Voting & Democracy

Nonpartisan Redistricting

image that looks like a grey state with different colored shapes all around it to signify gerrymandering

About This Principle of Democracy

Every ten years following the census, state legislatures use the new population count to redraw the district boundaries used by the state legislature and Congress in order to adjust for population change. How the lines are drawn depends on which party controls the legislature and whether their plan can survive a veto by the governor or legal challenge.

The decennial rite of having sitting lawmakers choose their voters before voters get to choose them has always been an exercise of democracy in reverse.

In recent decades, the development of high tech redistricting software and unprecedented access to voting and election data has brought pinpoint precision to the redistricting process. It allows state legislators, left on their own, to gerrymander district lines for political or personal gain.

Redistricting is so finely honed that you can predict which party will win any given seat with 80-90% accuracy. With so few competitive races, it is little wonder that the public sees the system as rigged.

How It Should Work: Nonpartisan Redistricting Commissions

Bipartisan Commissions

Several states have adopted bipartisan redistricting commissions so as to inject nonpartisanship. But do they? Bipartisan commissions are typically made up of equal numbers of Republican and Democratic officeholders and a neutral member whom the two parties agree on to be the tie-breaking vote. They are prone to self-dealing among the two parties.

Independent Nonpartisan Commissions

Nonpartisan commissions, similar to those used in Colorado, California, and Michigan are a better option for creating more impartial maps. Among their characteristics are:

  • Make up: Nonpartisan redistricting commissions are made up of 5-15 members diverse in partisanship, background, and geography. Commission members are appointed through an independent process that assesses potential conflicts of interest, like being a lobbyist, and a potential member’s commitment to unifying democratic principles.
  • Redistricting criteria: By their authorizing language, nonpartisan commissions must follow and balance criteria for drawing maps. This means a commitment to balance important redistricting factors such as contiguity and compactness with other considerations like ensuring political competition and equal opportunity for minority voters still protected under the Voting Rights Act.
  • Public engagement and transparency: Explicit standards for public feedback and transparency for the process.
  • Agreement on final plans: Nonpartisan commissions typically require a consensus beyond a simple majority with rules to facilitate and incentivize both negotiation and compromise. If the plan does end up in court due to a governor’s veto or legal challenge, the courts have proven more likely to take into account the commission’s redistricting criteria and nonpartisan intent.

Benefits of a Nonpartisan Approach

  • Nonpartisan commissions have a more transparent, independent, and nonpartisan process, that creates a stronger foundation to build voter confidence and increase integrity of elections and trust in government.
  • They draw competitive districts that can lead to higher voter turnout.
  • They have full access to the latest redistricting technologies and data to draw better maps and allow the public and state watchdogs to monitor the process.
  • The decision-making process and panels are carefully chosen and include representation of independent and unaffiliated voters.

2021 Results So Far

Eleven states had redistricting commissions with primary responsibility for drawing the maps for the state legislature and Congress. Of those, four states (Michigan, Colorado, California, and Iowa) use a fully non-partisan process with minimal to no legislative interference, while the other eight states have bipartisan commissions.

The fully nonpartisan states did the best to create fair maps. Michigan’s commission reduced by two the number of seats previously gerrymandered by the dominant republican party and added one more highly competitive seat. Colorado also added one more competitive seat and kept the balance between the two parties. Bipartisan commissions had predictably mixed results, often leading to court intervention, only improved when the courts were called on to intervene.

Resources