2010 Redistricting Criteria

Redistricting

When redistricting, state legislatures or redistricting commissions are provided certain criteria with which to draw the lines. These criteria are intended to make the districts easy to identify and understand, and to ensure fairness and consistency.

All states must comply with the federal constitutional requirements related to population and anti-discrimination. For congressional redistricting, the Apportionment Clause of Article I, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution requires that all districts be as nearly equal in population as practicable, which essentially means exactly equal. For state legislative districts, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires that districts be substantially equal. Some say that 10 percent deviation in population from one district to the next is a safe standard. However, that has not proven to be a guaranteed protection from court scrutiny or revision. Several states have provided for their own deviation standard. For instance, Colorado prohibits districts from having a population deviation above 5 percent (Colo. Const. Art. V, § 46).

In addition to population equality, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits plans that intentionally or inadvertently discriminate on the basis of race, which could dilute the minority vote.

In addition to these mandatory standards set out by the U.S Constitution and the Voting Rights Act, states are allowed to adopt their own redistricting criteria, or principles, for drawing the plans. Principles, or criteria, may be found in state constitutions or statutes or be adopted by a legislature, chamber, or committee, or by a court that is called upon to draw a plan when the legislative process fails.

These traditional districting principles (or criteria) have been adopted by many states:

Compactness: Having the minimum distance between all the parts of a constituency (a circle, square or a hexagon is the most compact district).
Contiguity: All parts of a district being connected at some point with the rest of the district.
Preservation of counties and other political subdivisions: This refers to not crossing county, city, or town, boundaries when drawing districts.
Preservation of communities of interest: Geographical areas, such as neighborhoods of a city or regions of a state, where the residents have common political interests that do not necessarily coincide with the boundaries of a political subdivision, such as a city or county.
Preservation of cores of prior districts: This refers to maintaining districts as previously drawn, to the extent possible. This leads to continuity of representation.
Avoiding pairing incumbents: This refers to avoiding districts that would create contests between incumbents.

These emerging criteria have been considered and adopted in a few states since 2000:

Prohibition on favoring or disfavoring an incumbent, candidate or party. The prohibition in a given state may be broader, covering any person or group, or it may be limited to intentionally or unduly favoring a person or group. Details on these prohibitions are included in the state descriptions below.
Prohibition on using partisan data: Line drawers, whether they be commissioners (California and Montana), nonpartisan staff (Iowa), or legislators (Nebraska), are prohibited from using incumbent residences, election results, party registration, or other socio-economic data as an input when redrawing districts.
Competitiveness: Districts having relatively even partisan balance, making competition between the two major parties more intense. This criterion typically seeks to avoid the creation of “safe” districts for a particular party. For instance, the Arizona constitution (cited below) states that “to the extent practicable, competitive districts should be favored where to do so would create no significant detriment to the other goals.”

This future criterion has been adopted by Ohio and Missouri for legislative districts beginning in 2021:

Proportionality: The statewide proportion of districts whose voters, based on statewide state and federal partisan general election results during the last ten years, favor each political party shall correspond closely to the statewide preferences of the voters.

For details on state-specific criteria relating to who may drawing plans, what data may be used and the review process, other than districting principles, see this chart.

