Redistricting in Connecticut

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Public Policy Logo-one line.pngin Connecticut

Election Policy Logo.png
Redistricting after the 2020 census
The 2020 cycle
Congressional apportionment
Redistricting before 2024 elections
Redistricting committees
Deadlines
Lawsuits
Timeline of redistricting maps
2022 House elections with multiple incumbents
New U.S.House districts created after apportionment
Congressional maps
State legislative maps
General information
State-by-state redistricting procedures
United States census, 2020
Majority-minority districts
Gerrymandering
Ballotpedia's election legislation tracker

Redistricting is the process by which new congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn. Each of Connecticut's five United States Representatives and 187 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.[1][2][3][4]

Connecticut was apportioned five seats in the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2020 census, the same number it received after the 2010 census. Click here for more information about redistricting in Connecticut after the 2020 census.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • Following the 2020 United States Census, Connecticut was apportioned five congressional districts, which was unchanged from the number it had after the 2010 census.
  • Connecticut's House of Representatives is made up of 151 districts; Connecticut's State Senate is made up of 36 districts.
  • In Connecticut, the state legislature is primarily responsible for drawing both congressional and state legislative district lines.
  • On June 28, 2018, the NAACP, in conjunction with five Connecticut voters, filed suit in federal district court, alleging that Connecticut's state legislative district plan violates the Amendment XIV, United States Constitution by counting prison inmates as residents of their incarceration facilities as opposed to their pre-incarceration residences for redistricting purposes. For more information, see below.

    • On February 10, 2022, Connecticut enacted new congressional district boundaries when the Connecticut Supreme Court adopted the redistricting plan submitted by a court-appointed special master.[5][6] The court had appointed Nathaniel Persily to that position on December 23, 2021, and Persily submitted his proposed congressional district plan to the court on January 18, 2022. The state supreme court assumed control over congressional redistricting on December 21, 2021, after the Connecticut Reapportionment Commission missed an extended deadline to complete the process by that date. Under state law, the Reapportionment Commission had assumed responsibility over congressional redistricting after the state’s Reapportionment Committee failed to meet a statutory September 15, 2021, deadline due to delays in the release of census data.

    The Connecticut Reapportionment Commission voted 8-0 in favor of new maps for the state's 151 House districts and 36 Senate districts on November 18 and November 23, 2021, respectively.[7][8] The commission, made up of four Democratic lawmakers, four Republican lawmakers, and a ninth member selected by the commissioners, took over the redistricting process after the previous Reapportionment Committee failed to meet its Sept. 15 deadline to select maps and win two-thirds approval from both chambers of the Connecticut General Assembly.[9] Census data was not delivered until Sept. 16. Unlike the committee, maps prepared by the Reapportionment Commission did not need to win approval from the General Assembly.[10] This map took effect for Connecticut's 2022 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 Connecticut
    3. District maps: Information about the current district maps in Connecticut
    4. Redistricting by cycle: A breakdown of the most significant events in Connecticut'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.[11][12]

    “ 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.[13] ”
    —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."[14][15][16]

    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."[16]

    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."[16]

    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.[16][17]
    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.[16][17]
    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.[16][17]
    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.[16][17]

    Methods

    In general, a state's redistricting authority can be classified as one of the following:[18]

    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.[1][19]

    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.[20]

    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.[21][22]

    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.[23]

    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.[24][25][26]

    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.[27][28][29][30]

    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.[31][32][33]

    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.[34][35][36][37]

    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.[13] ”
    —Voting Rights Act of 1965[38]

    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, Connecticut was home to zero congressional majority-minority districts.[2][3][4]

    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.[2][3][4]

    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.[2][3][4]

    State process

    See also: State-by-state redistricting procedures

    In Connecticut, the state legislature is primarily responsible for drawing both congressional and state legislative district lines. Maps must be approved by a two-thirds vote in each chamber. If the state legislature is unable to approve new maps, a backup commission is convened to draw congressional and state legislative district boundaries. The commission consists of nine members. The four legislative leaders (i.e., the majority and minority leaders of each chamber of the legislature) appoint two members each. The ninth member is selected by the eight previously selected commissioners.[39][40]

    The Connecticut Constitution requires that all districts, whether congressional or state legislative, be contiguous. In addition, state House districts must "not divide towns except where necessary to comply with other legal requirements."[41]

    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 Connecticut, inmates who were in-state residents prior to incarceration are counted in their last known residence's district population. Out-of-state residents and inmates with unknown previous residences are counted as generic state residents. Persons serving life sentences without the possibility of parole are counted as residents of their correctional facility. Federal inmates are counted using the same standard as state inmates.

