Redistricting in Alabama after the 2020 census

Redistricting after the 2020 census Select your state:AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingSubmit
The 2020 cycle
Congressional apportionment
Redistricting before 2024 elections
Redistricting committees
Deadlines
Lawsuits
Timeline of redistricting maps
2022 House elections with multiple incumbents
New U.S.House districts created after apportionment
Congressional maps
State legislative maps
General information
State-by-state redistricting procedures
United States census, 2020
Majority-minority districts
Gerrymandering
Ballotpedia's election legislation tracker

Redistricting is the process of enacting new district boundaries for elected offices, particularly for offices in the U.S. House of Representatives and state legislatures. This article chronicles the 2020 redistricting cycle in Alabama.

Congressional districts
On October 5, 2023, a three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama approved a new congressional district map. The map created a new district with a 48.7% Black voting-age population. In its decision, the panel said that "this plan satisfies all constitutional and statutory requirements while hewing as closely as reasonably possible to the Alabama legislature’s 2023 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. The state adopted the revised congressional map after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on June 8, 2023, that the state's congressional redistricting plan adopted on November 4, 2021, violated the Voting Rights Act and must be redrawn to include a second majority-black district. 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."

Click here for more information.

Legislative districts
Alabama enacted state legislative maps for the state Senate and House of Representatives on Nov. 4, 2021, after Gov. Kay Ivey (R) signed the proposals into law. Senators approved the Senate map on Nov. 1 with a 25-7 vote. Representatives approved the Senate map on Nov. 3 with a 76-26 vote. For the House proposal, representatives voted 68-35 in favor on Nov. 1 and senators followed on Nov. 3 with a 22-7 vote. These maps took effect for Alabama's 2022 legislative elections.

Click here for more information.

Alabama's seven United States representatives and 140 state legislators are all elected from political divisions called districts. District lines are redrawn every 10 years following completion of the United States census. Federal law stipulates that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.

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

1. Summary: This section provides summary information about the drafting and enacting processes.
2. Enactment: This section provides information about the enacted congressional and state legislative district maps.
3. Drafting process: This section details the drafting process for new congressional and state legislative district maps.
4. Apportionment and release of census data: This section details the 2020 apportionment process, including data from the United States Census Bureau.
5. Court challenges: This section details court challenges to the enacted congressional and state legislative district maps.
6. Background: This section summarizes federal and state-based requirements for redistricting at both the congressional and state legislative levels. A summary of the 2010 redistricting cycle in Alabama is also provided.

Summary

This section lists major events in the post-2020 census redistricting cycle in reverse chronological order. Major events include the release of apportionment data, the release of census population data, the introduction of formal map proposals, the enactment of new maps, and noteworthy court challenges. Click the dates below for additional information.

• October 5, 2023: A three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama approved new congressional districts.
• September 26, 2023: The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the state's request to use the district boundaries overturned by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
• September 25, 2023: Special Master Richard Allen submitted three potential congressional district maps to a panel of three federal judges for consideration.
• 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.
• September 5, 2023: A three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama overturned the state's revised congressional district boundaries for not being in accordance with the Voting Rights Act.
• July 28, 2023: The plaintiffs in Allen v. Milligan objected to the revised congressional district boundaries that the state enacted on July 21, 2023.
• July 21, 2023: The state Senate and state House approved redrawn congressional boundary proposals, and Gov. Kay Ivey (R) signed the redrawn maps into law.
• June 20, 2023: The three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama set a deadline for the state to enact its redrawn congressional map for July 21, 2023.
• June 15, 2023: Both parties to Allen v. Milligan filed motions with the three-judge panel overseeing the case asking that the legislature have until July 21, 2023 to redraw the state's congressional district boundaries.
• June 8, 2023: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the congressional district boundaries violated the Voting Rights Act and must be redrawn to include a second majority-black district.
• Feb. 7, 2022: The U.S. Supreme Court stayed the preliminary injunction issued by a federal district court on Jan. 24, 2022, and allowed the state to use the congressional district boundaries enacted on Nov. 4, 2021, to be used during the 2022 election cycle.
• Jan. 24, 2022: A three-judge federal court panel issued a preliminary injunction blocking the state from using the congressional map adopted on November 4, 2021, from being used for Alabama's 2022 elections.
• Nov. 15, 2021: Two lawsuits were filed in federal court challenging the enacted congressional and state legislative maps.
• Nov. 4, 2021: Gov. Kay Ivey (R) signed the proposed draft maps into law. A lawsuit was filed challenging the congressional maps.
• Nov. 3, 2021: The state Senate and state House approved congressional and legislative district boundary proposals.
• Oct. 25, 2021: State Rep. Chris England (D) released images of the first congressional and state legislative draft maps.
• Sept. 16, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau released data from the 2020 census in an easier-to-use format to state redistricting authorities and the public.
• Aug. 12, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau delivered redistricting data to states in a legacy format.
• April 26, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts.

