Redistricting in California

Redistricting
State-by-state redistricting procedures
Majority-minority districts
Congressional district demographics
United States census, 2020

Redistricting is the process by which new congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn. Each of California's 53 United States Representatives and 120 state legislators are elected from political divisions called districts. United States Senators are not elected by districts, but by the states at large. District lines are redrawn every 10 years following completion of the United States census. The federal government stipulates that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.

California was apportioned 52 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2020 census, one fewer than it received after the 2010 census. Click here for more information about redistricting in California after the 2020 census.

HIGHLIGHTS

Following the 2020 United States Census, California was apportioned 52 congressional seats, one less than the number it had after the 2010 census.

California's State Assembly is made up of 80 districts; California's State Senate is made up of 40 districts.

In California, a non-politician commission draws both congressional and state legislative district lines.

The California Citizens Redistricting Commission voted 14-0 in favor of a new congressional district map on December 20, 2021, and delivered those maps to the secretary of state on December 27, 2021. California was apportioned 52 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2020 census, a net loss of one seat compared to apportionment after the 2010 census. This map took effect for California's 2022 congressional elections. The California Citizens Redistricting Commission voted 14-0 in favor of a new state Assembly and Senate district maps on December 20, 2021, and delivered those maps to the secretary of state on December 27, 2021. These maps took effect for California's 2022 state legislative elections. Click here for more information on maps enacted after the 2020 census.

See the sections below for further information on the following topics:

1. Background: A summary of federal requirements for redistricting at both the congressional and state legislative levels
2. State process: An overview about the redistricting process in California
3. District maps: Information about the current district maps in California
4. Redistricting by cycle: A breakdown of the most significant events in California's redistricting after recent censuses
5. State legislation and ballot measures: State legislation and state and local ballot measures relevant to redistricting policy
6. Political impacts of redistricting: An analysis of the political issues associated with redistricting

Background

This section includes background information on federal requirements for congressional redistricting, state legislative redistricting, state-based requirements, redistricting methods used in the 50 states, gerrymandering, and recent court decisions.

Federal requirements for congressional redistricting

According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, the states and their legislatures have primary authority in determining the "times, places, and manner" of congressional elections. Congress may also pass laws regulating congressional elections.

“	The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.	”
—United States Constitution

Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution stipulates that congressional representatives be apportioned to the states on the basis of population. There are 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives. Each state is allotted a portion of these seats based on the size of its population relative to the other states. Consequently, a state may gain seats in the House if its population grows or lose seats if its population decreases, relative to populations in other states. In 1964, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Wesberry v. Sanders that the populations of House districts must be equal "as nearly as practicable."

The equal population requirement for congressional districts is strict. According to All About Redistricting, "Any district with more or fewer people than the average (also known as the 'ideal' population), must be specifically justified by a consistent state policy. And even consistent policies that cause a 1 percent spread from largest to smallest district will likely be unconstitutional."

Federal requirements for state legislative redistricting

The United States Constitution is silent on the issue of state legislative redistricting. In the mid-1960s, the United States Supreme Court issued a series of rulings in an effort to clarify standards for state legislative redistricting. In Reynolds v. Sims, the court ruled that "the Equal Protection Clause [of the United States Constitution] demands no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens, of all places as well as of all races." According to All About Redistricting, "it has become accepted that a [redistricting] plan will be constitutionally suspect if the largest and smallest districts [within a state or jurisdiction] are more than 10 percent apart."

State-based requirements

In addition to the federal criteria noted above, individual states may impose additional requirements on redistricting. Common state-level redistricting criteria are listed below.

1. Contiguity refers to the principle that all areas within a district should be physically adjacent. A total of 49 states require that districts of at least one state legislative chamber be contiguous (Nevada has no such requirement, imposing no requirements on redistricting beyond those enforced at the federal level). A total of 23 states require that congressional districts meet contiguity requirements.
2. Compactness refers to the general principle that the constituents within a district should live as near to one another as practicable. A total of 37 states impose compactness requirements on state legislative districts; 18 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.
3. A community of interest is defined by FairVote as a "group of people in a geographical area, such as a specific region or neighborhood, who have common political, social or economic interests." A total of 24 states require that the maintenance of communities of interest be considered in the drawing of state legislative districts. A total of 13 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.
4. A total of 42 states require that state legislative district lines be drawn to account for political boundaries (e.g., the limits of counties, cities, and towns). A total of 19 states require that similar considerations be made in the drawing of congressional districts.

