What states allow mid-decade redistricting?

[ProgressiveModerate]

List I know do:

Georgia
North Carolina
Ohio (sorta, the current map only lasts 4 years but also a full commission via ballot initiatives could also redraw
Texas, but basically everyone in state government needs to sign off on it. If Rs feel their majorities are at risk they could redraw

The reason I ask is because there’s a good chance certain states partisan control will flip and also that if a gerrymander starts to backfire, the majority can just redraw as needed.

[ProgressiveModerate]

In Pennsylvania redoing the legislative lines without court order is prohibited but surprisingly there's nothing similar for the congressional lines.

Same thing goes for New Hampshire actually.

I guess this is a normal thing actually according to redistricting.lls.edu;  Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin all have the same policy - State Legislative mid-decade redistricting isn't allowed (without court order), Congressional mid-decade redistricting is allowed.

It would seem Minnesota does actually ban both the redrawing of Legislative and Congressional lines mid-decade, but it seems this isn't all that clear and probably has never been attempted-

Minnesota ties the drawing of congressional and state legislative lines to the Census, and might therefore be construed to prohibit redrawing lines mid-decade. [Minn. Const. art. IV, § 3]

https://redistricting.lls.edu/state/minnesota/?cycle=2020&level=Congress&startdate=2022-02-15

Those are probably all the non-commission states besides the ones listed in the OP that could flip this decade to a new trifecta.

Honestly the thing I worry about more is a party redrawing as soon as a map begins to backfire. Like an ever evolving gerrymander

At least right now gerrymandering is somewhat of a risk; your map could backfire badly,  it if mid-decade redraws become normalized to just keep fine-tuning a map as needed that’d be quite sick. If Dems were smart they should pass a ban on mid-decade map redraws with the exception of courts mandating it.

[ProgressiveModerate]

In Pennsylvania redoing the legislative lines without court order is prohibited but surprisingly there's nothing similar for the congressional lines.

Same thing goes for New Hampshire actually.

I guess this is a normal thing actually according to redistricting.lls.edu;  Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin all have the same policy - State Legislative mid-decade redistricting isn't allowed (without court order), Congressional mid-decade redistricting is allowed.

It would seem Minnesota does actually ban both the redrawing of Legislative and Congressional lines mid-decade, but it seems this isn't all that clear and probably has never been attempted-

Minnesota ties the drawing of congressional and state legislative lines to the Census, and might therefore be construed to prohibit redrawing lines mid-decade. [Minn. Const. art. IV, § 3]

https://redistricting.lls.edu/state/minnesota/?cycle=2020&level=Congress&startdate=2022-02-15

Those are probably all the non-commission states besides the ones listed in the OP that could flip this decade to a new trifecta.

Honestly the thing I worry about more is a party redrawing as soon as a map begins to backfire. Like an ever evolving gerrymander

At least right now gerrymandering is somewhat of a risk; your map could backfire badly,  it if mid-decade redraws become normalized to just keep fine-tuning a map as needed that’d be quite sick. If Dems were smart they should pass a ban on mid-decade map redraws with the exception of courts mandating it.

1. What states do the Dems control that they might lose the entire trifecta to the Pubs that would make that ban wise?

2. What would prevent a new Pub trifecta from repealing the ban?

3. It seems to me to make it work one would need the ban in the state constitution, and even then in the next few months SCOTUS for CD's might well remove state supreme courts from the picture.

4. In the end it seems resistance is futile, given that the toxic animus between the parties has reached the point that the gloves are completely off, and anything goes to extract every possible partisan advantage, no matter how repulsive and unfair.

1. PA would likely be the most notable. Tbh a GOP gerry of WI wouldn’t change much.

2. In PA the State Supreme Court leans left and is likely to for the first half of the decade

3. If SCOTUS actually goes full ISL, I would argue that would be more hackish of a decision than overturning Roe or other event controversial decisions because by any metric it allows unlimited power grabbing and SCOTUS knows that. However unless they make some weird carveout ISL would likely favor Dems rn cause they’d get to redraw states like CA and WA and I don’t think they’d be shy about it

4. Yeah this is why we NEED a federal gerrymandering ban ASAP. I wish Democrats would try to pass it in a less ambitious package and possibly just by itself, but ofc they won’t. However, the real villains here are the gop who will not support a gerrymandering ban under any circumstance (even if it helped them given what they’re doing with ISL)

[ProgressiveModerate]

In Pennsylvania redoing the legislative lines without court order is prohibited but surprisingly there's nothing similar for the congressional lines.