Enactment

Enacted congressional district maps

See also: Congressional district maps implemented after the 2020 census

Congressional map court-ordered on October 5, 2023

On October 5, 2023, a three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama approved a new congressional district map. The map created a new district with a 48.7% Black voting-age population. In its decision, the panel said that "this plan satisfies all constitutional and statutory requirements while hewing as closely as reasonably possible to the Alabama legislature’s 2023 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. The state adopted the revised congressional map after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on June 8, 2023, that the state's congressional redistricting plan adopted on November 4, 2021, violated the Voting Rights Act and must be redrawn to include a second majority-black district. 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."

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 continuation 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.

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." 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." 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.

Below is an image of the congressional district map approved by a federal district court on October 5, 2023:

Reactions to the October 5, 2023, congressional map

In response to a congressional district map adopted by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on October 5, 2023, NAACP Legal Defense Fund attorney Deuel Ross said, "It’s a historic day for Alabama. It will be the first time in which Black voters will have an opportunity to elect candidates of their choice in two congressional districts." Former United States Attorney General Eric Holder said, “With this new, fairer map, and for the first time ever, Black voters in Alabama could have two members of Congress representing their interests at the same time."

Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen (R) said in a statement that, "The Office of the Secretary of State will facilitate the 2024 election cycle in accordance with the map the federal court has forced upon Alabama and ordered us to use. It is important for all Alabamians to know that the legal portion of this process has not yet been completed." Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall (R) said, "The Voting Rights Act was enacted to undo gerrymanders, not create them...Anyone who looks at the state’s map next to the map now imposed on the state can tell which is the racial gerrymander."

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

Alabama Congressional Districts
before 2020 redistricting cycle

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Alabama Congressional Districts
after 2020 redistricting cycle

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Congressional map enacted on July 21, 2023

On July 21, 2023, Gov. Kay Ivey (R) signed redrawn congressional boundary proposals into law. The Senate approved the new boundaries by a vote of 24-6, and the state House passed them by a vote of 76-26.

The Alabama Reflector's Alander Rocha and Jemma Stephenson wrote that the congressional map the state enacted in 2023 "would lower the percentage of Alabama’s current majority-Black district and create a district in southeast Alabama that would be nearly 40% Black."

On June 20, 2023, a three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama ruled that Alabama must enact revised congressional boundaries by July 21, 2023. On June 15, 2023, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall (R) filed a notice with the court asking that the legislature be allowed until that date to enact new congressional district boundaries, and the plaintiffs filed a motion the same day agreeing with that proposed deadline.

The three-judge panel's opinion said: "The Court will not instruct either the special master or the cartographer to conduct any work until after JULY 21, 2023. If the Alabama Legislature is unable to enact a new plan, because the preliminary injunction remains in effect, the parties are ADVISED that the special master and cartographer will commence work on a remedial map after July 21, 2023."

Reactions to July 21, 2023 congressional map

After the state enacted new congressional boundaries in July 2023, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall issued a statement which said in part: "The Legislature’s new plan fully and fairly applies traditional principles in a way that complies with the Voting Rights Act. Contrary to mainstream media talking points, the Supreme Court did not hold that Alabama must draw two majority-minority districts. Instead, the Court made clear that the VRA never requires adoption of districts that violate traditional redistricting principles.”

