Redistricting in Alaska after the 2020 census

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Election Policy VNT Logo.png
Redistricting
State legislative and congressional redistricting after the 2020 census
General information
State-by-state redistricting procedures • Majority-minority districts • Gerrymandering
The 2020 cycle
United States census, 2020 • Congressional apportionment • Redistricting committees • Deadlines • 2022 House elections with multiple incumbents • New U.S.House districts created after apportionment • Congressional maps • State legislative maps • Lawsuits • Status of redistricting after the 2020 census
Redrawn maps
Redistricting before 2024 elections • Redistricting before 2026 elections
Ballotpedia's Election Administration 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 Alaska.

Alaska was apportioned one single at-large U.S. House seat, making Congressional redistricting after the 2020 census unnecessary.

Alaska completed its state legislative redistricting on May 24, 2022, when the Alaska Redistricting Board adopted a new map of state Senate districts at the direction of the state supreme court. In its ruling, the Alaska Supreme Court upheld a May 16, 2022, decision by the Third District of Alaska's Superior Court that determined that the mapping of state House districts to Senate ones was unconstitutional and ordered the Alaska Redistricting Board to adopt another proposed plan for pairing the districts. Click here to read more about litigation surrounding Alaska's legislative boundaries. These maps took effect for Alaska's 2022 legislative elections. On May 15, 2023, the Alaska Redistricting Board adopted its 2022 interim maps as final state legislative maps. The final maps were used in the 2024 elections.[1]

Alaska had initially enacted legislative district boundaries on November 10, 2021, following a 3-2 vote by the Alaska Redistricting Board. The three Republican-appointed board members voted in favor of the map and the two nonpartisan board members voted against it.[2] 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 required they be redrawn.[3] The Alaska Redistricting Board adopted new legislative district boundaries to comply with the state supreme court's ruling on April 13, 2022.[4]

Click here for more information.

Alaska's single United States representative and 60 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 Alaska 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.

  • 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.
  • April 21, 2023: The Alaska Supreme Court issued an opinion explaining the reasoning for its decisions from March to May 2022 regarding the state's legislative redistricting plans and remanded for the Alaska Superior Court to direct the Alaska Redistricting Board to show why the interim redistricting plan used for the 2022 elections shouldn't be used for the remainder of the 2020 election cycle.
  • May 24, 2022: The Alaska Redistricting Board adopted a new map of state Senate districts at the state supreme court's direction.
  • May 24, 2022: The Alaska Supreme Court upheld an Alaska Superior Court decision that determined that the mapping of state House districts to Senate ones was unconstitutional and ordered the Alaska Redistricting Board to adopt another proposed plan for pairing the districts.
  • May 16, 2022: The Third District of Alaska's Superior Court ruled that the Alaska Redistricting Board's revised plan mapping state House districts to Senate ones was unconstitutional.
  • April 13, 2022: The Alaska Redistricting Board adopted revised legislative districts in response to an earlier decision by the state supreme court.
  • March 25, 2022: The Alaska Supreme Court upheld lower court rulings that one state House and one state Senate district did not comply with the state constitution and ordered the state's legislative boundaries be redrawn. The court decided in favor of the Alaska Redistricting Board on all other petitions.
  • Feb. 16, 2022: The Third District of Alaska's Superior Court ruled that one state House and one state Senate district were drawn improperly in the consolidated lawsuit regarding Alaska's legislative district boundaries. In three of the lawsuits, the court decided in favor of the Alaska Redistricting Board, ruling that they complied with the state constitution. The plaintiff in the fifth lawsuit ended their action.
  • Dec. 14, 2021: Presiding Judge Amy Mead of Alaska's First Judicial District consolidated five redistricting lawsuits and transferred them to Anchorage for further proceedings.
  • Dec. 10, 2021: Three lawsuits were filed against the state House and Senate maps.
  • Dec. 9, 2021: A lawsuit was filed against the state Senate map.
  • Dec. 2, 2021: A lawsuit was filed against the state House map.
  • Nov. 10, 2021: The Alaska Redistricting Board enacted a new state legislative map, beginning the 30-day period for interested parties to file any legal challenges.
  • Sept. 20, 2021: The Alaska Redistricting Board adopted six proposed plans to serve as the basis of its public meeting tour.
  • 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. 23, 2021: The Alaska Redistricting Board approved a redistricting schedule for the 2020 redistricting cycle.
  • Aug. 12, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau delivered redistricting data.
  • 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

Alaska was apportioned one single at-large U.S. House seat, making Congressional redistricting after the 2020 census unnecessary.

