Redistricting in States/Municipalities with Staggered Terms

[cinyc]

How do states or municipalities that stagger terms handle redistricting for those politicians who are otherwise ordinarily not up for reelection in the cycle following boundary changes.   Do all relevant politicians need to stand for election after the new map is drawn, do they automatically get drawn into a new district or do they represent their old district until the next election?  If they automatically represent the newly drawn district, what happens if their house happens not to be in that district?  Does staggering terms make it more difficult to draw someone out of a seat?

For example, Alaska State Senators are elected to 4-year terms.  Half are up for election each 2-year state cycle.  From looking at past results a while back, I don't think all State Senators  automatically had to run for election after the new map was drawn - but my recollection could be faulty.

[muon2]

It varies by state. Some states allow half the senators to serve their remaining term before standing for election in a new district in 2014. Districts are usually assigned based on the prior core area, and the residency requirement is waived for that period.

In IL there are three classes of senators. They serve a pattern of 4-4-2, 4-2-4, or 2-4-4 year terms. All will be up for election in 2012 in the new districts. IL also provides a grace period for residency at the time of redistricting:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

source - Illinois Constitution

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

In Minnesota the State Senate is elected to 4-year terms, but all are elected at once. Supposedly though after redistricting is the exception, so all will be up in 2012 even though they were just elected in 2010.

[Bacon King]

In Minnesota the State Senate is elected to 4-year terms, but all are elected at once. Supposedly though after redistricting is the exception, so all will be up in 2012 even though they were just elected in 2010.

That's correct, per Wikipedia.

[Bacon King]

Here's a list, compiled from Wikipedia State Senate pages.

reduced-length terms to accommodate census: AR, DE, FL, IL, MN, NJ

no reduced-length term: AL, CA, CO, HI, IN, KS, KY, LA, MD, MI, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NM, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY

In AK, the decision whether to hold all or half of State Senate seat elections two years after the census is at the discretion of the Alaska Redistricting Board. Other states that aren't listed elect their state senators to 2-year terms so the question is moot.

I have to say, it's a lot more awkward for states that don't elect all their Senators at the same time to not have reduced terms for the census. Then you'd have the two halves of the chamber representing portions of two different maps, no?

[Brittain33]

I recall that this causes a mess in Virginia, particularly when the Republicans redrew the senate map and a district in the inner Beltway jumped a big distance to the west. Who was the senator accountable to, her past voters or her new ones in a district she wouldn't run in?

[cinyc]

Here's a list, compiled from Wikipedia State Senate pages.

reduced-length terms to accommodate census: AR, DE, FL, IL, NJ

no reduced-length term: AL, CA, CO, HI, IN, KS, KY, LA, MD, MI, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NM, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY

In AK, the decision whether to hold all or half of State Senate seat elections two years after the census is at the discretion of the Alaska Redistricting Board. Other states that aren't listed elect their state senators to 2-year terms so the question is moot.

I have to say, it's a lot more awkward for states that don't elect all their Senators at the same time to not have reduced terms for the census. Then you'd have the two halves of the chamber representing portions of two different maps, no?

Thanks. 

Yeah - not having truncated terms leads either to a politician representing some new district residents who never had the opportunity to vote for or against him or her, or some people being double-represented by a new and old rep or not represented at all until the next cycle.

For those reasons, I would have thought more states would terminate staggered terms early - even though that creates a situation where the post-draw map would create the most-important election for a decade, defeating the purpose of having staggered terms - insulating some politicians from an immediate vote of the people, allowing them to take a longer-term view of things.  In theory.

[Bacon King]

Oh, forgot MN on my list. Didn't look it back up after confirming what BRTD said earlier.

Also, IIRC like half of the states that don't take the census into account elect the entire body every four years (so one decade everyone's up for reelection in two years anyway, but the next decade they keep old districts for four years). I should have probably separated that group of states from those that do staggered terms without accounting for the census, because that's where things get really weird.