Methods

In general, a state's redistricting authority can be classified as one of the following:

1. Legislature-dominant: In a legislature-dominant state, the legislature retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. Maps enacted by the legislature may or may not be subject to gubernatorial veto. Advisory commissions may also be involved in the redistricting process, although the legislature is not bound to adopt an advisory commission's recommendations.
2. Commission: In a commission state, an extra-legislative commission retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. A non-politician commission is one whose members cannot hold elective office. A politician commission is one whose members can hold elective office.
3. Hybrid: In a hybrid state, the legislature shares redistricting authority with a commission.

Gerrymandering

In 1812, Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry signed into law a state Senate district map that, according to the Encyclopædia Britannica, "consolidated the Federalist Party vote in a few districts and thus gave disproportionate representation to Democratic-Republicans." The word gerrymander was coined by The Boston Gazette to describe the district.

See also: Gerrymandering

The term gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to favor one political party, individual, or constituency over another. When used in a rhetorical manner by opponents of a particular district map, the term has a negative connotation but does not necessarily address the legality of a challenged map. The term can also be used in legal documents; in this context, the term describes redistricting practices that violate federal or state laws.

For additional background information about gerrymandering, click "[Show more]" below.

Show more

The phrase racial gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to dilute the voting power of racial minority groups. Federal law prohibits racial gerrymandering and establishes that, to combat this practice and to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act, states and jurisdictions can create majority-minority electoral districts. A majority-minority district is one in which a racial group or groups comprise a majority of the district's populations. Racial gerrymandering and majority-minority districts are discussed in greater detail in this article.

The phrase partisan gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district maps with the intention of favoring one political party over another. In contrast with racial gerrymandering, on which the Supreme Court of the United States has issued rulings in the past affirming that such practices violate federal law, the high court had not, as of November 2017, issued a ruling establishing clear precedent on the question of partisan gerrymandering. Although the court has granted in past cases that partisan gerrymandering can violate the United States Constitution, it has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring partisan gerrymanders. Partisan gerrymandering is described in greater detail in this article.

Recent court decisions

See also: Redistricting cases heard by the Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States has, in recent years, issued several decisions dealing with redistricting policy, including rulings relating to the consideration of race in drawing district maps, the use of total population tallies in apportionment, and the constitutionality of independent redistricting commissions. The rulings in these cases, which originated in a variety of states, impact redistricting processes across the nation.

For additional background information about these cases, click "[Show more]" below.

Show more

Gill v. Whitford (2018)

See also: Gill v. Whitford

In Gill v. Whitford, decided on June 18, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the plaintiffs—12 Wisconsin Democrats who alleged that Wisconsin's state legislative district plan had been subject to an unconstitutional gerrymander in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments—had failed to demonstrate standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to bring a complaint. The court's opinion, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, did not address the broader question of whether partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. Roberts was joined in the majority opinion by Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Kagan penned a concurring opinion joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas penned an opinion that concurred in part with the majority opinion and in the judgment, joined by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Cooper v. Harris (2017)

See also: Cooper v. Harris

In Cooper v. Harris, decided on May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the judgment of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, finding that two of North Carolina's congressional districts, the boundaries of which had been set following the 2010 United States Census, had been subject to an illegal racial gerrymander in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the court's majority opinion, which was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor (Thomas also filed a separate concurring opinion). In the court's majority opinion, Kagan described the two-part analysis utilized by the high court when plaintiffs allege racial gerrymandering as follows: "First, the plaintiff must prove that 'race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature's decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district.' ... Second, if racial considerations predominated over others, the design of the district must withstand strict scrutiny. The burden shifts to the State to prove that its race-based sorting of voters serves a 'compelling interest' and is 'narrowly tailored' to that end." In regard to the first part of the aforementioned analysis, Kagan went on to note that "a plaintiff succeeds at this stage even if the evidence reveals that a legislature elevated race to the predominant criterion in order to advance other goals, including political ones." Justice Samuel Alito delivered an opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part with the majority opinion. This opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Evenwel v. Abbott (2016)

See also: Evenwel v. Abbott

Evenwel v. Abbott was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts in Texas. The plaintiffs, Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger, argued that district populations ought to take into account only the number of registered or eligible voters residing within those districts as opposed to total population counts, which are generally used for redistricting purposes. Total population tallies include non-voting residents, such as immigrants residing in the country without legal permission, prisoners, and children. The plaintiffs alleged that this tabulation method dilutes the voting power of citizens residing in districts that are home to smaller concentrations of non-voting residents. The court ruled 8-0 on April 4, 2016, that a state or locality can use total population counts for redistricting purposes. The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2016)

Justice Stephen Breyer penned the majority opinion in Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.