State Redistricting Criteria
State	Legislative or Congressional	Criteria	Citation
Alabama	Legislative	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions, Preserve Communities of Interest Allowed: Avoid Pairing Incumbents	Ala. Const. Art. IX, §§ 198-200 Reapportionment Comm. Guidelines, May 2011
Alabama	Congressional	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions, Preserve Communities of Interest Allowed: Protection of Incumbents
Alaska	Legislative	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions, Preserve Communities of Interest	Alaska Const. Art. VI
Alaska	Congressional	Only one congressional district	Alaska Const. Art. VI
Arizona	Legislative	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions, Preserve Communities of Interest, Competitive Prohibited: Favor or Disfavor an Incumbent or Candidate, Use Partisan Data	Ariz. Const. Art. 4, pt. 2, § 1
Arizona	Congressional	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions, Preserve Communities of Interest, Competitive Prohibited: Favor or Disfavor an Incumbent or Candidate, Use Partisan Data	Ariz. Const. Art. 4, pt. 2, § 1
Arkansas	Legislative	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions, Preserve Communities of Interest, Preserve Cores of Prior Districts Allowed: Avoid Pairing Incumbents	Ark. Const. Art. 8 Redistricting Criteria Approved by the Courts, Ark. Bd. of Apportionment (last visited Mar. 19, 2018)
Arkansas	Congressional	Required: No requirements>
California	Legislative	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions, Preserve Communities of Interest Prohibited: Intentionally Favor or Disfavor an Incumbent, Candidate or Party; Use Partisan Data	Cal. Const. Art. 21, § 2
California	Congressional	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions, Preserve Communities of Interest Prohibited: Intentionally Favor or Disfavor an Incumbent, Candidate or Party; Use Partisan Data	Cal. Const. Art. 21, § 2
Colorado	Legislative	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions, Preserve Communities of Interest, Competitive Prohibited: Intentionally Favor or Disfavor an Incumbent, Candidate or Party	Colo. Const. art. V, §§ 46-48.3, as amended Nov. 6, 2018
Colorado	Congressional	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions, Preserve Communities of Interest, Competitive Prohibited: Intentionally Favor or Disfavor an Incumbent, Candidate or Party	Colo. Const. art. V, §§ 46-48.3, as amended Nov. 6, 2018
Connecticut	Legislative	Required: Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions	Conn. Const. Art. III, § 3, as amended by Article II, §1, and Article XV, §1, of the Amends. to the Const. of Conn.; Conn. Const. Art. III, § 4, as amended by Article II, §2, and Article XV, §2, of the Amends. to the Const. of Conn.; Conn. Const. Art. III, § 5, as amended by Article XVI, §1, of the Amends. to the Const. of Conn.
Connecticut	Congressional	Required: No Requirements
Delaware	Legislative	Required: Contiguous Prohibited: Unduly Favor a Person or Party	Del. Code tit. 29, § 804
Delaware	Congressional	Only one congressional district	Del. Code tit. 29, § 804
Florida	Legislative	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions Prohibited: Intentionally Favor or Disfavor a Party or Incumbent	Fla. Const. Art. III, §§ 20, 21
Florida	Congressional	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions Prohibited: Intentionally Favor or Disfavor a Party or Incumbent	Fla. Const. Art. III, §§ 20, 21
Georgia	Legislative	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions, Preserve Communities of Interest Allowed: Avoid Pairing Incumbents	Ga. Const. Art. III, § 2, Para. II 2011 Guidelines: House, Senate
Georgia	Congressional	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions, Preserve Communities of Interest Allowed: Avoid Pairing Incumbents
Hawaii	Legislative	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Communities of Interest Prohibited: Unduly Favor a Person or Party	Hawaii Const. Art. IV, § 6 Hawaii Rev. Stat. § 25-2(b) (1)-(6)
Hawaii	Congressional	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Communities of Interest Prohibited: Unduly Favor a Person or Party
Idaho	Legislative	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions, Preserve Communities of Interest Prohibited: Protect a Party or Incumbent	Idaho Const. Art. III, § 5 Idaho Code § 72-1506
Idaho	Congressional	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions, Preserve Communities of Interest Prohibited: Protect a Party or Incumbent	Idaho Const. Art. III, § 5 Idaho Code § 72-1506
Illinois	Legislative	Required: Compact, Contiguous	Ill. Const. Art. IV, § 3
	Congressional	Required: No Requirements	Ill. Const. Art. IV, § 3
Indiana	Legislative	Required: Contiguous	Ind. Const. Art. 4, § 5
Illinois	Congressional	Required: No Requirements	Ind. Const. Art. 4, § 5
Iowa	Legislative	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions Prohibited: Intentionally Favor a Party, Incumbent, Person or Group; Use Partisan Data	Iowa Const. Art. III, §§ 34 & 37 Iowa Code § 42.4
Iowa	Congressional	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions Prohibited: Intentionally Favor a Party, Incumbent, Person or Group; Use Partisan Data	Iowa Const. Art. III, §§ 34 & 37 Iowa Code § 42.4
Kansas	Legislative	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions, Preserve Communities of Interest, Avoid Pairing Incumbents	Kan. Const. Art. 10, § 1 Guidelines & Criteria for 2012 Kansas Cong. & Leg. Redistricting, Kansas Leg. Research Dept., Jan. 9, 2012
Kansas	Congressional	Required: Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions, Preserve Communities of Interest, Preserve Cores of Prior Districts
Kentucky	Legislative	Required: Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions	Ky. Const. § 33 Criteria & Standards for Cong. Redistricting, Interim Joint Comm. on State Government, Subcomm. on Redist., July 11, 1991
Kentucky	Congressional	Required: Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions, Preserve Communities of Interest