Same thing goes for New Hampshire actually.

I guess this is a normal thing actually according to redistricting.lls.edu;  Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin all have the same policy - State Legislative mid-decade redistricting isn't allowed (without court order), Congressional mid-decade redistricting is allowed.

It would seem Minnesota does actually ban both the redrawing of Legislative and Congressional lines mid-decade, but it seems this isn't all that clear and probably has never been attempted-

Minnesota ties the drawing of congressional and state legislative lines to the Census, and might therefore be construed to prohibit redrawing lines mid-decade. [Minn. Const. art. IV, § 3]

https://redistricting.lls.edu/state/minnesota/?cycle=2020&level=Congress&startdate=2022-02-15

Those are probably all the non-commission states besides the ones listed in the OP that could flip this decade to a new trifecta.

Honestly the thing I worry about more is a party redrawing as soon as a map begins to backfire. Like an ever evolving gerrymander

At least right now gerrymandering is somewhat of a risk; your map could backfire badly,  it if mid-decade redraws become normalized to just keep fine-tuning a map as needed that’d be quite sick. If Dems were smart they should pass a ban on mid-decade map redraws with the exception of courts mandating it.

1. What states do the Dems control that they might lose the entire trifecta to the Pubs that would make that ban wise?

2. What would prevent a new Pub trifecta from repealing the ban?

3. It seems to me to make it work one would need the ban in the state constitution, and even then in the next few months SCOTUS for CD's might well remove state supreme courts from the picture.

4. In the end it seems resistance is futile, given that the toxic animus between the parties has reached the point that the gloves are completely off, and anything goes to extract every possible partisan advantage, no matter how repulsive and unfair.

1. PA would likely be the most notable. Tbh a GOP gerry of WI wouldn’t change much.

2. In PA the State Supreme Court leans left and is likely to for the first half of the decade

3. If SCOTUS actually goes full ISL, I would argue that would be more hackish of a decision than overturning Roe or other event controversial decisions because by any metric it allows unlimited power grabbing and SCOTUS knows that. However unless they make some weird carveout ISL would likely favor Dems rn cause they’d get to redraw states like CA and WA and I don’t think they’d be shy about it

4. Yeah this is why we NEED a federal gerrymandering ban ASAP. I wish Democrats would try to pass it in a less ambitious package and possibly just by itself, but ofc they won’t. However, the real villains here are the gop who will not support a gerrymandering ban under any circumstance (even if it helped them given what they’re doing with ISL)

If SCOTUS embraces ISLT (and I think the odds of that are considerably more than negligible), then a federal statute banning gerrymandering for CD's would be unconstitutional, and it might be unconstitutional on other grounds as to a ban of gerrymandering for state legislatures.

To add to the mess nobody can agree within very wide parameters as to what is a fair map,  and the metrics it entails, and academics have come up with flawed metrics that tend to screw the Pubs at the margins given current voting patterns, which the Pubs given their lack of intellectual fire power these days, have not fully understood, although they sense something is rotten in Denmark the way special master academics do their jobs.

So there is no easy way out of the box on this, as is the case on so many other issues, Putin, global warming, globalization, class and cultural tensions, you name it. And we have a political class ever less qualified to deal with much of this, given their respective bases. That is my point of view anyway. On my way out, I have become a glass is half empty downer sort of guy as to the prospects of the public square. It's sad, I know.

The ultimate way out of the box as to this issue is to go to a proportional system ala Germany (you have districts, but the division of the spoils is then equalized with proportionality based on overall percentages of the votes, a system I very much like actually). All we need is a Constitutional amendment to get there. Piece of cake, not, that as well, obviously.

