Redistricting in Georgia

Redistricting after the 2020 census Select your state:AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingSubmit
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 Georgia's 14 United States Representatives and 236 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.

Georgia was apportioned 14 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 Georgia after the 2020 census.

HIGHLIGHTS

Following the 2020 United States Census, Georgia was apportioned 14 congressional districts, which was unchanged from the number it had after the 2010 census.

Georgia's House of Representatives is made up of 180 districts; Georgia's State Senate is made up of 56 districts.

In Georgia, both congressional and state legislative district lines are drawn by the state legislature.

On December 8, 2023, Governor Brian Kemp (R) signed revised congressional maps into law. Legislators in the Georgia House of Representatives voted 98-71 to adopt the new congressional map on December 7. The Georgia State Senate voted 32-22 to adopt the congressional map on December 5. For more information about the enacted congressional map, click here. Governor Kemp (R) signed revised legislative maps into law on December 8, 2023. Legislators in the Georgia House of Representatives voted 98-71 to adopt the new congressional map on December 5. The Georgia State Senate voted 32-23 to adopt the congressional map on December 1. For more information about the enacted legislative maps, click here.

On October 26, 2023, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ruled that the state's congressional and legislative district boundaries violated the Voting Rights Act and enjoined the state from using them for future elections. The court directed the Georgia General Assembly to develop new maps by December 8, 2023. 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 Georgia
3. District maps: Information about the current district maps in Georgia
4. Redistricting by cycle: A breakdown of the most significant events in Georgia'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, Georgia was home to five 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 Georgia, both congressional and state legislative district lines are drawn by the state legislature. A simple majority in each chamber is required to approve redistricting plans, which are subject to veto by the governor.

The Georgia Constitution requires that state legislative districts be contiguous. There are no similar requirements for congressional districts.

In 2011, the House redistricting committee released guidelines recommending the following for both congressional and state legislative districts:

1. prohibition of multi-member districts
2. consideration of county and precinct boundaries
3. compactness
4. consideration of communities of interest

The committee also suggested that "efforts should be made to avoid the unnecessary pairing of incumbents" within single districts. These are not legal requirements; as such, they may be altered at any time.

How incarcerated persons are counted for redistricting

See also: How incarcerated persons are counted for redistricting

States differ on how they count incarcerated persons for the purposes of redistricting. In Georgia, incarcerated persons are counted in the correctional facilities they are housed in.

District maps

Congressional districts

See also: United States congressional delegations from Georgia

Georgia comprises 14 congressional districts. The table below lists Georgia's current U.S. Representatives.

Office	Name	Party	Date assumed office	Date term ends
U.S. House Georgia District 1	Earl Carter	Republican	January 3, 2015	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Georgia District 2	Sanford Bishop Jr.	Democratic	January 3, 1993	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Georgia District 3	Drew Ferguson	Republican	January 3, 2017	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Georgia District 4	Hank Johnson	Democratic	January 3, 2007	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Georgia District 5	Nikema Williams	Democratic	January 3, 2021	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Georgia District 6	Rich McCormick	Republican	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Georgia District 7	Lucy McBath	Democratic	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Georgia District 8	Austin Scott	Republican	January 3, 2011	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Georgia District 9	Andrew Clyde	Republican	January 3, 2021	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Georgia District 10	Mike Collins	Republican	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Georgia District 11	Barry Loudermilk	Republican	January 3, 2015	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Georgia District 12	Rick Allen	Republican	January 3, 2015	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Georgia District 13	David Scott	Democratic	January 3, 2003	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Georgia District 14	Marjorie Taylor Greene	Republican	January 3, 2021	January 3, 2025

State legislative maps

See also: Georgia State Senate and Georgia House of Representatives

Georgia comprises 56 state Senate districts and 180 state House districts. State senators and 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 Georgia after the 2020 census

Georgia was apportioned 14 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.

Enacted congressional district maps

See also: Congressional district maps implemented after the 2020 census

Congressional map enacted in 2023

On December 8, 2023, Governor Brian Kemp (R) signed revised congressional maps into law. Legislators in the Georgia House of Representatives voted 98-71 to adopt the new congressional map on December 7. The Georgia State Senate voted 32-22 to adopt the congressional map on December 5. For more information about the enacted congressional map, click here.

On October 26, 2023, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ruled that the state's congressional and legislative district boundaries violated the Voting Rights Act and enjoined the state from using them for future elections. The court directed the Georgia General Assembly to develop new maps by December 8, 2023.

Reactions to 2023 congressional map

On December 20, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District decided to uphold the maps enacted on November 30 and found them in compliance with the Voting Rights Act.

The plaintiffs from the October 26 case objected to the maps and asked the court to draw new voting districts in time for the 2024 congressional and legislative elections:

“

"The inescapable conclusion is that the proposed plans do not come close to following the court's order. Putting eyes on the 2023 proposed plans confirms the total failure of compliance. ... The General Assembly's attempt to minimize and zero out minority voting opportunity in a purported 'remedy' to the state's Section 2 violation is precisely the sort of gamesmanship Section 2 was meant to stamp out. ... The General Assembly's purported remedy makes a mockery of that process, the court's ruling and the Voting Rights Act, and reflects the state's continued refusal to afford minority voters equal opportunity to participate in electoral politics."