Louisiana	Legislative	Required: Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions, Preserve Cores of Prior Districts	La. Const. Art. III, § 6 Committee Rules for Redistricting, La. House Comm. on House and Gov’tal Affairs, Jan. 19, 2011 Committee Rules for Redistricting, La. Senate Comm. on Senate and Gov’tal Affairs, Feb. 16, 2011
Louisiana	Congressional	Required: Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions, Preserve Cores of Prior Districts
Maine	Legislative	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions	Me. Const. Art. IV, Part First, § 2 Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 21A, §§ 1206, 1206-A
	Congressional	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions
Maryland	Legislative	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions	Md. Const. Art. III, § 4;
Maine	Congressional	Required: No Requirements	Md. Const. Art. III, § 4;
Massachusetts	Legislative	Required: Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions	Mass. Const. Art. CI, as amended by Art. CIX
Massachusetts	Congressional	Required: No Requirements	Mass. Const. Art. CI, as amended by Art. CIX
Michigan	Legislative	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions, Preserve Communities of Interest, Preserve Cores of Prior Districts Prohibited: Intentionally Favor or Disfavor an Incumbent, Candidate or Party	Mich. Const. Art. IV, § 6, as amended Nov. 6, 2018 Mich. Comp. Laws §4.261a
Michigan	Congressional	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions, Preserve Communities of Interest Prohibited: Intentionally Favor or Disfavor an Incumbent, Candidate or Party
Minnesota	Legislative	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions, Preserve Communities of Interest Allowed: Avoid Pairing Incumbents Prohibited: Intentionally Favor or Disfavor Incumbent	Minn. Const. Art. IV, §§ 2-3 Minn. Stat. § 2.91 Order Stating Redistricting Principles & Requirements for Plan Submissions, Hippert v. Ritchie, No. A11-152 (Minn. Spec. Redist. Panel Nov. 4, 2011)
Minnesota	Congressional	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions, Preserve Communities of Interest
Mississippi	Legislative	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions	Miss. Code §5-3-101 Criteria for Leg. and Cong. Redist ., Standing Joint Leg. Comm. on Reapport. & Standing Joint Cong. Redist. Comm., Apr. 5, 2012 Analysis of Factors Considered, Smith v. Hoseman, No. 3:01-cv-855 (S.D. Miss., Dec. 19, 2011)
Mississippi	Congressional	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions, Preserve Communities of Interest Allowed: Avoid Pairing Incumbents
Missouri	Legislative	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions, Proportionality, Competitiveness	Mo. Const. art. III, § 7
Missouri	Congressional	Required: Compact, Contiguous	Mo. Const. art. III, § 7
Montana	Legislative	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions Prohibited: Intentionally Favor Party or Incumbent, Use Partisan Data (except as required by a court in drawing a remedy)	Mont. Const. Art. V, § 14 Mont. Code Ann. § 5-1-115 Congressional and Legislative Redistricting Criteria Districting & Apport. Commis., May 28, 2010
Montana	Congressional	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions Prohibited: Intentionally Favor Party or Incumbent, Use Partisan Data (except as required by a court in drawing a remedy)
Nebraska	Legislative	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions, Preserve Cores of Prior Districts Prohibited: Intentionally Favor Party, Group or Person; Use Partisan Data	Neb. Const. Art. III, § 5 Leg. Res. No. 102, Apr. 8, 2011
Nebraska	Congressional	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions, Preserve Cores of Prior Districts Prohibited: Protect Incumbent, Use of Partisan Data	Neb. Const. Art. III, § 5 Leg. Res. No. 102, Apr. 8, 2011
Nevada	Legislative	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions, Preserve Communities of Interest, Avoid Pairing Incumbents	Nev. Const. Art. 4, § 5 N.R.S. Ch. 304, App. Order Re: Redistricting, Guy v. Miller,No. 11-OC-42-1B (1st Jud. Dist., Carson City Sept. 21, 2011)
Nevada	Congressional	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions, Preserve Communities of Interest, Avoid Pairing Incumbents
New Hampshire	Legislative	Required: Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions	N.H. Const., Part Second, House of Representatives, Arts. 9, 11, 11-a N.H. Const., Part Second, Senate, Arts. 26, 26-a
New Hampshire	Congressional	Required: No Requirements
New Jersey	Legislative	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions	N.J. Const. Art. IV, § 2
New Jersey	Congressional	Required: No Requirements	N.J. Const. Art. IV, § 2
New Mexico	Legislative	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions, Preserve Communities of Interest Allowed: Preserve Cores of Prior Districts, Avoid Pairing Incumbents	N.M. Stat. Ann. § § 2-7C-3, 2-8D-2 Guidelines for the Development of State & Cong. Redistricting Plans, Legislative Council, Jan. 17, 2011
New Mexico	Congressional	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions, Preserve Communities of Interest Allowed: Preserve Cores of Prior Districts, Avoid Pairing Incumbents
New York	Legislative	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions, Preserve Communities of Interest, Preserve Cores of Prior Districts, Competitive Prohibited: Intentionally Favor or Disfavor Incumbent, Candidate or Party	N.Y. Const. Art. III, § 4 & 5
New York	Congressional	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions, Preserve Communities of Interest, Preserve Cores of Prior Districts, Competitive Prohibited: Intentionally Favor or Disfavor Incumbent, Candidate or Party	N.Y. Const. Art. III, § 4 & 5
North Carolina	Legislative	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions, Preserve Communities of Interest, Allowed: Avoid Pairing Incumbents, Use Partisan Data Prohibited: Use Racial Data	N.C. Const. Art. II, §§ 3 & 5 N.C. House and Senate Plans Criteria, Sen. Comm. on Redist. & House Select Comm. on Redist., Aug. 10, 2017 N.C. Congressional Plan Criteria, Joint Select Comm. on Congressional Redist., Feb. 16, 2016
