This tracker provides a summary of the litigation brought around the country to challenge congressional and legislative maps drawn after the 2020 census.
Where Maps Have Been Challenged
As of September 30, 2024, congressional and/or legislative maps around the country have been challenged in a total of 84 cases.
Of these cases, 49 challenged congressional maps and 51 raised challenges to legislative maps. All told, maps in 28 states have been challenged.
The vast majority of cases – 71 of 84 – seek changes to maps originally drawn under single-party control of the redistricting process.
Maps under unified Republican control of the process have drawn, by far, the most challenges, with total of 60 cases contending that GOP-crafted maps were either racially or politically discriminatory (or both).
By contrast, only 11 cases have challenged maps drawn under unified Democratic control, 7 cases challenging maps drawn by bipartisan political commissions, and 3 cases – all in Michigan – challenging maps adopted by an independent redistricting commission.
Regionally, the South accounts for half of all challenges to maps filed to date, with Midwest/Great Plains states accounting for another quarter. With nine cases, fast-growing and rapidly diversifying Texas has more challenges to its maps than any other state.
The Claims Being Asserted
In a sign that state courts and constitutions are becoming more important, this decade’s cases are split roughly evenly between state and federal court, a change from last decade when the overwhelming bulk of challenges to maps were in federal court.
Broken down by legal theory, cases to date include:
- 39 cases asserting state-law partisan gerrymandering claims (15 challenging congressional maps, 18 legislative maps, and 6 both);
- 21 cases asserting racial gerrymandering claims (8 challenging congressional maps, 8 legislative maps, and 5 both);
- 19 cases asserting intentional race discrimination claims under the U.S. Constitution (10 challenging congressional maps, 3 legislative maps, and 6 both);
- 32 cases asserting claims under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (9 challenging congressional maps, 14 legislative maps, and 9 both), and
- 5 cases asserting race-based claims under state constitutions (4 challenging congressional maps and 1 challenging both congressional and legislative maps).
All told, 48 cases raised allegations of race discrimination, including alleged Section 2 violations, while 38 cases challenged maps on grounds of partisan gerrymandering. Five cases raise both partisan gerrymandering claims and one or more race-based claims.
In addition, a handful of cases also raised legal challenges based on the alleged non-compliance of maps with one or more procedural or substantive requirements in state redistricting law, such a requirement that districts be contiguous.
Broken down by state, 13 states have seen their congressional maps challenged as partisan gerrymanders, 8 as intentionally racially discriminatory, 9 as racial gerrymanders, and 6 as violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, while 11 states have had legislative maps challenged as partisan gerrymanders, 6 as intentionally racially discriminatory, 13 as racial gerrymanders, and 12 as violations of Section 2.
The chart below summarizes claims made to date by type and state:
All but one of this decade’s legal cases have been brought by individual voters, civil rights organizations, or good government groups. The one exception is the U.S. Department of Justice’s challenge to Texas’s congressional and legislative maps under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Of the cases asserting race-based constitutional claims and/or violations of the Voting Rights Act:
- 29 involve claims by Black voters or organizations,
- 13 involve claims by Latino voters or organizations,
- 2 involve claims by Native American voters or federally recognized tribes,
- 8 involve claims by multiracial coalitions of Black, Latino, and/or Asian voters;
- 2 involve claims by white voters (both attacking districts created to comply obligations under the Voting Rights Act).
Of the cases asserting claims of partisan gerrymandering, 22 were brought by Democratic voters or elected officials and 13 by Republican voters or elected officials.
The Status of Litigation
As of this update, litigation over congressional maps in 9 states and legislative maps in 10 states remain pending at either the trial or appellate levels.
Of the 36 cases that are not yet fully resolved, 32 are in federal court and 4 are in state court. Three open cases, in Utah, North Carolina, and South Carolina assert partisan-gerrymandering related claims. The remaining 33 still pending cases challenge maps under various theories of race discrimination.
The following cases have scheduled upcoming trials:
To date, this decade’s litigation has resulted in maps being redrawn under court order in 12 states – 3 states where congressional maps were redrawn, 5 where legislative maps were redrawn, and 4 where both congressional and legislative maps were redrawn.
There has been one notable case of retreat, though. In North Carolina, rulings of the state supreme court put in place new, fairer congressional and legislative maps for the 2022 elections. However, subsequent judicial elections made the composition of the state supreme court more conservative, prompting Republican legislative leaders to ask the court to reverse its earlier anti-gerrymandering rulings. The court did so, and, in late 2023, the legislature again enacted gerrymandered congressional and legislative maps.
Likewise, although congressional and legislative maps were redrawn under court order in Georgia and Ohio, advocates in both states contend that the new maps either did not fully remedy violations or created new legal infirmities. Litigation over maps in Ohio has concluded, but an appeal remains pending over approval of Georgia’s new maps over the objections of Black voters.
No additional states are expected to see map changes before the 2024 election.
Alabama
Racial discrimination
Congressional: Three cases filed by Black voters and civil rights organizations challenged Alabama’s congressional map in federal court, contending that the map was racially discriminatory in violation of the U.S. Constitution and/or Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act: Caster v. Allen, No. 2:21-CV-1536 (N.D. Ala. Nov. 16, 2021) (Section 2 claim), Milligan v. Allen, No. 2:21-CV-1530 (N.D. Ala. Nov. 16, 2021) (Section 2, intentional race discrimination, and racial gerrymandering claims), and Singleton v. Allen, No. 2:21-CV-1291 (N.D. Ala. Sept. 27, 2021) (intentional race discrimination and racial gerrymandering claims).
On January 24, 2022, the judges in the three cases blocked the map on a preliminary basis, finding that the map likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. However, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the ruling until it could hear an appeal in the case.
On June 8, 2023, the Supreme Court affirmed the panel’s ruling preliminarily enjoining the map, finding that the lower court “faithfully applied [Supreme Court] precedents and correctly determined that, under existing law,” the map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In response, Alabama redrew the map but did so in a way the court found failed to adequately remedy the Voting Rights Act violation found by the court. As a result, the court appointed a special master, who redrew the map for the 2024 election.
Although a new map is now in place for this election based upon the trial court’s preliminary injunction, the court has scheduled a trial for February 2025 that will determine whether the court’s invalidation of the original map for the current election cycle should be made permanent. The February 2025 trial will include consideration of both VRA and non-VRA claims.
Legislative: A lawsuit by Black voters and two civil rights organizations, Stone v. Allen, No. 2:21-CV-1531 (N.D. Ala. Nov. 16, 2021), contends that Alabama’s state senate map violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act for failing to create two additional Black majority districts, one in the Huntsville region of the state and one in the Montgomery region. The plaintiffs originally also raised racial gerrymandering claims and challenged the configuration of Alabama’s state house maps, but dropped all non-VRA claims as well as claims regarding the state house with filing of an amended complaint in December 2023.
The Stone case is currently scheduled to go to trial in November 2024.
Alaska
Racial discrimination and partisan gerrymandering
Legislative: Five state-court lawsuits filed contended that Alaska’s new legislative maps were racially discriminatory under the U.S. Constitution and/or Alaska Constitution, an illegal partisan gerrymander under the Alaska Constitution, or violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act:
Matanuska-Susitna Borough v. Alaska Redistricting Board, No. 3PA-21–02397CI (Alaska Super. Ct. Dec. 2, 2021) (federal and state equal protection violations due to excessive division of municipal voters; violations of various state-law redistricting criteria), Wilson v. Alaska Redistricting Board, No. 3AN-21–08869CI (Alaska Super. Ct. Dec. 9, 2021) (federal due process and state equal protection violations due to “egregiously irrational and arbitrary” pairings of communities; violation of state-law contiguity requirement), City of Valdez v. Alaska Redistricting Board, No. 3VA-21–00080CI (Alaska Super. Ct. Dec. 10, 2021) (state due process and equal protection violations due to joining together of dissimilar communities and separation of socio-economically integrated communities; violation of various state-law redistricting criteria), Calista Corporation v. Alaska Redistricting Board, No. 4BE-21–00372CI (Alaska Super. Ct. Dec. 10, 2021) (racial vote dilution under state and federal constitutions; Section 2 violations), and Skagway Borough v. The Alaska Redistricting Board, No. 1JU-21–00944CI (Alaska Super. Ct. Dec. 13, 2021) (state-law due process and equal protection claims related to joining together of dissimilar communities; violation of various state-law redistricting criteria).