Enacted state legislative district maps

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

Alaska completed its state legislative redistricting on May 24, 2022, when the Alaska Redistricting Board adopted a new map of state Senate districts at the direction of the state supreme court. In its ruling, the Alaska Supreme Court upheld a May 16, 2022, decision by the Third District of Alaska's Superior Court that determined that the mapping of state House districts to Senate ones was unconstitutional and ordered the Alaska Redistricting Board to adopt another proposed plan for pairing the districts. Click here to read more about litigation surrounding Alaska's legislative boundaries. These maps took effect for Alaska's 2022 legislative elections. On May 15, 2023, the Alaska Redistricting Board adopted its 2022 interim maps as final state legislative maps. The final maps were used in the 2024 elections.[5]

Alaska had initially enacted legislative district boundaries on November 10, 2021, following a 3-2 vote by the Alaska Redistricting Board. The three Republican-appointed board members voted in favor of the map and the two nonpartisan board members voted against it.[6] 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 required they be redrawn.[7] The Alaska Redistricting Board adopted new legislative district boundaries to comply with the state supreme court's ruling on April 13, 2022.[8]

State Senate map

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

Alaska State Senate Districts
before 2020 redistricting cycle

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Alaska State Senate Districts
after 2020 redistricting cycle

Click a district to compare boundaries.

State House map

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

Alaska State House Districts
before 2020 redistricting cycle

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Alaska State House Districts
after 2020 redistricting cycle

Click a district to compare boundaries.


Reactions

The Midnight Sun's Matt Buxton wrote that the nonpartisan board members Bahnke and Borromeo, "pulled no punches when arguing that the Senate pairing for the Anchorage-area—which split Eagle River’s two House districts into two different Senate districts—were both a racial and partisan gerrymander that favored conservatives and drew the entirety of the plan into question."[9]

During the meeting to adopt the final maps, Republican board member Binkley said:

“

I think the board earnestly — all board members — tried to put together a fair plan, a reasonable plan ... But sometimes, those are in the eyes of the beholder. And some people — reasonable people — can look at one plan and say it’s fair. Other people can look at it and say it’s not fair.[10][11]

”

Drafting process

Because Alaska has only one congressional district, congressional redistricting is not necessary. A redistricting commission draws state legislative district lines. In place since 1998, Alaska's redistricting commission comprises five members. Two commissioners are appointed by the governor, one by the state Senate majority leader, one by the state House majority leader, and one by the chief justice of the Alaska Supreme Court. State law mandates that commissioners "be chosen without regard to party affiliation." One commissioner must be selected from each of the state's judicial districts.[12]

The Alaska Constitution requires that state legislative districts be contiguous and compact. Furthermore, every state legislative district must contain a "relatively integrated socio-economic area." Each state legislative district is served by one state senator and two state representatives.[12]

Timeline

On Aug. 23, 2021, the Alaska Redistricting Board designated Aug. 12 as the start of its timeline.[13][14][15] The approved schedule set Sept. 11, 2021, as the deadline for publishing the commission's proposed plans, and Nov. 10, 2021, as the deadline for adoption of the final plan.[15]

The board released its first draft maps on Sept. 9 and adopted a final state legislative map on Nov. 10, 2021, beginning a 30-day period, during which time any interested parties could file legal challenges against the map.[16] [17][18]

The Alaska Redistricting Board announced a series of public meetings across the state to receive feedback on the proposed maps. Meeting details can be viewed by clicking [show] on the table header below. More information can be found here.

Committees and/or commissions involved in the process

The five members of the Alaska Redistricting Board are listed in the table below.[19]

Alaska Redistricting Board, 2020 cycle
Name Party affiliation
Melanie Bahnke Grey.png Nonpartisan
John Binkley Ends.png Republican
Nicole Borromeo Grey.png Nonpartisan
Bethany Marcum Ends.png Republican
Budd E. Simpson Ends.png Republican


Drafts and proposals

Congressional district plans

Alaska has one at-large congressional district.

