department to Investigate Legislative Map," Oct. 11, 2021
- ↑ The American Redistricting Project, "Alonzo v. Schwab - Petition for Writ of Certiorari," November 23, 2022
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Orders In Pending Cases," March 27, 2023
- ↑ CNN, "Supreme Court declines to hear Kansas racial gerrymandering case, leaves congressional map in force," March 27, 2023
- ↑ The Kansas City Star, "Kansas Supreme Court upholds congressional map that splits diverse Wyandotte County," May 18, 2022
- ↑ Kansas Supreme Court, Rivera, et al, Alonzo, et al, and Frick, et al v. Schwab, et al, June 21, 2022
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Alonzo, et al. v. Schwab, et al.-Petition for a writ of certiorari," November 23, 2022
- ↑ 92.0 92.1 92.2 Wyandotte County District Court, Case No. 2022-CV-000089, April 25, 2022
- ↑ 93.0 93.1 The Topeka Capital-Journal, "A Wyandotte County judge strikes down Kansas Congressional map as unconstitutional in a historic ruling," April 25, 2022
- ↑ The Topeka Capital-Journal, "Attorneys lay out core arguments on Kansas redistricting as landmark trial nears its end," April 7, 2022
- ↑ Franklin Circuit Court, "Graham v. Adams," January 20, 2022
- ↑ The American Redistricting Project, "Petition," accessed April 18, 2022
- ↑ The American Redistricting Project, "In re 2022 Legislative Districting," accessed April 18, 2022
- ↑ All About Redistricting, "Parrott v. Lamone," accessed March 25, 2022
- ↑ All About Redistricting, "Szeliga v. Lamone," accessed March 25, 2022
- ↑ Circuit Court of Maryland, "Neil Parrott, et al. vs. Linda Lamone, et al.," accessed March 25, 2022
- ↑ Maryland Circuit Court, "Memorandum Opinion and Order," accessed March 25, 2022
- ↑ Court of Appeals of Maryland, "IN THE MATTER OF 2022 LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTING OF THE STATE," February 11, 2022
- ↑ Court of Appeals of Maryland, "IN THE MATTER OF 2022 LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTING OF THE STATE," March 15, 2022
- ↑ 104.0 104.1 104.2 The American Redistricting Project, "Litigation - Agee v. Benson," January 8, 2024
- ↑ United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan Southern Division, "Case No. 1:22-cv-272 Donald Agee, Jr. v. Jocelyn Benson," December 21, 2023
- ↑ Michigan Supreme Court, "League of Women Voters of Michigan, et al v. Indep. Citizens Redistricting Commission," February 1, 2022
- ↑ Michigan Supreme Court, "League of Women Voters of Michigan, et al v. Indep. Citizens Redistricting Commission," March 25, 2022
- ↑ Detroit Free Press, "Michigan redistricting commission sued in anticipation of missing constitutional deadline," September 7, 2021
- ↑ Michigan Supreme Court, "Robert Davis v. Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission," September 16, 2021
- ↑ Michigan Supreme Court, "In re: Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission's duty to redraw districts by November 1, 2021: Petition for Relief," April 20, 2021
- ↑ The Detroit Free Press, "Redistricting commission makes case to Michigan Supreme Court for new timeline to draw maps," June 21, 2021
- ↑ Michigan Supreme Court, "In re: Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission's duty to redraw districts by November 1, 2021: Order," July 9, 2021
- ↑ 113.0 113.1 113.2 113.3 Ballot Access News, "Sixth Circuit Upholds Rules for Michigan’s Nonpartisan Redistricting Commission," May 27, 2021
- ↑ 114.0 114.1 114.2 114.3 United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, "Daunt v. Benson: Opinion," May 27, 2021
- ↑ 115.0 115.1 115.2 The American Redistricting Project, "Miss. State Conf. of the NAACP v. State Bd. of Elec. Commrs.," accessed December 22, 2022
- ↑ The American Redistricting Project, "Norelli v. Scanlon," April 11, 2022
- ↑ The American Redistricting Project, "Norelli v. Scanlon," accessed April 12, 2022
- ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedlawsuit - ↑ NorthJersey.com, "Steinhardt c. New Jersey Redistricting Commission," accessed January 6, 2022
- ↑ New Jersey Globe, "N.J. Supreme Court dismisses GOP lawsuit on congressional redistricting," February 3, 2022
- ↑ 121.0 121.1 [Supreme Court of the State of New York County of Albany, Hoffmann, et al v. The New York State Independent Redistricting Commission, et al, June 28, 2022]
- ↑ Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Albany, Hoffmann, et al v. The New York State Independent Redistricting Commission, et al, September 12, 2022
