Redistricting is the process of redrawing electoral district boundaries in the United States. It occurs every 10 years after the census to reflect changes in population and ensure districts contain roughly equal populations. Redistricting is important because it directly impacts political representation and control in Congress and state legislatures. With the stakes so high, an ongoing debate exists over who should control the redistricting process.
Who controls redistricting currently?
Currently, most states give control of redistricting to the state legislature. This means the elected representatives in each state are tasked with redrawing district maps for Congress and their own state districts. In addition, some states utilize redistricting commissions to handle the map drawing process. These commissions can be fully independent bodies, or they may include a mix of legislators and citizens.
As of 2022, the redistricting process is controlled in the following ways for each state:
| Method of Control | Number of States |
|---|---|
| State Legislature | 24 |
| Independent Commission | 8 |
| Politician Commission | 7 |
| Court-Drawn | 6 |
| Advisory Commission | 5 |
So in the majority of states, the state legislature is fully in charge of redrawing district lines. There has been a trend towards more independent commissions handling redistricting to try and reduce partisan gerrymandering, but state politicians still dominate the process in most areas.
What are the pros and cons of legislative control?
There are a few main advantages and disadvantages to having state legislatures control redistricting:
Pros:
- Accountability – Legislators are elected officials, so there is direct accountability to voters.
- Familiarity – Lawmakers know their states and constituents well.
- Efficiency – Legislative redistricting allows quick map drawing versus waiting for commission.
Cons:
- Partisanship – Critics argue lawmakers draw biased maps to benefit their party.
- Self-interest – Legislators may gerrymander their own district for re-election.
- Single party control – One party can abuse power if it controls the legislature.
So while legislators bring knowledge of their states to redistricting, many worry their inherent partisan interests and desire for self-preservation lead to gerrymandered maps.
What are independent commissions?
Independent redistricting commissions aim to make the map drawing process less political by using bipartisan panels or non-partisan citizens.
There are a few main types of independent commissions:
- Fully independent – Panel of citizens with balanced partisan makeup selected by non-partisan process.
- Bipartisan – Panel split between political party members to force compromise.
- Advisory – Non-binding recommendations to legislature on maps.
In theory, independent commissions can lead to fairer, non-partisan district maps. However, some still criticize that political parties try to influence these panels. There are also challenges in ensuring true non-partisanship.
What are the pros and cons of commissions?
Independent redistricting commissions have both advantages and disadvantages:
Pros:
- Less partisanship – Maps drawn by non-partisan or bipartisan groups.
- No self-interest – Panel members not worried about impact on own district.
- More impartial – Focus is on creating fair, competitive districts.
Cons:
- Lack of accountability – Commissioners not elected by people.
- Politicization – Parties still try to influence commissioners.
- Less local knowledge – Commissioners may be less familiar with communities.
While independent commissions help counter legislative self-interest, critics say they lack accountability. There are also ongoing debates about what truly makes a non-partisan redistricting panel.
Which states use commissions?
Currently, 13 states utilize some form of independent or bipartisan redistricting commission. Here are the states and their commission structures:
| State | Commission Structure |
|---|---|
| Alaska | 5 independents |
| Arizona | 2 Democrats, 2 Republicans, 1 independent chair |
| California | 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans, 4 independents |
| Colorado | 4 Democrats, 4 Republicans, 4 unaffiliated |
| Hawaii | Commission assists legislature |
| Idaho | 6 commissioners: 4 preferred party, 2 other party |
| Michigan | 4 Democrats, 4 Republicans, 5 independents |
| Missouri | 6 Democrats, 6 Republicans |
| Montana | 2 Democrats, 2 Republicans, 1 independent chair |
| New Jersey | 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans, 1 independent |
| New York | 7 Democrats, 7 Republicans, 2 independents |
| Ohio | 4 Democrats, 4 Republicans |
| Virginia | 8 citizens, 2 legislators |
| Washington | 2 Democrats, 2 Republicans, 1 non-voting chair |
Most commissions strive for partisan balance between Democrats and Republicans. A few states also include independents or unaffiliated members. Only Alaska and Virginia use fully citizen-run commissions.
Should redistricting be controlled nationally?
Some reform advocates argue redistricting should be taken out of the hands of partisan state actors entirely and handled by federal or national guidelines instead.
Potential national level solutions include:
- Federal standards on redistricting criteria to limit gerrymandering.
- Federal approval process for all district maps.
- National independent commission drawing all boundaries.
However, significant legal and political challenges exist to enacting redistricting reform at a national level.
Arguments against federal control include:
- States would resist losing their redistricting power.
- Hard to amend U.S. Constitution to change process.
- Challenge of establishing fair national guidelines or commission.
While national standards could reduce partisan abuses, this level of reform faces substantial barriers currently.
Conclusion
Redistricting authority sits predominantly with state legislatures today. This provides accountability but also enables partisan gerrymandering in many states. Independent commissions are on the rise as a reform effort, but they face critiques about less accountability. Some advocate for national guidelines or commissions to finally take redistricting out of political hands. But as politics remains involved, questions persist over who should control the critical process of drawing district lines.