What is Redistricting

Every ten years district lines for Congress and legislatures get redrawn based on the new U.S. Census. The next redistricting is based on the the 2010 Census and will take place starting in the spring of 2011. Since the Supreme Court decisions of the 1960’s, newly drawn districts must abide by the one person, one vote principle. The total population of these districts must be equal or about the same.

• "Total population" includes everyone counted in the census, non-citizens as well as citizens.

• Prisoners are counted where they are , benefiting legislative districts in areas where prisons are located.

• Students are counted where they are living on April 1st of the census year.

• U.S. House seats are divided proportionally among states and must be exactly the same size in each state.

• State and local seats are about the same size (within a margin).  

Who Draws the Lines

Partisan legislatures and party leaders generally draw new district lines for a state’s U.S. House seats and state legislature.

• In most states the party in power takes the lead.
• Some states use a bi-partisan process.
• Just two states, Iowa and Arizona, use a nonpartisan method.

Partisan Redistricting

• When partisan elected officials draw districts it flips democracy on its head.  Legislators choose their voters rather than voters electing them.
• Modern mapping software has dramatically enhanced the ability of legislators to select the voters they wish to represent.
• Partisan officials tend to draw safe districts best suited for their re-election. While population or voting shifts may make some districts more competitive, competition and opportunities for new candidacies are assumed to be generally limited.
• In 2004, for example, safe districts helped more than 85 percent of House incumbents win by  landslide majorities of more than 60 percent.
• Community or neighborhood boundaries take second place to partisan considerations.
• Even if redistricting is bipartisan, there is a tendency for both parties to put partisan concerns ahead of other factors and keep competition to a minimum.  
• Partisan redistricting undermines public faith in elections and government.

 

[back to top] 

 

Nonpartisan Redistricting

Nonpartisan redistricting takes the job of re-apportioning district boundaries away from elected officials and empowers a non-elected, nonpartisan committee with the task.

 

[back to top]

 

Where Is Nonpartisan Redistricting Done

• Most all advanced democracies draw districts on a nonpartisan basis.  For example, a more de-politicized method of redistricting has been used for many years in England based on the Boundary Commission Code of Practice (PDF).
• Arizona has moved towards a nonpartisan method involving committee nominees from the courts.
• Iowa has a nonpartisan staff that creates plans without any voting history data and presents them to the state legislature.  More on Iowa redistricting.
• The California Voters First campaign has a nonpartisan plan on the ballot for 2008.

 

[back to top]

 

Benefits of Nonpartisan Redistricting

Nonpartisan redistricting doesn’t solve all the issues with redistricting.  However, in a free and transparent democracy, a nonpartisan election administration is the standard.  Such a standard helps -

• End the practice of intentionally drawing safe districts by political parties and legislative incumbents
• Open the door to some greater degree of competition and choice for voters.  
• Reduce the undemocratic perception that elected officials are choosing their voters instead of being chosen.
• Remove partisan politics from election administration as is done or aspired to in every other advanced democracy in the world.
• Create a better opportunity to keep communities together while maintaining the Voting Rights Act and the principle of one person, one vote.

[back to top]

 

More Background: Alternatives to Single Winner Districts

Nonpartisan organizations like FairVote or IDEA note that single winner districts inherently limit competition, no matter how the lines are drawn.  FairVote and others recommend following the lead of successful democracies like New Zealand, Australia or Germany that blend American-style single winner districts with some degree of proportionality.  This idea gets closer to balancing the competition and representation aspired to by modern democracies.  Canada and England have recently moved in this direction.  Outside of a few island democracies, most of the world incorporates some - even if very modest - proportionality in their voting methods, whether they also use single member districts or not.

 

[back to top]