- ↑ Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division: Third Judicial Department, Hoffmann, et al v. The New York State Independent Redistricting Commission, et al, October 17, 2022
- ↑ Politico, "Mid-level court hands Democrats victory in New York redistricting case," July 13,, 2023
- ↑ Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, Hoffmann, et al v. The New York State Independent Redistricting Commission, et al, July 13, 2023
- ↑ New York Daily News, "New York’s top court orders House map redrawn," December 12, 2023
- ↑ State of New York Court of Appeals, "Opinion No. 90, In the Matter of Anthony S. Hoffmann v. New York State Independent Redistricting Commission," December 12, 2023
- ↑ Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York Nichols, et al v. Hochul, et al, May 15, 2022
- ↑ Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County Nichols, et al v. Hochul, et al, May 25, 2022
- ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedAssemblyorder - ↑ The American Redistricting Project, "De Gaudemar v. Kosinski," accessed May 3, 2022
- ↑ Politico, "Judge mocks New York Democrats’ redistricting ‘Hail Mary’ case," May 4, 2022
- ↑ HudsonValley360, "Redistricting lawsuit unlikely to conclude before primaries," February 4, 2022
- ↑ 134.0 134.1 WETM, "Lawsuit out of Steuben County challenges New York redistricting map," February 3, 2022
- ↑ 135.0 135.1 New York Courts, "Decision and Order," March 31, 2022
- ↑ Newsday, "Appellate court stays ruling that threw out state's redistricting maps," April 4, 2022
- ↑ The New York Times, "Judge Keeps New York’s New Electoral Map Intact for Now," April 4, 2022
- ↑ Twitter, "Yancey Roy on April 8, 2022," accessed April 8, 2022
- ↑ The American Redistricting Project, "Decision_Partially_Granting_Stay_4.8.22," accessed April 14, 2022
- ↑ Spectrum News 1, "Judge appoints special master as New York redistricting suit continues," April 18, 2021
- ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedApr21ruling - ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedfinalover - ↑ Norwood News, "UPDATE Court Orders New May 20 Redistricting Map Deadline, Primary Election Postponed to August 23," May 2, 2022
- ↑ The City, "Special Master Carves Up New York’s Congressional Seats With a More Competitive Map," May 16, 2022
- ↑ Pix 11, "New York judge approves new maps for August primaries," May 21, 2022
- ↑ The Richmond Observer, "Lawmakers take N.C. congressional map dispute to U.S. Supreme Court," February 28, 2022
- ↑ Office of Tim Moore, "NCGA Files Application for Stay from the NC Supreme Court," February 25, 2022
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Justices decline to reinstate GOP-backed congressional voting maps in North Carolina, Pennsylvania," March 7, 2022
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Miscellaneous Order (03/07/2022)," March 7, 2022
- ↑ The Supreme Court of North Carolina, "Harper, et al. v. Hall, et al.," December 16, 2022
- ↑ The Carolina journal, "Legislative leaders ask NC Supreme Court to rehear redistricting case," January 20, 2023
- ↑ Politico, "North Carolina Supreme Court set to rehear election cases," February 6, 2023
- ↑ North Carolina Supreme Court, "Harper, et al. v. Hall, et al.," April 28, 2023
- ↑ 154.00 154.01 154.02 154.03 154.04 154.05 154.06 154.07 154.08 154.09 154.10 154.11 U.S. Supreme Court, “Moore, in his Official Capacity as Speaker of The North Carolina House of Representatives, et al. v. Harper et al.," "Certiorari to the Supreme Court of North Carolina,” accessed June 16, 2023 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "ruling" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "ruling" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "ruling" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "ruling" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ All About Redistricting, "NC League of Conservation Voters v. Hall," accessed December 9, 2021
- ↑ North Carolina Supreme Court, "Order," accessed December 9, 2021
- ↑ All About Redistricting, "Order on Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction," December 3, 2021
- ↑ All About Redistricting, "Order," December 6, 2021
- ↑ All About Redistricting, "Order," December 6, 2021
- ↑ Fox 8, "North Carolina redistricting maps can stand, court rules, but appeals expected," January 11, 2022
