On what basis is re-districting done, and what restrictions exist upon it?

[Jacobtm]

I'm a teenager, and I don't know a horrible lot about a horrible lot.

One of the things I don't know, is on what basis re-districting is done, and what laws exist to restrict or regulate it.

Who is the person/body that has the power to re-district a state's congressional districts?

What are the conditions that each congressional district must meet?

If a political party is in power and has redistricted unfairly, is there any way for protesters to achieve a reversal of the unfair redistricting, short of gaining more political representation? Something like a popular referendum, executive order, or court decision?

If someone like Tom DeLay had wanted to, could he have redistricted Texas so that all the Democratic areas were in one district, and then composed all the other districts of entirely Republican areas?

Thanks for any help,
Jacob

[Emsworth]

One of the things I don't know, is on what basis re-districting is done, and what laws exist to restrict or regulate it. [...]

What are the conditions each congressional district must meet

The Constitution impose any rules relating to redistricting. However, some restrictions have been imposed by Congress and the Supreme Court. The most important rule was established by the Supreme Court in Wesberry v. Sanders: congressional districts must be approximately equal in population.

By tradition, redistricting takes place once every ten years, after each Census. However, this is not a technical legal requirement; states can redistrict more often, if they so choose.

Gerrymandering for partisan purposes is legal. However, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 forbids racial gerrymandering (i.e., gerrymandering in order to reduce the electoral influence of any particular race).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Each state is entitled to redistrict using whatever method it chooses. In most states, the state legislature is responsible for conducting redistricting. In a few states (like New Jersey and Arizona), an independent bipartisan commission performs the redistricting process.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As far as I know, there is no way to undo an "unfair" redistricting plan. If the redistricting plan is based on racial gerrymandering, or if the new districts do not have approximately equal populations, then the plan can be challenged in the judiciary; otherwise, however, I don't believe that anything can really be done.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, in order to accomplish this plan, Texas would have to have one district (the Democratic district) with a very large population, and several other districts (Republican districts) with relatively small populations. This would violate the requirement imposed by the Supreme Court, that districts have approximately equal populations.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

In terms of Federal law (as opposed to court decisions) 2 U.S.C. 2c mandates single member districts, but that was passed after Wesberry v. Sanders, and possibly as a response.  Prior to that, at-large elections were legal as were hybrid district/at-large systems.  Federal law also had provisions for what to do if the state couldn't pass a redistricting plan, provisions that became moot once judges starting drawing districts if they weren't "constitutional".

[jimrtex]

I'm a teenager, and I don't know a horrible lot about a horrible lot.

One of the things I don't know, is on what basis re-districting is done, and what laws exist to restrict or regulate it.

Who is the person/body that has the power to re-district a state's congressional districts?

What are the conditions that each congressional district must meet?

If a political party is in power and has redistricted unfairly, is there any way for protesters to achieve a reversal of the unfair redistricting, short of gaining more political representation? Something like a popular referendum, executive order, or court decision?

If someone like Tom DeLay had wanted to, could he have redistricted Texas so that all the Democratic areas were in one district, and then composed all the other districts of entirely Republican areas?

The Constitution (Article I, Section 4) gives the states the authority to prescribe the manner in which representatives are elected, but gives Congress the authority to override the state regulations.  Congress has done so, by requiring that representatives be elected from districts.  Congress could itself impose congressional districts, or provide that a federal agency perform the redistricting, but has not done so.

In the absence of Congressional direction, the power to re-district resides in the legislative authority of each state (which consists of the legislature and the executive (eg. the governor's veto power).  The legislatures in some cases, have delegated this authority to redistricting agencies.  In the case where the legislature has failed to act, the state courts can step in; and when the states have failed to act, the federal courts can step in.

Since the 1960s, the US Supreme Court has ruled that congressional districts have equal population.  At the present, this is interpreted to mean that a variation of one person is expected.  The exception is where a state can show that a small variation would support an important state purpose.  One example is when district boundaries follow county boundaries, because elections are often administered by county governments.   But rather than permitting more variation if county boundaries are used, it is more that there can be very little variation despite the use of county boundaries.

The other important requirement is compliance with the Voting Rights Act.  Basically, districts can not be drawn in a way that discriminates against racial or ethnic minorities.  The general rule is that you can not reduce the number of districts where a cohesively voting minority group has the opportunity to elect the candidate of their choice.

There have been court cases dealing with partisan redistricting, but the Supreme Court has failed to come up standards that legislators and lower courts could apply consistently.  Elections and legislatures are inherently partisan, and thus any redistricting plan would expectedly recognize the interests, partisan and otherwise, of those doing in the drawing.

If you are doing a partisan gerrymander, what you generally want to do is pack your opponents into as few districts as possible, while giving your party as many safe, but not overwhelming majorities.  For example, let's say that Party A has support of 48% of the voters, while Party B has support of the 52% of the voters, Party A would prefer 7 districts where they had 60%:40% support, and 3 districts where they had 20%:80% support.  That is they could win 7 of 10 seats most of the time while there are 3 seats where they won't even bother running a candidate.

