Redistricting is the process of redrawing the geographic boundaries of electoral districts. These district lines can have a major impact on political power and policy outcomes, influencing which candidates win elections, which communities are represented, and which policies succeed. As a result, map-drawers may manipulate boundaries to favor a particular party, racial group, or candidate—a practice called gerrymandering. Controversies over gerrymandering have increasingly landed in state courts.
The State Democracy Research Initiative studies redistricting and the vital role of state courts and constitutions in protecting fair elections.
Every 10 years, following the federal census, states are required to redraw their congressional and legislative district maps. In the majority of states, the duty to redistrict rests with the state legislature. Because line-drawing decisions can have significant electoral consequences, the redistricting process is often highly contentious. An especially prominent concern is with partisan gerrymandering—that is, the adoption of maps that unduly advantage one political party over another. This report assesses the rise of state court litigation as one important tool for curbing partisan gerrymandering and provides a state-by-state analysis of the viability of state partisan gerrymandering claims.
In a case challenging state courts' and constitutions' ability to constrain state legislatures on matters relating to federal elections, the State Democracy Research Initiative filed an amicus brief arguing that the U.S. Constitution's Elections Clause does not exempt legislatures from state constitutional constraints. On June 27, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the independent state legislature theory and held that state lawmakers legislating issues related to federal elections are still subject to state judicial review and the constraints of state constitutions.
This Article introduces the concept of “gerrylaundering” to describe mapmakers’ efforts to lock-in their favorable position by preserving key elements of the existing map. Gerrylaundering and gerrymandering both serve anti-competitive ends, but they do so through different means. Unlike gerrymandering, gerrylaundering requires no conspicuous cracking and packing of disfavored voters. Instead, it involves what this Article dubs locking and stocking: Mapmakers lock in prior district configurations to the extent possible and stock each new district with one incumbent. Based on a review of redistricting practice in all fifty states, this Article concludes that gerrylaundering is widespread and that self-serving mapmakers commonly combine gerrylaundering and gerrymandering techniques in varying proportions to achieve their preferred results.