”

Congressional map enacted in 2021

Georgia's congressional district boundaries were originally adopted on December 30, 2021, when Gov. Brian Kemp (R) signed Georgia's earlier congressional map into law. The Georgia General Assembly previously approved the map with the state Senate voting 32-21 in favor of the map on November 19, 2021, followed by the state House voting 96-68 on November 22, 2021. This map took effect for Georgia's 2022 congressional elections.

Reactions to 2021 congressional map

House Minority Leader James Beverly (D) said, "The majority party had an opportunity — indeed, an obligation — to implement a fair and transparent participant process to work across party lines on maps that are equitable for all Georgians ... Instead, they chose the process of closed doors, locked gates, closed processes to deter participation in the democratic process."

House Speaker David Ralston (R) said, "[W]e have released a proposed map that reflects Georgia’s growing, diverse population, respects jurisdictional lines and communities of interest, and conforms to applicable legal standards including the Voting Rights Act."

After Kemp signed the map into law, two lawsuits were filed against the congressional map alleging racial gerrymandering. Marina Jenkins, with the National Democratic Redistricting Committee's National Redistricting Foundation, said, "The congressional map signed into law by Gov. Brian Kemp is a shameless power grab that cheats Black voters out of proper representation."

Below are the congressional maps in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle. Please note that the maps enacted in 2021 will remain in place until the maps enacted in 2023 take effect on January 9, 2025.

Georgia Congressional Districts
before 2020 redistricting cycle

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Georgia Congressional Districts
after 2020 redistricting cycle

Click a district to compare boundaries.

2020 presidential results using the 2021 congressional map

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, Georgia
District	2022 district		Political predecessor district
	Joe Biden	Donald Trump	Joe Biden	Donald Trump
Georgia's 1st	42.6%	56.0%	43.1%	55.5%
Georgia's 2nd	54.7%	44.4%	55.7%	43.4%
Georgia's 3rd	34.4%	64.4%	36.8%	62.0%
Georgia's 4th	78.3%	20.6%	78.8%	20.2%
Georgia's 5th	82.6%	16.2%	86.2%	12.6%
Georgia's 6th	41.8%	56.7%	52.4%	46.1%
Georgia's 7th	62.3%	36.5%	54.8%	43.7%
Georgia's 8th	35.7%	63.3%	37.0%	62.0%
Georgia's 9th	30.4%	68.3%	22.4%	76.4%
Georgia's 10th	37.7%	61.1%	39.2%	59.6%
Georgia's 11th	41.5%	56.8%	41.5%	56.9%
Georgia's 12th	44.3%	54.5%	43.0%	55.8%
Georgia's 13th	79.7%	19.3%	75.6%	23.4%
Georgia's 14th	30.7%	68.1%	25.3%	73.4%

Enacted state legislative district maps

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

State legislative maps enacted in 2023

Governor Kemp (R) signed revised legislative maps into law on December 8, 2023. Legislators in the Georgia House of Representatives voted 98-71 to adopt the new congressional map on December 5. The Georgia State Senate voted 32-23 to adopt the congressional map on December 1. For more information about the enacted legislative maps, click here.

On October 26, 2023, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ruled that the state's congressional and legislative district boundaries violated the Voting Rights Act and enjoined the state from using them for future elections. The court directed the Georgia General Assembly to develop new maps by December 8, 2023.

Reactions to 2023 state legislative maps

On December 20, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District decided to uphold the maps enacted on November 30 and found them in compliance with the Voting Rights Act.

The plaintiffs from the October 26 case objected to the maps and asked the court to draw new voting districts in time for the 2024 congressional and legislative elections:

“

"The inescapable conclusion is that the proposed plans do not come close to following the court's order. Putting eyes on the 2023 proposed plans confirms the total failure of compliance. ... The General Assembly's attempt to minimize and zero out minority voting opportunity in a purported 'remedy' to the state's Section 2 violation is precisely the sort of gamesmanship Section 2 was meant to stamp out. ... The General Assembly's purported remedy makes a mockery of that process, the court's ruling and the Voting Rights Act, and reflects the state's continued refusal to afford minority voters equal opportunity to participate in electoral politics."

”

State legislative maps enacted in 2021

On December 30, 2021, Governor Kemp (R) signed Georgia's Senate and House district maps into law. The state Senate approved its map on November 9, 2021, with a 34-21 vote followed by the state House voting 96-70 in favor on November 15, 2021. The state House approved its map on Nov. 10 with a 99-79 vote followed by the state Senate voting 32-21 in favor on Nov. 12. These maps took effect for Georgia's 2022 state legislative elections.

State Senate maps

Below is the state Senate map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle. Please note that the maps enacted in 2021 will remain in place until the maps enacted in 2023 take effect on January 9, 2025.

Georgia State Senate Districts
before 2020 redistricting cycle

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Georgia State Senate Districts
after 2020 redistricting cycle

Click a district to compare boundaries.

State House maps

Below is the state House map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle. Please note that the maps enacted in 2021 will remain in place until the maps enacted in 2023 take effect on January 9, 2025.

