Home  ›  What Body Draws Missouri Federal Congressional Districts Constitution

What Body Draws Missouri Federal Congressional Districts Constitution

Written By Friday, April 8, 2022 Add Comment Edit
Public Policy Logo-one line.png in Missouri

  • Fiscal
    • Budgets
      • Missouri state budget and finances
      • Revenue enhancement policy in Missouri
    • Finance
      • Fiscal regulation in Missouri
    • Pensions
      • Public pensions in Missouri
      • Pension wellness in Missouri
  • Civil liberties
    • Affirmative action in Missouri
    • Campaign finance requirements in Missouri
    • Campaign finance requirements for Missouri ballot measures
    • Nonprofit regulation in Missouri
  • Teaching
    • Lease schools in Missouri
    • Higher education in Missouri
    • Public instruction in Missouri
    • School choice in Missouri
  • Elections
    • Ballot admission
      • Ballot admission requirements for political candidates in Missouri
      • Ballot admission requirements for political parties in Missouri
      • Political parties in Missouri
      • Election access requirements for presidential candidates in Missouri
    • Redistricting in Missouri
    • Voting in Missouri
  • Free energy and Surroundings
    • Energy policy in Missouri
    • Fracking in Missouri
    • Oil and gas extraction on federal land in Missouri
    • Endangered species in Missouri
    • Environmental policy in Missouri
  • Healthcare
    • Healthcare policy in Missouri
    • Medicaid spending in Missouri
    • Effect of the Affordable Care Deed in Missouri
  • Immigration
    • Immigration in Missouri

Click here to read more than about redistricting in Missouri after the 2020 demography.

Election Policy Logo.png

Redistricting after the 2020 census
The 2020 bike
Congressional apportionment
Redistricting committees
Deadlines
Lawsuits
Status of redistricting maps
2022 House elections with multiple incumbents
Congressional maps
Land legislative maps
Congressional and land legislative maps
Redistricting apps and software
General information
State-by-land redistricting procedures
United States census, 2020
Majority-minority districts
Gerrymandering

Redistricting is the process by which new congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn. Each of Missouri's eight Us Representatives and 197 state legislators are elected from political divisions called districts. U.s.a. Senators are not elected by districts, just by the states at big. 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 footing of race or ethnicity.[1] [2] [iii] [4]

Missouri was apportioned eight seats in the U.S. Firm of Representatives afterward the 2020 census, the aforementioned number it received after the 2010 demography. Click here for more than data about redistricting in Missouri subsequently the 2020 census.

HIGHLIGHTS

  • Post-obit the 2020 Usa Census, Missouri was apportioned eight congressional districts, which was unchanged from the number it had after the 2010 census.

  • Missouri's House of Representatives is made up of 163 districts; Missouri's State Senate is made upwards of 34 districts.

  • In Missouri, congressional district boundaries are drawn by the state legislature. Two split politician commissions enact state Senate and House district lines.


    • Missouri is cartoon congressional commune maps following the 2020 census. New congressional district maps have not nonetheless been enacted.

    Missouri completed its legislative redistricting on March 15, 2022, when the state'due south Judicial Redistricting Committee filed new state Senate commune boundaries with the secretary of land.[5] Missouri was the 43rd state to complete legislative redistricting. The House Independent Bipartisan Citizens Commission unanimously approved the state House'southward district boundaries on Jan. 21.[6] These maps take effect for Missouri's 2022 legislative elections. Click here for more information on maps enacted after the 2020 census.

    See the sections beneath for further data on the following topics:

    1. Background: A summary of federal requirements for redistricting at both the congressional and land legislative levels
    2. Country process: An overview virtually the redistricting procedure in Missouri
    3. District maps: Information almost the current district maps in Missouri
    4. Redistricting by wheel: A breakdown of the nearly meaning events in Missouri'south redistricting after contempo 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 assay of the political bug associated with redistricting

    Groundwork

    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 courtroom decisions.