    District maps

    Congressional districts

    See also: United States congressional delegations from Connecticut

    Connecticut comprises five congressional districts. The table below lists Connecticut's current U.S. Representatives.


    Office Name Party Date assumed office Date term ends
    U.S. House Connecticut District 1 John Larson Democratic January 3, 1999 January 3, 2025
    U.S. House Connecticut District 2 Joe Courtney Democratic January 3, 2007 January 3, 2025
    U.S. House Connecticut District 3 Rosa L. DeLauro Democratic January 3, 1991 January 3, 2025
    U.S. House Connecticut District 4 Jim Himes Democratic January 3, 2009 January 3, 2025
    U.S. House Connecticut District 5 Jahana Hayes Democratic January 3, 2019 January 3, 2025


    State legislative maps

    See also: Connecticut State Senate and Connecticut House of Representatives

    Connecticut comprises 36 state Senate districts and 151 state House districts. State senators are elected every two 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 Connecticut after the 2020 census

    Connecticut was apportioned five seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. This represented neither a gain nor a loss of seats as compared to apportionment after the 2010 census.[42]

    Enacted congressional district maps

    See also: Congressional district maps implemented after the 2020 census

    On February 10, 2022, Connecticut enacted new congressional district boundaries when the Connecticut Supreme Court adopted the redistricting plan submitted by a court-appointed special master.[43][44] The court had appointed Nathaniel Persily to that position on December 23, 2021, and Persily submitted his proposed congressional district plan to the court on January 18, 2022. The state supreme court assumed control over congressional redistricting on December 21, 2021, after the Connecticut Reapportionment Commission missed an extended deadline to complete the process by that date. Under state law, the Reapportionment Commission had assumed responsibility over congressional redistricting after the state’s Reapportionment Committee failed to meet a statutory September 15, 2021, deadline due to delays in the release of census data.

    According to Bloomberg Government's Greg Giroux, the special master's "map moved just 71,736 people into new districts—the minimum number necessary to achieve population equality—and shifted the lines in only four municipalities, all of which are already divided between two districts."[45]Giroux also wrote, "Republicans sought more significant changes to the current map, which Persily drew last decade and under which Democrats won all five districts every two years."[45] Mark Pazniokas of The Connecticut Mirror wrote that in the adopted plan, "Three of the five districts are solidly Democratic, but the 2nd and the 5th are competitive, while leaning Democratic. Republicans have carried those districts in statewide races, including the 2018 gubernatorial election."[46]

    Map images

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

    Connecticut Congressional Districts
    until January 2, 2023

    Click a district to compare boundaries.

    Connecticut Congressional Districts
    starting January 3, 2023

    Click a district to compare boundaries.



    Here's a link to the Connecticut Supreme Court's complete order approving the congressional map, including the Special Master's full report and supporting data:
    Connecticut Supreme Court order approving Special Master's proposed redistricting plan

    Reactions

    During the state supreme court hearing regarding the plan, Aaron Bayer, a lawyer for the commission's Democrats said, "This court gave clear, unequivocal, very precise directives to the special master on how to prepare a reapportionment plan. The special master followed those directives meticulously and produced a plan that complies in every respect with this court’s order."[47] During that hearing, the attorney representing Republican members of the commission, Proloy K. Das, asked the court to require more changes to the congressional map, since the current process and district boundaries benefits Democrats: "The parties will never reach an agreement. We’ll reach gridlock, and we’ll be back here, because the party that’s advantaged, a party that has a map that produces 5-0 in favor of one party, has no incentive to change."[47]