See also: Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts that were created by the commission in 2012. The plaintiffs, a group of Republican voters, alleged that "the commission diluted or inflated the votes of almost two million Arizona citizens when the commission intentionally and systematically overpopulated 16 Republican districts while under-populating 11 Democrat districts." This, the plaintiffs argued, constituted a partisan gerrymander. The plaintiffs claimed that the commission placed a disproportionately large number of non-minority voters in districts dominated by Republicans; meanwhile, the commission allegedly placed many minority voters in smaller districts that tended to vote Democratic. As a result, the plaintiffs argued, more voters overall were placed in districts favoring Republicans than in those favoring Democrats, thereby diluting the votes of citizens in the Republican-dominated districts. The defendants countered that the population deviations resulted from legally defensible efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act and obtain approval from the United States Department of Justice. At the time of redistricting, certain states were required to obtain preclearance from the U.S. Department of Justice before adopting redistricting plans or making other changes to their election laws—a requirement struck down by the United States Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder (2013). On April 20, 2016, the court ruled unanimously that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that a partisan gerrymander had taken place. Instead, the court found that the commission had acted in good faith to comply with the Voting Rights Act. The court's majority opinion was penned by Justice Stephen Breyer.

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015)

See also: Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2015. At issue was the constitutionality of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, which was established by state constitutional amendment in 2000. According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, "the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." The state legislature argued that the use of the word "legislature" in this context is literal; therefore, only a state legislature may draw congressional district lines. Meanwhile, the commission contended that the word "legislature" ought to be interpreted to mean "the legislative powers of the state," including voter initiatives and referenda. On June 29, 2015, the court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, finding that "redistricting is a legislative function, to be performed in accordance with the state's prescriptions for lawmaking, which may include the referendum and the governor's veto." The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito dissented.

Race and ethnicity

See also: Majority-minority districts

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 mandates that electoral district lines cannot be drawn in such a manner as to "improperly dilute minorities' voting power."

“	No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.	”
—Voting Rights Act of 1965

States and other political subdivisions may create majority-minority districts in order to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. A majority-minority district is a district in which minority groups compose a majority of the district's total population. As of 2015, California was home to 40 congressional majority-minority districts.

Proponents of majority-minority districts maintain that these districts are a necessary hindrance to the practice of cracking, which occurs when a constituency is divided between several districts in order to prevent it from achieving a majority in any one district. In addition, supporters argue that the drawing of majority-minority districts has resulted in an increased number of minority representatives in state legislatures and Congress.

Critics, meanwhile, contend that the establishment of majority-minority districts can result in packing, which occurs when a constituency or voting group is placed within a single district, thereby minimizing its influence in other districts. Because minority groups tend to vote Democratic, critics argue that majority-minority districts ultimately present an unfair advantage to Republicans by consolidating Democratic votes into a smaller number of districts.

State process

See also: State-by-state redistricting procedures

In California, a non-politician commission draws both congressional and state legislative district lines. Established in 2008 by ballot initiative, the commission comprises 14 members: five Democrats, five Republicans, and four belonging to neither party. A panel of state auditors selects the pool of nominees from which the commissioners are appointed. This pool comprises 20 Democrats, 20 Republicans, and 20 belonging to neither party. The majority and minority leaders of both chambers of the state legislature may each remove two members from each of the aforementioned groups. The first eight commission members are selected at random from the remaining nominees. These first eight comprise three Democrats, three Republicans, and two belonging to neither party. The first eight commissioners appoint the remaining six, which must include two Democrats, two Republicans, and two belonging to neither party.

Commissioners must meet the following requirements in order to serve:

1. Members must have voted in at least two of the last three statewide elections.
2. Members cannot have switched party affiliation for at least five years.
3. "Neither commissioners nor immediate family may have been, within 10 years of appointment, a candidate for federal or state office or member of a party central committee; an officer, employee, or paid consultant to a federal or state candidate or party; a registered lobbyist or paid legislative staff; or a donor of more than $2,000 to an elected candidate."
4. Members cannot be "staff, consultants or contractors for state or federal government" while serving as commissioners. The same prohibition applies to the family of commission members.

In order to approve a redistricting plan, nine of the commission's 14 members must vote for it. These nine must include three Democrats, three Republicans, and three belonging to neither party. Maps drawn by the commission may be overturned by public referendum. In the event that a map is overturned by the public, the California Supreme Court must appoint a group to draw a new map.

The California Constitution requires that districts be contiguous. Further, the state constitution mandates that "to the extent possible, [districts] must ... preserve the geographic integrity of cities, counties, neighborhoods and communities of interest." Districts must also "encourage compactness." State Senate and Assembly districts should be nested within each other where possible.