Would it though? I really doubt SCOTUS would just upfront say nothing having to do with elections can ever be governed at the federal level, and even if they did, Dems would likely have the votes to do "court reform" anyways. It's congress's authority to pass laws as they see fit, and while I'm not a scholar I'm not sure what part of the constitution an anti-gerrymandering bill would violate (rmbr though anti gerrymandering legislation can be written in many ways by forcing every state to establish a commission, creating a federal commission, or just putting out basic metrics maps must follow in terms of county splitting, compactness, and partisan fairness.

[ProgressiveModerate]

In Pennsylvania redoing the legislative lines without court order is prohibited but surprisingly there's nothing similar for the congressional lines.

Same thing goes for New Hampshire actually.

I guess this is a normal thing actually according to redistricting.lls.edu;  Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin all have the same policy - State Legislative mid-decade redistricting isn't allowed (without court order), Congressional mid-decade redistricting is allowed.

It would seem Minnesota does actually ban both the redrawing of Legislative and Congressional lines mid-decade, but it seems this isn't all that clear and probably has never been attempted-

Minnesota ties the drawing of congressional and state legislative lines to the Census, and might therefore be construed to prohibit redrawing lines mid-decade. [Minn. Const. art. IV, § 3]

https://redistricting.lls.edu/state/minnesota/?cycle=2020&level=Congress&startdate=2022-02-15

Those are probably all the non-commission states besides the ones listed in the OP that could flip this decade to a new trifecta.

Honestly the thing I worry about more is a party redrawing as soon as a map begins to backfire. Like an ever evolving gerrymander

At least right now gerrymandering is somewhat of a risk; your map could backfire badly,  it if mid-decade redraws become normalized to just keep fine-tuning a map as needed that’d be quite sick. If Dems were smart they should pass a ban on mid-decade map redraws with the exception of courts mandating it.

1. What states do the Dems control that they might lose the entire trifecta to the Pubs that would make that ban wise?

2. What would prevent a new Pub trifecta from repealing the ban?

3. It seems to me to make it work one would need the ban in the state constitution, and even then in the next few months SCOTUS for CD's might well remove state supreme courts from the picture.

4. In the end it seems resistance is futile, given that the toxic animus between the parties has reached the point that the gloves are completely off, and anything goes to extract every possible partisan advantage, no matter how repulsive and unfair.

1. PA would likely be the most notable. Tbh a GOP gerry of WI wouldn’t change much.

2. In PA the State Supreme Court leans left and is likely to for the first half of the decade

3. If SCOTUS actually goes full ISL, I would argue that would be more hackish of a decision than overturning Roe or other event controversial decisions because by any metric it allows unlimited power grabbing and SCOTUS knows that. However unless they make some weird carveout ISL would likely favor Dems rn cause they’d get to redraw states like CA and WA and I don’t think they’d be shy about it

4. Yeah this is why we NEED a federal gerrymandering ban ASAP. I wish Democrats would try to pass it in a less ambitious package and possibly just by itself, but ofc they won’t. However, the real villains here are the gop who will not support a gerrymandering ban under any circumstance (even if it helped them given what they’re doing with ISL)

If SCOTUS embraces ISLT (and I think the odds of that are considerably more than negligible), then a federal statute banning gerrymandering for CD's would be unconstitutional, and it might be unconstitutional on other grounds as to a ban of gerrymandering for state legislatures.

To add to the mess nobody can agree within very wide parameters as to what is a fair map,  and the metrics it entails, and academics have come up with flawed metrics that tend to screw the Pubs at the margins given current voting patterns, which the Pubs given their lack of intellectual fire power these days, have not fully understood, although they sense something is rotten in Denmark the way special master academics do their jobs.

So there is no easy way out of the box on this, as is the case on so many other issues, Putin, global warming, globalization, class and cultural tensions, you name it. And we have a political class ever less qualified to deal with much of this, given their respective bases. That is my point of view anyway. On my way out, I have become a glass is half empty downer sort of guy as to the prospects of the public square. It's sad, I know.

