Redistricting in Washington

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 Washington's 10 United States Representatives and 123 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.

Washington was apportioned 10 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 Washington after the 2020 census.

HIGHLIGHTS

Following the 2020 United States Census, Washington was apportioned 10 congressional districts, which was unchanged from the number it had after the 2010 census.

Washington's state legislature is made up of 49 districts, each of which elects one senator and two representatives.

In Washington, congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn by a non-politician commission.

The Washington House approved a final congressional map proposal 88-7 on February 2, 2022, and the Senate approved the congressional plan on February 8, 2022, in a 35-14 vote. Washington’s four redistricting commissioners each released their proposed congressional maps on September 28, 2021. On November 16, 2021, the commission announced that it was not able to produce new maps by its November 15 deadline and had submitted plans to the Washington Supreme Court for consideration, as authority to draw new maps passes to the court if the commission fails to agree on maps before the deadline. The court decided to accept the final map drafts the commission submitted, ruling that it had "substantially complied" with the deadline. This map took effect for Washington's 2022 congressional elections. The Washington House approved final state legislative map proposals on February 2, 2022, and the Senate approved the legislative plan on February 8, 2022 in a 35-14 vote.Washington’s four redistricting commissioners each released their proposed state legislative maps on September 21, 2021. On November 16, 2021, the commission announced that it was not able to produce new maps by its November 15 deadline and had submitted plans to the Supreme Court for consideration, as authority to draw new maps passes to the court if the commission fails to agree on maps before the deadline. The court decided to accept the final map drafts the commission submitted, ruling that it had "substantially complied" with the deadline. These maps took effect for Washington'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 Washington
3. District maps: Information about the current district maps in Washington
4. Redistricting by cycle: A breakdown of the most significant events in Washington'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, Washington was home to one congressional majority-minority district.

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 Washington, congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn by a five-member non-politician commission. The commission was established by constitutional amendment in 1983. The majority and minority leaders of the Washington State Senate and Washington House of Representatives each appoint one registered voter to the commission. These four commissioners appoint a fifth, non-voting member to serve as the commission's chair. In the event that the four voting commissioners cannot agree on a chair, the Washington Supreme Court must appoint one.

The Washington Constitution stipulates that no commission member may have been an elected official or party officer in the two-year period prior to his or her appointment. Individuals who have registered with the state as lobbyists within the past year are also prohibited from serving on the commission.

The Washington State Legislature may amend the commission's maps by a two-thirds vote in each legislative chamber.

The state constitution requires that congressional and state legislative districts "should be contiguous, compact, and convenient, and follow natural, geographic, artificial, or political subdivision boundaries." The constitution states that the redistricting commission "must not purposely draw plans to favor or discriminate against any political party or group."

State statutes require that congressional and state legislative districts "preserve areas recognized as communities of interest." State statutes also require the commission to draw districts that "provide fair and effective representation" and "encourage electoral competition."

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 Washington, 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 excluded from all district populations. Washington's policy also applies to incarcerated juveniles and involuntarily committed behavioral health patients. It does not address federal inmates.

District maps

Congressional districts

See also: United States congressional delegations from Washington

Washington comprises 10 congressional districts. The table below lists Washington's current U.S. Representatives.

Office	Name	Party	Date assumed office	Date term ends
U.S. House Washington District 1	Suzan DelBene	Democratic	November 13, 2012	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Washington District 2	Rick Larsen	Democratic	January 3, 2001	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Washington District 3	Marie Gluesenkamp Pérez	Democratic	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Washington District 4	Dan Newhouse	Republican	January 3, 2015	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Washington District 5	Cathy McMorris Rodgers	Republican	January 3, 2005	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Washington District 6	Derek Kilmer	Democratic	January 3, 2013	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Washington District 7	Pramila Jayapal	Democratic	January 3, 2017	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Washington District 8	Kim Schrier	Democratic	January 3, 2019	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Washington District 9	D. Adam Smith	Democratic	January 3, 1997	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Washington District 10	Marilyn Strickland	Democratic	January 3, 2021	January 3, 2025

State legislative maps

See also: Washington State Senate and Washington House of Representatives

Washington comprises 49 state legislative districts. Each district elects one state senator and two state representatives. State senators are elected every four years in partisan elections. State representatives are elected every two years in partisan elections. To access the state legislative district maps approved during the 2020 redistricting cycle, click here.

Redistricting by cycle

Redistricting after the 2020 census

See also: Redistricting in Washington after the 2020 census

Washington was apportioned 10 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

The Washington House approved a final congressional map proposal 88-7 on February 2, 2022, and the Senate approved the congressional plan on February 8, 2022, in a 35-14 vote. Washington’s four redistricting commissioners each released their proposed congressional maps on September 28, 2021. On November 16, 2021, the commission announced that it was not able to produce new maps by its November 15 deadline and had submitted plans to the Washington Supreme Court for consideration, as authority to draw new maps passes to the court if the commission fails to agree on maps before the deadline. The court decided to accept the final map drafts the commission submitted, ruling that it had "substantially complied" with the deadline. This map took effect for Washington's 2022 congressional elections.