The suits alleged that the maps intentionally dilute the voting power of those who live within Alaska’s lowest-income and most racially diverse parts of the state by pairing groups of voters in Anchorage, Valdez, Skagway, Calista, Matanuska-Susitna, and the surrounding areas that have little in common. The Alaska Superior Court consolidated the five cases into a single proceeding.
On February 15, 2022, a trial court held that the board had violated the Alaska Constitution when drawing the new legislative maps, holding, among other things, that the map intentionally discriminated against East Anchorage residents who do not support Republican candidates.
After the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s gerrymandering rulings, the board enacted a revised legislative plan on April 13, 2022.
However, several plaintiffs from the original lawsuits as well as plaintiffs who intervened after the Alaska Supreme Court rendered its ruling objected before the trial court, contending that the redrawn state senate map continued to be a partisan gerrymander,
On May 16, 2022, the trial court agreed with the objectors and held that the revised state senate map was also a partisan gerrymander in violation of the Alaska Constitution. The court implemented an interim map for the 2022 election cycle but remanded the matter back to the board to adopt a remedial map for the rest of the decade.
On May 24, 2022, the Alaska Supreme Court rejected the board’s appeal as to whether it once again gerrymandered the senate map, upholding the trial court’s order implementing an interim senate plan for the 2022 election cycle.
On April 21, 2023, the Court issued an opinion further explaining its reasoning, declaring that “we expressly recognize that partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional under the Alaska Constitution.” The Court then held that splitting the Anchorage area into two senate districts violated Alaska equal protection doctrine as an “unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.”
Arkansas
Racial discrimination and partisan gerrymandering
Congressional: In Arkansas, three groups of Black voters filed cases challenging the state’s congressional map, one group in state court, Suttlar v. Thurston, No. 60CV-22–1849 (Ark. Cir. Ct. Mar. 21, 2022), and two in federal court, Simpson v. Thurston, No. 4:22-CV-213 (E.D. Ark. Mar. 7, 2022) and Christian Ministerial Alliance v. Thurston, No. 4:23-CV-471 (E.D. Ark. May 23, 2023).
While the legal theories in the three cases differ, all three are rooted in the division of Black voters in Pulaski County – the state’s largest county and home of Little Rock – among three of the state’s four congressional districts.
In the state-court Suttlar case, the plaintiffs contended that the Black communities in Pulaski County violated both the state constitution’s Free and Equal Elections Clause and its Equal Protection Clause. However, in May 2023, the trial court dismissed the case on the grounds that the Arkansas Constitution requires the plaintiffs to have filed their complaint in the Arkansas Supreme Court. The Suttlar plaintiffs have not sought further judicial relief.
In the Simpson case in federal court, plaintiffs challenged the map for alleged violations of both the Voting Rights Act and the state and federal constitutions. But on May 25, 2023, a three-judge panel, likewise, dismissed the case after concluding that the plaintiffs legal theories required them to show that race was the “predominant factor” underlying the legislature’s adoption of the new congressional map and that they had failed to plausible inference of such motivation The plaintiffs filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court, but on June 3, 2024, the high court sent the case back to the trial court for reconsideration in light the Supreme Court’s decision in Alexander v. South Carolina Conference of the NAACP. After briefing, the three-judge panel entered an order on September 11, 2024, holding that Alexander did not affect its earlier.
Lastly, in the Christian Ministerial Alliance case, also in federal court, Black voters contend that the Arkansas congressional map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander and also intentionally discriminates against Black voters in violation of Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Trial in the Christian Ministerial Alliance case is currently scheduled to begin before a three-judge panel on March 24, 2025.
Legislative: Arkansas State Conference of the NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment, No. 4:21-CV-1239 (E.D. Ark. Dec. 29, 2021), which was filed on behalf of Black voters in federal court, contends that the state house map enacted by the Arkansas Board of Apportionment is violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
The suit alleges that the map intentionally perpetuates a long history of discrimination against Black voters by packing and cracking them, thereby diluting their political power. Although the Black community constitutes 16.5 percent of Arkansas’s population, only 11 percent of state house districts are Black majority.
On February 17, 2022, a federal judge declined to hear the case, holding that Section 2 does not provide a private right of action and dismissed the case. On November 20, 2023, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling regarding the lack of a private right of action. The plaintiffs asked the entire the Eighth Circuit to review the decision, but the circuit declined. The plaintiffs have decided not to seek further review of the decision at the U.S. Supreme Court.
Florida
Racial discrimination and partisan gerrymandering
Congressional: Three lawsuits to date have raised legal challenges to Florida’s congressional map.
In state court, Black Voters Matter v. Byrd, No. 2022-CA-000666 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Apr. 22, 2022) initially contended that the new congressional map enacted by the Florida legislature was both racially discriminatory and a partisan gerrymander in violation of the Florida Constitution.
However, in August 2023, the plaintiffs entered into a stipulation with the state defendants dropping their partisan gerrymandering challenge and limiting their race-based challenges to their claim that the dismantling of state’s Fifth Congressional District was discriminated against Black voters under the anti-retrogression standard in the Fair Districts constitutional amendments approved by Florida voters in 2012.
In September 2023, the trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, but the ruling was stayed pending appeal.
On December 1, 2023, an intermediate appellate court reversed the decision, holding that the Fair Districts amendments required the plaintiffs to show the existence of a geographically compact minority community, which, the court found, they had failed to do.
The plaintiffs appealed the intermediate appellate court’s ruling to the Florida Supreme Court, which accepted the case but declined to the plaintiffs’ request to expedite consideration of the case. The Florida Supreme Court heard oral argument in the appeal for September 12, 2024.
In federal court, Common Cause v. Byrd, No. 4:22-CV-109 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 11, 2022) contends that Florida’s new congressional map intentionally discriminates against Black voters in violation of the U.S. Constitution by dismantling an effective crossover district in northern Florida.
After a trial, a three-judge panel ruled against the Byrd plaintiffs on March 27, 2024. The plaintiffs have asked the district court to reconsider its ruling, but the district court declined to do so. On July 11, 2024, the plaintiffs indicated that they would not seek review of the ruling at the U.S. Supreme Court.
Finally, a second federal court lawsuit, Cubanos Pa’Lante v. Florida House of Representatives, No. 1:24-cv-21983 (S.D. Fla. May 23, 2024), brought on behalf of Latino voters and organizations, contends that four congressional districts in South Florida are unconstitutional racial gerrymanders under the federal constitution.
As of this update, the Cubanos Pa’Lante case remains in its early stages.
Legislative
In addition to challenging the congressional map, the Cubanos Pa’Lante case also contends that seven state house districts in South Florida are unconstitutional racial gerrymanders under the federal constitution.
As of this update, the Cubanos Pa’Lante case remains in its early stages.
Georgia
Racial discrimination
Congressional: This decade, Black voters challenged Georgia’s congressional map in three cases contending that the map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and/or the U.S. Constitution.
The cases are Common Cause v. Raffensperger, No. 1:22-CV-90 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 7, 2022) (racial gerrymandering claims by good government groups and Black voters), Pendergrass v. Raffensperger, No. 1:21-CV-5339 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 30, 2021) (Section 2 vote dilution claims by Black voters) and Georgia State Conference of the NAACP v. State of Georgia, No. 1:21-CV-5338 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 30, 2021) (intentional race discrimination and Section 2 vote dilution claims on behalf of Black, Latino, and Asian voters).