Legislative district plans

On September 9, 2021, the Alaska Redistricting Board released two proposed redistricting plans, Board Composite v.1 and Board Composite v.2.[16] The board replaced those proposals at its September 20, 2021, meeting with Proposed Plan v.3 and Proposed Plan v.4. Additionally, the board adopted four plans drafted by the following third-party organizations:[18]

  • Coalition of Doyon, Ltd., Tanana Chiefs Conference, Fairbanks Native Association, Sealaska, and Ahtna
  • Alaskans for Fair and Equitable Redistricting (AFFER)
  • Alaskans for Fair Redistricting (AFFR)
  • The Senate Minority Caucus

The board will use these six proposed maps as the basis of its public meeting tour before making its final decision.

Map images

Click on the tabs below to view the six proposed legislative district map plans adopted on Sept. 20, 2021. The two outdated maps replaced during the Sept. 20, 2021, meeting are shown under the "Outdated" tab.

Board v.3

Alaska legislative districts – Board Proposed Plan v.3 (Sept. 20, 2021)

Board v.4

Alaska legislative districts – Board Proposed Plan v.4 (Sept. 20, 2021)

Doyon Coalition

Alaska legislative districts – Doyon Coalition Proposed Plan (Sept. 20, 2021)

AFFER

Alaska legislative districts – AFFER Proposed Plan (Sept. 20, 2021)

AFFR

Alaska legislative districts – AFFR Proposed Plan (Sept. 20, 2021)

Senate Minority Caucus

Alaska legislative districts – Senate Minority Caucus Proposed Plan (Sept. 20, 2021)

Outdated

Click "Show more" to view outdated proposed maps.

Show more
Alaska legislative districts - Board Composite v.1 (September 9, 2021)

Alaska legislative districts - Board Composite v.2 (September 9, 2021)

Reactions

Upon approval of the initial two board-produced maps, John Binkley, the chairman of the Alaska Redistricting Board, said, “I was pleased the Board came together this week and found consensus on many areas of the state. We adopted two proposed plans today to begin the process of hearing from Alaskans about how they would like their legislative districts to be crafted.”[20]

On September 20, 2021, after replacing the board-produced proposed maps and adopting proposals from four third-party organizations, Binkley said, "I was pleased that the Board came together today to bring six proposed redistricting plans forward for Alaskans to consider ... We will now be traveling around the state to learn which plan best reflects Alaskans' desire for their legislative districts."[18]

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.[21]

Apportionment following the 2020 census

The U.S. Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts on April 26, 2021. Alaska was apportioned one seat 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.[22]

See the table below for additional details.

2020 and 2010 census information for Alaska
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
Alaska 721,523 1 736,081 1 14,558 2.02% 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.[23][24][25][26] 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.[27][28]

Court challenges

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

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."[29]

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.[29][11]

”

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.[30]

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."[31]

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."[31]

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."[32]

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.[32]

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.[33]

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. [34]

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.[35]

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.[36] 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.[37] 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.[38] 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.[38] 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.[39] 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.[40] 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."[41] 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.[41]

  • View the plaintiff's complaint here.
  • View the Doyon, Ltd., motion to intervene 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.[42][43]

“ 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.[11] ”
—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."[44][45][46]

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."[46]

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."[46]

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.[46][47]
  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.[46][47]
  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.[46][47]
  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.[46][47]

Methods

In general, a state's redistricting authority can be classified as one of the following:[48]

  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.[49][50]

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.[51]

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.[52][53]

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 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."[54] 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.[55] The U.S. Supreme Court scheduled oral argument on this case for October 11, 2023.[56]

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.[57] 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.[58]

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.[59]

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.[60]

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.[61][62][63]

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.[64][65][66][67]

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.[68][69][70]

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.[71][72][73][74]

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 Alaska after the 2010 census

Alaska's redistricting commission published its state legislative district map on June 13, 2011. This plan was precleared by the United States Department of Justice on October 11, 2011. Ultimately, however, the Alaska Supreme Court ordered the board to draw new lines "first under [the requirements of] the state constitution and only then adjusting for Voting Rights Act compliance where necessary." On April 5, 2011, the commission published a new map, but this too was the subject of a series of court challenges. The state supreme court permitted the use of this map for 2012 elections only. The redistricting commission adopted another state legislative map on July 14, 2013. Lawsuits were filed against the map, but a court ultimately dismissed the challenges, allowing the newly drawn map to stand.[12]