    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.[48] This data was compiled by Daily Kos Elections.[49]

    2020 presidential results by Congressional district, Connecticut
    District 2022 district Political predecessor district
    Joe Biden Democratic Party Donald Trump Republican Party Joe Biden Democratic Party Donald Trump Republican Party
    Connecticut's 1st 63.3% 35.2% 63.3% 35.3%
    Connecticut's 2nd 54.7% 43.3% 54.5% 43.5%
    Connecticut's 3rd 59.2% 39.5% 59.9% 38.8%
    Connecticut's 4th 64.8% 33.8% 64.2% 34.5%
    Connecticut's 5th 54.6% 43.9% 54.6% 43.9%

    Enacted state legislative district maps

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

    The Connecticut Reapportionment Commission voted 8-0 in favor of new maps for the state's 151 House districts and 36 Senate districts on November 18 and November 23, 2021, respectively.[7][50] The commission, made up of four Democratic lawmakers, four Republican lawmakers, and a ninth member selected by the commissioners, took over the redistricting process after the previous Reapportionment Committee failed to meet its Sept. 15 deadline to select maps and win two-thirds approval from both chambers of the Connecticut General Assembly.[51] Census data was not delivered until Sept. 16. Unlike the committee, maps prepared by the Reapportionment Commission did not need to win approval from the General Assembly.[52] This map took effect for Connecticut's 2022 legislative elections.

    State Senate map

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

    Connecticut State Senate Districts
    until January 3, 2023

    Click a district to compare boundaries.

    Connecticut State Senate Districts
    starting January 4, 2023

    Click a district to compare boundaries.

    State House map

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

    Connecticut State House Districts
    until January 3, 2023

    Click a district to compare boundaries.

    Connecticut State House Districts
    starting January 4, 2023

    Click a district to compare boundaries.


    Reactions

    State legislative redistricting in Connecticut finished with the enactment of the new Senate maps. The CT Mirror's Mark Pazniokas wrote, "Passage of the Senate map came without debate in an 11-minute meeting conducted via Zoom, a reflection that the maps in Connecticut are resolved by negotiation."[53] Senate Minority Leader Kevin Kelly (R) said, "It's a truly bipartisan effort," and Senate President Pro Tempore Martin Looney (D) said, "We have a much better approach than most the country does on this."[53]

    Regarding the House map in particular, CT Political Junkie's Susan Bigelow wrote, "[T]he reapportionment process is one controlled by the legislature, which means that the new map is designed to protect incumbents more than anything else."[54] In a separate article on the site, Hugh McQuaid wrote that commissioner and House Minority Leader Vincent Candelora (R) "said the panel tried to avoid disrupting incumbent legislators and their communities."[55]

    Candelora said, "I think overall, we made a lot of difficult decisions trying to keep a lot of the core districts intact, but recognizing the fact that with population changes so do come changes to various districts."[56] Commissioner and House Speaker Matthew Ritter (D) said the map either promoted or did not diminish minority communities, saying, "We did not dilute one of those districts ... They're all the same as they were. That was not negotiable for anybody in the room."[57]

    Redistricting after the 2010 census

    See also: Redistricting in Connecticut after the 2010 census

    Congressional redistricting, 2010

    Following the 2010 United States Census, Connecticut neither gained nor lost congressional seats. Although Democrats controlled both chambers of the state legislature, Republican opposition prevented the legislature from achieving the two-thirds vote necessary to approve a congressional redistricting plan. The redistricting backup commission was convened to draw the map.[39][58]

    The backup commission ultimately failed to reach an agreement and petitioned the Connecticut Supreme Court to appoint a special master to draw the lines. The court appointed Columbia University law professor Nathaniel Persily. Persily, at the direction of the court, made minimal changes, shifting 28,975 people between districts. Persily released his draft congressional district map on January 13, 2012. The state supreme court approved the plan on February 10, 2012. In November's election, Democrats retained all five of Connecticut's congressional seats.[39][58]

    State legislative redistricting, 2010

    Although the state legislature failed to achieve the two-thirds vote necessary to approve a state legislative redistricting plan, the state's backup commission approved new maps on November 30, 2011.[39]

