Redistricting: More criteria for drawing the lines

In the past 2 blogs, I focused on the “why” and “how” of Redistricting.  We know that Districts are geographic, often described as “representational” areas defined by federal and state law.  They must be of substantially equal size as measured by population of residents.  We also know about the Redistricting process used in Connecticut and which institutions are invested with the authority to create District maps. 

In the next two posts I focus on maps.  In this piece, I take a closer look at criteria - in addition to equal population - that come into play, the criteria used in Connecticut, and the criteria endorsed by the League of Women Voters.

Redistricting Criteria

The Districts that are drawn through Redistricting are representational, meaning those elected are to represent the people living in the District.  District lines determine who is on your ballot, where you go to vote and can influence whether your voice is heard (or not). These Districts will remain in place for ten years so the maps that are drawn in this cycle will have long-lasting impact. 

The Redistricting Community Handbook provides a useful summary (p.8) of required and commonly used criteria that are in play to create District maps.  See also National Council of State Legislatures for a review of criteria. These criteria are listed below. 

Required criteria

• Equal size measured by population – Article 1, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution requires that U.S. House Districts be equal in population; Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment  requires that State legislative Districts must be “substantially equal” often interpreted as allowing up to a 10% deviation of population.
• Voting Rights Act – Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act requiring pre-clearance of state voting laws and Redistricting plans was eviscerated by the 2013 Supreme Court ruling in Shelby v Holder.  Section 2 prohibits Redistricting plans that discriminate on the basis of race, whether that discrimination is intentional or inadvertent. For more, see the NAACP Redistricting Guide - Power on the Line(s): Making Redistricting Work for Us. 
  

Desirable criteria

• Contiguity:  Requires that all parts of a district are connected to another part of the district and the boundaries are a single uninterrupted shape
• Compactness of district shape: “Having the minimum distance between all the parts of a constituency”
• For an analysis of measurement, see: How to Measure Legislative District Compactness If You Only Know it When You See It
• Communities of Interest: Geographic areas such as neighborhoods in which residents have common policy concerns and would benefit from being in the same district
• Respect existing political boundaries:  Not crossing boundaries where feasible
• Preservation of core of previous districts: Maintaining past Districts (ensures continuity)
• Competitiveness: Avoid creation of “safe” Districts
• Partisan fairness:  Control of a legislature is largely in line with voters’ overall voting preference (measured by averaging results of statewide races)

Connecticut’s criteria

• Connecticut comports with Federal standards and in addition requires that Districts be contiguous.  
• House Districts must not divide towns except where necessary to comply with other legal requirements.
• See Ballotpedia's article Redistricting in Connecticut and the Connecticut General Assembly Redistricting website for more. 
  

League of Women Voters' recommended criteria

• Independent Redistricting Commissions are preferred:  Voters should select their representatives rather than representatives choosing their voters
• All Redistricting approaches at all levels should be fully open and transparent and include the public

Criteria to require: 

• Substantially equal population;
• Geographic contiguity;
• Effective representation of racial and linguistic minorities
• Criteria to include to the extent possible: 
• Promotion of partisan fairness;
• Preservation and protection of “communities of interest”;
• Respect for boundaries of municipalities/counties;
• Compactness and competitiveness can be considered if no conflict with criteria listed above

Criteria to explicitly reject:

• Protection of incumbents;
• Preferential treatment for a political party

See page 21 of the League of Women Voters' 2020-2022 Impact on Issues for more.