North Carolina	Congressional	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions Allowed: Avoid Pairing Incumbents, Use Partisan Data Prohibited: Use Racial Data
North Dakota	Legislative	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions, Preserve Cores of Prior Districts	N.D. Const. Art. IV, § 2 N.D. Cent. Code § 54-03-01.5
North Dakota	Congressional	Only one congressional district	N.D. Const. Art. IV, § 2 N.D. Cent. Code § 54-03-01.5
Ohio	Legislative	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions, Preserve Cores of Prior Districts (until Jan.1, 2021), Proportional Prohibited: Favor an Incumbent or Party	Ohio Const. Art. XI, §§ 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11; Art. XIX, §§1, 2
Ohio	Congressional	<pRequired: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions</p Prohibited: Favor an Incumbent or Party
Oklahoma	Legislative	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions, Preserve Communities of Interest Allowed: Preserve Cores of Prior Districts, Avoid Pairing Incumbents	Okla. Const. Art. 5, § 9A 2011 Redistricting Comm. Guidelines for Redistricting, House Redist. Comm., Feb. 14, 2011
Oklahoma	Congressional	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions, Preserve Communities of Interest Allowed: Preserve Cores of Prior Districts, Avoid Pairing Incumbents
Oregon	Legislative	Required: Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions, Preserve Communities of Interest Prohibited: Intentionally Favor Party, Incumbent or Person	Or. Const. Art. IV, § 7 Or. Rev. Stat. § 188.010
Oregon	Congressional	Required: Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions, Preserve Communities of Interest Prohibited: Intentionally Favor Party, Incumbent or Person	Or. Const. Art. IV, § 7 Or. Rev. Stat. § 188.010
Pennsylvania	Legislative	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions	Penn. Const. Art. II, § 16 Order, League of Women Voters of Pa. v. Pa., No. 159 MM 2017 (Pa. Jan. 22, 2018)
Pennsylvania	Congressional	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions
Rhode Island	Legislative	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions	R.I. Const. Art. VII, § 1; Art. VIII, § 1 2011 R.I. Laws chs. 100, § 1; 106, § 1
Rhode Island	Congressional	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions
South Carolina	Legislative	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions, Preserve Communities of Interest, Preserve Cores of Prior Districts, Avoid Pairing Incumbents	2011 Redist Guidelines, Sen. Jud. Comm., Apr. 13, 2011 2011 Guidelines & Criteria for Leg. & Cong. Redistricting, House Jud. Comm. Sub. on Election Laws, Apr. 28, 2011
South Carolina	Congressional	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions, Preserve Communities of Interest, Preserve Cores of Prior Districts, Avoid Pairing Incumbents
South Dakota	Legislative	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions, Preserve Communities of Interest	S.D. Const. Art. III, § 5 S.D. Codified Laws § 2-2-41
South Dakota	Congressional	Only one congressional district	S.D. Const. Art. III, § 5 S.D. Codified Laws § 2-2-41
Tennessee	Legislative	Required: Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions	Tenn. Code §§ 3-1-102 , 3-1-103
Tennessee	Congressional	Required: No Requirements	Tenn. Code §§ 3-1-102 , 3-1-103
Texas	Legislative	Required: Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions	Tex. Const. Art. III, §§ 25, 26
Texas	Congressional	No Additional Requirements	Tex. Const. Art. III, §§ 25, 26
Utah	Legislative	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions, Preserve Communities of Interest Prohibited: Intentionally Favor or Disfavor an Incumbent, Candidate or Party	Utah Code § 20A-19-201, as added Nov. 6, 2018
Utah	Congressional	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions, Preserve Communities of Interest Prohibited: Intentionally Favor or Disfavor an Incumbent, Candidate or Party	Utah Code § 20A-19-201, as added Nov. 6, 2018
Vermont	Legislative	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions, Preserve Communities of Interest Allowed: Avoid Pairing Incumbents	Vt. Const. Ch. II, §§ 13 & 18 Vt. Stat. tit. 17, ch. 34A, §§ 1903, 1906b, 1906c
Vermont	Congressional	Only one congressional district
Virginia	Legislative	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Communities of Interest	Va. Const. Art. II, § 6 Va. Code § 24.2-305 House Criteria, House Comm. on Privileges & Elections, Comm. Res. 1, Mar. 25, 2011 Senate Criteria, Senate Comm. on Privileges & Elections, Comm. Res. 1, Mar. 25, 2011 Congressional Criteria, Joint Reapport. Comm., Aug. 17, 2015
Virginia	Congressional	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Communities of Interest
Washington	Legislative	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions, Preserve Communities of Interest, Competitive Prohibited: Intentionally Favor or Disfavor a Party or Group	Wash. Const., Art. II, §§ 6, 43 Wash. Rev. Code § 44.05.090
Washington	Congressional	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions, Preserve Communities of Interest, Competitive Prohibited: Intentionally Favor or Disfavor a Party or Group
West Virginia	Legislative	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions	W. Va. Const., Art. I, § 4; Art. VI, § 4
West Virginia	Congressional	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions	W. Va. Const., Art. I, § 4; Art. VI, § 4
Wisconsin	Legislative	Required : Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions	Wis. Const., Art. IV, §§ 3-5;
Wisconsin	Congressional	Required: No Requirements	Wis. Const., Art. IV, §§ 3-5;
Wyoming	Legislative	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions, Preserve Communities of Interest	Wyo. Const. Art. 3, §§ 3, 49 Redistricting Principles – 2011, Joint Corps., Elections & Political Subdivisions Interim Comm., Apr. 4,2011
Wyoming	Congressional	Required: Compact, Contiguous, Preserve Political Subdivisions NOTE: Only one congressional district