Georgia State House Districts
before 2020 redistricting cycle

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Georgia State House Districts
after 2020 redistricting cycle

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Drafting process

In Georgia, both congressional and state legislative district lines are drawn by the state legislature. A simple majority in each chamber is required to approve redistricting plans, which are subject to veto by the governor.

The Georgia Constitution requires that state legislative districts be contiguous. There are no similar requirements for congressional districts.

On August 30, 2021, the House reapportionment committee approved guidelines for congressional and legislative redistricting. The guidelines were similar to those recommended in 2011, and included:

1. prohibition of multi-member districts
2. consideration of county and precinct boundaries
3. compactness
4. consideration of communities of interest

The guidelines restricted public access to redistricting plans so that until they were submitted to the reapportionment committee, the plans would not be subject to public disclosure. The committee also suggested that "efforts should be made to avoid the unnecessary pairing of incumbents." These are not legal requirements; as such, they may be altered at any time.

To read all of the guidelines approved by the committee click here.

Timeline of 2021 map adoption

Georgia did not set a specific redistricting deadline for the 2020 redistricting cycle. The candidate filing deadline for the 2022 election cycle in Georgia was March 3, 2022, an inferred deadline.

On Sept. 23, 2021, Gov. Brian Kemp (R) called for a special session to begin on Nov. 3, 2021, for the purpose of considering and finalizing congressional and state legislative district maps.

Redistricting committees and/or commissions in 2021

Senate

The following individuals were assigned to the Senate Reapportionment and Redistricting Committee in the 2020 cycle.

Georgia Senate Reapportionment and Redistricting Committee membership, 2020 cycle
Name	Position	Partisan affiliation
John F Kennedy	Chairman	Republican
Bill Cowsert	Vice Chairman	Republican
Jeff Mullis	Ex-Officio	Republican
Tonya Anderson	Member	Democratic
Dean Burke	Member	Republican
Gloria Butler	Member	Democratic
Greg Dolezal	Member	Republican
Mike Dugan	Member	Republican
Steve Gooch	Member	Republican
Marty Harbin	Member	Republican
Ed Harbison	Member	Democratic
Harold V. Jones II	Member	Democratic
Butch Miller	Member	Republican
Michael 'Doc' Rhett	Member	Democratic
Blake Tillery	Member	Republican

House of Representatives

The following individuals were assigned to the House Reapportionment and Redistricting Committee in the 2020 cycle.

Georgia House Committee on Legislative and Congressional Reapportionment membership, 2020 cycle
Name	Position	Partisan affiliation
Bonnie Rich	Chair	Republican
Darlene Taylor	Vice chair	Republican
Susan Holmes	Secretary	Republican
Richard H. Smith	Member	Republican
Lynn Smith	Member	Republican
Carl Gilliard	Member	Democratic
Ed Setzler	Member	Republican
Randy Nix	Member	Republican
Jan Jones	Member	Republican
Mack Jackson	Member	Democratic
Barry Fleming	Member	Republican
Chuck Efstration	Member	Republican
Matt Dollar	Member	Republican
Kimberly Alexander	Member	Democratic
Buddy DeLoach	Member	Republican
Mandi Ballinger	Member	Republican
Sandra Scott	Member	Democratic
Edward Stephens	Member	Democratic

Drafts and proposals

Congressional district maps

2023 Approved congressional map
On Dec. 7, 2023, the Georgia House of Representatives voted 98-71 in favor of Senate Bill 3EX (SB 3EX). The Georgia State Senate approved SB 3EX with a 32-22 vote on Dec. 5. Gov. Brian Kemp (R) signed revised congressional and legislative maps into law on Dec. 8. An image of the approved congressional district map is shown below. More detailed images can be found here.

Georgia congressional districts - adopted Dec. 8, 2023

2023 Congressional map proposals

Click "Show more" to view previously proposed congressional and legislative maps.

Show more

• House and Senate Democratic Caucuses revised plan released Dec. 4, 2023 (click to expand)
  On Dec. 4, 2023, the state House and Senate Democratic Caucuses released a draft proposal for the state's revised congressional district map.

  Map images

  Images and information regarding the draft can be seen below or viewed here.

2021 Approved congressional map
On Nov. 22, 2021, the Georgia House of Representatives voted 96-68 in favor of Senate Bill 2EX (SB 2EX), sending the bill redrawing the state's 14 congressional districts to Gov. Brian Kemp (R) for final approval. The Georgia State Senate previously approved SB 2EX on Nov. 19 with a 32-21 vote. An image of the proposed congressional district map is shown below. More detailed images can be found here.

Georgia congressional districts - adopted Nov. 30, 2021

2021 Congressional map proposals

Click "Show more" to view previously proposed congressional and legislative maps.

Show more

• House and Senate Democratic Caucuses plan released Oct. 21, 2021 (click to expand)
  On Oct. 21, 2021, the state House and Senate Democratic Caucuses released a draft proposal of the state's congressional district map.