U.S. Rep. Terri Sewell (D-Ala.) issued a statement which said in part: "Today, the State of Alabama has shamelessly chosen to ignore the Supreme Court. The map advanced by the state legislature includes only one majority-minority district and a second district where Black voters make up only 39.9 percent of the voting age population. This map does not comply with the Supreme Court’s order and is an insult to Black voters across our state. I fully expect that it will be rejected by the courts.”

Here is a comparison of the map the state enacted in 2021 and the boundaries enacted in July 2023:

Congressional map enacted in 2021

In February 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed a federal district court's preliminary injunction which had enjoined the state from conducting its 2022 elections using the congressional redistricting plan adopted in November 2021. The Court's ruling meant that the map adopted by the legislature was used for the 2022 elections. A three-judge federal court panel had issued a preliminary injunction on January 24, 2022, preventing Alabama from using the map. Click here for more information about this decision.

Alabama originally enacted new congressional district boundaries on Nov. 4, 2021, after Gov. Kay Ivey (R) signed the proposal into law. The Alabama House of Representatives voted 65-38 in favor of the map on Nov. 1 followed by the Alabama State Senate voting 22-7 on Nov. 3.

Reactions to 2021 congressional map

The Montgomery Advertiser's Brian Lyman wrote that under the maps Republicans could maintain control of six of the state's seven congressional districts, adding, "The new maps do not significantly alter the existing districts, and do not give the GOP many opportunities to extend their majorities further." Lyman further wrote:

“

The Republican-controlled Legislature rebuffed attempts from Democrats to create a second congressional district with a sizeable number of Black voters. Democrats have joined a federal lawsuit to make that happen, and plan legal challenges on grounds that the maps do not keep counties whole and pack voters into districts based on race.

”

2020 presidential results using the 2021 congressional map

The table below details the results of the 2020 presidential election in each district at the time of the 2022 election and its political predecessor district. This data was compiled by Daily Kos Elections.

2020 presidential results by Congressional district, Alabama
District	2022 district		Political predecessor district
	Joe Biden	Donald Trump	Joe Biden	Donald Trump
Alabama's 1st	35.3%	63.6%	35.3%	63.7%
Alabama's 2nd	34.8%	64.2%	35.1%	63.9%
Alabama's 3rd	32.5%	66.6%	33.7%	65.3%
Alabama's 4th	18.6%	80.4%	17.8%	81.2%
Alabama's 5th	35.6%	62.7%	35.7%	62.7%
Alabama's 6th	34.4%	64.4%	31.8%	67.0%
Alabama's 7th	65.6%	33.6%	70.8%	28.5%

Enacted state legislative district maps

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

Alabama enacted state legislative maps for the state Senate and House of Representatives on Nov. 4, 2021, after Gov. Kay Ivey (R) signed the proposals into law. Senators approved the Senate map on Nov. 1 with a 25-7 vote. Representatives approved the Senate map on Nov. 3 with a 76-26 vote. For the House proposal, representatives voted 68-35 in favor on Nov. 1 and senators followed on Nov. 3 with a 22-7 vote. These maps took effect for Alabama's 2022 legislative elections.

State Senate map

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

Alabama State Senate Districts
until November 8, 2022

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Alabama State Senate Districts
starting November 9, 2022

Click a district to compare boundaries.

State House map

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

Alabama State House Districts
until November 8, 2022

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Alabama State House Districts
starting November 9, 2022

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Reactions

The Montgomery Advertiser's Brian Lyman wrote, "On paper, the maps ... preserve GOP supermajorities ... in the legislature." Adding that, "The new maps do not significantly alter the existing districts, and do not give the GOP many opportunities to extend their majorities further. "

Following the passage of the two maps, Alabama Daily News' Todd Stacy and Caroline Beck wrote about reactions from House Minority Leader Anthony Daniels (D) and House Speaker Mac McCutcheon (R). They wrote that Daniel said, "he believes the maps ultimately split too many counties and created less diverse districts overall," adding that he "expects separate legal challenges to come for the ... state house maps based mostly on the reason that not enough counties were kept whole."