About This NCSL Project

Redistricting is the process of redrawing state legislative and congressional district boundaries every 10 years by state legislatures following the decennial U.S. Census. NCSL helps prepare legislatures and others for the redistricting cycle with comprehensive information on redistricting law, technology and process. NCSL collects data and information on new legislative and congressional districts.

Related Resources

Updated September 11, 2024

Act Now, Don’t Delay on Your Redistricting To-Do List

The redistricting process—redrawing legislative and congressional districts once, twice or three times a decade—can be stressful, contentious and litigious. But that’s no reason to put it off. Many redistricting policies take time to implement.

Redistricting

State Legislatures News

Updated August 27, 2024

2020 Redistricting Criteria

State legislatures or commissions tasked with redistricting must consider various criteria, or principles, when deciding how to draw new maps.

Redistricting

Table

Updated May 29, 2024

Supreme Court Rules for South Carolina Republicans in Voting Map Dispute

The U.S. Supreme Court has reversed a lower court decision that found that a South Carolina congressional district had been racially gerrymandered.

Redistricting State-Federal

State Legislatures News

Contact NCSL
For more information on this topic, use this form to reach NCSL staff.
Email
Full Name
What is your role?
Is this a press or media inquiry?
Message
Captcha
Admin Email

Summary 2010 Redistricting Criteria

About This NCSL Project

Related Resources

Act Now, Don’t Delay on Your Redistricting To-Do List

2020 Redistricting Criteria

Supreme Court Rules for South Carolina Republicans in Voting Map Dispute

Contact NCSL

Contact Us

Denver

Washington, D.C.