The ultimate way out of the box as to this issue is to go to a proportional system ala Germany (you have districts, but the division of the spoils is then equalized with proportionality based on overall percentages of the votes, a system I very much like actually). All we need is a Constitutional amendment to get there. Piece of cake, not, that as well, obviously.

Would it though? I really doubt SCOTUS would just upfront say nothing having to do with elections can ever be governed at the federal level, and even if they did, Dems would likely have the votes to do "court reform" anyways. It's congress's authority to pass laws as they see fit, and while I'm not a scholar I'm not sure what part of the constitution an anti-gerrymandering bill would violate (rmbr though anti gerrymandering legislation can be written in many ways by forcing every state to establish a commission, creating a federal commission, or just putting out basic metrics maps must follow in terms of county splitting, compactness, and partisan fairness.

Sorry, Congress is not the state's legislature, so that bounces both state courts and Congress and federal courts. It is a very exclusive club.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_state_legislature_theory

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/independent-state-legislature-theory-explained

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/stake-supreme-court-battle-controversial-legal-theory-controls/story?id=88861468

This is why ISL is just awful. If basically gives absolute power to state legislatures and makes it difficult for courts to address problems or overreach. It also increases the power of SCOTUS.

[ProgressiveModerate]

In Pennsylvania redoing the legislative lines without court order is prohibited but surprisingly there's nothing similar for the congressional lines.

Same thing goes for New Hampshire actually.

I guess this is a normal thing actually according to redistricting.lls.edu;  Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin all have the same policy - State Legislative mid-decade redistricting isn't allowed (without court order), Congressional mid-decade redistricting is allowed.

It would seem Minnesota does actually ban both the redrawing of Legislative and Congressional lines mid-decade, but it seems this isn't all that clear and probably has never been attempted-

Minnesota ties the drawing of congressional and state legislative lines to the Census, and might therefore be construed to prohibit redrawing lines mid-decade. [Minn. Const. art. IV, § 3]

https://redistricting.lls.edu/state/minnesota/?cycle=2020&level=Congress&startdate=2022-02-15

Those are probably all the non-commission states besides the ones listed in the OP that could flip this decade to a new trifecta.

Honestly the thing I worry about more is a party redrawing as soon as a map begins to backfire. Like an ever evolving gerrymander

At least right now gerrymandering is somewhat of a risk; your map could backfire badly,  it if mid-decade redraws become normalized to just keep fine-tuning a map as needed that’d be quite sick. If Dems were smart they should pass a ban on mid-decade map redraws with the exception of courts mandating it.

1. What states do the Dems control that they might lose the entire trifecta to the Pubs that would make that ban wise?

2. What would prevent a new Pub trifecta from repealing the ban?

3. It seems to me to make it work one would need the ban in the state constitution, and even then in the next few months SCOTUS for CD's might well remove state supreme courts from the picture.

4. In the end it seems resistance is futile, given that the toxic animus between the parties has reached the point that the gloves are completely off, and anything goes to extract every possible partisan advantage, no matter how repulsive and unfair.

1. PA would likely be the most notable. Tbh a GOP gerry of WI wouldn’t change much.

2. In PA the State Supreme Court leans left and is likely to for the first half of the decade

3. If SCOTUS actually goes full ISL, I would argue that would be more hackish of a decision than overturning Roe or other event controversial decisions because by any metric it allows unlimited power grabbing and SCOTUS knows that. However unless they make some weird carveout ISL would likely favor Dems rn cause they’d get to redraw states like CA and WA and I don’t think they’d be shy about it

4. Yeah this is why we NEED a federal gerrymandering ban ASAP. I wish Democrats would try to pass it in a less ambitious package and possibly just by itself, but ofc they won’t. However, the real villains here are the gop who will not support a gerrymandering ban under any circumstance (even if it helped them given what they’re doing with ISL)

If SCOTUS embraces ISLT (and I think the odds of that are considerably more than negligible), then a federal statute banning gerrymandering for CD's would be unconstitutional, and it might be unconstitutional on other grounds as to a ban of gerrymandering for state legislatures.