  Map images

  Images and information regarding the draft can be seen below or viewed here. <h

  Reactions

  U.S. Rep. Sanford Bishop Jr. (D) said, "Georgia has changed significantly over the last decade, and our proposed congressional map reflects that growth." Bishop added, "Georgia voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around, and this map guarantees that." According to a press release from the Democratic Party of Georgia, the proposed map would create seven Democratic-leaning districts and seven Republican-leaning districts.

  The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Maya Prabhu and Tia Mitchell wrote, "Since the Legislature is controlled by Republicans, it's highly unlikely the Democrats' proposals will have any influence on the process when lawmakers begin a special session Nov. 3."

• Duncan-Kennedy plan released Sept. 27, 2021 (click to expand)
  On Sept. 27, 2021, Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan (R) and Senate Redistricting Committee Chairman John Kennedy (R) released the first draft proposal of the state's congressional district map.

  Map images

  Images and information regarding the Duncan-Kennedy draft can be seen below or viewed here.

  Reactions

  In a joint statement, Duncan and Kennedy called the proposal "a map that regardless of political party, Georgians can be proud of." The two also said, "[T]he Senate is committed to continuing the practice of transparency and fairness. In an effort to provide both, the proposed map is being released as soon as practicable."

  Theron Johnson, the state director for All On The Line, took issue with how the proposed map was revealed, saying, "They dropped this proposal, literally out of the blue. Everybody caught wind of this on Twitter." Regarding the map itself, Johnson said, "This map does not give Georgians the fair representation or the fair maps they deserve."

  Regarding the political background of the proposal, Georgia Public Broadcasting's Stephen Fowler wrote:

  “	Politically speaking, this map faces several hurdles to becoming reality. Committee hearings over the summer were done with the joint House and Senate committees, but this was solely released by Duncan and the Senate redistricting chair. Duncan, who is the lame-duck president of the Senate and has become a pariah in his party, will oversee a caucus that is bitterly divided over a primary to replace him. Plus, several U.S. House Republicans who have less safe districts were not shored up to potentially counteract the state’s demographic and political shifts over the next decade.	”
  —Stephen Fowler, GPB News

Legislative district maps

Click on the headers below to view information, images, and reactions to draft state legislative district maps released in Georgia.

State Senate

2023 Approved State Senate map
On Dec. 5, 2023, the Georgia House of Representatives voted 98-71 in favor of Senate Bill 1EX (SB 1EX). The Georgia State Senate approved SB 1EX with a 32-23 vote on Dec. 1. Gov. Brian Kemp (R) signed revised congressional and legislative maps into law on Dec. 8. An image of the approved congressional district map is shown below. More detailed images can be found here.

Georgia Senate districts – approved Dec. 8, 2023

2023 State Senate map proposals

Click "Show more" to view previously proposed Senate district maps.

Show more

• Senate Democratic Caucus plan released Nov. 28, 2023 (click to expand)
  On Nov. 28, 2023, the Senate Democratic Caucus released a draft proposal for the revised state Senate district map.

  Map images

  Images and information regarding the draft can be seen below or viewed here.

2021 Approved State Senate map
On Nov. 15, 2021, the Georgia House of Representatives voted 96-70 in favor of Senate Bill 1EX (SB 1EX), sending the bill redrawing the state's 56 Senate districts to Gov. Brian Kemp (R) for final approval. The Georgia State Senate had previously approved SB 1EX on Nov. 9 with a 34-21 vote. An image of the approved Senate district map is shown below. More detailed images can be found here and an interactive version is available here.

Georgia Senate districts – approved Nov. 30, 2021

2021 State Senate map proposals

Click "Show more" to view previously proposed state Senate district maps.

Show more

• Redistricting Committee plan adopted Nov. 30, 2021 (click to expand)
  On Nov. 15, 2021, the Georgia state House and Senate voted in favor of Senate Bill 1EX (SB 1EX), sending the bill redrawing the state's 56 Senate districts to Gov. Brian Kemp (R) for final approval. The Georgia State Senate had previously approved SB 1EX on Nov. 9.

  Map images

  Images and information regarding the draft can be seen below or viewed here and an interactive version is available here.

  Reactions

  The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Mary Niesse and Maya Prabhu wrote that the Senate map created 33 districts that trend Republican and 23 trending Democratic, a net increase of one in Democrats' favor. They wrote that the House map created 98 districts that trend Republican and 82 trending Democratic, a net increase of five in Democrats' favor.

  Following the passage of the two bills, Rep. Ron Stephens (R) released an editorial, saying, "Our overriding objective was to ensure that the power of every Georgia citizen's vote is equal," adding, "we have ultimately produced constitutionally and Voting Rights Act-compliant ... maps."

  State Rep. Bee Nguyen (D) said, "We are a 50-50 state; we are a battleground state ... This map tells us a different story. This map creates a 60-40 split with the advantage given to the Republican Party for the next 10 years."

  After Kemp signed the maps into law, two lawsuits were filed against the state legislative maps alleging racial gerrymandering. Sean Young, legal director of the ACLU of Georgia, said, "[P]oliticians have failed to draw maps that give many of these new Black voters new opportunities to elect candidates of their choice."

  State Rep. Bonnie Rich (R), chairwoman of the House redistricting committee said, "This bill is the culmination of a very similar process that we went through in the House," adding, "Georgians have requested transparency and yes, we have given them transparency."