    Redistricting after the 2000 census

    Following the 2000 United States Census, Connecticut lost one congressional seat. Because the state legislature could not approve a congressional redistricting plan, the state's backup commission drew the map. It was adopted on December 21, 2001.[39][58]

    The state legislature also failed to pass a state legislative district plan. The backup commission adopted new state Senate maps on November 26, 2001, and new state House maps on November 30, 2001. According to All About Redistricting, "it appears none of the plans were challenged in court."[39]

    Noteworthy events

    2021

    On May 26, 2021, Governor Ned Lamont (D) signed Senate Bill 753 into law, reclassifying how incarcerated people were to be counted for redistricting purposes.[59][60] The bill required in-state inmates of state and federal prisons to be counted in the population of the person's last known residence, and out-of-state inmates to be counted as generic state residents. Under Senate Bill 753, incarcerated persons serving life sentences were counted as residents of the district where their facility was located.[61] Proponents of the bill said the existing system artificially inflated the population count of rural communities where many prisons are located and depressed population counts of cities where many inmates come from, with criminal justice chair of the Connecticut NAACP Corrie Betts saying, “Prison gerrymandering is discriminatory, acting like a modern-day three-fifths clause,” and that “It reduces the representation and political power of Black and Latino communities in Connecticut cities like New Haven and Hartford. [They] see their votes count for less while largely white prison communities see their votes count for more.”[62] Opponents argued that the change was not necessary, with Senator Robert Sampson (R) saying, "Essentially what this bill aims to do is ignore the fact that people actually do reside at an address, even if that happens to be a prison location."[62] Connecticut was the 11th U.S. state to pass such a law, California, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Virginia, and Washington all have similar laws.[61]

    To read Senate Bill 753 click here.

    2018

    On June 28, 2018, the NAACP, in conjunction with five Connecticut voters, filed suit in federal district court, alleging that Connecticut's state legislative district plan violates the Amendment XIV, United States Constitution by counting prison inmates as residents of their incarceration facilities as opposed to their pre-incarceration residences for redistricting purposes. In their initial court filing, submitted to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, the plaintiffs contended that this practice "impermissibly inflates the voting strength of predominantly white voters residing in certain Connecticut House and Senate districts, as compared to the voting strength of persons residing in all other House and Districts." The plaintiffs further alleged that "by counting prisoners in the districts where they are imprisoned instead of their pre-incarceration residences, prison gerrymandering dilutes the votes of residents in their home communities, who are disproportionately African-American and Latino, as compared to residents in other communities and districts."[63]

    At the time this suit was filed, four states counted prison inmates as residents of their pre-incarceration districts as opposed to their incarceration districts: California, Delaware, Maryland, and New York. The remaining states (including Connecticut) counted prison inmates as residents of the districts in which they were incarcerated.[64]

    State legislation and ballot measures

    Redistricting legislation

    DocumentIcon.jpg See state election laws

    The following is a list of recent redistricting bills that have been introduced in or passed by the Connecticut 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 Connecticut ballot measures

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

    1. Connecticut Reapportionment Timetable, Question 4 (1980)
    2. Connecticut Reapportionment Procedure, Question 4 (1976)
    3. Connecticut Timetable for Reapportionment, Amendment 1 (1990)

    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."[65]

    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."[66]

    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."[67]

    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."[68]

    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 nine competitive elections for the Connecticut House of Representatives in 2012, compared to 20 in 2010. There were 12 mildly competitive state House races in 2012, compared to 13 in 2010. This amounted to a net loss of 12 competitive elections.

    There were seven competitive elections for the Connecticut State Senate in 2012, compared to five in 2010. There were two mildly competitive state Senate races in 2012, compared to three in 2010. This amounted to a net gain of one competitive election.