    Federal requirements for congressional redistricting

    Co-ordinate to Commodity I, Section iv of the Us Constitution, united states of america and their legislatures have primary authority in determining the "times, places, and manner" of congressional elections. Congress may also pass laws regulating congressional elections.[7] [8]

    " The Times, Places and Fashion of belongings Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at whatever fourth dimension by Police make or alter such Regulations, except equally to the Places of chusing Senators.[nine] "
    —United States Constitution

    Article I, Department 2 of the United States Constitution stipulates that congressional representatives be apportioned to us 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 five. Sanders that the populations of House districts must be equal "equally nearly as practicable."[x] [11] [12]

    The equal population requirement for congressional districts is strict. According to All Almost Redistricting, "Any commune with more or fewer people than the boilerplate (likewise known as the 'ideal' population), must exist specifically justified by a consequent state policy. And even consistent policies that cause a ane percentage spread from largest to smallest district will likely be unconstitutional."[12]

    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 country legislative redistricting. In Reynolds v. Sims, the courtroom ruled that "the Equal Protection Clause [of the The states Constitution] demands no less than substantially equal land legislative representation for all citizens, of all places also as of all races." According to All About Redistricting, "it has become accepted that a [redistricting] programme will be constitutionally doubtable if the largest and smallest districts [inside a state or jurisdiction] are more than 10 per centum autonomously."[12]

    State-based requirements

    In addition to the federal criteria noted above, individual states may impose boosted 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 crave that districts of at to the lowest degree ane state legislative sleeping room 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.[12] [13]
    2. Compactness refers to the general principle that the constituents within a commune should live as near to one another every bit practicable. A total of 37 states impose compactness requirements on country legislative districts; 18 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.[12] [xiii]
    3. A community of interest is defined by FairVote every bit a "group of people in a geographical expanse, such as a specific region or neighborhood, who take common political, social or economical interests." A total of 24 states require that the maintenance of communities of involvement be considered in the cartoon of land legislative districts. A total of xiii states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.[12] [xiii]
    4. A total of 42 states crave that state legislative district lines be fatigued to account for political boundaries (due east.grand., the limits of counties, cities, and towns). A total of 19 states require that like considerations exist made in the drawing of congressional districts.[12] [13]

    Methods

    In general, a land'southward redistricting authority can be classified equally one of the post-obit:[14]

    1. Legislature-dominant: In a legislature-dominant state, the legislature retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact commune maps. Maps enacted by the legislature may or may not be subject to gubernatorial veto. Advisory commissions may likewise be involved in the redistricting process, although the legislature is not bound to adopt an advisory commission'south recommendations.
    2. Commission: In a commission state, an extra-legislative commission retains the ultimate authority to typhoon and enact district maps. A non-pol commission is ane whose members cannot concur constituent office. A politico commission is one whose members tin concord elective office.
    3. Hybrid: In a hybrid land, 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 Autonomous-Republicans." The word gerrymander was coined by The Boston Gazette to draw the district.

    See besides: Gerrymandering

    The term gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to favor one political party, private, or constituency over another. When used in a rhetorical manner past opponents of a detail district map, the term has a negative connotation but does non necessarily address the legality of a challenged map. The term tin can besides be used in legal documents; in this context, the term describes redistricting practices that violate federal or state laws.[1] [15]

    For additional background data about gerrymandering, click "[Prove more]" below.

    Show more

    The phrase racial gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing balloter district lines to dilute the voting ability of racial minority groups. Federal police force prohibits racial gerrymandering and establishes that, to combat this exercise and to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act, states and jurisdictions can create bulk-minority balloter districts. A bulk-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.[xvi]

    The phrase partisan gerrymandering refers to the exercise of drawing balloter commune maps with the intention of favoring ane political party over another. In contrast with racial gerrymandering, on which the Supreme Court of the U.s. has issued rulings in the past affirming that such practices violate federal law, the high courtroom had non, 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, information technology has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring partisan gerrymanders. Partisan gerrymandering is described in greater detail in this article.[17] [18]

    Contempo court decisions

    See besides: Redistricting cases heard by the Supreme Court of the Us

    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 employ of total population tallies in apportionment, and the constitutionality of contained redistricting commissions. The rulings in these cases, which originated in a diverseness of states, impact redistricting processes across the nation.