How incarcerated persons are counted for redistricting

See also: State-by-state redistricting procedures

States differ on how they count incarcerated persons for the purposes of redistricting. In California, inmates who were in-state residents prior to incarceration are counted in their last known residence's district population. Out-of-state residents, inmates with unknown previous residences, and federal inmates are excluded from all district populations.

District maps

Congressional districts

See also: United States congressional delegations from California

California comprises 52 congressional districts. The table below lists California's current House representatives.

Office	Name	Party	Date assumed office	Date term ends
U.S. House California District 1	Doug LaMalfa	Republican	January 3, 2013	January 3, 2025
U.S. House California District 2	Jared Huffman	Democratic	January 3, 2013	January 3, 2025
U.S. House California District 3	Kevin Kiley	Republican	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House California District 4	Mike Thompson	Democratic	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House California District 5	Tom McClintock	Republican	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House California District 6	Ami Bera	Democratic	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House California District 7	Doris Matsui	Democratic	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House California District 8	John Garamendi	Democratic	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House California District 9	Josh Harder	Democratic	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House California District 10	Mark DeSaulnier	Democratic	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House California District 11	Nancy Pelosi	Democratic	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House California District 12	Barbara Lee	Democratic	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House California District 13	John Duarte	Republican	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House California District 14	Eric Swalwell	Democratic	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House California District 15	Kevin Mullin	Democratic	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House California District 16	Anna Eshoo	Democratic	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House California District 17	Ro Khanna	Democratic	January 3, 2017	January 3, 2025
U.S. House California District 18	Zoe Lofgren	Democratic	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House California District 19	Jimmy Panetta	Democratic	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House California District 21	Jim Costa	Democratic	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House California District 22	David G. Valadao	Republican	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House California District 23	Jay Obernolte	Republican	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House California District 24	Salud Carbajal	Democratic	January 3, 2017	January 3, 2025
U.S. House California District 25	Raul Ruiz	Democratic	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House California District 26	Julia Brownley	Democratic	January 3, 2013	January 3, 2025
U.S. House California District 27	Mike Garcia	Republican	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House California District 28	Judy Chu	Democratic	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House California District 29	Tony Cárdenas	Democratic	January 3, 2013	January 3, 2025
U.S. House California District 30	Adam Schiff	Democratic	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House California District 31	Grace Napolitano	Democratic	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House California District 32	Brad Sherman	Democratic	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House California District 33	Pete Aguilar	Democratic	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House California District 34	Jimmy Gomez	Democratic	July 11, 2017	January 3, 2025
U.S. House California District 35	Norma Torres	Democratic	January 3, 2015	January 3, 2025
U.S. House California District 36	Ted Lieu	Democratic	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House California District 37	Sydney Kamlager-Dove	Democratic	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House California District 38	Linda Sánchez	Democratic	January 3, 2013	January 3, 2025
U.S. House California District 39	Mark Takano	Democratic	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House California District 40	Young Kim	Republican	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House California District 41	Ken Calvert	Republican	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House California District 42	Robert Garcia	Democratic	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House California District 43	Maxine Waters	Democratic	January 3, 2013	January 3, 2025
U.S. House California District 44	Nanette Barragán	Democratic	January 3, 2017	January 3, 2025
U.S. House California District 45	Michelle Steel	Republican	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House California District 46	Lou Correa	Democratic	January 3, 2017	January 3, 2025
U.S. House California District 47	Katie Porter	Democratic	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House California District 48	Darrell Issa	Republican	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House California District 49	Mike Levin	Democratic	January 3, 2019	January 3, 2025
U.S. House California District 50	Scott Peters	Democratic	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House California District 51	Sara Jacobs	Democratic	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House California District 52	Juan Vargas	Democratic	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025

State legislative maps

See also: California State Senate and California House of Representatives

California comprises 40 state Senate districts and 80 state Assembly districts. State senators are elected every four years in partisan elections. State representatives are elected every two years in partisan elections. To access the state legislative district maps approved during the 2020 redistricting cycle, click here.

Redistricting by cycle

Redistricting after the 2020 census

See also: Redistricting in California after the 2020 census

California was apportioned 52 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. This represented a net loss of one seat as compared to apportionment after the 2010 census.

Enacted congressional district maps

See also: Congressional district maps implemented after the 2020 census

The California Citizens Redistricting Commission voted 14-0 in favor of a new congressional district map on December 20, 2021, and delivered those maps to the secretary of state on December 27, 2021. California was apportioned 52 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2020 census, a net loss of one seat compared to apportionment after the 2010 census. This map took effect for California's 2022 congressional elections.