In fall 2023, the district court held a trial that was limited to the Voting Rights Act claim in the Pendergrass case, and on October 26, 2023, issued an opinion holding that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act required the map to be redrawn to add an additional Black majority congressional district in the western part of the Metro Atlanta region. The Georgia legislature complied with the ruling converting GA-06 into a majority Black district but in the process dismantled a nearby majority non-white district, GA-07, thereby leaving the number of minority opportunity districts the same.
Although the plaintiffs objected to the dismantling of GA-07, the court overruled the objections and approved the remedial map, holding that the new map complied with the court’s order with respect to western Metro Atlanta and that any claims with respect to the dismantled GA-07 would have to be brought in a separate proceeding.
The state defendants have appealed the underlying finding of Section 2 liability to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and the plaintiffs, in turn, have appealed from the court’s approval of the remedial map. On appeal, the state defendants also are raising arguments concerning the constitutionality of Section 2 and arguing that the Voting Rights Act does not provide a private right of action.
The court has put the claims in the Common Cause and Georgia NAACP cases on hold until resolution of appeals in the Pendergrass case.
Legislative: The Georgia NAACP lawsuit and two additional cases Grant v. Raffensperger, No. 1:22-CV-122 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 11, 2022) (Section 2 vote dilution claims by Black voters) and Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity v. Raffensperger, No. 1:21-CV-5337 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 30, 2021) (Section 2 vote dilution claims by Black voters) also contended that Georgia’s legislative maps needed to be redrawn.
The district court held a trial on the Voting Rights Act claims asserted in the Grant and Alpha Phi Alpha cases in Fall 2023, and October 26, 2023, struck down both maps, ordering the state senate map to be redrawn to create two additional Black majority districts in southern Metro Atlanta and five additional Black majority districts in various parts of the state.
The Georgia legislature redrew the maps to create additional Black majority legislative districts, but the plaintiffs objected to the new maps, contending that they did not adequately remedy the violations found by the court. However, after a hearing, the court overruled the objections.
As in the congressional case, the state defendants have appealed the underlying finding of Section 2 liability to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and the plaintiffs, in turn, have appealed from the court’s approval of the remedial map. On appeal, the state defendants also are raising arguments concerning the constitutionality of Section 2 and arguing that the Voting Rights Act does not provide a private right of action.
Illinois
Racial discrimination
Legislative: After Illinois adopted new legislative maps following the 2020 census, Black and Latino voters as well as Republican legislative leaders challenged the maps in federal court in three separate suits, contending that the maps passed by the Democratic-controlled legislature were racial gerrymanders or intentionally racially discriminatory in violation of the U.S. Constitution or, alternatively, violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act: McConchie v. Illinois State Board of Elections, No. 1:21-CV-3091 (N.D. Ill. Jun. 9, 2021) (Republican legislative leaders; intentional race discrimination, Section 2 vote dilution), East St. Louis Branch NAACP v. Illinois State Board of Elections, No. 1:21-CV-5512 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 15, 2021) (Black-led organizations; racial gerrymandering, Section 2 vote dilution), and Contreras v. Illinois State Board of Elections, No. 1:21-CV-3139 (N.D. Ill. Jun. 10, 2021) (Latino voters and organizations; racial gerrymandering, Section 2 vote dilution).
The state district court consolidated the cases into a single proceeding, and on December 30, 2021, a three-judge panel rejected both race discrimination and Voting Rights Act claims in all three cases, finding that partisanship—rather than race—predominated in the configuration of the challenged districts and that plaintiffs did not otherwise establish a violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. No party sought to appeal the decision.
Kansas
Racial discrimination and partisan gerrymandering
Congressional: Three state-court cases by Black, Latino, and Democratic voters and a civil rights organization, challenged Kansas’ congressional, contending that the new map enacted by the Republican-controlled Kansas legislature is racially discriminatory or, in the alternative, a partisan gerrymander in violation of the Kansas Constitution: Frick v. Schwab, No. 2022-CV-71 (Kan. Dist. Ct. Mar. 1, 2022) (partisan gerrymandering), Alonzo v. Schwab, No. 2022-CV-90 (Kan. Dist. Ct. Feb. 14, 2022) (partisan gerrymandering, intentional race discrimination, racial vote dilution)and Rivera v. Schwab, No. 2022-CV-89 (Kan. Dist. Ct. Feb. 14, 2022) (partisan gerrymandering and racial vote dilution).
On April 25, 2022, a trial court struck down the legislature’s new congressional map, finding that the map was both an extreme partisan gerrymander and racially discriminatory in violation of the Kansas Constitution.
However, on May 18, 2022, a majority of the Kansas Supreme Court reversed the trial court. The court’s opinion held that Kansas courts lack the jurisdiction to hear claims of partisan gerrymandering since there is no “judicially discoverable and manageable standard in Kansas law that will guide a court in resolving” such claims. The decision also held that the plaintiffs had not met their burden to establish the legislature discriminated on the basis of race when drawing the map.
On August 26, 2022, the Kansas Supreme Court summarily denied the plaintiffs’ motion to rehear their claims that the congressional map is racially discriminatory. The U.S. Supreme Court subsequently also declined to hear the plaintiffs’ appeal of the case.
Kentucky
Partisan gerrymandering
Congressional and legislative: Graham v. Adams, No. 22-CI-47 (Ky. Cir. Ct. Jan. 20, 2022), which was filed in state court on behalf of Kentucky voters, a state representative, and the Kentucky Democratic Party, contended that the new congressional and state house maps approved by the Kentucky legislature are extreme partisan gerrymanders in violation of the Kentucky Constitution.
The suit alleged that the maps, which were enacted via an override of the governor’s veto, intentionally dilute the voting power of Kentucky’s Democratic voters by packing and cracking such voters throughout the state. The plaintiffs contend that, to achieve the gerrymanders, the legislature drew districts that are irregularly shaped. As an example, “someone driving from Lexington to Louisville would cross five of the state’s [six] congressional districts, but it would take over four hours to get from one side of the First District to the other.”
On November 10, 2022, the trial court rejected the plaintiffs’ claims, concluding that the Kentucky Constitution does not expressly prohibit partisan gerrymandering even though the court concluded that –factually – both congressional and state house maps were, in fact, partisan gerrymanders. On appeal to the Kentucky Supreme Court, the state high court affirmed the decision of the trial court in a decision issued on December 14, 2023. The decision held that although partisan gerrymandering claims were justiciable under the state constitution, the maps did not violate any of the provisions invoked by the plaintiffs.
Louisiana
Racial discrimination
Congressional: After adoption of a new congressional map, Black voters challenged the map in two lawsuits, Galmon v. Landry, No. 3:22-CV-214 (M.D. La. Mar. 30, 2022), and Robinson v. Landry, No. 3:22-CV-211 (M.D. La. Mar. 30, 2022).
The suits contended that the map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by giving Black voters the opportunity to elect their candidate of choice in only 1 of 6 districts, despite the fact that Black Louisianians now make up over 30 percent of the state’s voting age population. Had a VRA-compliant map been drawn, the plaintiffs alleged that Black voters were sufficiently numerous and geographically compact to be a majority in two congressional districts.
The district court consolidated the two cases and in June 2022, granted a preliminary injunction blocking Louisiana from using its newly enacted congressional map for the 2022 elections. However, the Supreme Court put the ruling on hold until the high court heard and resolved Allen v. Milligan, a similar case from Alabama.