    Recent news

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

    Redistricting in Connecticut - Google News

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 All About Redistricting, "Why does it matter?" accessed April 8, 2015
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Indy Week, "Cracked, stacked and packed: Initial redistricting maps met with skepticism and dismay," June 29, 2011
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 The Atlantic, "How the Voting Rights Act Hurts Democrats and Minorities," June 17, 2013
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Redrawing the Lines, "The Role of Section 2 - Majority Minority Districts," accessed April 6, 2015
    5. ↑ Bloomberg Government, "Connecticut U.S. House Map Favoring Democrats OK’d by Top Court," February 10, 2022
    6. ↑ Supreme Court, State of Connecticut, "In Re Petition of Reapportionment Commission ex rel.," February 10, 2022
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 News 12 Connecticut, "CT Reapportionment Commission unanimously votes to approve new statewide house district map," Nov. 18, 2021
    8. ↑ CT News Junkie, "Redistricting Commission Tweaks Senate Map," Nov. 23, 2021
    9. ↑ The ninth member only votes in the event of a tie.
    10. ↑ Connecticut General Assembly, "Frequently Asked Questions," accessed Oct. 12, 2021
    11. ↑ The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, "Election Regulations," accessed April 13, 2015
    12. ↑ Brookings, "Redistricting and the United States Constitution," March 22, 2011
    13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    14. ↑ Brennan Center for Justice, "A Citizen's Guide to Redistricting," accessed March 25, 2015
    15. ↑ The Constitution of the United States of America, "Article 1, Section 2," accessed March 25, 2015
    16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 16.5 16.6 All About Redistricting, "Where are the lines drawn?" accessed April 9, 2015
    17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 17.2 17.3 FairVote, "Redistricting Glossary," accessed April 9, 2015
    18. ↑ All About Redistricting, "Who draws the lines?" accessed June 19, 2017
    19. ↑ Encyclopædia Britannica, "Gerrymandering," November 4, 2014
    20. ↑ Congressional Research Service, "Congressional Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A Legal Overview," April 13, 2015
    21. ↑ The Wall Street Journal, "Supreme Court to Consider Limits on Partisan Drawing of Election Maps," June 19, 2017
    22. ↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear potentially landmark case on partisan gerrymandering," June 19, 2017
    23. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Gill v. Whitford: Decision," June 18, 2018
    24. ↑ Election Law Blog, "Breaking: SCOTUS to Hear NC Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 27, 2016
    25. ↑ Ballot Access News, "U.S. Supreme Court Accepts Another Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 28, 2016
    26. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Cooper v. Harris: Decision," May 22, 2017
    27. ↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear challenge to Texas redistricting plan," May 26, 2015
    28. ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Agrees to Settle Meaning of ‘One Person One Vote,'" May 26, 2015
    29. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Evenwel v. Abbott," accessed May 27, 2015
    30. ↑ Associated Press, "Supreme Court to hear Texas Senate districts case," May 26, 2015
    31. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "The new look at 'one person, one vote,' made simple," July 27, 2015
    32. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Brief for Appellants," accessed December 14, 2015
    33. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission," April 20, 2016
    34. ↑ The New York Times, "Court Skeptical of Arizona Plan for Less-Partisan Congressional Redistricting," March 2, 2015
    35. ↑ The Atlantic, "Will the Supreme Court Let Arizona Fight Gerrymandering?" September 15, 2014
    36. ↑ United States Supreme Court, "Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Opinion of the Court," June 29, 2015
    37. ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Upholds Creation of Arizona Redistricting Commission," June 29, 2015
    38. ↑ Yale Law School, The Avalon Project, "Voting Rights Act of 1965; August 6, 1965," accessed April 6, 2015
    39. ↑ 39.0 39.1 39.2 39.3 39.4 39.5 All About Redistricting, "Connecticut," accessed April 22, 2015
    40. ↑ Connecticut Constitution, "Article XXVI, Section 2.b," accessed April 22, 2015