Below are the congressional maps in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.

California Congressional Districts
until January 2, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.

California Congressional Districts
starting January 3, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Reactions

The Los Angeles Times' Seema Mehta, Melanie Mason, and Jason Myers wrote, "The state's 42 Democratic congressional incumbents largely fared well," adding that "nearly half the state's 11 Republican members of Congress will see their districts grow more blue." Demographically, the Associated Press' Don Thompson wrote that the new maps created 16 congressional districts with a Latino citizen voting age population greater than 50%, an increase of six such districts compared to previous maps.

National Republican Redistricting Trust Executive Director Adam Kincaid said, "California's 'independent' redistricting commission is producing wildly contorted congressional lines," adding that the maps "ignore California's communities in a desperate attempt to try to save Nancy Pelosi's majority." The commission's nonpartisan chairwoman, Isha Ahmad, said, "We drew district maps in an open and transparent manner that did more than merely allow public input — we actively sought and encouraged broad public participation in the process through a massive education and outreach program."

2020 presidential results

The table below details the results of the 2020 presidential election in each district at the time of the 2022 election and its political predecessor district. This data was compiled by Daily Kos Elections.

2020 presidential results by Congressional district, California
District	2022 district		Political predecessor district
	Joe Biden	Donald Trump	Joe Biden	Donald Trump
California's 1st	39.2%	58.3%	41.1%	56.4%
California's 2nd	73.5%	24.0%	73.6%	23.9%
California's 3rd	47.9%	49.7%	46.2%	51.6%
California's 4th	67.1%	30.5%	72.4%	25.3%
California's 5th	42.7%	55.0%	43.9%	53.7%
California's 6th	57.9%	39.4%	55.6%	41.9%
California's 7th	67.4%	30.3%	70.3%	27.2%
California's 8th	76.0%	22.0%	54.9%	42.7%
California's 9th	55.2%	42.6%	50.3%	47.4%
California's 10th	68.6%	29.3%	74.3%	23.6%
California's 11th	86.3%	11.7%	86.1%	11.9%
California's 12th	89.3%	8.6%	88.9%	9.0%
California's 13th	54.3%	43.4%	57.9%	39.9%
California's 14th	71.7%	26.2%	71.5%	26.4%
California's 15th	77.7%	20.4%	77.7%	20.5%
California's 16th	75.4%	22.4%	76.4%	21.3%
California's 17th	72.7%	25.3%	72.5%	25.5%
California's 18th	71.0%	26.9%	70.0%	27.9%
California's 19th	68.7%	29.1%	72.7%	25.0%
California's 20th	36.4%	61.3%	40.5%	57.1%
California's 21st	59.1%	38.8%	58.8%	38.9%
California's 22nd	55.3%	42.3%	54.4%	43.5%
California's 23rd	43.9%	53.7%	43.6%	54.0%
California's 24th	63.3%	34.3%	60.7%	36.9%
California's 25th	56.7%	41.4%	55.9%	42.3%
California's 26th	58.9%	39.0%	61.4%	36.5%
California's 27th	55.1%	42.7%	54.0%	43.9%
California's 28th	66.1%	31.9%	67.2%	30.8%
California's 29th	74.5%	23.2%	74.1%	23.7%
California's 30th	72.2%	26.0%	70.9%	27.2%
California's 31st	64.5%	33.4%	65.2%	32.8%
California's 32nd	69.5%	28.7%	68.7%	29.4%
California's 33rd	61.5%	36.2%	58.8%	38.9%
California's 34th	81.0%	16.7%	80.8%	16.9%
California's 35th	62.7%	35.1%	65.1%	32.6%
California's 36th	71.0%	26.9%	69.0%	29.0%
California's 37th	85.7%	12.4%	84.3%	13.8%
California's 38th	64.1%	33.9%	65.6%	32.3%
California's 39th	62.0%	35.8%	61.7%	36.1%
California's 40th	49.9%	48.0%	54.1%	44.0%
California's 41st	48.6%	49.7%	45.3%	52.7%
California's 42nd	71.7%	25.9%	77.1%	20.6%
California's 43rd	80.8%	17.0%	76.9%	20.9%
California's 44th	72.9%	24.7%	78.4%	19.2%
California's 45th	52.1%	46.0%	49.7%	48.2%
California's 46th	64.1%	33.7%	64.3%	33.5%
California's 47th	54.5%	43.4%	54.6%	43.3%
California's 48th	42.7%	55.0%	45.0%	52.7%
California's 49th	54.6%	43.2%	55.2%	42.5%
California's 50th	65.4%	32.2%	63.4%	34.2%
California's 51st	62.5%	35.2%	67.0%	30.9%
California's 52nd	67.4%	30.5%	66.9%	30.9%

Enacted state legislative district maps

See also: State legislative district maps implemented after the 2020 census

The California Citizens Redistricting Commission voted 14-0 in favor of a new state Assembly and Senate district maps on December 20, 2021, and delivered those maps to the secretary of state on December 27, 2021. These maps took effect for California's 2022 state legislative elections.