After the Supreme Court’s ruling in Milligan, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the ruling enjoining the Louisiana map and gave Louisiana lawmakers until January 30, 2024, to pass a new map with a second Black congressional district. To the surprise of some, Louisiana lawmakers complied with the ruling, redrawing LA-06, the current district of Republican Garrett Graves, to be a Black majority district running between Baton Rouge to Shreveport. However, a new phase of legal fights over Louisiana’s congressional map began immediately thereafter when a group of white voters filed Callais v. Landry, No. 3:24-CV-00122 (W.D. La. January 31, 2024), in a different federal district court, contending that the configuration of LA-06 in the remedial map resulted in an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The three-judge panel agreed, striking down the new district in a decision on April 30, 2024. However, the Supreme Court subsequently stayed the ruling pending appeal.
Legislative: Black Louisiana voters also are challenging the state’s legislative maps under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, contending in Nairne v. Landry, No. 3:22-CV-178 (M.D. La. Mar. 14, 2022) that the state house map should contain between six and nine additional Black opportunity districts, while the state senate map should include three such additional districts.
After a trial, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on February 8, 2024, finding that additional Black-majority state house and state senate districts could be created in various regions of Louisiana. However, the court’s order was silent as to the schedule for redrawing maps. The plaintiffs have asked the court to order special legislative elections for 2024, noting that the next scheduled election for the Louisiana Legislature is not until 2027. The district court declined to do so at this time, but set a deadline of June 4, 2024, for the legislature to adopt new maps. Because the legislature did not meet this deadline, the court has begun the process of putting in place court-drawn remedial maps, with a hearing on remedial maps set to start August 25, 2025.
Maryland
Partisan gerrymandering
Congressional: Two now-concluded state-court cases filed by registered Republicans challenged Maryland’s congressional map, contending that the map was an extreme partisan gerrymander that violated the Maryland constitution: Szeliga v. Lamone, No. C-02-CV-21–001816 (Md. Cir. Ct. Dec. 23, 2021), and Parrott v. Lamone, No. C-02-CV-21–001773 (Md. Cir. Ct. Dec. 21, 2021). The court consolidated the two cases for proceedings.
On March 25, 2022, the trial court struck down Maryland’s new congressional map, ruling that the map “is an ‘outlier,’ an extreme gerrymander that subordinates constitutional criteria to political considerations.” The court ordered the legislature to adopt a revised map, which the legislature did on March 30, 2022. The governor then signed the plan into law, and the state’s attorney general subsequently announced that the state was ending its appeal.
After adoption of the remedial congressional map, a third case —Alban v. Lamone, Misc. No. 30 (Md. Feb. 25, 2022)—also contended that the map was an extreme partisan gerrymander in violation of the Maryland Constitution.
The suit alleged that the Maryland legislature gerrymandered the map so that Democrats could sweep all eight of the state’s congressional seats (even though the state’s lone GOP district—MD-01—currently leans safely Republican). According to the petitioners, state legislators made MD-01 competitive by “egregiously” changing the boundaries of the district so that it “reach[es] across the Chesapeake Bay and far inland to grab suburban voters in Anne Arundel County.”
On March 1, 2022, the Maryland Court of Appeals summarily declined to hear the petitioners’ claims.
Legislative: Several petitions filed In re: 2022 Legislative Districting of the State, Misc. Nos. 21, 24, 25, 26, 27 (Md. Feb. 3, 2022), contended that Maryland’s new legislative plan is an extreme partisan gerrymander in violation of the Maryland constitution.
The suits, which were filed in the Maryland Court of Appeals, alleged that the plan intentionally diluted the voting power of the state’s Republican voters. For example, the plaintiffs alleged that the plan packed Republican voters into District 31, which unnecessarily “includes a barbell-shaped part of Anne Arundel County” to protect a Democratic incumbent serving another district.
On April 13, 2022, the Maryland Court of Appeals denied the petitioners’ claims. The Court concluded that the remedial legislative plan did not violate state constitutional provisions requiring that districts be compact, contiguous, and have due regard for natural boundaries. It also determined that the plan’s use of both single- and multi-member districts did not violate the Maryland or federal constitutions. Finally, it held that neither the Maryland nor federal constitutions “require that the plan include three one-member delegate subdistricts in District 2 simply because the district crossed a county line.”
Michigan
Racial discrimination and partisan gerrymandering
Congressional and legislative:
Three cases this decade have challenged Michigan’s congressional and/or legislative maps.
Detroit Caucus v. Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission, No. 163926 (Mich. Sup. Ct. Jan. 5, 2022), which was filed in the Michigan Supreme Court on behalf of the Detroit members of the Michigan House of Representatives (the “Detroit Caucus”), two city councils, and Black voters, contended that the new congressional and legislative maps enacted by the Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission violated the Michigan Constitution by not complying with the Voting Rights Act.
On February 3, 2022, a 4–3 majority of the Michigan Supreme Court dismissed the Detroit Caucus lawsuit, finding that the plaintiffs had failed to submit any analysis of racial bloc voting to the Court. Additionally, the commission’s racial bloc-voting analysis indicated that, even in the absence of districts that were 50 percent or more minority, a sufficient number of white voters have supported Black-preferred candidates such that Black voters have an equal opportunity to elect representatives of their choice.
A separate lawsuit, League of Women Voters of Michigan v. Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission, No. 164022 (Mich. Sup. Ct. Feb. 1, 2022), which was filed in the Michigan Supreme Court on behalf of nonprofit organizations and Michigan voters, contended that the new state house map enacted by the Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission is a partisan gerrymander in violation of the Michigan Constitution.
On March 25, 2022, the Michigan Supreme Court summarily dismissed the League of Women Voters lawsuit, stating that the Court was “not persuaded that it should grant the requested relief.”
In addition to the two state-court suits, a lawsuit in federal court, Agee v. Benson, No. 1:22-CV-272 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 23, 2022), contended that the legislative maps enacted by the Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and were racial gerrymanders in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
On December 21, 2023, a three-judge panel issued an opinion ruling that both Michigan’s state house and state senate maps were racial gerrymanders and ordering that several Detroit area state house and state senate districts be redrawn. Because the maps had been struck down on racial gerrymandering grounds, the opinion said the court would not address the plaintiffs’ Voting Rights Act claims.
On March 27, 2024, the panel approved the redrawn state house map adopted by the state’s redistricting commission, and on July 26, 2024, approved the redrawn state senate map.
Mississippi
Racial discrimination
Legislative: Mississippi State Conference of the NAACP v. State Board of Election Commissioners, No. 3:22-CV-734 (S.D. Miss. Dec. 20, 2022), filed in federal district court on behalf of Black voters and a Black civil rights organization, contends that the Mississippi’s state house and state senate maps violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and additionally that several districts are a racial gerrymanders under the U.S. Constitution.
The plaintiffs allege that the maps intentionally perpetuate a long history of discrimination against Black voters by packing them into certain areas and cracking others among multiple districts, thereby diluting Black political power. According to the plaintiffs, the maps dilute Black voting strength even though Mississippi has the largest Black population of any state and all of the state’s population growth last decade occurred within communities of color. The plaintiffs contend that the legislative maps fail to include at least four additional Black opportunity state senate districts and at least three additional Black opportunity state house districts.
A three-judge panel held trial in the case in March 2024, and ruled on July 2, 2024, that two state senate districts and one state house district violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. However, the panel rejected the plaintiffs’ racial gerrymandering claims finding that they had not established that race had predominated in the drawing of the maps. On July 18, 2024, the court entered an order giving the legislature until the end of its 2025 regular session to redraw the maps. Mississippi did not seek review of the decision by the Supreme Court.
Missouri
Racial Discrimination
Congressional: Filed by an individual Black voter, Berry v. Ashcroft, No. 4:22-CV-465 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 22, 2022), contended that Missouri’s new congressional map is a racial gerrymander in violation of the U.S. Constitution because it packs St. Louis-area Black voters into the state’s First Congressional District.
On July 8, 2022, a three-judge panel dismissed the plaintiff’s claim after concluding that enjoining the new congressional map plan at this stage would significantly disrupt the impending 2022 election cycle. The court expressed no opinion on whether the map violated the U.S. Constitution.