• Senate Republicans plan, v.2, released Nov. 4, 2021 (click to expand)
  On Nov. 4, 2021, the Georgia Senate Republican Caucus released a revised version of its proposed state Senate district map.

  Map images

  Ballotpedia could not identify an embeddable image for this map. If you are aware of an available image, please send us an email. An interactive version is available here.

  Reactions

  Georgia Public Broadcasting's Stephen Fowler wrote:

  “	The primary shif centers arounds Dobbins Air Force base in Marietta. Currently in district 6, this proposal would move it and surrounding precincts to district 33, currently represented by Sen. Doc Rhett. This map still would have likely elected 33 Republicans and 23 Democrats.	”
  —Stephen Fowler, GPB

• Senate Republicans plan released Nov. 2, 2021 (click to expand)
  On Nov. 2, 2021, the Georgia Senate Republican Caucus released its proposed state Senate district map.

  Map images

  Ballotpedia could not identify an embeddable image for this map. If you are aware of an available image, please send us an email. An interactive version is available here.

  Reactions

  Georgia Public Broadcasting's Stephen Fowler wrote that this map would:

  “	largely keep the status quo, creating a new Democrat district in fast-growing Gwinnett County by collapsing an underpopulated South Georgia district and moving another formerly-conservative seat from Bartow County into northern Fulton County. The Johns Creek-based seat held by Democrat Michelle Au is redrawn to be more conservative leaning, meaning these lines would have likely elected 33 Republicans and 23 Democrats.	”
  —Stephen Fowler, GPB

• Senate Democrats plan released Oct. 27, 2021 (click to expand)
  On Oct. 27, 2021, the Georgia Senate Democratic Caucus released its proposed state Senate district map.

  Map images

  Images and information regarding the Senate Democrats draft are shown below. Find additional images here and an interactive version here.

  Georgia Senate districts – Senate Democrats draft map (October 27, 2021)

  Reactions

  Georgia Public Broadcasting's Stephen Fowler wrote that this map would:

  “	move a Republican district in South Georgia to a evenly split area of Gwinnett County and draw three GOP incumbents in McDonough, Athens and Roswell into Democratic-leaning seats. The map would likely keep Republicans in power, but with a three-vote majority: 31 seats to the Democrats' 25 out of the 56 total.	”
  —Stephen Fowler, GPB

State House

2023 Approved State House map
On Dec. 5, 2023, the Georgia State Senate voted 32-21 in favor of House Bill 1EX (HB 1EX). The Georgia House of Representatives approved HB 1EX with a 101-76 vote on Dec. 1. Gov. Brian Kemp (R) signed revised congressional and legislative maps into law on Dec. 8. An image of the approved congressional district map is shown below. More detailed images can be found here.

Georgia House districts – approved Dec. 8, 2023

2023 State House proposals
Click "Show more" to view previously proposed House district maps.

Show more

• House Democratic Caucus plan released Nov. 29, 2023 (click to expand)
  On Nov. 29, 2023, the House Democratic Caucus released a draft proposal for the revised state House district map.

  Map images

  Images and information regarding the draft can be seen below or viewed here.

2021 Approved State House map
On Nov. 12, 2021, the Georgia State Senate voted 32-21 in favor of House Bill 1EX (HB 1EX), sending the bill redrawing the state's 180 House districts to Gov. Brian Kemp (R) for final approval. The Georgia House of Representatives had previously approved HB 1EX on Nov. 10 with a 99-79 vote. An image of the approved House district map is shown below. More detailed images can be found here and an interactive version is available here.

Georgia House districts – approved Nov. 30, 2021

2021 State House proposals
Click "Show more" to view previously proposed State House district maps.

Show more

• Redistricting Committee plan adopted Nov. 30, 2021 (click to expand)
  On Nov. 12, 2021, the Georgia House voted in favor of Senate Bill 1EX (SB 1EX), sending the bill redrawing the state's 56 Senate districts to Gov. Brian Kemp (R) for final approval. The state Senate had previously approved SB 1EX on Nov. 10.

  Map images

  Images and information regarding the draft can be seen below or viewed here and an interactive version is available here.

  Reactions

  At the time of the map's proposal, Georgia Public Broadcasting's Stephen Fowler said "the map would have 97 likely Republican seats and 83 Democratic seats."

  Sen. Gloria Butler (D) said the map did not account for the growth among minority communities, saying, "Public comment on this map, including from Republicans, was overwhelmingly negative ... Republcians voted the map out of committee on partisan lines without making a single change to the map after hearing from the people."

  Sen. John F. Kennedy (R), chairman of the Senate redistricting committee, said the Senate has its "own independent obligations, and I think those are to make sure what [the House] sent us in this bill is constitutional, that it's legal and that it's been and involved a fair process," adding, "I will tell you that all three of those points are absolutely 'yes.'"

• House Republicans plan, v.2, released Nov. 8, 2021 (click to expand)
  On Nov. 8, 2021, the Georgia House Republican Caucus released a revised version of its proposed state House district map.

  Map images

  Ballotpedia could not identify an embeddable image for this map. If you are aware of an available image, please send us an email. An interactive version is available here.