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

    Show more

    Gill five. Whitford (2018)

    See as well: Gill 5. 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'southward state legislative district plan had been subject to an unconstitutional gerrymander in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments—had failed to demonstrate continuing nether Article III of the United States Constitution to bring a complaint. The court's opinion, penned past Primary 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 stance that concurred in function with the majority stance and in the judgment, joined by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch.[19]

    Cooper five. Harris (2017)

    See likewise: 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 ii of N Carolina's congressional districts, the boundaries of which had been set post-obit the 2010 The states Census, had been subject to an illegal racial gerrymander in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Deed. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the court'due south majority opinion, which was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor (Thomas besides filed a separate concurring opinion). In the court'south bulk opinion, Kagan described the 2-part analysis utilized by the high court when plaintiffs allege racial gerrymandering equally follows: "Beginning, the plaintiff must prove that 'race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature'due south decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district.' ... Second, if racial considerations predominated over others, the pattern 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 assay, 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 benchmark in order to advance other goals, including political ones." Justice Samuel Alito delivered an opinion that concurred in office and dissented in role with the majority opinion. This opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy.[twenty] [21] [22]

    Evenwel v. Abbott (2016)

    Meet also: Evenwel v. Abbott

    Evenwel v. Abbott was a instance decided by the Supreme Court of the U.s.a. in 2016. At upshot was the constitutionality of state legislative districts in Texas. The plaintiffs, Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger, argued that district populations ought to have into account only the number of registered or eligible voters residing inside those districts as opposed to total population counts, which are more often than not 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 abode to smaller concentrations of not-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.[23] [24] [25] [26]

    Harris v. Arizona Contained Redistricting Commission (2016)

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

    Meet too: Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

    Harris v. Arizona Contained Redistricting Commission was a case decided past the Supreme Court of the U.s.a. in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts that were created past the committee in 2012. The plaintiffs, a grouping of Republican voters, alleged that "the commission diluted or inflated the votes of near ii million Arizona citizens when the commission intentionally and systematically overpopulated 16 Republican districts while under-populating xi Democrat districts." This, the plaintiffs argued, constituted a partisan gerrymander. The plaintiffs claimed that the committee placed a disproportionately large number of not-minority voters in districts dominated past Republicans; meanwhile, the commission allegedly placed many minority voters in smaller districts that tended to vote Autonomous. Every bit a result, the plaintiffs argued, more than 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 U.s.a. Section of Justice. At the time of redistricting, certain states were required to obtain preclearance from the U.Due south. Department of Justice before adopting redistricting plans or making other changes to their election laws—a requirement struck downwards by the U.s. Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder (2013). On Apr 20, 2016, the court ruled unanimously that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that a partisan gerrymander had taken identify. Instead, the court found that the commission had acted in good religion to comply with the Voting Rights Human activity. The court's majority opinion was penned by Justice Stephen Breyer.[28] [29]

    Arizona Land Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Committee (2015)

    Run across also: Arizona Country Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Committee

    Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Contained Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the Us in 2015. At issue was the constitutionality of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, which was established by state ramble 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 exist prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." The country legislature argued that the employ of the word "legislature" in this context is literal; therefore, only a land legislature may draw congressional district lines. Meanwhile, the commission contended that the word "legislature" ought to exist interpreted to hateful "the legislative powers of the land," 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 exist performed in accordance with the state'due south prescriptions for lawmaking, which may include the referendum and the governor'south veto." The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and joined past Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito dissented.[30] [31] [32] [33]

    Race and ethnicity

    See as well: Majority-minority districts

    Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 mandates that electoral commune lines cannot be drawn in such a mode equally to "improperly dilute minorities' voting ability."