Nevada
Partisan gerrymandering
Legislative: Koenig v. Nevada, No. 210C001661B (Nev. Dist. Ct. Nov. 17, 2021), which was filed in state court by Republican voters and Elko County contended that Nevada’s new legislative maps are an extreme partisan gerrymander in violation of the Nevada Constitution.
The suit alleges that the maps intentionally dilute the voting power of Nevada’s Republican and independent voters by packing and cracking such voters throughout the state. As an example, the complaint points to the Assembly map’s splitting of the rural town of Pahrump into two districts, causing some of the town’s rural voters to be lumped together with urban voters (even though the suit says the two groups share almost nothing in common).
In March 2022, the state district court denied the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction holding that the plaintiffs had “not identified a clear standard for adjudicating partisan redistricting claims within the Nevada Constitution, Nevada statute, or a Nevada Supreme Court opinion” and also holding that, in any event, it was too late in the election cycle for injunctive relief. That June, the plaintiffs subsequently stipulated to voluntary dismissal of their lawsuit.
New Hampshire
Partisan gerrymandering
Legislative: Brown v. Scanlan, No. 226–2022-CV-00181 (N.H. Super. Ct. May 6, 2022), which was filed on behalf of Democratic voters, contended that the New Hampshire legislature’s new state senate map is an extreme partisan gerrymander in violation of the New Hampshire Constitution.
The suit alleged that the map intentionally diluted the voting power of New Hampshire’s Democratic voters by packing and cracking them throughout the state.
On October 5, 2022, a trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims, concluding that courts only had the power to enforce the express redistricting requirements of the New Hampshire Constitution, none of which address partisan gerrymandering.
The plaintiffs appealed the trial court’s decision to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, which on December 5, 2023, affirmed the decision of the trial court and held that partisan gerrymandering claims are not justiciable under state law.
New Jersey
Partisan gerrymandering
Congressional: Steinhardt v. New Jersey Redistricting Commission, No. 086587 (N.J. Sup. Ct. Dec. 30, 2021), which was filed by the Republican members of the New Jersey Redistricting Commission before the state supreme court, contends that the commission’s new congressional map is a partisan gerrymander in violation of the New Jersey Constitution and the U.S. Constitution.
The New Jersey commission consists of 13 members: six appointees from each of New Jersey’s two largest political parties and one independent member. The suit alleges that the commission’s independent member cast the tiebreaking vote in favor of the Democratic members’ map because a Republican map had been adopted during the previous redistricting cycle. According to the plaintiffs, the new map is invalid because its ratification was contingent upon the independent member’s flawed reasoning in approving the map.
On February 3, 2022, the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the plaintiffs’ lawsuit, concluding that the scope of its review for an apportionment challenge under the New Jersey Constitution is limited to allegations of unlawfulness and invidious discrimination (neither of which the plaintiffs had contended).
New Mexico
Partisan gerrymandering
Congressional: Republican Party of New Mexico v. Oliver, No. D-506-CV-202200041 (N.M. Dist. Ct. Jan. 21, 2022), which was filed on behalf of the New Mexico Republican Party and New Mexico voters, contends that the state’s congressional map is a partisan gerrymander in violation of the New Mexico Constitution.
The suit alleged that the map intentionally dilutes the voting power of Republican voters through cracking in the southeastern part of the state. Under the old map, Republican voters in southeastern New Mexico were grouped within a single congressional district. By contrast, under the new map, those voters are now split among all three of the state’s congressional districts. After a trial court declined to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims, the state defendants requested that the New Mexico Supreme Court assume jurisdiction over the case, which the Court granted.
On July 5, 2023, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that partisan gerrymandering are justiciable under the state constitution and set out a standard for adjudicating such claims. It also ordered the trial court to determine whether the plaintiffs have standing to bring their claims and, if they do, to hold a trial to determine whether the state legislature’s new congressional map violates the New Mexico Constitution.
After further proceedings on remand, the trial court ruled on October 6, 2023, that the map did not violate the New Mexico Constitution. While the court found that the Democratic-controlled legislature had attempted to entrench their state’s Second Congressional District, evidence suggested they had succeeded only creating a competitive district that could be won by either a Democrat or a Republican. As a result, the court held the map did not result in an “egregious” gerrymander under the standard set by the New Mexico Supreme Court.
The plaintiffs appealed the ruling to the New Mexico Supreme Court, which affirmed the ruling of the district court on November 27, 2023.
New York
Partisan gerrymandering
Congressional and legislative: Harkenrider v. Hochul, No. E2022–0116CV (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 3, 2022), filed in state court on behalf of New York voters, contended that the state’s new congressional and state senate maps are extreme partisan gerrymanders in violation of the New York Constitution and that the maps also were invalid because the process through which they were adopted ran afoul of the procedural requirements in the state constitution.
On March 31, 2022, the trial court ruled that New York’s new congressional and legislative maps were unconstitutional because they had been adopted by the legislature in violation of the procedural grounds of the New York Constitution, namely the requirement that the legislature receive and vote on two sets of proposed maps from the state’s advisory redistricting commission before adopting any map not drawn by the commission. The court’s ruling also invalidated the congressional map on the ground that it was a partisan gerrymander. The court ordered the legislature to adopt a new set of “bipartisanly supported maps[,]” subject to the court’s review.
On April 21, 2022, a 3–2 majority of an intermediate appellate division partly affirmed the decision of the trial court, concluding that the new congressional map was a partisan gerrymander under the standards in New York law. However, separate 4–1 majority of the court reversed the trial court’s determination that the new congressional and legislative maps were void because the legislature did not follow the correct procedures when adopting those plans. The court ordered the legislature to adopt a revised congressional map, subject to the trial court’s review.
On April 27, 2022, a 4–3 majority of the New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, upheld the intermediate court’s ruling that the congressional map was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. Separately, the ruling also held that both congressional and state senate maps were invalid because they had not been adopted in accordance with the procedural requirements of the New York Constitution, reversing the intermediate court.
Because of impending election-related deadlines, the Court of Appeals did not allow the legislature an opportunity to redraw the maps but instead ordered the trial court to adopt revised congressional and state senate maps with “all due haste” and the assistance of a special master.
Following the trial court’s approval of maps drawn by a special master, a different group of New York voters filed a new state court action, Hoffman v. New York State Independent Redistricting Commission, No. 904972–22 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 28, 2022), contending that the special master’s congressional map was valid only for the 2022 election and that the state constitution required the advisory commission to reconvene and submit a proposed permanent map to the legislature for consideration. The trial court dismissed the complaint, but the state’s intermediate appellate division reversed, directing the commission to begin work on a proposal for a permanent congressional map for consideration by the legislature. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the intermediate court’s ruling on December 12, 2023.
Following the Harkenrider decision, the state assembly map, which had not been challenged in Harkenrider, drew a challenge from a group of voters who contended in Nichols v. Hochul, No. 154213/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 15, 2022), that the assembly map was also invalid since it had been enacted under the same unconstitutional procedure as the congressional and state senate maps. The petitioners asked the trial court to retain a special master to draw a revised state assembly plan.
On May 25, 2022, the trial court dismissed the case, holding that the plaintiffs had waited too long to bring it, but on June 10, 2022, a panel of the intermediate appellate court reversed, holding that the map was invalid but declining to order a new map for the 2022 election given rapidly approaching primary elections. The opinion remanded the case to the trial to oversee the process for creating a new assembly map for the 2024 election and the balance of the decade.
On September 29, 2022, the trial court ruled that the appropriate remedy was for New York’s Independent Redistricting Commission to reconvene and submit a revised state assembly map to the state legislature. According to the court, the legislature would be able to produce its own assembly map only after it rejects—or the governor vetoes—the revised plan and the commission then submits a second amended plan.
On January 24, 2023, the state’s intermediate appellate court upheld the trial court’s ruling, and no further appeals were taken.