McCutcheon, Stacy and Beck wrote, said "that he expects lawsuits to come but remained hopeful that the new maps were following legal precedent," adding that McCutcheon believed, "the fact that the new maps decrease the number of split counties should show the courts a good-faith effort."

Enacted board of education district maps

Alabama enacted district maps for the state's board of education on Nov. 4, 2021, after Gov. Kay Ivey (R) signed the proposal into law. On Nov. 1, the Senate voted 24-4 in favor of the proposal. The House followed on Nov. 3, voting 76-26 in favor. This map took effect for Alabama's 2022 state board of education elections.

Alabama Board of Education districts - enacted Nov. 4, 2021

This map took effect for Alabama's 2022 state legislative elections.

Drafting process

The Alabama State Legislature is responsible for drawing both congressional and state legislative district lines. Both chambers of the state legislature must approve a single redistricting plan. State legislative district lines must be approved in the first legislative session following the United States Census. There is no statutory deadline for congressional redistricting. The governor may veto the lines drawn by the state legislature.

The Alabama Constitution requires that state legislative district lines be contiguous. In addition, the state constitution mandates that state Senate districts "follow county lines except where necessary to comply with other legal requirements."

In 2000, according to All About Redistricting, the legislative committee charged with redistricting "adopted guidelines ... asking that [congressional] districts be contiguous, reasonably compact, follow county lines where possible, and maintain communities of interest to the extent feasible." In addition, the committee agreed to "attempt to avoid contests between incumbents." Similar guidelines apply to state legislative redistricting. At its discretion, the state legislature may change these guidelines, which are non-binding.

Timeline of 2022 map adoption

The candidate filing deadline for the 2022 election cycle in Alabama was Jan. 28, 2022, an inferred redistricting deadline. On Oct. 14, 2021, Gov. Kay Ivey (R) called for a state legislative special session focused on redistricting to begin on Oct. 28. Ivey signed new legislative and congressional maps into law on Nov. 4, 2021.

Redistricting committees and/or commissions in 2022

See also: Reapportionment Committee, Alabama State Legislature

The Reapportionment Committee is a permanent joint interim committee of the Alabama State Legislature. The following individuals were appointed to the Reapportionment Committee for 2021-2022.

Alabama Permanent Legislative Committee on Reapportionment, 2021-2022
Name	Role	Party affiliation
Senator Gerald Allen	Member	Republican
Senator Jimmy Holley	Member	Republican
Senator Steve Livingston	Member	Republican
Senator Jim McClendon	Co-chiar	Republican
Senator Tim Melson	Member	Republican
Senator Arthur Orr	Member	Republican
Senator Dan Roberts	Member	Republican
Senator Clay Scofield	Member	Republican
Senator Bobby Singleton	Member	Democratic
Senator Rodger Smitherman	Member	Democratic
Senator Jack W. Williams	Member	Republican
Representative Barbara Boyd	Member	Democratic
Representative Steve Clouse	Member	Republican
Representative Corley Ellis	Member	Republican
Representative Chris England	Member	Democratic
Representative Lynn Greer	Member	Republican
Representative Laura Hall	Member	Democratic
Representative Sam Jones	Member	Democratic
Representative Joe Lovvorn	Member	Republican
Representative Chris Pringle	Co-chiar	Republican
Representative Randy Wood	Member	Republican

Drafts and proposals

On October 25, state Rep. Chris England (D) released images of the first congressional and state legislative draft maps. On Oct. 26, the joint redistricting committee approved the congressional and state legislative draft maps without any changes.

Click on the tabs below to view specific map proposals and accompanying demographic data with the most recently released proposal listed first. Each tab includes images of the proposals, when available.

Congressional

• Draft map, congressional, released Oct. 25 (click to expand)

  Map image

  Alabama congressional districts – first draft map (October 25, 2021)

  View demographic data

Reactions

During the Oct. 26 joint committee meeting, Rep. Chris England (D) requested a racial polarization study of the proposed congressional map. According to WSFA's Erin Davis, "England requested this because District 7 remains the only majority-Black district for this map." Sen. Jim McClendon (R) said, "Our goal was to come forward with a minority district that we felt confident would give the minorities in that district a chance to reflect the person that they were interested in."