Congressional map

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

Washington Congressional Districts
until January 2, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Washington Congressional Districts
starting January 3, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Reactions

Criticism of the redistricting plans focused on the commission's vote to approve them without leaving time for public input. Mike Fancher of the Washington Coalition for Open Government said, “The commission damaged public trust in our system of governing, which always happens when secrecy prevails over transparency.” Rep. Sharon Wylie (D) said the commission process was still effective. “I’ve not always been happy with the results, but I’ve always felt that our system worked better than in a lot of other states and was more fair,” Wylie said.

2020 presidential results

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

2020 presidential results by Congressional district, Washington
District	2022 district		Political predecessor district
	Joe Biden	Donald Trump	Joe Biden	Donald Trump
Washington's 1st	64.0%	33.3%	59.1%	38.2%
Washington's 2nd	60.1%	37.2%	62.1%	35.1%
Washington's 3rd	46.6%	50.8%	46.9%	50.6%
Washington's 4th	40.3%	57.2%	39.6%	57.8%
Washington's 5th	43.5%	53.5%	44.0%	53.0%
Washington's 6th	57.1%	39.9%	57.4%	39.6%
Washington's 7th	86.8%	11.3%	85.7%	12.3%
Washington's 8th	52.0%	45.3%	52.0%	45.5%
Washington's 9th	71.5%	26.3%	73.3%	24.6%
Washington's 10th	57.3%	39.6%	56.2%	40.7%

Enacted state legislative district maps

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

The Washington House approved final state legislative map proposals on February 2, 2022, and the Senate approved the legislative plan on February 8, 2022 in a 35-14 vote.Washington’s four redistricting commissioners each released their proposed state legislative maps on September 21, 2021. On November 16, 2021, the commission announced that it was not able to produce new maps by its November 15 deadline and had submitted plans to the Supreme Court for consideration, as authority to draw new maps passes to the court if the commission fails to agree on maps before the deadline. The court decided to accept the final map drafts the commission submitted, ruling that it had "substantially complied" with the deadline. These maps took effect for Washington's 2022 legislative elections.

State Senate map

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

Washington State Senate Districts
until January 8, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Washington State Senate Districts
starting January 9, 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.

Washington State House Districts
until January 8, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Washington State House Districts
starting January 9, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Reactions

Senate Majority Leader Andy Billig (D) voted for the legislative but said, “I continue to have significant concern that the Yakima Valley legislative district may not be compliant with the federal Voting Rights Act.” Sen. Jamie Pedersen (D) said, “I think I’m not the only one who was surprised and disappointed that this past Nov. 15, as the clock approached midnight, without actually having agreed on a plan, without having published a plan for public comment, our redistricting commission voted to approve some sort of oral agreement that they had to send that over to us.”

Commission member April Sims said, “I just think there is something really powerful about forcing folks who normally wouldn’t come together to come together. It means everyone has to give a little in the process and no one side wins. And I think that’s good for democracy and good for the public.” In their decision to not alter the commission-approved maps, the justices of the Washington Supreme Court wrote, “This is not a situation in which the Supreme Court must step in because the Commission has failed to agree on a plan it believes complies with state and federal equirements.”

Redistricting after the 2010 census

See also: Redistricting in Washington after the 2010 census

Congressional redistricting, 2010

Following the 2010 United States Census, Washington gained one congressional seat. On January 1, 2012, the state's independent redistricting commission released its congressional district plan. On February 1, 2012, the state legislature passed an amended version of this plan by a two-thirds vote.

State legislative redistricting, 2010

On January 1, 2012, the state's independent redistricting commission released its state legislative district plan. On February 1, 2012, the state legislature passed an amended version of this plan by a two-thirds vote.

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 2020 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.

In Washington, there were seven competitive races for the Washington House of Representatives in 2012, compared to 11 in 2010. There were nine mildly competitive House races in 2012, compared to 11 in 2010. This amounted to a net loss of six competitive elections.

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 Washington 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 Washington ballot measures

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

1. Washington SJR 103, Redistricting Commission Amendment (1983)
2. Washington Referendum 16, Congressional Redistricting Measure (1966)
3. Washington Initiative 199, Legislative Reapportionment and Redistricting Measure (1956)
4. Washington Initiative 57, State Legislative Redistricting Measure (1930)
5. Washington Initiative 211, Legislative Reapportionment and Redistricting Measure (1962)

Recent news

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

Redistricting in Washington - Google News

See also

• United States census, 2020
• Redistricting in Washington 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"