- ↑ Politico, "North Carolina League of Conservation Voters, Common Cause, Harper v. Hall," accessed January 12, 2022
- ↑ WRAL, "Former judges chosen to review new election maps in NC redistricting case," February 16, 2022
- ↑ 163.0 163.1 The Charlotte Observer, "Order on Remedial Plans," February 23, 2022
- ↑ North Carolina Supreme Court, "Harper, et al. v. Hall, et al.," April 28, 2023
- ↑ Democracy Docket, "Voters Challenge Congressional Map in North Carolina," November 5, 2021
- ↑ Democracy Docket, "Supplemental Complaint," accessed November 16, 2021
- ↑ North Carolina Supreme Court, "Order," accessed December 9, 2021
- ↑ All About Redistricting, "Order on Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction," December 3, 2021
- ↑ All About Redistricting, "Order," December 6, 2021
- ↑ All About Redistricting, "Order," December 6, 2021
- ↑ Fox 8, "North Carolina redistricting maps can stand, court rules, but appeals expected," January 11, 2022
- ↑ Politico, "North Carolina League of Conservation Voters, Common Cause, Harper v. Hall," accessed January 12, 2022
- ↑ WRAL, "Former judges chosen to review new election maps in NC redistricting case," February 16, 2022
- ↑ WNCT, "Republicans respond after NC redistricting suit challenges lack of race data for maps," October 30, 2021
- ↑ Southern Coalition for Justice, "N.C. NAACP v. Berger," accessed November 5, 2021
- ↑ Democracy Docket, "North Carolina Legislative Redistricting Process," accessed February 17, 2022
- ↑ Grand Forks Herald, "Native leaders, Democrats respond to North Dakota redistricting ruling," November 20, 2023
- ↑ Ohio Capital Journal, "New congressional suit challenges redistricting map," March 22, 2022
- ↑ Ohio Supreme Court, "Neiman v. LaRose," accessed March 22, 2022
- ↑ Chillicothe Gazette, "Ohio Supreme Court won't review congressional map until after May 3 primary," March 29, 2022
- ↑ 181.0 181.1 181.2 The Columbus Dispatch, "Redistricting: Ohio Supreme Court rejects congressional map used in May, orders new one," July 19, 2022
- ↑ 182.0 182.1 182.2 Neiman, et al v. LaRose, et al," July 19, 2022
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Order List (6/30/2023)," accessed September 8, 2023
- ↑ Democracy Docket, " Ohio Supreme Court Dismisses Lawsuits Over Congressional Map ," September 7, 2023
- ↑ The Columbus Dispatch, "Lawsuit asks federal judges to adopt legislative maps rejected by Ohio Supreme Court," February 18, 2022
- ↑ Cleveland.com, "Federal judge says he’s staying out of Ohio’s redistricting fight, for now," March 14, 2022
- ↑ Statehouse News Bureau, "Federal judges will review a challenge to Ohio's redistricting process," March 18, 2022
- ↑ The Columbus Dispatch, "With May 3 out for legislative candidates, judges weigh options for new primary date, map," March 30, 2022
- ↑ Spectrum News 1, "Federal court decides to not interfere with legislative map redistricting, yet," April 20, 2022
- ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedfedord - ↑ Democracy Docket, "Simon v. DeWine," November 30, 2021
- ↑ Cleveland.com, "Federal judge pauses federal redistricting lawsuit to await decision from Ohio Supreme Court," January 13, 2022
- ↑ 193.0 193.1 193.2 Court News Ohio, "Congressional Map Ruled Unconstitutional," January 14, 2022
- ↑ 194.0 194.1 194.2 194.3 Court News Ohio, "New Ohio Legislative District Maps Unconstitutional," January 12, 2022
- ↑ Crossroads Today, "Voter rights groups sue over Ohio GOP’s congressional map," December 2, 2021
- ↑ Ohio Supreme Court, "League of Women Voters of Ohio v. DeWine," accessed December 2, 2021
- ↑ Ohio Supreme Court, "Entry," December 6, 2021
- ↑ 198.0 198.1 198.2 198.3 Ohio Supreme Court, "SLIP OPINION NO. 2022-OHIO-89," accessed January 14, 2022
- ↑ 199.0 199.1 13ABC, "Ohio Supreme Court makes final judgement on Congressional map challenges," March 18, 2022
- ↑ The Columbus Dispatch, "Redistricting: Eric Holder-backed lawsuit challenges Ohio congressional map," November 22, 2021
- ↑ National Redistricting Action Fund, "Adams v. DeWine," accessed November 23, 2021
- ↑ Ohio Supreme Court, "Entry," December 3, 2021
- ↑ 203.0 203.1 203.2 Democracy Docket, "Voting Rights Cases," accessed December 1, 2023
- ↑ WOSU, "Third Lawsuit Filed Over Ohio's New Legislative Maps," September 28, 2021
- ↑ SCRIBD, "Ohio Organizing Collaborative, et al. v. Ohio Redistricting Commission, et al.," accessed September 28, 2021