England also responded to the availability of information. The proposed maps, which were approved by the committee on Oct. 26, were released to the public by England through his Twitter account on Oct. 25. England said, "I fully anticipate this process ending up in the courts somewhere. I mean just off the fact alone that the public ... also did not see this information." Rep. Chris Pringle (R) said, "We have to have something to put into a bill by 4 o’clock Thursday afternoon so the [Legislative Services Agency] can put it into [legislation] and give to everyone ... You will have time in both before a House and Senate standing committee to fully vet and look at these bills."

State legislative

• Draft map, state Senate, released Oct. 25 (click to expand)

  Map image

  Alabama state Senate districts – first draft map (October 25, 2021)

  View demographic data

• Draft map, state House, released Oct. 25 (click to expand)

  Map image

  Alabama state House districts – first draft map (October 25, 2021)

  View demographic data

Apportionment and release of census data

Apportionment is the process by which representation in a legislative body is distributed among its constituents. The number of seats in the United States House of Representatives is fixed at 435. The United States Constitution dictates that districts be redrawn every 10 years to ensure equal populations between districts. Every ten years, upon completion of the United States census, reapportionment occurs.

Apportionment following the 2020 census

The U.S. Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts on April 26, 2021. Alabama was apportioned seven seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. This represented neither a gain nor a loss of seats as compared to apportionment after the 2010 census. See the table below for additional details.

2020 and 2010 census information for Alabama
State	2010 census		2020 census		2010-2020
	Population	U.S. House seats	Population	U.S. House seats	Raw change in population	Percentage change in population	Change in U.S. House seats
Alabama	4,802,982	7	5,030,053	7	227,071	4.73%	0

Redistricting data from the Census Bureau

On February 12, 2021, the Census Bureau announced that it would deliver redistricting data to the states by September 30, 2021. On March 15, 2021, the Census Bureau released a statement indicating it would make redistricting data available to the states in a legacy format in mid-to-late August 2021. A legacy format presents the data in raw form, without data tables and other access tools. On May 25, 2021, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (R) announced that the state had reached a settlement agreement with the Census Bureau in its lawsuit over the Census Bureau's timetable for delivering redistricting data. Under the terms of the settlement, the Census Bureau agreed to deliver redistricting data, in a legacy format, by August 16, 2021. The Census Bureau released the 2020 redistricting data in a legacy format on August 12, 2021, and in an easier-to-use format at data.census.gov on September 16, 2021.

Court challenges

If you are aware of any relevant lawsuits that are not listed here, please email us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

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.

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. 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." 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." 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." 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.

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. 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)." 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.”

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). 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. As relief, plaintiffs asked the court to declare the maps unconstitutional and require legislators to develop new maps addressing the cited districts.

• 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). 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). 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. 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.

• 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). 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." 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. Following the filing of the plaintiffs' complaint, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

• View the plaintiffs' complaint here.

Background

This section includes background information on federal requirements for congressional redistricting, state legislative redistricting, state-based requirements, redistricting methods used in the 50 states, gerrymandering, and recent court decisions.

Federal requirements for congressional redistricting

According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, the states and their legislatures have primary authority in determining the "times, places, and manner" of congressional elections. Congress may also pass laws regulating congressional elections.

“	The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.	”
—United States Constitution

Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution stipulates that congressional representatives be apportioned to the states on the basis of population. There are 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives. Each state is allotted a portion of these seats based on the size of its population relative to the other states. Consequently, a state may gain seats in the House if its population grows or lose seats if its population decreases, relative to populations in other states. In 1964, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Wesberry v. Sanders that the populations of House districts must be equal "as nearly as practicable."

The equal population requirement for congressional districts is strict. According to All About Redistricting, "Any district with more or fewer people than the average (also known as the 'ideal' population), must be specifically justified by a consistent state policy. And even consistent policies that cause a 1 percent spread from largest to smallest district will likely be unconstitutional."