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ Alaska Redistricting Board, "2023 May Final Proclamation," accessed March 20, 2025
  2. ↑ The Midnight Sun, "'I pray litigation is swift and just.' Redistricting Board finalizes plan with attempted dig at dissenters," Nov. 10, 2021
  3. ↑ Alaska Supreme Court, "In the Matter of the 2021 Redistricting Cases," March 25, 2022
  4. ↑ Alaska Redistricting Board, "Amended Proclamation of Redistricting," April 13, 2022
  5. ↑ Alaska Redistricting Board, "2023 May Final Proclamation," accessed March 20, 2025
  6. ↑ The Midnight Sun, "'I pray litigation is swift and just.' Redistricting Board finalizes plan with attempted dig at dissenters," Nov. 10, 2021
  7. ↑ Alaska Supreme Court, "In the Matter of the 2021 Redistricting Cases," March 25, 2022
  8. ↑ Alaska Redistricting Board, "Amended Proclamation of Redistricting," April 13, 2022
  9. ↑ The Midnight Sun, "‘I pray litigation is swift and just.’ Redistricting Board finalizes plan with attempted dig at dissenters," Nov. 10, 2021
  10. ↑ KTOO, "Alaska Redistricting Board finishes work to adopt maps; opponents say courts could toss out portions," Nov. 10, 2021
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 All About Redistricting, "Alaska," accessed April 17, 2015
  13. ↑ All About Redistricting, "Alaska," accessed Nov. 22, 2021
  14. ↑ Alaska Board of Apportionment, "Board Packet, August 23/24," accessed August 24
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 Anchorage Daily News, "Alaska's redistricting board sets Nov. 10 deadline for new legislative map," accessed August 24, 2021
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 Alaska Redistricting Board, "Map Gallery," accessed September 14, 2021
  17. ↑ Peninsula Clarion, "New boundaries, shortened terms for local senators after redistricting," Nov. 10, 2021
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 18.2 Alaska Native News, "Alaska Redistricting Board Approves Proposed Redistricting Plans," Sept. 21, 2021
  19. ↑ Alaska State Legislature, "Redistricting Board," accessed June 17, 2021
  20. ↑ Alaska Native News, "Alaska Redistricting Board Adopts Proposed Redistricting Plans," accessed September 14, 2021
  21. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "Apportionment," accessed July 11, 2018
  22. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "2020 Census Apportionment Results Delivered to the President," April 26, 2021
  23. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "2020 Census Operational Plan: Executive Summary," December 2015
  24. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "Census Bureau Statement on Redistricting Data Timeline," February 12, 2021
  25. ↑ Office of the Attorney General of Ohio, "AG Yost Secures Victory for Ohioans in Settlement with Census Bureau Data Lawsuit," May 25, 2021
  26. ↑ U.S. Census Bureau, "U.S. Census Bureau Statement on Release of Legacy Format Summary Redistricting Data File," March 15, 2021
  27. ↑ U.S. Census Bureau, "Decennial Census P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data," accessed August 12, 2021
  28. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "Census Bureau Delivers 2020 Census Redistricting Data in Easier-to-Use Format," September 16, 2021
  29. ↑ 29.0 29.1 Alaska Supreme Court, "In the Matter of the 2021 redistricting cases," April 21, 2023
  30. ↑ Alaska Redistricting Board, "2023 Final Proclamation Packet, signed PDF," May 15, 2023
  31. ↑ 31.0 31.1 Alaska Supreme Court, "In the Matter of the 2021 Redistricting Cases," May 24, 2022
  32. ↑ 32.0 32.1 Alaska Superior Court, Third Judicial District, "In the Matter of the 2021 Redistricting Plan," May 16, 2022
  33. ↑ Alaska Supreme Court, "In the Matter of the 2021 Redistricting Cases," March 25, 2022
  34. ↑ Alaska Superior Court, Third Judicial District, "In the Matter of the 2021 Redistricting Plan," February 15, 2022
  35. ↑ Alaska Redistricting Board, "Amend Presiding Judges' Statewide Consolidation and Venue Order," Dec. 14, 2021
  36. ↑ Democracy Docket, "City of Valdez v. Alaska Redistricting Board complaint," Dec. 10, 2021
  37. ↑ Democracy Docket, "Skagway v. Alaska Redistricting Board complaint," Dec. 10, 2021