This is what Martin Frost and the Texas Democrats did in the 1990s Texas redistricting.  When this was challenged in court as a partisan gerrymander, the state in its defense claimed that it was a deliberate racial gerrymander in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act.  When the redistricting plan was later challenged as a racial gerrymander, it was overthrown in part because of this earlier defense where the state claimed that they had assigned voters to congressional districts by race.

[jimrtex]

In terms of Federal law (as opposed to court decisions) 2 U.S.C. 2c mandates single member districts, but that was passed after Wesberry v. Sanders, and possibly as a response.  Prior to that, at-large elections were legal as were hybrid district/at-large systems.  Federal law also had provisions for what to do if the state couldn't pass a redistricting plan, provisions that became moot once judges starting drawing districts if they weren't "constitutional".

Single member districts have been mandated by Congress since the 1840s, but there have been some loopholes.  For example, if a state had always elected its reprsentatives at large, it could continue to do so.  Also, after a re-apportionment, it could elect any additional representatives at large, until the legislature had an opportunity to redistrict.  If a state lost representatives such that it had fewer representatives than districts, it could elect all its representative at large until a redistricting plan was approved. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Exactly, and there were times when redistricting simply wasn't done at the state level.  It wasn't until 2 U.S.C. 2c was passed that the option of simply keeping the old plan despite a change in the number of seats was taken off the table.

[jimrtex]

Exactly, and there were times when redistricting simply wasn't done at the state level.  It wasn't until 2 U.S.C. 2c was passed that the option of simply keeping the old plan despite a change in the number of seats was taken off the table.

Not so much an option, but a high level of forbearance.  States that elected representatives at large for long periods of time were the exception.  More typically, states redistricted immediately after a reapportionment, or at least within the decade.

25 states gained representation in 1912, and none lost any.  By 1920 (first election for which Clerk of HoR has results), 23 were electing all representatives by district.  The holdouts who elected the added representatives at large were Illinois and Pennsylvania.  Pennsylvania switched in 1922 (no national reapportionment following 1920 census), and Illinois held out through the decade.

Following the 1930 census, 20 states lost representation.  In 1932, 15 reduced the number of districts, and 5 states elected all representative at large (Kentucky (9), Minnesota (9), Missouri (13), North Dakota (2), and Virginia (9).  Also, Vermont lost its 2nd representative, and elected its sole representative at large.  11 states, gained representation.   6 elected the extra representatives at large (Connecticut, Florida, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Texas), while 5 redistricted.  In addition, Illinois, which retained the same number of representatives, continued to elect two that it gained in 1912, at large.

By 1934, 4 of the 5 states that had lost representation in 1932 had redistricticted.  North Dakota continued to elect its 2 representatives at large until 1962.   Of the 7 gainers, 2 redistricted (Texas in 1934) and Florida in 1936), while the other 5 continued to elect some at large representatives.

In 1942, 9 states lost representation.  3 of them, Illinois, Ohio, and Oklahoma, had previously elected at large representatives.  Illinois and Ohio, maintained the number of districts, while reducing the number of at large representatives from 2 to 1.  Oklahoma dropped its single at large representative.  5 other states that lost representation, redistricted by 1942, and Pennsylvania apparently switched from 34 by district, to 32 district plus one at large (it had 32 districts before 1922, when it elected 4 at large).

Pennsylvania (1944) and Illinois (1946) switched to all district representatives, leaving Ohio (which elected a previous gained representative at large) as the only holdouts throughout the decade.

In 1942, 7 states gained representation, and 4 redistricted before the election, leaving Arizona, New Mexico, and Florida to elect one representative at large.  Connecticut and New York continued to elect previously gained representatives at large.

Florida (1944), New York (1944), and Arizona (1948) switched to districts.  New Mexico continued to elect its two representatives at large from 1942 to 1966, while Connecticut used a 5+1 plan from 1932 to 1962.

In 1952, 9 states lost representation and all redistricted before the first election.  In addition, Ohio, which had previously elected at large representative after gaining two and losing one switched to all district elections.  North Dakota, continued to elect 2 representatives at large throughout the decaded.

In 1952, 7 states gained representation, and 5 redistricted before the first election.  The other 2 gainers, Texas and Washington redistricted in 1958, after electing an at large representative for 3 elections.  Conecticut and New Mexico continued to elected previously gained representatives throughout the decade.

In 1962, 17 states lost representation.  All but Alabama redistricted before the first election.  Alabama became the last state to elect a large number of representatives ( at large, before redistricting in 1964.  In addition, North Dakota a previous at large holdover divided into 2 districts for 1962.

In 1962, 9 states gained representation, 4 of which redistricted before the election.  In addition there were two holdover gainers from the past.

Connecticut (1964), Michigan (1964), Maryland (1966), Ohio (1966), and Texas (1966) redistricted during the decade.  2 USC 2c was passed in 1967, and New Mexico redistricted for 1968.  Hawaii was the last holdout for an at large election, not districting until 1970 (2 USC 2c provided an exception for the 91st Congress - elected in 1968 - that permitted states that had always elected its representatives at large to do so for that one final time.