North Carolina
Racial discrimination and partisan gerrymandering
Congressional and legislative: After North Carolina adopted new congressional and legislative maps following the 2020 census, Black voters, Democratic voters, and an environmental organization challenged the new maps in state court on the grounds that they were partisan gerrymanders or racially discriminatory in violation of various provisions of the North Carolina Constitution: Harper v. Hall, No. 19-CVS-12667 (N.C. Super. Ct. Nov. 5, 2021) (partisan gerrymandering) and North Carolina League of Conservation Voters v. Hall, No. 21-CVS-15426 (N.C. Super. Ct. Nov. 16, 2021) (partisan gerrymandering and state claims for racial vote dilution and intentional racial discrimination).
After a trial court rejected the plaintiffs’ claim, the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed, ruling on February 4, 2022 in a 4–3 decision that both the state’s congressional and legislative maps were extreme partisan gerrymanders that violated numerous democratic guarantees in the North Carolina Constitution, including its Free Elections Clause. The court’s ruling did not address the plaintiffs’ intentional race discrimination and racial vote dilution claims.
As a result of the ruling, the North Carolina General Assembly adopted new congressional and legislative maps. Although the trial court approved the new state house and state senate plans, it rejected the new congressional plan and instead ordered that the 2022 election be conducted using a congressional map drawn by court-appointed special master. The 2022 election took place using these maps.
Meanwhile, both the state and plaintiffs filed appeals seeking review of the decision in the North Carolina Supreme Court: the state seeking to overturn the trial court’s rejection of its remedial congressional map and the plaintiffs challenging the court’s approval of the state’s remedial legislative plans. After expedited argument, the North Carolina Supreme Court issued another 4–3 decision on December 16, 2022, upholding both the trial court’s approval of the legislature’s remedial state house map and its rejection of the legislature’s remedial congressional map. But the court reversed the trial court’s approval of the remedial state senate map, ruling that it continued to be an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
However, after the North Carolina Supreme Court issued its December 16 ruling, two new justices took the bench in January, giving conservative-leaning justices a majority.
The North Carolina General Assembly requested that the Court overturn its earlier partisan gerrymandering decisions, and on April 28, 2023, the court did so, ruling in a 5–2 opinion that partisan gerrymandering claims were non-justiciable under North Carolina state law.
After the Republican-controlled General Assembly subsequently redrew both the state’s congressional and legislative maps, Black North Carolina voters filed three lawsuits in federal court in late 2023, contending that the new maps were racially discriminatory in violation of the U.S. Constitution and also ran afoul of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act:
Williams v. Hall, No. 1:23-CV-1057 (M.D.N.C. December 4, 2023) (intentional race discrimination, racial gerrymandering, Section 2 vote dilution in congressional map), North Carolina Conference of the NAACP v. Berger, No. 1:23-CV-1104 (M.D.N.C. December 19, 2023) (intentional race discrimination, racial gerrymandering, Section 2 vote dilution in state house and state senate maps), and Pierce v. North Carolina State Board of Elections, No. 4:23-CV-193 (E.D.N.C. November 20, 2023) (Section 2 claims with respect to state senate map).
The Pierce case has been set for trial on February 3, 2025.
The Williams and North Carolina NAACP cases have been consolidated for trial on June 16, 2025.
In addition to the three cases challenging the new maps in federal court, a former justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court and a group of Democratic and unaffiliated voters also filed Bard v. Hirsch, No. 24CV003534–910 in state court contending that redrawn congressional and legislative maps both violated the North Carolina Constitution’s guarantee of frequent and free elections. However, on June 28, 2024, a panel of three state trial judges dismissed the Bard case, holding that “the issues raised by the Plaintiffs are clearly of a political nature” that cannot be decided by courts. The Bard plaintiffs have appealed the decision to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
North Dakota
Racial discrimination
Legislative: Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Jaeger, No. 3:22-CV-22 (D.N.D. Feb. 7, 2022), which was filed on behalf of Native American voters and tribes in federal court, contends that the new state legislative plan enacted by the North Dakota legislature violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
According to the plaintiffs, Native American voters only have a meaningful opportunity to elect candidates of their choice in two districts due to packing and cracking, whereas fairly drawn maps would enable Native American voters to elect candidates in three districts.
On November 17, 2023, the district court ruled in favor of Native American plaintiffs and gave North Dakota until December 22 to remedy the violation. After the judgment, the North Dakota Legislative Assembly, which was not a defendant in the case, sought to intervene and asked for an extension of time to enact a remedial map. However, the district court denied its requests, and after North Dakota failed to adopt a new map by the deadline set by the court, the court entered an order on January 8, 2024, adopting a map proposed by Native American plaintiffs as the state’s new legislative map. The North Dakota Legislative Assembly has appealed the rulings denying its intervention and its request for an extension of time to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
A second lawsuit, Walen v. Burgum, No. 1:22-CV-31 (D.N.D. Feb. 16, 2022), which was filed on behalf of two white North Dakota voters, contends that the new state legislative plan enacted by the North Dakota legislature is a racial gerrymander in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
The suit alleges that the legislature predominantly relied on race when drawing two Native American opportunity subdistricts without adequate justification.
On November 2, 2023, the three-judge panel responsible for the Walen case granted summary judgment for North Dakota and Native American intervenors after concluding that even if race had been the predominate motive in the design of the challenged districts that “the State had good reasons and strong evidence to believe the subdistricts were required by the VRA” and that any race conscious line drawing had been “narrowly tailored to the State’s compelling interest.”
The plaintiffs have appealed the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. North Dakota, though an appellee, has also asked the Supreme Court to review the question of whether the “state legislature’s attempted compliance with Section 2 of the VRA can justify the enactment of election maps that predominately consider race in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.”
Ohio
Racial discrimination and partisan gerrymandering
Congressional: Two now-concluded lawsuits by Ohio voters in state court contended that Ohio’s congressional map is a partisan gerrymander in violation of the Ohio Constitution: Adams v. DeWine, No. 2021–1428 (Ohio Sup. Ct. Dec. 2, 2021), and League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Commission, No. 2021–1449 (Ohio Sup. Ct. Nov. 30, 2021).
According to the suits, the map passed by the Republican-controlled legislature gives Republicans a lopsided number of seats by splitting counties and Black communities to minimize the efficacy of Democratic votes. Under the plan, Republicans were projected to win 12 of 15 seats (80 percent) despite on average winning only 53 to 55 percent of the statewide vote.
On January 14, 2022, after consolidating the two cases, a 4–3 majority of the Ohio Supreme Court issued an opinion holding that the congressional map was a partisan gerrymander under state law.
After the state adopted a new congressional map, the petitioners in Adams and League of Women Voters objected to the new map, contending that the map continued to be a partisan gerrymander. However, on March 18, 2022, the Ohio Supreme Court overruled the objections, holding that the petitioners would have to file new cases if they wanted to challenge the map.
In response, the petitioners brought two state-court lawsuits contending that the revised congressional map remained an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander: Neiman v. LaRose, No. 2022–0298 (Ohio Sup. Ct. Mar. 21, 2022) and League of Women Voters of Ohio v. LaRose, No. 2022–0303 (Ohio Sup. Ct. Mar. 22, 2022).
On July 19, 2022, the same four-justice majority that rejected the first congressional map also rejected the revised plan, finding that the map was another partisan gerrymander that “allocates voters in ways that unnecessarily favor the Republican Party by packing Democratic voters into a few dense Democratic-leaning districts, thereby increasing the Republican vote share of the remaining districts” and ordering it redrawn. However, because decision came after the state’s 2022 primary had already taken place, the new map ordered by the Court would not take effect until the 2024 election cycle.
Despite the court’s order, Ohio took no steps to redraw the state’s congressional map and instead asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hold that the federal constitution’s Elections Clause barred state courts from ruling on state-law claims relating to congressional maps.