    " No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, do, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by whatever State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United states to vote on account of race or colour.[9] "
    —Voting Rights Deed of 1965[34]

    States and other political subdivisions may create majority-minority districts in gild to comply with Section two of the Voting Rights Deed. A majority-minority commune is a commune in which minority groups etch a majority of the district's total population. As of 2015, Missouri was home to one congressional bulk-minority district.[2] [three] [4]

    Proponents of bulk-minority districts maintain that these districts are a necessary hindrance to the exercise of peachy, which occurs when a constituency is divided between several districts in order to forbid information technology from achieving a majority in any i district. In add-on, supporters argue that the drawing of majority-minority districts has resulted in an increased number of minority representatives in state legislatures and Congress.[two] [3] [four]

    Critics, meanwhile, debate that the establishment of majority-minority districts can event in packing, which occurs when a constituency or voting grouping is placed within a single commune, thereby minimizing its influence in other districts. Because minority groups tend to vote Democratic, critics argue that bulk-minority districts ultimately present an unfair reward to Republicans by consolidating Democratic votes into a smaller number of districts.[2] [3] [4]

    Land procedure

    See also: State-by-state redistricting procedures

    In Missouri, congressional commune boundaries are drawn past the land legislature. These lines are subject field to veto by the governor.[35]

    Two singled-out political leader commissions are ultimately responsible for state legislative redistricting, 1 for the Missouri Land Senate and another for the Missouri Firm of Representatives. Membership on these commissions is determined as follows:[35]

    1. Senate redistricting commission: The land committee of each major political party nominates 10 members to the committee, for a total of 20 nominees. From this pool, the governor selects five members per party, for a total of 10 commissioners.
    2. Firm redistricting commission: The congressional district commission of each major political party nominates ii members per congressional district, for a full of 32 nominees. From this pool, the governor appoints one fellow member per political party per district, for a full of 16 commissioners.

    How incarcerated persons are counted for redistricting

    Run across also: How incarcerated persons are counted for redistricting

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

    Commune maps

    Congressional districts

    Run across also: United States congressional delegations from Missouri

    Missouri comprises viii congressional districts. The map to the correct depicts Missouri's congressional district lines as fatigued post-obit the 2010 United States Demography. The table beneath lists Missouri's current House representatives.

    Part Proper noun Party Date assumed office Date term ends
    U.S. Firm Missouri District ane Cori Bush Democratic January three, 2021 January 3, 2023
    U.S. House Missouri Commune 2 Ann Wagner Republican January 3, 2013 Jan 3, 2023
    U.S. House Missouri District iii Blaine Luetkemeyer Republican January three, 2013 January iii, 2023
    U.Southward. House Missouri Commune 4 Vicky Hartzler Republican January three, 2011 January iii, 2023
    U.S. House Missouri District 5 Emanuel Cleaver Democratic January three, 2005 Jan three, 2023
    U.S. House Missouri Commune 6 Sam Graves Republican January 3, 2001 January 3, 2023
    U.South. Firm Missouri Commune 7 Billy Long Republican Jan 3, 2011 January 3, 2023
    U.S. House Missouri District eight Jason Smith Republican June 5, 2013 Jan three, 2023

    Country legislative maps

    See also: Missouri State Senate and Missouri House of Representatives

    Missouri comprises 34 state Senate districts and 163 country House districts. Country senators are elected every iv years in partisan elections. State representatives are elected every two years in partisan elections. To admission the country legislative district maps approved during the 2020 redistricting bicycle, click here.

    Redistricting by cycle

    Redistricting later on the 2020 census

    Meet also: Redistricting in Missouri after the 2020 census

    Missouri was apportioned eight seats in the U.S. Business firm of Representatives. This represented neither a gain nor a loss of seats as compared to apportionment after the 2010 census.[36]

    Enacted congressional commune maps

    Missouri is drawing congressional district maps post-obit the 2020 demography. New congressional commune maps have not yet been enacted.

    Enacted land legislative district maps

    Come across also: State legislative district maps implemented after the 2020 census

    Missouri completed its legislative redistricting on March 15, 2022, when the country'south Judicial Redistricting Commission filed new state Senate commune boundaries with the secretary of state.[37] Missouri was the 43rd country to complete legislative redistricting. The House Contained Bipartisan Citizens Committee unanimously approved the land Firm'due south commune boundaries on Jan. 21.[38] These maps have upshot for Missouri's 2022 legislative elections.