  Reactions

  Georgia Public Broadcasting's Stephen Fowler wrote:

  “	The committee chairwoman Rep. Bonnie Rich (R-Suwanee) said some of the changes were to fix some districts that accidentally paired Democratic incumbents, left one out of his existing district and kept a Johns Creek-based seat fully within Fulton County. The map would have 97 likely Republican seats and 83 Democratic seats.	”
  —Stephen Fowler, GPB

• House Republicans plan released Nov. 2, 2021 (click to expand)
  On Nov. 2, 2021, the Georgia House Republican Caucus released its proposed state House district map.

  Map images

  Ballotpedia could not identify an embeddable image for this map. If you are aware of an available image, please send us an email. An interactive version is available here.

  Reactions

  Georgia Public Broadcasting's Stephen Fowler wrote that this map would:

  “	sacrifice six seats of [the Republicans'] majority to create safer districts that would last well into the decade ... New vacant House seats would be created in Forsyth, Cobb, Fulton, Gwinnett and Rockdale counties, and have a likely margin of 97 Republicans to 83 Democrats.	”
  —Stephen Fowler, GPB

• House Democrats plan released Oct. 29, 2021 (click to expand)
  On Oct. 29, 2021, the Georgia House Democratic Caucus released its proposed state House district map.

  Map images

  Images and information regarding the House Democrats draft are shown below. Find additional images here and an interactive version here.

  Georgia House districts – House Democrats draft map (October 29, 2021)

  Reactions

  Georgia Public Broadcasting's Stephen Fowler wrote that this map would:

  “	shrink Republicans' majority by about five seats by targeting a tossup seat in Cobb County and creating new Democratic-leaning districts in Athens, Suwannee, Lovejoy and Buckhead ... This map would likely see 98 Republican districts and 82 Democratic districts based on 2020 election data. It also stands little chance of passing the GOP-led legislature.	”
  —Stephen Fowler, GPB

Apportionment and release of census data

Apportionment is the process by which representation in a legislative body is distributed among its constituents. The number of seats in the United States House of Representatives is fixed at 435. The United States Constitution dictates that districts be redrawn every 10 years to ensure equal populations between districts. Every ten years, upon completion of the United States census, reapportionment occurs.

Apportionment following the 2020 census

The U.S. Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts on April 26, 2021. Georgia was apportioned 14 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.

See the table below for additional details.

2020 and 2010 census information for Georgia
State	2010 census		2020 census		2010-2020
	Population	U.S. House seats	Population	U.S. House seats	Raw change in population	Percentage change in population	Change in U.S. House seats
Georgia	9,727,566	14	10,725,274	14	997,708	10.26%	0

Redistricting data from the Census Bureau

On February 12, 2021, the Census Bureau announced that it would deliver redistricting data to the states by September 30, 2021. On March 15, 2021, the Census Bureau released a statement indicating it would make redistricting data available to the states in a legacy format in mid-to-late August 2021. A legacy format presents the data in raw form, without data tables and other access tools. On May 25, 2021, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (R) announced that the state had reached a settlement agreement with the Census Bureau in its lawsuit over the Census Bureau's timetable for delivering redistricting data. Under the terms of the settlement, the Census Bureau agreed to deliver redistricting data, in a legacy format, by August 16, 2021. The Census Bureau released the 2020 redistricting data in a legacy format on August 12, 2021, and in an easier-to-use format at data.census.gov on September 16, 2021.

Court challenges

If you are aware of any relevant lawsuits that are not listed here, please email us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Inc., Grant, and Pendergrass v. Raffensperger

On October 26, 2023, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ruled that the state's congressional and legislative district boundaries violated the Voting Rights Act and enjoined the state from using them for future elections. The court directed the Georgia General Assembly to develop new maps by December 8, 2023.

The court combined three cases that lower courts heard separately: Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Inc. v. Raffensperger, Grant v. Raffensperger, and Pendergrass v. Raffensperger.

Federal District Court Judge Steve C. Jones wrote in his order, "After conducting a thorough and sifting review of the evidence in this case, the Court finds that the State of Georgia violated the Voting Rights Act when it enacted its congressional and legislative maps. The Court commends Georgia for the great strides that it has made to increase the political opportunities of Black voters in the 58 years since the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Despite these great gains, the Court determines that in certain areas of the State, the political process is not equally open to Black voters. . For example, in the past decade, all of Georgia’s population growth was attributable to the minority population, however, the number of majority-Black congressional and legislative districts remained the same. In light of this fact and in conjunction with all of the evidence and testimony in this case, the Court determines that Georgia’s congressional and legislative maps violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and enjoins their use in any future elections."

Georgia State Conference of the NAACP v. Raffensperger

On February 3, 2022, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia consolidated all the cases challenging the state's congressional district boundaries. The federal district court held hearings regarding challenges to the state's congressional and legislative district boundaries beginning on September 5, 2023. The consolidated case included the following filed lawsuits:

• Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Inc. v. Raffensperger
• Common Cause v. Raffensperger
• Georgia State Conference of the NAACP v. Raffensperger
• Grant v. Raffensperger
• Pendergrass v. Raffensperger

Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Inc. v. Raffensperger

On Dec. 30, 2021, the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc., Sixth District of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, and a group of voters filed a lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) challenging the enacted state Senate and House maps. The plaintiffs alleged that the legislative maps diluted the voting power of Black Georgians in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. As relief, plaintiffs asked the court to reject the enacted maps and order the creation of new maps.