Federal requirements for state legislative redistricting

The United States Constitution is silent on the issue of state legislative redistricting. In the mid-1960s, the United States Supreme Court issued a series of rulings in an effort to clarify standards for state legislative redistricting. In Reynolds v. Sims, the court ruled that "the Equal Protection Clause [of the United States Constitution] demands no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens, of all places as well as of all races." According to All About Redistricting, "it has become accepted that a [redistricting] plan will be constitutionally suspect if the largest and smallest districts [within a state or jurisdiction] are more than 10 percent apart."

State-based requirements

In addition to the federal criteria noted above, individual states may impose additional requirements on redistricting. Common state-level redistricting criteria are listed below.

1. Contiguity refers to the principle that all areas within a district should be physically adjacent. A total of 49 states require that districts of at least one state legislative chamber be contiguous (Nevada has no such requirement, imposing no requirements on redistricting beyond those enforced at the federal level). A total of 23 states require that congressional districts meet contiguity requirements.
2. Compactness refers to the general principle that the constituents within a district should live as near to one another as practicable. A total of 37 states impose compactness requirements on state legislative districts; 18 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.
3. A community of interest is defined by FairVote as a "group of people in a geographical area, such as a specific region or neighborhood, who have common political, social or economic interests." A total of 24 states require that the maintenance of communities of interest be considered in the drawing of state legislative districts. A total of 13 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.
4. A total of 42 states require that state legislative district lines be drawn to account for political boundaries (e.g., the limits of counties, cities, and towns). A total of 19 states require that similar considerations be made in the drawing of congressional districts.

Methods

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

1. Legislature-dominant: In a legislature-dominant state, the legislature retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. Maps enacted by the legislature may or may not be subject to gubernatorial veto. Advisory commissions may also be involved in the redistricting process, although the legislature is not bound to adopt an advisory commission's recommendations.
2. Commission: In a commission state, an extra-legislative commission retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. A non-politician commission is one whose members cannot hold elective office. A politician commission is one whose members can hold elective office.
3. Hybrid: In a hybrid state, the legislature shares redistricting authority with a commission.

Gerrymandering

In 1812, Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry signed into law a state Senate district map that, according to the Encyclopædia Britannica, "consolidated the Federalist Party vote in a few districts and thus gave disproportionate representation to Democratic-Republicans." The word gerrymander was coined by The Boston Gazette to describe the district.

See also: Gerrymandering

The term gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to favor one political party, individual, or constituency over another. When used in a rhetorical manner by opponents of a particular district map, the term has a negative connotation but does not necessarily address the legality of a challenged map. The term can also be used in legal documents; in this context, the term describes redistricting practices that violate federal or state laws.

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

Show more

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

The phrase partisan gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district maps with the intention of favoring one political party over another. In contrast with racial gerrymandering, on which the Supreme Court of the United States has issued rulings in the past affirming that such practices violate federal law, the high court had not, as of November 2017, issued a ruling establishing clear precedent on the question of partisan gerrymandering. Although the court has granted in past cases that partisan gerrymandering can violate the United States Constitution, it has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring partisan gerrymanders. Partisan gerrymandering is described in greater detail in this article.

Recent court decisions

See also: Redistricting cases heard by the Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States has, in recent years, issued several decisions dealing with redistricting policy, including rulings relating to the consideration of race in drawing district maps, the use of total population tallies in apportionment, and the constitutionality of independent redistricting commissions. The rulings in these cases, which originated in a variety of states, impact redistricting processes across the nation.

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

Show more

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (2024)

See also: Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP — This case concerns a challenge to the congressional redistricting plan that the South Carolina legislature enacted after the 2020 census. In January 2023, a federal three-judge panel ruled that the state's 1st Congressional District was unconstitutional and enjoined the state from conducting future elections using its district boundaries. The panel's opinion said, "The Court finds that race was the predominant factor motivating the General Assembly’s adoption of Congressional District No. 1...Defendants have made no showing that they had a compelling state interest in the use of race in the design of Congressional District No. 1 and thus cannot survive a strict scrutiny review." Thomas Alexander (R)—in his capacity as South Carolina State Senate president—appealed the federal court's ruling, arguing: :In striking down an isolated portion of South Carolina Congressional District 1 as a racial gerrymander, the panel never even mentioned the presumption of the General Assembly’s “good faith.”...The result is a thinly reasoned order that presumes bad faith, erroneously equates the purported racial effect of a single line in Charleston County with racial predominance across District 1, and is riddled with “legal mistake[s]” that improperly relieved Plaintiffs of their “demanding” burden to prove that race was the “predominant consideration” in District 1. The U.S. Supreme Court scheduled oral argument on this case for October 11, 2023.