    The Senate Independent Bipartisan Citizens Commission failed to submit proposed maps to the secretary of state's part by the Dec 23, 2021, borderline. Therefore, responsibility for developing Senate district boundaries was assumed by the Missouri Judicial Commission for Redistricting.[39] The judicial commission released their concluding programme and sent information technology to the secretary of state's office on March xv, 2022. The committee'due south chair, Missouri Appeals Court Justice Cynthia Lynette Martin, said in a printing release, "The Judicial Redistricting Commission's work has been thorough and labor intensive, and was purposefully undertaken with the goal to file a constitutionally compliant programme and map well in accelerate of the commission'south ramble deadline to avoid disenfranchising voters given the candidate filing deadline and the deadline for preparing ballots."[40] Scott Faughn of The Missouri Times wrote that "The biggest difference in this map and that previous map is that it shifts the weight of some of the districts from rural weighted districts to evenly split districts and even enhances the suburban influence inside several republican seats." He added, "the new map produces vii solid democratic districts, and 3 likely democratic districts. On the republican side the new map produces 18 solid republican districts, and 3 more probable republican districts," with two competitive districts when the current incumbents no longer seek office.[41]

    The House Independent Bipartisan Citizens Commission unanimously approved new land House district boundaries on January 19, 2022. 14 of the commission's 20 members were required to corroborate the program. If the commission was unable to concur on a redistricting program by Jan 23, 2022, authority over the procedure would take transferred to the Missouri Judicial Committee for Redistricting.[42] In a press release issued after the map was finalized, commission chair Jerry Hunter said, "I desire to personally thank all of the commissioners for the hard work that was put in past the commissioners and, obviously, as all of you know, the supporting individuals that have been instrumental to helping get this map washed on both sides – on both the Democratic and Republican sides."[43] Rudi Keller of the Missouri Independent wrote, "Of the 163 districts..., at that place are 38 where Democrats should have the advantage, 97 where Republicans are dominant and 28 districts with past election results showing less than a 10% advantage for either party.[42]

    State Senate map

    This map takes result for Missouri's 2022 legislative elections. Missouri legislative redistricting 2022 Senate map.png

    Land Firm map

    This map takes effect for Missouri's 2022 legislative elections. Missouri legislative redistricting 2022 House map.png

    Redistricting after the 2010 census

    Encounter also: Redistricting in Missouri after the 2010 census

    Congressional redistricting, 2010

    Following the 2010 United States Census, Missouri lost one congressional seat. At the fourth dimension of redistricting, Republicans held majorities in both chambers of the Missouri General Assembly. Democratic Governor Jay Nixon vetoed the legislature'south congressional redistricting plan, but on May four, 2011, the legislature overrode the veto and the new map became law.[35] [44]

    Pearson v. Koster

    On September 23, 2011, opponents of the newly approved congressional district map filed arrange in the Missouri 19th Judicial Circuit Court, alleging "partisan gerrymandering and deviations from state constitutional compactness requirements." On December 12, 2011, the court dismissed the case. The plaintiffs appealed this conclusion to the Missouri Supreme Court, which ordered the trial court to reconsider the instance. The Missouri Supreme Courtroom "agreed with the trial courtroom's conclusion to dismiss several counts (including partisan gerrymandering claims), but remanded for a decision of whether the congressional districts (especially districts three and 5) were sufficiently compact under state constitutional police force." On February 3, 2012, the trial court once more rejected the plaintiff's compactness claims, and the Missouri Supreme Court affirmed that decision on May 25, 2012.[45]

    State legislative redistricting, 2010

    The two pol commissions charged with state legislative redistricting failed to corroborate plans of their ain. The Missouri Supreme Court appointed a six-fellow member panel to describe the boundaries instead. This panel issued state Senate and House commune maps on Nov 30, 2011.[35]

    The panel'southward original state Senate district map was ultimately struck downwards in court. It was likewise determined that the panel lacked the authority to draw a second map. A new pol commission was convened to make a second attempt. The new commission issued a final country Senate commune map on March 12, 2012.[35]

    State legislation and ballot measures

    Redistricting legislation

    DocumentIcon.jpg Run across state election laws

    The following is a listing of recent redistricting bills that have been introduced in or passed past the Missouri state legislature. To learn more about each of these bills, click the bill title. This data is provided past BillTrack50 and LegiScan.