In their complaint, plaintiffs wrote:

“

[Georgia's population] growth has been driven entirely by Black Georgians and other Georgians of color ... Yet the new legislative maps for Georgia's General Assembly, which were rushed through the legislative process in a week and a half, do not account for the growth of Georgia's Black population. Rather, the new maps systematically minimize the political power of Black Georgians in violation of federal law.

”

• Read the plaintiffs' complaint here

On Jan. 3, 2022, Raffensperger responded to lawsuits filed against the enacted maps, saying:

“

Georgia's maps are fair and adhere to traditional principles of redistricting ... These lawsuits are nothing but politically motivated actions from politically motivated groups seeking to further their partisan preferences ... The plaintiffs hide behind lofty rhetoric, but all they care about is entrenching the failed politics of the Biden Administration that are making everything more expensive for Georgia families.

”

This case was combined with two other cases, Grant v. Raffensperger and Pendergrass v. Raffensperger, and decided by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on October 26, 2023.

Common Cause v. Raffensperger

On Jan. 7, 2022, Common Cause, the League of Women Voters of Georgia, and several registered voters filed a lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) and the chairs of the Senate and House redistricting committees—Sen. John F. Kennedy (R) and Rep. Bonnie Rich (R)—challenging the state's enacted congressional map. The plaintiffs alleged that the map constituted a racial gerrymander in violation of the Voting Rights Act. As relief, plaintiffs asked the court to block three challenged districts—the 6th, 13th, and 14th—and order a new map.

• Read the plaintiffs' complaint here.

Georgia State Conference of the NAACP v. Raffensperger

On Dec. 30, 2021, the Georgia State Conference of the NAACP, the Georgia Coalition for the People's Agenda, Inc., and Galeo Latino Community Development Fund, Inc., filed a lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Governor Brian Kemp (R) and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) challenging the state's enacted legislative and congressional maps. The plaintiffs alleged that the map constituted a racial gerrymander in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. As relief, plaintiffs asked the court to reject a series of identified districts and order the development of new maps.

In their complaint, plaintiffs wrote:

“

[T]he Controlling Party deliberately targeted Black, Latinx, and AAPI Georgians and moved them into and out of districts to deny them equal opportunities to elect candidates of their choice, splitting communities of interest, and ensuring safe districts where White voters can elect their candidates of choice.

”

• Read the plaintiffs' complaint here.

On Jan. 3, 2022, Raffensperger responded to lawsuits filed against the enacted maps, saying:

“

Georgia's maps are fair and adhere to traditional principles of redistricting ... These lawsuits are nothing but politically motivated actions from politically motivated groups seeking to further their partisan preferences ... The plaintiffs hide behind lofty rhetoric, but all they care about is entrenching the failed politics of the Biden Administration that are making everything more expensive for Georgia families.

”

Grant v. Raffensperger

On. Jan. 11, 2022, a group of voters led by Annie Lois Grant filed a lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) and four members of the Georgia State Election Board challenging the state's enacted legislative maps. The plaintiffs alleged that the legislative maps diluted the voting power of Black Georgians in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The complaint also alleged that legislators could have created eight additional minority-opportunity districts. As relief, plaintiffs asked the court to block the maps and order them redrawn.

• Read the plaintiffs' complaint here.

This case was combined with two other cases, Grant v. Raffensperger and Pendergrass v. Raffensperger, and decided by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on October 26, 2023.

Pendergrass v. Raffensperger

On Dec. 30, 2021, a group of voters led by Rev. Coakley Pendergrass filed a lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) and four members of the Georgia State Election Board challenging the state's enacted congressional map. The plaintiffs alleged that the legislative maps diluted the voting power of Black Georgians in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. As relief, plaintiffs asked the court to reject the enacted map and order the creation of a new map with an additional majority-Black district.

In their complaint, plaintiffs wrote:

“

Rather than create an additional congressional district i the western Atlanta metropolitan area in which Georgia's growing Black population would have the opportunity to elect candidates of its choice, the General Assembly did just the opposite: it paced and cracked Georgia's Black voters to dilute their influence.

”

• Read the plaintiffs' complaint here.

On Jan. 3, 2022, Raffensperger responded to lawsuits filed against the enacted maps, saying:

“

Georgia's maps are fair and adhere to traditional principles of redistricting ... These lawsuits are nothing but politically motivated actions from politically motivated groups seeking to further their partisan preferences ... The plaintiffs hide behind lofty rhetoric, but all they care about is entrenching the failed politics of the Biden Administration that are making everything more expensive for Georgia families.

”

This case was combined with two other cases, Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Inc. v. Raffensperger and Grant v. Raffensperger, and decided by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on October 26, 2023.

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.