- ↑ 206.0 206.1 206.2 206.3 206.4 206.5 Supreme Court of Ohio, "SLIP OPINION NO. 2022-OHIO-65," accessed January 13, 2022
- ↑ 207.0 207.1 207.2 Ohio Capital Journal, "Groups say Ohio legislative maps still violate constitution," January 27, 2022
- ↑ The Brennan Center for Justice, "OBJECTIONS OF PETITIONERS THE OHIO ORGANIZING COLLABORATIVE, ET AL.," January 25, 2022
- ↑ 209.0 209.1 209.2 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedcnoleg2 - ↑ 210.0 210.1 210.2 Ohio Capital Journal, "Redistricting commission punts again, defies court order," February 17, 2022
- ↑ 211.0 211.1 211.2 NBC 4i, "Ohio Redistricting Commission has until Wednesday to explain failure to draw maps," February 18, 2022
- ↑ 212.0 212.1 212.2 WDTN, "Redistricting Commission responds to Ohio Supreme Court over unfinished maps," February 23, 2022
- ↑ 213.0 213.1 213.2 Associated Press, "Ohio political mapmakers awaiting fate of high court meeting," February 25, 2022
- ↑ 214.0 214.1 214.2 ABC 13, "Ohio Supreme Court postpones contempt hearing for Redistricting Commission," February 25, 2022
- ↑ 215.0 215.1 215.2 Court News Ohio, "Third Attempt at State House and Senate Maps Unconstitutional," March 16, 2022
- ↑ 216.0 216.1 216.2 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedmarch28 - ↑ 217.0 217.1 217.2 Statehouse News Bureau, "Ohio Supreme Court rejects fourth set of state legislative district maps," April 14, 2022
- ↑ 218.0 218.1 218.2 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedredo - ↑ 219.0 219.1 219.2 KSTP, "Ohio’s high court rejects latest GOP-drawn Statehouse maps," May 25, 2022
- ↑ Spectrum News 1, "Second lawsuit filed against Ohio Redistricting Commission," Sept 26, 2021
- ↑ SCRIBD, "Bennett OH 09 24 2021," accessed September 28, 2021
- ↑ Ohio Supreme Court, "PETITIONERS’ OBJECTIONS," January 25, 2022
- ↑ Statehouse News Bureau, "Lawsuit Filed Over Ohio House, Senate Maps That Keep Republican Supermajorities," September 23, 2021
- ↑ ACLU Ohio, "ACLU OF OHIO, LWV-OHIO, AND APRI LAUNCH LEGAL CHALLENGE OVER OHIO PARTISAN GERRYMANDERING," September 23, 2021
- ↑ ACLU Ohio, "League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Commission," accessed September 28, 2021
- ↑ Ohio Supreme Court, "PETITIONERS’ OBJECTION TO THE OHIO REDISTRICTING COMMISSION’S REVISED MAP," January 25, 2022
- ↑ United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, "Ohio v. Coggins: Complaint for Injunctive and Mandamus Relief," February 25, 2021
- ↑ United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, "Ohio v. Coggins: Entry and Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction," March 24, 2021
- ↑ Justia, "State of Ohio v. Gina Raimondo, No. 21-3294 (6th Cir. 2021)," accessed May 25, 2021
- ↑ Ballot Access News, "Sixth Circuit Sets Oral Argument in Ohio’s Case to Force Census Bureau to Furnish Data Sooner," May 8, 2021
- ↑ United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, "Ohio v. Raimondo: Per Curiam," May 18, 2021
- ↑ Office of the Attorney General of Ohio, "AG Yost Secures Victory for Ohioans in Settlement with Census Bureau Data Lawsuit," May 25, 2021
- ↑ U.S. Census Bureau, "U.S. Census Bureau Statement on Release of Legacy Format Summary Redistricting Data File," March 15, 2021
- ↑ The Redmond Spokesman, "New lawsuit challenges Oregon redistricting," October 27, 2021
- ↑ Democracy Docket, "Sheehan v. Oregon Legislative Assembly," accessed November 5, 2021
- ↑ OPB, "Oregon Supreme Court upholds new state House and Senate maps," November 22, 2021
- ↑ Google Scholar, "Sheehan v. Oregon Legislative Assembly," accessed December 15, 2021
- ↑ Supreme Court of the State of Oregon, "Oregon ex rel. Kotek v. Fagan: Memorandum in Support of Petition for a Preemptory Writ of Mandamus, and Appendix," March 10, 2021
- ↑ Supreme Court of the State of Oregon, "Oregon ex rel. Kotek v. Fagan: Opinion," April 9, 2021
- ↑ ABC 6, "Supreme Court asked to intervene in Pennsylvania congressional maps case," March 1, 2022
- ↑ Supreme Court, "Emergency Application to Justice Alito for Writ of Injunction," accessed March 2, 2022
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Justices decline to reinstate GOP-backed congressional voting maps in North Carolina, Pennsylvania," March 7, 2022
- ↑ Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, "Carter v. Degraffenreid: Petition for Review Addressed to the Court's Original Jurisdiction," April 26, 2021