State Senate map

Below is the state Senate map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.

California State Senate Districts
before 2020 redistricting cycle

Click a district to compare boundaries.

California State Senate Districts
after 2020 redistricting cycle

Click a district to compare boundaries.

State Assembly map

Below is the state House map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.

California State House Districts
until December 4, 2022

Click a district to compare boundaries.

California State House Districts
starting December 5, 2022

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Reactions

Following the 2020 elections, Democrats held supermajorities in both legislative chambers. In the state Assembly, the party held 60 of the 80 seats with Republicans holding 19 and an independent holding one. In the state Senate, Democrats held 31 of the 40 seats with Republicans holding the remaining nine. CalMatters' Sameea Kamal wrote, "Democrats' grip of the Assembly could tighten," under the new maps with 63 districts having a strong Democratic lean. Kamal added that "the Democratic majority in the state Senate might shrink," with three districts becoming more Republican and one becoming more Democratic in terms of voter registration. Demographically, the Associated Press' Don Thompson wrote that the new maps created 22 Assembly districts and 11 Senate districts with a Latino citizen voting age population greater than 50%, an increase of six and four such districts compared to previous maps, respectively.

Enacted Board of Equalization district maps

The California Citizens Redistricting Commission voted 14-0 in favor of a new state Board of Equalization district maps on Dec. 20, 2021, and delivered those maps to the secretary of state on Dec. 27. The Board of Equalization is a state executive agency divided into four districts, each of which elect one member. The board is responsible for administering various taxes and overseeing county property tax assessments. This map took effect for California's 2022 state Board of Equalization elections.

California Board of Equalization district map, enacted Dec. 27, 2021

Click here to view a larger version of this map.

Reaction

CalMatters' Sameea Kamal wrote, "For these lines, there was little drama at the redistricting commission — and certainly nothing like the fights over congressional and legislative districts."

Redistricting after the 2010 census

See also: Redistricting in California after the 2010 census

Following the 2010 United States Census, California neither gained nor lost congressional seats. On August 15, 2011, the state's independent redistricting commission voted to approve new congressional and state legislative district maps. The commission voted 12-2 to approve the congressional map and 13-1 to approve the state legislative map. The newly-approved state Senate districts were subject to a popular referendum on November 6, 2010. The district lines were maintained as a result of the referendum. Suits challenging the congressional and state legislative district lines were ultimately rejected.

Political impacts of redistricting

Competitiveness

There are conflicting opinions regarding the correlation between partisan gerrymandering and electoral competitiveness. In 2012, Jennifer Clark, a political science professor at the University of Houston, said, "The redistricting process has important consequences for voters. In some states, incumbent legislators work together to protect their own seats, which produces less competition in the political system. Voters may feel as though they do not have a meaningful alternative to the incumbent legislator. Legislators who lack competition in their districts have less incentive to adhere to their constituents’ opinions."

In 2006, Emory University professor Alan Abramowitz and Ph.D. students Brad Alexander and Matthew Gunning wrote, "[Some] studies have concluded that redistricting has a neutral or positive effect on competition. ... [It] is often the case that partisan redistricting has the effect of reducing the safety of incumbents, thereby making elections more competitive."

In 2011, James Cottrill, a professor of political science at Santa Clara University, published a study of the effect of non-legislative approaches (e.g., independent commissions, politician commissions) to redistricting on the competitiveness of congressional elections. Cottrill found that "particular types of [non-legislative approaches] encourage the appearance in congressional elections of experienced and well-financed challengers." Cottrill cautioned, however, that non-legislative approaches "contribute neither to decreased vote percentages when incumbents win elections nor to a greater probability of their defeat."

In 2021, John Johnson, Research Fellow in the Lubar Center for Public Policy Research and Civic Education at Marquette University, reviewed the relationship between partisan gerrymandering and political geography in Wisconsin, a state where Republicans have controlled both chambers of the state legislature since 2010 while voting for the Democratic nominee in every presidential election but one since 1988. After analyzing state election results since 2000, Johnson wrote, "In 2000, 42% of Democrats and 36% of Republicans lived in a neighborhood that the other party won. Twenty years later, 43% of Democrats lived in a place Trump won, but just 28% of Republicans lived in a Biden-voting neighborhood. Today, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to live in both places where they are the overwhelming majority and places where they form a noncompetitive minority."