[jimrtex]

Here's a list, compiled from Wikipedia State Senate pages.

reduced-length terms to accommodate census: AR, DE, FL, IL, MN, NJ

no reduced-length term: AL, CA, CO,HI, IN, KS, KY, LA, MD, MI, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NM, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY

In AK, the decision whether to hold all or half of State Senate seat elections two years after the census is at the discretion of the Alaska Redistricting Board. Other states that aren't listed elect their state senators to 2-year terms so the question is moot.

I have to say, it's a lot more awkward for states that don't elect all their Senators at the same time to not have reduced terms for the census. Then you'd have the two halves of the chamber representing portions of two different maps, no?

In Texas, all senators are elected after redistricting by the legislature.  When the senate meets, the senators draw lots to determine which will have a 2-year term, and which will have a 4-year term.  Therefore, half the districts will have 4-4-2 pattern and half will have a 2-4-4 pattern.

In 1991, the legislature redistricted itself, as well as producing the Frostrosity.  The legislative districts were challenged in a state district court in south Texas, and the court drew a plan that would have never made it through the legislature.  I think there was some connivance by the state not to appeal.  A federal district court overturned the state district court plan, on due process ground and drew its own map.

The governor at that time called a special session in 1992 and likened redistricting to hog butchering, and federal judges to infants in a high chair.  The senate plan did not get preclearance until late in the election year.  Initially, the SOS* wanted to let senators who had been nominated in District N-old to run in District N-new, even if they did not live in the district or it was in a different area of the state, or they could let the parties choose a new nominee.  Eventually, the 1992 election was held on the district boundaries drawn by the federal court in 1991.

*The SOS in 1992 later became a federal judge, and was one of those who drew the 2001 plan that preserved the boundaries from 1990s congressional redistricting.

The 1994 senate election used the lines drawn in the special session in 1992, and so all senators were elected, and after the election, senators drew for terms of 4-4 or 2-4-2.  One effect of the three 1990s redistricting plans was the doubling of election precincts in Harris County.

The boundaries drawn in the 1992 special session were found to violate the US constitution (this was contemporaneous with the Bush v Vera decision with regard to congressional redistricting).  The senators got an opinion from the Attorney General at the time, who would later be sent to federal prison, that if senators merely harrumphed and patted each others butts and indicated their assent, that new elections would not have to be held in the new districts, while if they actually passed the districts into law, they would (eg his interpretation was the constitutional provision was simply a mechanical procedure, and nothing to do with making sure all citizens had an opportunity to elect their senator, especially after there was a court decision that they had been denied that right).

As a consequence of that opinion, I was moved from a district that had an election in 1996 (and which the incumbent had resigned making it to an open seat) into a district which didn't have an election until 1998.  I discovered this when I was first getting on the internet and figured I would remember having voted in an election with Mario Gallegos as a candidate.  At the time, I decided there must be some provision that unopposed candidates not appear on the ballot.  In 2001, there were plans that would have placed me in one of 4 different senate districts.  SD-6 was not one of them.

Hawaii elects all of its senators after redistricting.  They determine which senators will be elected for an initial 2-year term in advance.  The way that they do this is to calculate the number of voters who had voted for a senator in the previous election (eg. for 2012, those who voted in 2010 for a senator for a final 2-year term), and assign those districts a 4-year term.

The idea is that voters should not vote for a senator in 2010, 2012, and 2014 (to the extent possible).

I seem to recall that in Pennsylvania there was a case where a senate district was eliminated in one part of the state and added in an entirely different area (SW PA to eastern PA?)  but the old senator continued to serve in the senate for another 2 years.

Washington continues 4-year terms.  It also has an odd distribution where the senate districts in the east are in general contested at one election (with the gubernatorial election) while those in the west are contested with the presidential elections.  The exceptions appear to be tied to districts that had been shifted to the west.  This does increase the chance that voters will not miss a chance to elect their senators.