Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Redistricting biases have been anything but consistent for 50 years

gerrymandering protest at Supreme Court

Demonstrators protest outside the Supreme Court in October 2017, as the court hears arguments against gerrymandering. The justices would eventually determine that partisan gerrymandering is not an issue for federal courts.

Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images

We have come to expect that certain states, in fact certain regions of the country, are permanently controlled by one party. Republicans in the South and Plains. Democrats on the West Coast and in the Northeast. But a review of historic redistricting data shows how control has shifted over the past five decades.

The Campaign Legal Center scored 50 years’ worth of congressional and state legislative district maps for partisan bias in the decennial redistricting process. And the results show some remarkable changes.


For example, the congressional maps for Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin have skewed heavily toward the Republicans since the post-2000 round of redistricting. But a review of maps dating back to 1972 shows that for many years those states’ plans actually favored the Democrats.

Likewise, in 1972, California had a slight lean toward Republicans but in the ensuing decades had been equally balanced until shifting toward the Democratic column in 2012. And the Texas maps favored Democrats for three decades before shifting right in 2012.

The CLC’s scoring found that while partisan gerrymandering continues to be a concern in many states, bias has not grown more severe in the latest cycle. In fact, CLC found that four Republican-dominated states – Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Virginia – shifted more toward balanced maps, with zero states on either side becoming more extreme.

Among the 43 states that have at least two representatives in the U.S. House, more than half (24) demonstrate some level of bias in their 2022 maps.

A number of factors impacted the redistricting process in unprecedented ways this cycle, explained Mark Gaber, senior director of redistricting for CLC.

“On the legal front, there’s two main decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court that had outsized influence on how this redistricting process unfolded,” he said.

The court’s ruling in the 2013 case Shelby County v. Holder tossed out the Voting Rights Act’s “preclearance” provision, which required states with a history of voting rights violations to get federal approval before changing election laws. And in 2019, the court ruled in Rucho v. Common Cause that federal courts have no standing to weigh in on partisan gerrymandering.

Other factors also impacted the process.

“One obvious one is Covid. That delayed the release of the census data and really truncated the process for redistricting, which is not great for public participation and transparency,” Gaber said “But on a more political level, there were more states that had split control of government, so there were fewer opportunities … for one-party control to dictate the outcome. And the other is the development and existence of independent redistricting commissions and other forms of bipartisan commission.”

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 10 states use redistricting commissions to draw congressional lines, but even those are not without bias. The new maps in Arizona, California, Michigan, New Jersey and Washington all slightly favor Democrats. The 2022 redistricting process in Colorado and Virginia favored the GOP. (No data was available for the new maps in Hawaii, Idaho and Montana.)

“There were more states with split control or Democratic control, I think, than in 2010 but nevertheless Republicans continued to control the process in more states,” said Chris Warshaw, an associate professor of political science at George Washington University.

The redistricting maps favor Republicans in 16 states, according to CLC’s data, whereas 11 states’ maps are skewed to the left. But those numbers have swung dramatically over the past 50 years.

In 1992, each party benefited from 10 maps. But in 1972, 13 maps were biased for Democrats, compared to just seven for Republicans.

The Campaign Legal Center’s PlanScore system grades maps on four criteria:

  • Efficiency gap, or cracking and packing a party’s supporters to undervalue certain people’s votes.
  • Partisan bias, which measures the difference between a party’s seat share and hypothetical tied election.
  • The difference between a party’s median vote share and its mean vote share.
  • Declination, which identifies partisan gerrymandering based on designed win/loss outcomes.

Read more about the data and the methodology.


Read More

Republican, Democratic and independent checkboxes, with the third one checked

Analysis of California’s open primary system, political reform, and voter empowerment amid gubernatorial tensions and calls to restore party control.

zimmytws/Getty Images

California Schemin’

Both before and after Eric Swalwell’s resignation, the California Gubernatorial race has partisan insiders screaming that California’s innovative, voter-friendly, open primary system should be scrapped. Why? Seven Democrats and two Republicans are running. If all the Democrats stay in the race, and none surges, there is a statistical possibility that the two Republicans advance to the general election.

The attacks are pure opportunism, from people who oppose open primaries, period. Never mind that seven million independent voters have been enfranchised and elections are much more competitive, according to these critics, the fact that the Gubernatorial race might feature two Republicans is absolute proof that the old system needs to be restored.

Keep ReadingShow less
Official ballots with a chain and lock over them, and the USA flag behind them.

The impact of election fraud claims and voting laws on democracy in the United States. Daniel O. Jamison examines voter suppression concerns, mail-in ballot policies, and the broader political struggle over election integrity.

Getty Images, JJ Gouin

If It Ain’t Broke, Don’t Fix It

For nearly ten years, claims that our elections are riddled with fraud have threatened the foundation of our democratic republic.

It is alleged that Democrats have flooded the country with illegal immigrants who then illegally vote for Democrats. Purportedly to protect the country from this, Republicans seek legislation that would, among other provisions, restrict vote-by-mail, require potentially expensive and onerous proof of citizenship to register to vote, and require potentially expensive photo identification to vote.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Fahey Q&A with Elizabeth Rasmussen

An in-depth interview with Elizabeth Rasmussen of Better Boundaries on Utah’s redistricting battle, Proposition 4, and the fight to protect ballot initiatives, fair maps, and democratic accountability.

The Fahey Q&A with Elizabeth Rasmussen

Since organizing the Voters Not Politicians 2018 ballot initiative that put citizens in charge of drawing Michigan's legislative maps, Fahey has been the founding executive director of The People, which is forming statewide networks to promote government accountability. She regularly interviews colleagues in the world of democracy reform for The Fulcrum.

Elizabeth Rasmussen is the Executive Director for Better Boundaries, a Utah-based organization fighting for fair maps, defending the citizen initiative process, preserving checks and balances, and building a better future. Currently making headlines in the state, Better Boundaries is working to protect Proposition 4, and with it, the rights of Utah voters.

Keep ReadingShow less
A sign that reads, "Voter Registration," hanging from the cieling, pointing to an office with the words, "Voter registration," above its doorway.

The voter registration office at the Nueces County Courthouse in Corpus Christi, Texas on Sept. 11, 2024. Voting rights groups are challenging the state's use of a federal database to check the citizenship status of people on the state's voter roll.

Gabriel Cárdenas for Votebeat

Voting Rights Groups Challenge Texas’ Removal of Potential Noncitizens From the Voter Roll

What happened?

Voting rights groups are suing the Texas Secretary of State’s Office and some county election officials to prevent the removal of voters from the state’s voter roll based on use of a federal database to verify citizenship. They also claim the state failed to crosscheck its own records for proof of citizenship it already possessed before seeking to remove voters.

Keep ReadingShow less