  38. ↑ 38.0 38.1 Democracy Docket, "Calista Corp. v. Alaska Redistricting Board complaint," Dec. 10, 2021
  39. ↑ Democracy Docket, "Alaska Legislative Redistricting Challenge (Wilson)," accessed Dec. 15, 2021
  40. ↑ Democracy Docket, "Wilson v. Alaska Redistricting Board complaint," Dec. 9, 2021
  41. ↑ 41.0 41.1 Democracy Docket, "Complaint in the Nature of an Expedited Application to Compel Correction of Error in Redistricting Plan," Dec. 2, 2021
  42. ↑ The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, "Election Regulations," accessed April 13, 2015
  43. ↑ Brookings, "Redistricting and the United States Constitution," March 22, 2011
  44. ↑ Brennan Center for Justice, "A Citizen's Guide to Redistricting," accessed March 25, 2015
  45. ↑ The Constitution of the United States of America, "Article 1, Section 2," accessed March 25, 2015
  46. ↑ 46.0 46.1 46.2 46.3 46.4 46.5 46.6 All About Redistricting, "Where are the lines drawn?" accessed April 9, 2015
  47. ↑ 47.0 47.1 47.2 47.3 FairVote, "Redistricting Glossary," accessed April 9, 2015
  48. ↑ All About Redistricting, "Who draws the lines?" accessed June 19, 2017
  49. ↑ All About Redistricting, "Why does it matter?" accessed April 8, 2015
  50. ↑ Encyclopædia Britannica, "Gerrymandering," November 4, 2014
  51. ↑ Congressional Research Service, "Congressional Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A Legal Overview," April 13, 2015
  52. ↑ The Wall Street Journal, "Supreme Court to Consider Limits on Partisan Drawing of Election Maps," June 19, 2017
  53. ↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear potentially landmark case on partisan gerrymandering," June 19, 2017
  54. ↑ 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
  55. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Alexander, et al. v. The South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, et al.," February 17, 2023
  56. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP," accessed July 21, 2023
  57. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Justices will hear case that tests power of state legislatures to set rules for federal elections," June 30, 2022
  58. ↑ 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
  59. ↑ SCOTUSblog.org, "Supreme Court upholds Section 2 of Voting Rights Act," June 8, 2023
  60. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Gill v. Whitford: Decision," June 18, 2018
  61. ↑ Election Law Blog, "Breaking: SCOTUS to Hear NC Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 27, 2016
  62. ↑ Ballot Access News, "U.S. Supreme Court Accepts Another Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 28, 2016
  63. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Cooper v. Harris: Decision," May 22, 2017
  64. ↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear challenge to Texas redistricting plan," May 26, 2015
  65. ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Agrees to Settle Meaning of ‘One Person One Vote,'" May 26, 2015
  66. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Evenwel v. Abbott," accessed May 27, 2015
  67. ↑ Associated Press, "Supreme Court to hear Texas Senate districts case," May 26, 2015
  68. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "The new look at 'one person, one vote,' made simple," July 27, 2015
  69. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Brief for Appellants," accessed December 14, 2015
  70. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission," April 20, 2016
  71. ↑ The New York Times, "Court Skeptical of Arizona Plan for Less-Partisan Congressional Redistricting," March 2, 2015
  72. ↑ The Atlantic, "Will the Supreme Court Let Arizona Fight Gerrymandering?" September 15, 2014
  73. ↑ United States Supreme Court, "Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Opinion of the Court," June 29, 2015
  74. ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Upholds Creation of Arizona Redistricting Commission," June 29, 2015
v • e
Redistricting after the 2020 census
State-by-state
Overviews
Flag of Alaska
v • e
State of Alaska
Juneau (capital)
Elections

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy

Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Redistricting_in_Alaska_after_the_2020_census&oldid=10354806"