Moore v. Harper (2023)

See also: Moore v. Harper

At issue in Moore v. Harper, was whether state legislatures alone are empowered by the Constitution to regulate federal elections without oversight from state courts, which is known as the independent state legislature doctrine. On November 4, 2021, the North Carolina General Assembly adopted a new congressional voting map based on 2020 Census data. The legislature, at that time, was controlled by the Republican Party. In the case Harper v. Hall (2022), a group of Democratic Party-affiliated voters and nonprofit organizations challenged the map in state court, alleging that the new map was a partisan gerrymander that violated the state constitution. On February 14, 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the state could not use the map in the 2022 elections and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The trial court adopted a new congressional map drawn by three court-appointed experts. The United States Supreme Court affirmed the North Carolina Supreme Court's original decision in Moore v. Harper that the state's congressional district map violated state law. In a 6-3 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the "Elections Clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections.

Merrill v. Milligan (2023)

See also: Merrill v. Milligan

At issue in Merrill v. Milligan, was the constitutionality of Alabama's 2021 redistricting plan and whether it violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. A group of Alabama voters and organizations sued Secretary of State John Merrill (R) and the House and Senate redistricting chairmen, Rep. Chris Pringle (R) and Sen. Jim McClendon (R). Plaintiffs alleged the congressional map enacted on Nov. 4, 2021, by Gov. Kay Ivey (R) unfairly distributed Black voters. The plaintiffs asked the lower court to invalidate the enacted congressional map and order a new map with instructions to include a second majority-Black district. The court ruled 5-4, affirming the lower court opinion that the plaintiffs showed a reasonable likelihood of success concerning their claim that Alabama's redistricting map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

Gill v. Whitford (2018)

See also: Gill v. Whitford

In Gill v. Whitford, decided on June 18, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the plaintiffs—12 Wisconsin Democrats who alleged that Wisconsin's state legislative district plan had been subject to an unconstitutional gerrymander in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments—had failed to demonstrate standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to bring a complaint. The court's opinion, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, did not address the broader question of whether partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. Roberts was joined in the majority opinion by Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Kagan penned a concurring opinion joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas penned an opinion that concurred in part with the majority opinion and in the judgment, joined by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Cooper v. Harris (2017)

See also: Cooper v. Harris

In Cooper v. Harris, decided on May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the judgment of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, finding that two of North Carolina's congressional districts, the boundaries of which had been set following the 2010 United States Census, had been subject to an illegal racial gerrymander in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the court's majority opinion, which was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor (Thomas also filed a separate concurring opinion). In the court's majority opinion, Kagan described the two-part analysis utilized by the high court when plaintiffs allege racial gerrymandering as follows: "First, the plaintiff must prove that 'race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature's decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district.' ... Second, if racial considerations predominated over others, the design of the district must withstand strict scrutiny. The burden shifts to the State to prove that its race-based sorting of voters serves a 'compelling interest' and is 'narrowly tailored' to that end." In regard to the first part of the aforementioned analysis, Kagan went on to note that "a plaintiff succeeds at this stage even if the evidence reveals that a legislature elevated race to the predominant criterion in order to advance other goals, including political ones." Justice Samuel Alito delivered an opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part with the majority opinion. This opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Evenwel v. Abbott (2016)

See also: Evenwel v. Abbott

Evenwel v. Abbott was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts in Texas. The plaintiffs, Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger, argued that district populations ought to take into account only the number of registered or eligible voters residing within those districts as opposed to total population counts, which are generally used for redistricting purposes. Total population tallies include non-voting residents, such as immigrants residing in the country without legal permission, prisoners, and children. The plaintiffs alleged that this tabulation method dilutes the voting power of citizens residing in districts that are home to smaller concentrations of non-voting residents. The court ruled 8-0 on April 4, 2016, that a state or locality can use total population counts for redistricting purposes. The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2016)

Justice Stephen Breyer penned the majority opinion in Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.