In June 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in a related Elections Clause case, Moore v. Harper, and sent the Ohio cases back to the Ohio Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of its decision in Moore.
On return of the cases to the Ohio Supreme Court, the petitioners decided not to pursue their gerrymandering claims further and, instead, asked the court to voluntarily dismiss the cases. The Ohio Supreme Court granted the request on September 7, 2023, ending the litigation. In addition to the partisan gerrymandering lawsuits in state court, Black voters filed a separate lawsuit in federal court, Simon v. DeWine, No. 4:21-CV-2267 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 1, 2021), that alleged that Ohio’s new congressional map is racially discriminatory because legislative leadership, when drawing the map, intentionally disregarded whether the proposed districts diluted the power of Black voters. The plaintiffs, however, voluntarily dismissed the case on March 22, 2022.
Legislative: Three cases filed in state court by Ohio voters, civil rights and good government organizations contended that the new state legislative maps enacted by the Ohio Redistricting Commission unfairly advantage Republican voters in violation of the Ohio Constitution: Bennett v. Ohio Redistricting Commission, No. 2021–1199 (Ohio Sup. Ct. Sept. 24, 2021) (Democratic voters), League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Commission, No. 2021–1193 (Ohio Sup. Ct. Sept. 24, 2021) (good government and Black-led organizations and individual voters), and Ohio Organizing Collaborative v. Ohio Redistricting Commission, No. 2021–1210 (Ohio Sup. Ct. Sept. 27, 2021) (Black and Muslim voters, civil rights organizations, and an environmental organization),
The suits alleged that the maps passed on a party-line basis by the state’s Republican-majority redistricting commission intentionally dilute the voting power of Ohio Democrats and minority voters through packing and cracking. Under the state house map, if Republican candidates earned 54 percent of the statewide vote, they would win a veto-proof supermajority in Ohio’s House of Representatives. Yet with the same vote share, Democrats would not even win a majority of seats.
The Ohio Supreme Court consolidated the cases, and on January 12, 2022, a 4–3 majority issued an opinion invalidating the state’s legislative maps on the grounds that they were an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
The commission subsequently enacted a revised General Assembly plan on January 22, 2022. The petitioners in all three cases objected, however, to the plan, arguing that the revised plan continued to significantly disadvantage Democrats.
On February 7, 2022, the same four justices who rejected the commission’s original plan also rejected the revised maps, finding that the maps continued to a partisan gerrymander. The Court ordered the commission to adopt a new set of maps by February 17, 2022.
The commission then enacted a third set of legislative maps on February 24, 2022. The petitioners in all three cases once again objected, and in March 16, 2022, the same four justices who rejected the commission’s original and first revised plans rejected its second revised legislative plan, finding that the maps were yet another partisan gerrymander.
The commission enacted a fourth set of legislative maps on March 28, 2022. The petitioners in all three cases once again objected to the maps, arguing that the new plan did not remedy partisan-gerrymandering violations found by the Court. On April 14, 2022, the same four justices who rejected the commission’s original, first revised, and second revised plans rejected its fourth set of revised maps, finding that the maps were yet another partisan gerrymander. The Court, however, rejected requests to adopt its own map or declare the constitutional validity of an alternative plan, determining that the Ohio Constitution did not permit the Court to implement such remedies. Instead, it gave the commission until June 3, 2022 to adopt another General Assembly plan, subject to the Court’s review.
Meanwhile, as state-court litigation was proceeding, a group of Republican voters filed suit in federal district court, Gonidakis v. Ohio Redistricting Commission, No. 2:22-CV-733 (S.D. Ohio February 22, 2022), asking a panel of federal judges to put a legislative map in place for the 2022 election, arguing that the back and forth between Ohio officials and the state’s supreme court – which under the Ohio Constitution had no power to impose a remedial map of its own – had left the state without any map to use in upcoming midterm elections.
On May 27, 2022, the federal court in the Gonidakis case issued an order directing Ohio to use the commission’s second legislative plan for the 2022 election cycle notwithstanding the fact that plan had already been found to be unconstitutional by the Ohio Supreme Court.
As a result of the federal district court’s order, Ohio officials did not redraw the state’s legislative map until September 2023 when, in contrast to previous maps, it adopted a map on a bipartisan rather than party-line basis. Although plaintiffs in the three cases indicated that they continued to object to the new map, the court granted state officials’ motions to dismiss the cases on the grounds that the constitutional provisions relied upon by the plaintiffs did not apply to maps passed on a bipartisan basis.
Pennsylvania
Racial discrimination and partisan gerrymandering
Legislative: After the Pennsylvania reapportionment board adopted new legislatuve maps, Pennsylvania voters filed four challenges to the maps before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court: Covert v. Pennsylvania 2021 Legislative Reapportionment Commission, No. 4 WM 2022 (Pa. Sup. Ct. Feb. 15, 2022), Benninghoff v. 2021 Legislative Reapportionment Commission, No. 11 MM 2022 (Pa. Sup. Ct. Feb. 17, 2022), Boscola v. 2021 Legislative Reapportionment Commission, No. 14 MM 2022 (Pa. Sup. Ct. March 2, 2022), and Roe v. 2021 Legislative Reapportionment Commission, No. 16 MM 2022 (Pa. Sup. Ct. Mar. 7, 2022).
All four cases alleged that the legislative maps enacted by Pennsylvania’s Legislative Reapportionment Commission violated the state constitution’s rules on subdivision splits for for impermissible political reasons. The Benninghoff and Roe cases also contended that the maps were partisan gerrymanders in violated of the Free and Equal Elections Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and the Benninghoff case also alleged that several of the districts were unconstitutional racial gerrymanders that violate both the federal and state constitutions.
On March 16, 2022, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a summary order rejecting all four petitions, finding that the new legislative maps comply with state and federal laws.
On October 31, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of the ruling in the Benninghoff case.
South Carolina
Racial discrimination
Congressional and legislative: The South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. Alexander, No. 3:21-CV-3302 (D.S.C. Oct. 12, 2021), filed in federal district court on behalf Black voters and a Black civil rights organization, contended that both the congressional and state house maps enacted by the South Carolina legislature were racial gerrymanders and intentionally discriminated against Black voters in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
After filing of the suit, South Carolina agreed to settle claims related to the state house map by adopting a revised map that will take effect for the 2024 election cycle.
Meanwhile, a three-judge panel held a preliminary injunction hearing on claims regarding the congressional map, and on January 6, 2023 issued an order finding that the state’s First Congressional District, currently represented by Nancy Mace (R), was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander but rejecting the plaintiffs’ racial gerrymandering claims with respect to the Second and Fifth Congressional Districts. The state appealed the ruling on the First Congressional District to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On May 23, 2024, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the trial court in a 6–3 opinion with respect to the lower court’s finding of a racial gerrymander. However, the opinion remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings on the question of whether the state’s actions resulted in intentional vote dilution.
On July 26, 2024, Black plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their intentional vote dilution claims, ending the South Carolina litigation.
Partisan gerrymandering
Congressional: On July 29, 2024, the League of Women Voters of South Carolina filed an original action at the South Carolina Supreme Court contending that the state’s congressional map was a partisan gerrymander that violated various provisions of the state constitution, including its Free and Open Elections Clause and limitations in the state constitution on the division of counties in congressional redistricting.
Tennessee
Racial discrimination
Congressional and legislative: Tennessee State Conference of the NAACP v. Lee, No. 3:23-CV-832 (M.D. Tenn. August 9, 2023) was filed in federal district court on behalf of Black Tennessee voters and civil rights organizations, contends that the state’s congressional and state senate maps are racial gerrymanders and intentionally discriminate against Black voters in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In particular, the complaint alleges that the new congressional map’s division of Davidson County, home to Nashville, among three districts and the new state senate map’s division of Shelby County adversely impacted Black voters, making it impossible for them to “continue to exercise their influence and elect candidates of their choice.”