    41. ↑ All About Redistricting, "Who draws the lines?" accessed March 25, 2015
    42. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "2020 Census Apportionment Results Delivered to the President," April 26, 2021
    43. ↑ Bloomberg Government, "Connecticut U.S. House Map Favoring Democrats OK’d by Top Court," February 10, 2022
    44. ↑ Supreme Court, State of Connecticut, "In Re Petition of Reapportionment Commission ex rel.," February 10, 2022
    45. ↑ 45.0 45.1 Bloomberg Government, "Connecticut U.S. House Map Favoring Democrats OK’d by Top Court," February 10, 2022
    46. ↑ The Connecticut Mirror, "CT court’s reapportionment verdict: The ‘lobster claw’ survives," February 11, 2022
    47. ↑ 47.0 47.1 The Connecticut Mirror, "Court shows no interest in remaking CT congressional map," January 27, 2022
    48. ↑ Political predecessor districts are determined primarily based on incumbents and where each chose to seek re-election.
    49. ↑ Daily Kos Elections, "Daily Kos Elections 2020 presidential results by congressional district (old CDs vs. new CDs)," accessed May 12, 2022
    50. ↑ CT News Junkie, "Redistricting Commission Tweaks Senate Map," Nov. 23, 2021
    51. ↑ The ninth member only votes in the event of a tie.
    52. ↑ Connecticut General Assembly, "Frequently Asked Questions," accessed Oct. 12, 2021
    53. ↑ 53.0 53.1 The CT Mirror, "Bridgeport, New Haven and Hartford each keep 2 Senate seats in new map," Nov. 23, 2021
    54. ↑ CT News Junkie, "New House District Map Invests in Status Quo, But Sets Up Fairfield County Conflict," Nov. 19, 2021
    55. ↑ CT News Junkie, "Fairfield County Gains A House Seat, Eastern Connecticut Loses One," Nov. 18, 2021
    56. ↑ The Trumbull Times, "Bipartisan redistricting plan for Connecticut House approved," Nov. 18, 2021
    57. ↑ The CT Mirror, "Hartford, Stamford winners in House redistricting," Nov. 18, 2021
    58. ↑ 58.0 58.1 58.2 Barone, M. & McCutcheon, C. (2013). The almanac of American politics 2014 : the senators, the representatives and the governors : their records and election results, their states and districts. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    59. ↑ Connecticut General Assembly, "Substitute for S.B. No. 753: Session Year 2021," accessed June 15, 2021
    60. ↑ The Day, "State Legislature addresses ‘prison gerrymandering’," accessed June 15, 2021
    61. ↑ 61.0 61.1 National Conference of State Legislatures, "Reallocating Incarcerated Persons for Redistricting," accessed June 16, 2021
    62. ↑ 62.0 62.1 CT News Junkie, "Legislative Leaders Signal An End to Prison Gerrymandering," accessed June 15, 2021
    63. ↑ United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, "NAACP v. Merrill: Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief," June 28, 2018
    64. ↑ The New York Times, "NAACP Alleges Inmate Count Practice Weakens Urban Districts," June 28, 2018
    65. ↑ The Daily Cougar, "Redistricting will affect November election," October 16, 2012
    66. ↑ The Journal of Politics, "Incumbency, Redistricting, and the Decline of Competition in U.S. House Elections," February 2006
    67. ↑ Polity, "The Effects of Non-Legislative Approaches to Redistricting on Competition in Congressional Elections," October 3, 2011
    68. ↑ Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog, "Why Do Republicans Overperform in the Wisconsin State Assembly? Partisan Gerrymandering Vs. Political Geography," February 11, 2021
    v • e
    Ballotpedia
    About
    Executive: Leslie Graves, President • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Michelle Robinson, Senior Product Manager, Education & School Boards

    Communications: Alison Graves • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Sarah Groat • Erica Shumaker • Caitlin Vanden Boom
    External Relations: Andrew Heath • Moira Delaney • Hannah Nelson
    Operations: Meghann Olshefski • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
    Policy: Caitlin Styrsky • Audrey Bayne • Molly Byrne • Jon Dunn • Jimmy McAllister • Annelise Reinwald
    Research: Josh Altic
    Tech: Matt Latourelle • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Trevor Pollo • Joseph Sanchez

    Contributors: Scott Rasmussen
    Editorial
    Flag of Connecticut
    v • e
    State of Connecticut
    Hartford (capital)
    Elections

    What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2024 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

    Government

    Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy

    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Redistricting_in_Connecticut&oldid=9203722"