Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

States miss key milestones as redistricting process lags

States miss key milestones as redistricting process lags

Maryland legislators, seen working on redistricting in December 2021, are under pressure to quickly approve a new congressional map.

Michael Robinson Chavez/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Update: Both chambers of the Republican-controlled Louisiana Legislature voted Wednesday to override Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards' veto of the congressional map. And the Maryland General Assembly, run by Democrats, approved a new map Wednesday, sending it to Republican Gov. Larry Hogan for his signature.

Ninety days into 2022, nearly a dozen states have yet to complete their congressional or legislative redistricting work. In three states, candidate filing deadlines have already passed without district maps being finalized.

Missouri has yet to complete its congressional map, while Montana and Ohio are still working on their state legislative maps. But candidates seeking office in those states already filed paperwork to get on primary ballots, meaning the districts they intend to represent are not necessarily defined.

Candidates in eight other states have a bit more time, with filing deadlines coming up in the next four months.


Missouri’s filing deadline was Tuesday. State law only requires candidates to live in Missouri and not the district they are seeking to represent. So while candidates could look at proposed maps and predict which district would be the most appropriate, there remains the possibility they could represent someplace that does not include their residence.

Lawmakers have been working on the congressional map for months, and the state House had approved a version that would likely retain the current partisan makeup (six seats held by Republicans, two by Democrats). But after the state Senate pushed through a version that might shift another district to the GOP, House members said they needed time to review the changes.

The primary is scheduled for Aug. 2.

Ohio, which required legislative candidates to file by Feb. 2, tweaked a rule to make it easier to submit the required ballot petition given the uncertainty around district lines. Ohio’s legislative maps remain incomplete after the state Supreme Court rejected a third version of maps drawn by a partisan commission and approved by the Republican-controlled Legislature.

The state had intended to hold all of its primaries on May 3, but that will no longer happen. Election officials will proceed with the congressional primaries as planned, but a date has not yet been set for legislative primaries.

Further muddying the waters, Ohio’s congressional map has been challenged by Democrats but the state Supreme Court will not hear the case until after the May 3 primary.

"There is no reason to expedite this case. At this juncture, it is abundantly clear that this case will not be litigated prior to the 2022 primary election," wrote three Republican justices. according to the Columbus Dispatch.

In Montana, candidates filed their paperwork by March 14, for a June 7 primary even though the legislative maps have not been approved yet. The secretary of state’s office directed potential candidates to use the current maps to determine district boundaries when determining where to run.

Made with Flourish

The next deadline is just a few weeks away. People seeking office in Maryland must file by April 15, but congressional candidates are still waiting to see the final district lines.

On March 25, the state Supreme Court tossed out the approved congressional map, calling it an “extreme partisan gerrymander,” setting a deadline of March 30 for a new map. The rejected map would have solidified Democrats’ hold on seven of eight congressional districts and perhaps even have made the one GOP-leaning district vulnerable to a takeover.

The state Senate quickly approved a new map that would likely shift the balance so Republicans can win two districts. The state House has not yet voted on the new proposal.

The remaining states have more time to complete redistricting, but Florida and Wisconsin may need all the time they can get.

On Tuesday, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis vetoed a pair of congressional maps approved by his fellow Republicans in the Legislature after lawmakers sent him two options of their own design, rather than the one he recommended.

All three versions would likely increase the GOP majority in the delegation, but DeSantis’ map could also lead to two Black Democrats losing their seats.

The Legislature will return for a special session in April to try again. Candidate paperwork is due June 17.

Candidates in Wisconsin face an even tighter deadline. People seeking office must file by June 1, but the U.S. Supreme Court threw out the state legislative maps, saying the state Supreme Court did not do enough work to ensure the new maps complied with the Voting Rights Act.

The state court had approved a map crafted by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers but favorable to Republicans. An analysis by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel predicted the GOP would maintain margins similar to what it currently enjoys.

Louisiana (July 22 candidate filing deadline) and New Hampshire (June 10) also need to complete their congressional maps.

Kansas (June 1 filing deadline), New Hampshire (June 10) and Vermont (May 26) are still working on their state legislative maps.

Mississippi has not yet completed its legislative map, but it is not holding an election for the Legislature this year.


Read More

A person signing a piece of paper with other people around them.

Javon Jackson, center, was able to register to vote following passage of a 2019 Nevada law that restored voting rights to formerly incarcerated individuals.

The Nation Is Missing Millions of Voters Due to Lack of Rights for Former Felons

If you gathered every American with a prison record into one contiguous territory and admitted it to the union, you would create the 12th-largest state. It would be home to at least 7 million to 8 million people and hold a dozen votes in the Electoral College.

In a close presidential race, this hypothetical state of the formerly incarcerated could decide who wins the White House.

Keep ReadingShow less
People standing at voting booths.

The proposed SAVE Act and MEGA Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, risking the disenfranchisement of millions of eligible Americans.

Getty Images, EvgeniyShkolenko

The SAVE Act is a Solution in Search of A Problem

The federal government seems to be barreling toward a federal election power grab. Trump's State of the Union address called for the Senate to push through the SAVE Act, which has already passed the House, in the name of so-called "election integrity." And the SAVE Act isn’t the only such bill. Like the SAVE Act, the Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act—introduced in the House—would require voters to provide a document outlined in the Act that allegedly proves their U.S. citizenship. We’ve been down this road before in Texas, and spoiler alert: it was unworkable.

Both the SAVE and MEGA Acts would disenfranchise millions of eligible U.S. citizens without making our federal elections more secure. They seek to roll out a faulty federal voter registration system, despite the existing separate registration and voting process for state and local elections. And these Acts target a minuscule “problem”—but would unleash mass voter purges and confusion.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stickers with the words "I Voted Today."

Virginia is on its way to be the 19th jurisdiction to adopt the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, bringing the U.S. closer to electing presidents by the national popular vote.

Getty Images, EyeWolf

Virginia On The Path to Join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

NPVIC is an agreement among U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to the presidential ticket that wins the overall popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It is considered a pragmatic, voluntary state-based initiative because it aims to ensure the winner of the national popular vote wins the presidency without requiring a constitutional amendment, operating instead within the existing Electoral College framework by utilizing states' constitutional authority to appoint electors. If enough states join the NPVIC to reach a total of 270 electoral votes, the United States will effectively shift from a winner-take-all (WTA) regime to a national popular vote system for electing the President.

With Virginia's adoption, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will be adopted by eighteen states and the District of Columbia, collectively holding 222 electoral votes. The compact requires 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 total) to take effect. It currently needs forty-eight more electoral votes to become active.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less