On August 21, 2024, the three-judge panel in the case dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims on the grounds that the facts alleged in the complaint did not satisfy the pleading standards laid out by the Supreme Court in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP. However, because the Tennessee had been filed before the Alexander decision, the court gave the plaintiffs 30 days to file an amended complaint. The plaintiffs elected not to file an amended complaint, and on September 25, 2024, agreed to voluntary dismissal of their claims with prejudice.
Texas
Racial discrimination
Congressional: A total of eight cases brought both by private plaintiffs and the United States Justice Department challenge the congressional map enacted by the Texas legislature after the 2020 census:
LULAC v. Abbott, No. 3:21-CV-259 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 18, 2021) (intentional race discrimination and Section claims by Latino voters and organizations), Voto Latino v. Scott, No. 1:21-CV-965 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 25, 2021) (Section 2 claims by Latino and Black voters and a Latino voter organization), MALC v. Texas, No. 1:21-CV-988 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 3, 2021) (intentional race discrimination, racial gerrymandering, and Section 2 claims by the state’s Latino legislative caucus), Texas State Conference of the NAACP v. Abbott, No. 1:21-CV-1006 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 5, 2021) (intentional race discrimination, racial gerrymandering, and Section claims by Black civil rights organization), Fair Maps Texas Action Committee v. Abbott, No. 1:21-CV-1038 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 16, 2021) (intentional race discrimination, racial gerrymandering, and Section 2 claims by Latino, Black, and Asian voters and organizations), United States v. Texas, No. 3:21-CV-299 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 6, 2021) (Section 2 claims), Martinez Fischer v. Abbott, No. 3:21-CV-306 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 13, 2021) (intentional race discrimination and Section 2 claims by Latino state representative), and Escobar v. Abbott, No. 3:22-CV-22 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2022) (intentional race discrimination and Section 2 claims by Latina member of U.S. House).
Collectively, the cases, which have been consolidated for trial, contend that multiple parts of the Texas congressional map are racial gerrymanders or intentionally discriminate against Black, Latino, and/or Asian voters in violation of the U.S. Constitution or, alternatively, violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
On June 23, 2022, Congresswoman Veronica Escobar voluntarily dismissed the Escobar suit. A trial date has not yet been set in the remaining consolidated cases.
Legislative: Brooks v. Abbott, No. 1:21-CV-991 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 3, 2021) (Latino and Black voters) and the Justice Department, Fair Maps coalition, Texas NAACP, MALC, Brooks, Voto Latino, and LULAC lawsuits also contend that Texas’s legislative maps are intentionally discriminate against minority voters in violation of the U.S. Constitution, are racial gerrymanders and/or violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in multiple parts of the state.
No trial date has yet been set in the consolidated cases.
Utah
Partisan gerrymandering
Congressional: League of Women Voters of Utah v. Utah State Legislature, No. 220901712 (Utah Dist. Ct. Mar. 17, 2022), which was filed on behalf of Utah voters, a voting rights organization, and a civil rights organization, contends that the new congressional map adopted by Utah lawmakers is an extreme partisan gerrymander in violation of the Utah constitution. In the alternative, the plaintiffs argued the legislature’s repeal of the statutory anti-gerrymandering reforms adopted by voters through a ballot initiative in 2018 violates separation of powers limitations imposed by the Utah Constitution. The state defendants moved to dismiss the case.
On October 24, 2022, a trial court issued a summary order declining to dismiss the plaintiffs’ either the plaintiffs’ gerrymandering or separation of powers claims. The state defendants appealed the ruling to the Utah Supreme Court, which issued a decision on July 11, 2024, holding that legislative repeal or modification of a ballot initiative intended to “reform or alter” the structure of government was subject to strict scrutiny review. The decision remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether the legislature’s repeal of the 2018 initiative was narrowly tailored to address a compelling state interest. Because a ruling on remand in favor of the plaintiffs would likely moot the plaintiffs’ claims that partisan gerrymandering violates the Utah constitution, the court did not rule on those claims.
On remand, the plaintiffs have asked the district court for summary judgment on their claim that the legislature’s repeal of anti-gerrymandering reforms was unconstitutional under the standards enunciated by the Utah Supreme Court.
Washington
Racial discrimination
Legislative: Soto Palmer v. Trevino, No. 3:22-CV-5035 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 19, 2022), filed in federal district court on behalf of Latino voters and a voting rights organization, contends that the new legislative plan adopted by the Washington State Redistricting Commission dilutes the political influence of Latino voters in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
The suit alleged that the plan creates only a “façade of a Latino opportunity district” within the Yakima Valley region. Although the version of District 15 adopted by the commission had a Latino voting-age population over 50 percent, the plaintiffs contended the district had been drawn in such a way that the region’s Latino voters would have extreme difficulty electing their preferred candidates, typically Latino Democrats, to the Washington State Legislature. A group of Three Republican Latino voters, including a Republican Latino state representative, intervened to defend the commission’s map.
On August 10, 2023, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the commission’s configuration of District 15 “impairs the ability of Latino voters in [the Yakima Valley region] to elect their candidate of choice on an equal basis with other voters.”
After Washington declined the opportunity to reconvene the state’s redistricting commission to adopt a new map, the court held remedial hearings and issued an order adopting a court-imposed map on March 15, 2024.
Republican intervenors in the case are appealing both the decision striking down the commission’s map and the decision adopting a remedial map to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Separately, an individual Washington voter also filed a lawsuit in federal court, Garcia v. Hobbs, No. 3:22-CV-5152 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 15, 2022), contending that District 15 in the commission’s legislative plan was a racial gerrymander in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
However, on September 8, 2023, after ruling in the Soto Palmer case that District 15 needed to be redrawn because of Voting Rights Act violations, the district court dismissed the racial gerrymandering challenge on the grounds that the case was now moot. The plaintiff appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, but, on February 20, 2024, the high court held that any appeal from the district court’s order was properly to the Ninth Circuit rather than the Supreme Court.
Wisconsin
Partisan gerrymandering
Legislative: In August 2023, two group of Wisconsin voters filed original actions before the Wisconsin Supreme Court, contending that the state’s legislative maps were unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders under Wisconsin law: Clarke v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, No. 2023AP001399 (August 2, 2023) and Wright v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, No. 2023AP001412 (August 4, 2023).
The Clarke case, but not the Wright case, also raised two additional claims: First, that the maps severely violated the requirement in the constitution that districts be contiguous and, second, that the maps, which had been put in place by the court after legislative deadlock using a “least change” principle, ran afoul of separation of powers doctrines in the state constitution since the court selected maps that had previously been vetoed by the governor.
On October 6, 2023, the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed to hear argument on the Clarke plaintiffs’ contiguity and separation of powers claims, but declined to hear argument on either set of plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims.
On December 22, 2023, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, reversing earlier decisions on contiguity and holding that the state’s legislative maps did not comply with the constitution’s requirements, finding that at least 50 of 99 state assembly districts and 20 of 33 state senate districts “contain territory completely disconnected from the rest of the district.”
In ordering the legislature to adopt a new map, the court laid out the principles it would use to evaluate any new map adopted by the court. These included the “partisan impact” of a remedial map because, as the court explained, “[u]nlike the legislative and executive branches, which are political by nature, this court must remain politically neutral. We do not have free license to enact maps that privilege one political party over another.”
The legislature has since adopted a new map, which Governor Tony Evers has signed into law.
Congressional: Following the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s ruling in the Clarke case, intervenors in Johnson v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, an earlier case addressing legislative deadlock over a new congressional map, moved to have the high court reopen the Johnson case to overturn the “least change” congressional map previously adopted by the court and adopt in its place a new politically neutral map consistent with the principles enunciated in Clarke.
However, after briefing, the Wisconsin Supreme Court denied the request in a summary order issued on March 1, 2024.