Trifectas and redistricting

In 34 of the states that conducted legislative elections in 2020, the legislatures themselves played a significant part in the subsequent redistricting process. The winner of eight of 2020's gubernatorial elections had veto authority over state legislative or congressional district plans approved by legislatures. The party that won trifecta control of a state in which redistricting authority rests with the legislature directed the process that produces the maps that will be used for the remainder of the decade. Trifecta shifts in the 2010 election cycle illustrate this point. In 2010, 12 states in which legislatures had authority over redistricting saw shifts in trifecta status. Prior to the 2010 elections, seven of these states were Democratic trifectas; the rest were divided governments. After the 2010 elections, seven of these states became Republican trifectas; the remainder either remained or became divided governments. The table below details these shifts and charts trifecta status heading into the 2020 election cycle.

The 12 legislature-redistricting states that saw trifecta shifts in 2010 – subsequent trifecta status
State	Primary redistricting authority	Pre-2010 trifecta status	Post-2010 trifecta status	Post-2018 trifecta status
Alabama	Legislature	Divided	Republican	Republican
Colorado	Congressional maps: legislature State legislative maps: politician commission	Democratic	Divided	Democratic
Indiana	Legislature	Divided	Republican	Republican
Iowa	Legislature	Democratic	Divided	Republican
Maine	Legislature	Democratic	Republican	Democratic
Michigan	Legislature	Divided	Republican	Divided
New Hampshire	Legislature	Democratic	Divided	Divided
North Carolina	Legislature	Democratic	Divided	Divided
Ohio	Congressional maps: legislature State legislative maps: politician commission	Divided	Republican	Republican
Oregon	Legislature	Democratic	Divided	Democratic
Pennsylvania	Congressional maps: legislature State legislative maps: politician commission	Divided	Republican	Divided
Wisconsin	Legislature	Democratic	Republican	Divided

2010 redistricting cycle

Redistricting in Georgia after the 2010 census

Congressional redistricting, 2010

Following the 2010 United States Census, Georgia gained one congressional seat. At the time of redistricting, Republicans controlled both chambers of the state legislature. On August 13, 2011, the legislature approved a new congressional map. It was signed into law on September 6, 2011.

State legislative redistricting, 2010

On August 23, 2010, the state legislature approved new state legislative district lines. The maps were signed into law on August 24, 2011. On February 23, 2012, the legislature approved amended House district lines, which were in turn signed by the governor. On March 21, 2012, the legislature passed revised Senate district lines, which the governor signed into law on April 13, 2012.

The revised Senate maps did not take effect until 2014.

See also

• Redistricting in Georgia after the 2010 census
• Redistricting in Georgia
• State-by-state redistricting procedures
• Majority-minority districts

External links

• Search Google News for this topic
• All About Redistricting
• Dave's Redistricting
• FiveThirtyEight, "What Redistricting Looks Like In Every State"
• National Conference of State Legislatures, "Redistricting Process"
• FairVote, "Redistricting"

Footnotes

Redistricting after the 2010 census

See also: Redistricting in Georgia after the 2010 census

Congressional redistricting, 2010

Following the 2010 United States Census, Georgia gained one congressional seat. At the time of redistricting, Republicans controlled both chambers of the state legislature. On August 13, 2011, the legislature approved a new congressional map. It was signed into law on September 6, 2011.

State legislative redistricting, 2010

On August 23, 2010, the state legislature approved new state legislative district lines. The maps were signed into law on August 24, 2011. On February 23, 2012, the legislature approved amended House district lines, which were in turn signed by the governor. On March 21, 2012, the legislature passed revised Senate district lines, which the governor signed into law on April 13, 2012.

The revised Senate maps did not take effect until 2014.

Lawsuits backed by National Redistricting Commission

On June 13, 2018, attorneys for Democratic voters in three states (Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana) filed three separate lawsuits in federal court, alleging in each that existing congressional district maps prevented black voters from electing candidates of their choosing, in violation of the Voting Rights Act. The suits were backed by the National Redistricting Commission, a nonprofit affiliate of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, chaired by Eric Holder, former U.S. Attorney General. In a statement, Holder said, "The creation of additional districts in which African Americans have the opportunity to elect their preferred candidates in each of these states will be an important step toward making the voting power of African Americans more equal and moving us closer to the ideals of representative democracy." Matt Walter, president of the Republican State Leadership Committee, denounced the suits: "The cynical lawsuits filed today by Holder and the Democrats are crass attempts to rally the left-wing base and to elect more Democrats through litigation, instead of running winning campaigns on policies and ideas that voters actually want."

The trial involving Alabama's congressional district plan began on November 4, 2019, with Judge Karon Bowdre, of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, presiding.

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 Georgia House of Representatives in 2012, compared to one in 2010. There were four mildly competitive state House races in 2012, compared to five in 2010. This amounted to a net gain of two competitive elections.

There were no competitive elections for the Georgia State Senate in 2012, the same as in 2010. There was one mildly competitive state Senate race in 2012, compared to zero in 2010. This amounted to a net gain of one competitive election.

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 Georgia 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 Georgia ballot measures

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

1. Georgia Senatorial District Creation, Amendment 5 (1932)
2. Georgia Senate Apportionment, Amendment 3 (1968)

Recent news

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

Redistricting in Georgia - Google News

See also

• United States census, 2020
• Redistricting in Georgia 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"