See also: Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts that were created by the commission in 2012. The plaintiffs, a group of Republican voters, alleged that "the commission diluted or inflated the votes of almost two million Arizona citizens when the commission intentionally and systematically overpopulated 16 Republican districts while under-populating 11 Democrat districts." This, the plaintiffs argued, constituted a partisan gerrymander. The plaintiffs claimed that the commission placed a disproportionately large number of non-minority voters in districts dominated by Republicans; meanwhile, the commission allegedly placed many minority voters in smaller districts that tended to vote Democratic. As a result, the plaintiffs argued, more voters overall were placed in districts favoring Republicans than in those favoring Democrats, thereby diluting the votes of citizens in the Republican-dominated districts. The defendants countered that the population deviations resulted from legally defensible efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act and obtain approval from the United States Department of Justice. At the time of redistricting, certain states were required to obtain preclearance from the U.S. Department of Justice before adopting redistricting plans or making other changes to their election laws—a requirement struck down by the United States Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder (2013). On April 20, 2016, the court ruled unanimously that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that a partisan gerrymander had taken place. Instead, the court found that the commission had acted in good faith to comply with the Voting Rights Act. The court's majority opinion was penned by Justice Stephen Breyer.

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015)

See also: Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2015. At issue was the constitutionality of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, which was established by state constitutional amendment in 2000. According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, "the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." The state legislature argued that the use of the word "legislature" in this context is literal; therefore, only a state legislature may draw congressional district lines. Meanwhile, the commission contended that the word "legislature" ought to be interpreted to mean "the legislative powers of the state," including voter initiatives and referenda. On June 29, 2015, the court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, finding that "redistricting is a legislative function, to be performed in accordance with the state's prescriptions for lawmaking, which may include the referendum and the governor's veto." The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito dissented.

Trifectas and redistricting

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

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

2010 redistricting cycle

Redistricting in Alabama after the 2010 census

Following the 2010 United States Census, Alabama neither gained nor lost congressional seats. The following is a timeline of key events during and subsequent to the 2010 redistricting cycle in Alabama:

• On May 24, 2011, the state legislature approved state legislative district maps for both the House and Senate. On May 31, 2011, Governor Robert Bentley (R) signed the maps into law.
• On June 2, 2011, the Alabama State Legislature approved a congressional district map. On June 8, 2011, Bentley signed the map into law.
• On November 21, 2011, the United States Justice Department granted preclearance to Alabama's congressional district map.
• On August 10, 2012, state Democrats, black lawmakers, and others filed suit to block implementation of state legislative redistricting plans (Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama). According to the lawsuit, the plans diluted minority voting strength, violated the "one person, one vote" principle, and illegally split counties in order to consolidate Republican dominance in other districts. Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers argued that "they were complying with the Voting Rights Act in moving black voters to existing majority-minority districts."
• On October 5, 2012, the United States Justice Department granted preclearance to Alabama's state legislative district maps.
• On March 25, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in a 5-4 decision that a lower court's initial ruling in Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama was legally erroneous. In the court's majority opinion, Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote, "That Alabama expressly adopted and applied a policy of prioritizing mechanical racial targets above all other districting criteria (save one-person, one-vote) provides evidence that race motivated the drawing of particular lines in multiple districts in the State." The court stopped short of deeming the district lines unconstitutional, however. Instead, the court sent the case back to federal district court for further review.
• On January 20, 2017, a three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama ruled that 12 challenged state legislative districts had been subject to an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The court ordered state lawmakers to redraw the lines for these districts.

See also

• Redistricting in Alabama after the 2010 census
• Redistricting in Alabama
• State-by-state redistricting procedures
• Majority-minority districts

External links

• Search Google News for this topic
• All About Redistricting
• Dave's Redistricting
• FiveThirtyEight, "What Redistricting Looks Like In Every State"
• National Conference of State Legislatures, "Redistricting Process"
• FairVote, "Redistricting"