State legislatures after the 2010 redistricting cycle

See also: Margin of victory in state legislative elections

In 2014, Ballotpedia conducted a study of competitive districts in 44 state legislative chambers between 2010, the last year in which district maps drawn after the 2000 census applied, and 2012, the first year in which district maps drawn after the 2010 census applied. Ballotpedia found that there were 61 fewer competitive general election contests in 2012 than in 2010. Of the 44 chambers studied, 25 experienced a net loss in the number of competitive elections. A total of 17 experienced a net increase. In total, 16.2 percent of the 3,842 legislative contests studied saw competitive general elections in 2010. In 2012, 14.6 percent of the contests studied saw competitive general elections. An election was considered competitive if it was won by a margin of victory of 5 percent or less. An election was considered mildly competitive if it was won by a margin of victory between 5 and 10 percent. For more information regarding this report, including methodology, see this article.

There were four competitive elections for the California State Assembly in 2012, compared to two in 2010. There were five mildly competitive state Assembly races in 2012, the same as in 2010. This amounted to a net gain of two competitive races.

2017-2019

Santa Clara, California

On May 15, 2018, Judge Thomas E. Kuhnle, of the Santa Clara County Superior Court, issued his proposed statement of decision in Kaku v. City of Santa Clara, finding that the city's at-large electoral system for city council seats violates the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA). The CVRA provides that an at-large electoral system "may not be imposed or applied in a manner that impairs the ability of a protected class to elect candidates." The plaintiffs in the suit, a group of Asian American voters (a protected class under the CVRA), allege that Santa Clara's at-large electoral system for city council seats prevents them from electing candidates of their choosing. Kuhnle agreed, writing the following in his ruling: "Based on the evidence presented at trial, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the at-large method used by the City impairs the ability of Asians to elect candidates as a result of the dilution and abridgment of their rights as voters." The parties to the suit have 15 days to file objections to Kuhnle's proposed statement of decision before it is finalized.

On June 5, 2018, Santa Clara citizens voted on a city charter amendment providing for the implementation of a two-district, ranked-choice voting electoral system for council seats. It was unclear how Kuhnle's final ruling might impact or involve the amendment vote.

Poway, California

On October 4, 2017, Don Higginson, a registered voter residing in Poway, California, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) and the City of Poway, alleging that the city's district map (Map 133), enacted in keeping with the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA), violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. On August 13, 2017, the Poway City Council voted 5 to 0 to divide the city into four electoral districts; previously, the city had conducted elections on an at-large basis. The council's action was precipitated by a letter submitted to the city on June 7, 2017, by attorney Kevin Shenkman, who claimed that "Poway's at-large system dilutes the ability of Latinos ... to elect candidate of their choice or otherwise influence the outcome of Poway's council elections," in alleged violation of the CVRA. On October 3, 2017, the council adopted the ordinance establishing Map 133. Poway's 2018 municipal elections were conducted using Map 133.

Higginson's complaint noted the following arguments against the legality of Map 133 and the CVRA:

“

Under the CVRA, local governments must abandon at-large voting systems if racially polarized voting exists–regardless of whether the minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district. Accordingly, the CVRA flagrantly violates the Fourteenth Amendment. Its 'race-based sort of voters' does not serve a 'compelling interest' nor is it 'narrowly tailored.' ... Because of the redistricting that the CVRA has imposed on the City, Mr. Higginson will now reside in and vote in District 2. The creation of that district, like all of the City's new districts, is traceable to the CVRA's requirement that the City engage in racial gerrymandering. Mr. Higginson thus has brought this action to vindicate his constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

”

Higginson requested that the court declare the California Voting Rights Act and Map 133 unconstitutional and prohibit their enforcement. The court heard oral argument in the case on January 12, 2018. On February 23, 2018, Judge William Hayes ruled against Higginson, dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Hayes wrote the following in the court's opinion:

“

Assuming that Higginson's inability to vote for councilmembers in three of the four districts after the enactment of Map 133 could constitute an 'invasion of a legally protected interest' under Ninth Circuit precedent in an equal protection case, Higginson must plead facts to demonstrate that his injury is 'fairly traceable' to requirements imposed on the city by the CVRA. ... Rather than adopting by-district elections in an effort to comply with the requirements imposed by the CVRA, the City allegedly adopted by-district elections are receiving the demand letter from a private party in an effort to avoid the costs of litigation. The Court concludes that Higginson does not allege sufficient facts to support an inference that the decision to switch to by-district elections and any resulting injury to Higginson is 'fairly traceable' to the requirements imposed on the City by the CVRA.