To add to the mess nobody can agree within very wide parameters as to what is a fair map,  and the metrics it entails, and academics have come up with flawed metrics that tend to screw the Pubs at the margins given current voting patterns, which the Pubs given their lack of intellectual fire power these days, have not fully understood, although they sense something is rotten in Denmark the way special master academics do their jobs.

So there is no easy way out of the box on this, as is the case on so many other issues, Putin, global warming, globalization, class and cultural tensions, you name it. And we have a political class ever less qualified to deal with much of this, given their respective bases. That is my point of view anyway. On my way out, I have become a glass is half empty downer sort of guy as to the prospects of the public square. It's sad, I know.

The ultimate way out of the box as to this issue is to go to a proportional system ala Germany (you have districts, but the division of the spoils is then equalized with proportionality based on overall percentages of the votes, a system I very much like actually). All we need is a Constitutional amendment to get there. Piece of cake, not, that as well, obviously.

Would it though? I really doubt SCOTUS would just upfront say nothing having to do with elections can ever be governed at the federal level, and even if they did, Dems would likely have the votes to do "court reform" anyways. It's congress's authority to pass laws as they see fit, and while I'm not a scholar I'm not sure what part of the constitution an anti-gerrymandering bill would violate (rmbr though anti gerrymandering legislation can be written in many ways by forcing every state to establish a commission, creating a federal commission, or just putting out basic metrics maps must follow in terms of county splitting, compactness, and partisan fairness.

Sorry, Congress is not the state's legislature, so that bounces both state courts and Congress and federal courts. It is a very exclusive club.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_state_legislature_theory

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/independent-state-legislature-theory-explained

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/stake-supreme-court-battle-controversial-legal-theory-controls/story?id=88861468

This is why ISL is just awful. If basically gives absolute power to state legislatures and makes it difficult for courts to address problems or overreach. It also increases the power of SCOTUS.

I think Congress can still override even under the strictest form of ISL where governors can't veto and voter initiatives pertaining to federal elections are invalid?  For example, Congress has set the date on which federal elections will be held.  I don't think a state could just unilaterally move it to the summer or something. 

In practice, the more likely outcome is a limited ISL where state courts can't intervene based on vague, general language, but can intervene if the issue is spelled out in the state constitution.  This would preserve commissions and voter initiatives and gubernatorial vetoes, but it would block state courts from using a state constitutional guarantee of free elections or free expression or equal protection to strike down a map. 

That would also conveniently preserve the court map in NY and the commissions on the West Coast while giving free reign back to the legislatures in NC and PA (if Mastriano wins).  I think the MD decision was also based on general language, so presumably that would also go back to the legislature, but in practice, the MD map is small potatoes. 

That's grand, and even admirable from a policy perspective perhaps. Pity that its nexus with the underlying text is so attenuated. We shall see.

I actually think that that’s how the court will rule, too. It’s no more attenuated from the text of the Constitution than the ability of Congress to delegate its rulemaking authority to regulatory agencies, really. If the state legislatures pass laws or amendments delegating their power over redistricting to commissions or the courts, that likely passes muster.

I do wonder if the redistricting commissions that don't involve legislators at all could also be at risk?  The Roberts dissent in the Arizona IRC case suggests that as long as the process still involves the legislature, it's fine to bring other people into it or add complications to the process (the governor's veto in one old case and a referendum vote striking down a map and sending it back to the legislature to redraw in another).  Presumably, that would be enough to save the NJ, VA, MT, ID, and WA commissions because they have state legislators on them.  In IA and NY, the legislature gets to approve or disapprove, so that should be fine, too.  The FL rules imposed by referendum should also be fine because the legislature still draws.

However, Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Michigan do seem to be at risk as unconstitutional delegation/usurpation of state legislative power, because the legislature truly has no say in what those commissions draw.  In California and Michigan, the legislature explicitly voted to create the I&R process and put it on the ballot, so that could potentially be argued to be consent, but could they have reasonably anticipated it would be used to cut them out of congressional redistricting ~100 years later?  Arizona and Hawaii did it through constitutional conventions that, as far as I understand, the legislature never officially approved.

Can't redistricting commissions also be repealed by refferndums?