- ↑ U.S, Supreme Court, "Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP," May 23, 2024
- ↑ Politico, "Supreme Court to hear racial redistricting case from South Carolina," May 15, 2023
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Alexander, et al. v. The South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, et al.," February 17, 2023
- ↑ 247.0 247.1 247.2 United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Columbia Division, "South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, et al. v. Alexander," January 6, 2023
- ↑ 248.0 248.1 United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Columbia Division, "South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, et al. v. Alexander," February 10, 2022
- ↑ WAVY, "ACLU announces it will sue South Carolina over ‘illegally gerrymandered’ redistricting maps," December 24, 2021
- ↑ The Hill, "ACLU, NAACP sue South Carolina over redistricting delay," October 12, 2021
- ↑ The Tennessean, "Judges rule Tennessee Senate map unconstitutional, order legislature to redraw by Jan. 31," November 22, 2023
- ↑ The Tennessean, "Gov. Bill Lee signs redistricting bills dividing Davidson County into three congressional districts," February 7, 2022
- ↑ The Tennessean, "Tennessee appeals redistricting ruling after judges block Senate map," April 7, 2021
- ↑ CNN, "DOJ sues Texas, saying GOP-approved redistricting maps discriminate against Latinos and Blacks," December 6, 2021
- ↑ Associated Press, "Justice Department sues Texas over new redistricting maps," December 6, 2021
- ↑ Newsweek, "Civil Rights Groups Sue Texas Governor Citing Voting Rights Act Violations," November 16, 2021
- ↑ Austin American-Statesman, "Texas Democrats allege discrimination, challenge redistricting measures in 3 new lawsuits," November 3, 2021
- ↑ United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, "MALC v. Texas," accessed November 4, 2021
- ↑ Travis County District Court, "MALC v. Texas," accessed November 4, 2021
- ↑ United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, "Powell v. Texas," accessed November 4, 2021
- ↑ Austin American-Statesman, "Voting rights lawsuit seeks to overturn Texas' new congressional districts," October 26, 2021
- ↑ 262.0 262.1 United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Thomas v. Beals, et al, June 8, 2022
- ↑ United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Thomas, et al v. Beals, et al, August 1, 2022
- ↑ 264.0 264.1 264.2 Washington State Standard, "Federal judge orders redrawing of Yakima Valley legislative district," August 10, 2023
- ↑ 265.0 265.1 U.S. District Court for the District of Washington at Seattle, "Case No. 3:22-cv-05035-RSL: Susan Soto Palmer v. Steven Hobbs," March 15, 2024
- ↑ Washington Coalition for Open Government, "Washington Coalition for Open Government v. Washington," accessed December 15, 2021
- ↑ Seattle Times, "Washington Supreme Court rejects redistricting lawsuits," January 6, 2021
- ↑ 268.0 268.1 Democracy Docket, "Wisconsin Legislative Redistricting Challenge (Clarke)," accessed January 2, 2024
- ↑ 269.0 269.1 269.2 Supreme Court of Wisconsin, "Case No. 2023AP1399-OA," accessed January 2, 2024 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "opinion" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "opinion" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ 270.0 270.1 270.2 U.S. Supreme Court, Wisconsin Legislature v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, decided March 23, 2022
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek: Opinion of the Court," June 27, 2019
- ↑ Election Law Blog, "Breaking: SCOTUS to Hear NC Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 27, 2016
- ↑ Ballot Access News, "U.S. Supreme Court Accepts Another Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 28, 2016
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Cooper v. Harris: Decision," May 22, 2017
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Evenwel v. Abbott," accessed May 27, 2015
- ↑ Supreme Court Brief, "Supreme Court Inadvertently Announces Argument Date in Voting Case," October 5, 2015
- ↑ Election Law Blog, "Supreme Court Inadvertently Announces Argument Date in Voting Case," October 5, 2015
- ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Upholds Creation of Arizona Redistricting Commission," June 29, 2015