”

On February 27, 2018, Higginson filed a motion for an injunction pending appeal. On April 5, 2018, Hayes issued an order denying that request. On April 24, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit denied Higginson's motion for an emergency injunction against the California Voting Rights Act. The court set an expedited schedule for the appeal, with the opening brief (by Higginson) due April 30, 2018, and the answering brief (by Becerra and the City of Poway) due May 14, 2018. On June 14, 2018, the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court decision finding that Higginson lacked standing to bring suit against the city or the state attorney general. On August 1, 2018, the Ninth Circuit declined en banc consideration of the case.

On August 2, 2018, Higginson requested a preliminary injunction to bar officials from using the disputed map in any elections pending resolution of the case. On October 2, 2018, Judge William Q. Hayes denied the motion, finding that Higginson had not "demonstrated sufficient likelihood of success on the merits of his claim or irreparable injury absent injunctive relief." On February 4, 2019, Hayes issued his ruling in the case, dismissing Higginson's challenge to the CVRA. In his ruling, Hayes wrote, "The Court finds that Higginson's allegations, accepted as true, with reasonable inferences drawn in his favor, do not state a racial gerrymandering claim subject to strict scrutiny analysis under the Equal Protection Clause. … Higginson fails to state a claim under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Complaint must be dismissed." Higginson appealed Hayes' decision to the Ninth Circuit. On December 4, 2019, a three-judge appellate panel, comprising Judges Mary Murguia, Andrew Hurwitz, and Louis Guirola, rejected the appeal, affirming Hayes' decision. The court wrote, "Because Plaintiff's allegations do not trigger strict scrutiny, and he does not contend the City lacked a rational basis for its action, he fails to state a claim for relief. He also therefore was not entitled to injunctive relief."

State legislation and ballot measures

Redistricting legislation

See state election laws

The following is a list of recent redistricting bills that have been introduced in or passed by the California state legislature. To learn more about each of these bills, click the bill title. This information is provided by BillTrack50.

Note: Due to the nature of the sorting process used to generate this list, some results may not be relevant to the topic. If no bills are displayed below, no legislation pertaining to this topic has been introduced in the legislature recently.

Redistricting ballot measures

See also: Redistricting measures on the ballot and List of California ballot measures

Ballotpedia has tracked the following ballot measure(s) relating to redistricting in California.

1. California Proposition 118, Changes to Redistricting Procedures and Legislative Ethics Initiative (June 1990)
2. California Proposition 119, Citizens Redistricting Commission Initiative (June 1990)
3. California Proposition 77, Changes to Legislative and Congressional Redistricting Initiative (2005)
4. California Proposition 20, Congressional Redistricting Initiative (2010)
5. California Proposition 40, State Senate Redistricting Plan Referendum (2012)
6. California Proposition 27, Elimination of Citizens Redistricting Commission Initiative (2010)
7. California Proposition 20, Reapportionment Commission Initiative (1926)
8. California Proposition 28, Legislative Reapportionment Initiative (1926)
9. California Proposition 18, Reapportionment Commission Amendment (1942)
10. California Proposition 23, Senatorial Districts Initiative (1962)
11. California Proposition 39, Reapportionment Commission Initiative (1984)
12. California Proposition 12, Redistricting of Assembly Districts Referendum (June 1982)
13. California Proposition 11, Redistricting of Senate Districts Referendum (June 1982)
14. California Proposition 10, Congressional Redistricting Act (June 1982)
15. California Proposition 14, Redistricting Commission Initiative (1982)
16. California Proposition 6, Reapportionment Provisions Amendment (June 1980)
17. California Proposition 1, Legislative Redistricting Referendum (1928)
18. California Proposition 11, Creation of the California Citizens Redistricting Commission Initiative (2008)
19. California Proposition 13, Senate Districts Initiative (1948)
20. California Proposition 15, Senatorial Districts Initiative (1960)

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Redistricting California. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Redistricting in California - Google News

See also

• United States census, 2020
• Redistricting in California after the 2010 census
• Redistricting
• State-by-state redistricting procedures
• Majority-minority districts
• State legislative and congressional redistricting after the 2010 census
• Margin of victory in state legislative elections before and after the 2010 census
• Margin of victory analysis for the 2014 congressional elections

External links

• All About Redistricting
• Dave's Redistricting
• FiveThirtyEight, "What Redistricting Looks Like In Every State"
• National Conference of State Legislatures, "Redistricting Process"
• FairVote, "Redistricting"