    Annotation: 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 Missouri ballot measures

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

    1. Missouri Congressional Redistricting Commission, Amendment 5 (1982)
    2. Missouri Event 7, State Legislative Redistricting, Salaries and Procedures (1938)
    3. Missouri Congressional Redistricting Proposition, Effect 17 (1922)
    4. Missouri Senatorial Redistricting Proposition, Consequence 19 (1922)
    5. Missouri General Assembly Reorganization and Legislative Updates Amendment, Effect 3 (February 1924)
    6. Missouri St. Louis Court Judges Subpoena, Issue 12 (1920)
    7. Missouri Elected Members of Congress, Amendment iii (August 1965)
    8. Missouri Representative and Senatorial Districts, Subpoena 3 (January 1966)
    9. Missouri Redistricting of Senatorial and Representative Districts, Amendment 3 (August 1978)
    10. Missouri Reapportionment Committee Hearings, Amendment 12 (1982)
    11. Missouri Amendment 1, Lobbying, Campaign Finance, and Redistricting Initiative (2018)
    12. Missouri Amendment 3, Redistricting Process and Criteria, Lobbying, and Campaign Finance Amendment (2020)

    Political impacts of redistricting

    Competitiveness

    There are conflicting opinions regarding the correlation between partisan gerrymandering and electoral competitiveness. In 2012, Jennifer Clark, a political scientific discipline professor at the University of Houston, said, "The redistricting process has of import consequences for voters. In some states, incumbent legislators work together to protect their own seats, which produces less contest in the political system. Voters may feel as though they do not take a meaningful alternative to the incumbent legislator. Legislators who lack competition in their districts have less incentive to adhere to their constituents' opinions."[46]

    In 2006, Emory University professor Alan Abramowitz and Ph.D. students Brad Alexander and Matthew Gunning wrote, "[Some] studies accept concluded that redistricting has a neutral or positive effect on competition. ... [It] is frequently the case that partisan redistricting has the effect of reducing the safety of incumbents, thereby making elections more than competitive."[47]

    In 2011, James Cottrill, a professor of political science at Santa Clara University, published a report of the effect of non-legislative approaches (e.1000., independent commissions, politician commissions) to redistricting on the competitiveness of congressional elections. Cottrill plant that "particular types of [not-legislative approaches] encourage the appearance in congressional elections of experienced and well-financed challengers." Cottrill cautioned, still, that non-legislative approaches "contribute neither to decreased vote percentages when incumbents win elections nor to a greater probability of their defeat."[48]

    In 2021, John Johnson, Inquiry Fellow in the Lubar Center for Public Policy Enquiry and Civic Instruction 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 political party won. Twenty years later, 43% of Democrats lived in a identify Trump won, only only 28% of Republicans lived in a Biden-voting neighborhood. Today, Democrats are more probable than Republicans to live in both places where they are the overwhelming majority and places where they form a noncompetitive minority."[49]

    State legislatures after the 2010 redistricting cycle

    See also: Margin of victory in country legislative elections

    In 2014, Ballotpedia conducted a written report of competitive districts in 44 state legislative chambers between 2010, the concluding year in which district maps drawn later on the 2000 census applied, and 2012, the first yr in which commune maps drawn after the 2010 census applied. Ballotpedia found that in that location were 61 fewer competitive general election contests in 2012 than in 2010. Of the 44 chambers studied, 25 experienced a internet 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.six percent of the contests studied saw competitive full general elections. An ballot 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 study, including methodology, come across this commodity.

    In Missouri, there were xv competitive races for the Missouri Firm of Representatives in 2012, compared to nine in 2010. In that location were five mildly competitive Firm races in 2012, compared to 5 in 2010. This amounted to a net gain of half dozen competitive elections.

    Recent news

    The link below is to the near contempo stories in a Google news search for the terms Redistricting Missouri. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these manufactures.

    See also

    • Usa census, 2020
    • Redistricting in Missouri subsequently the 2010 demography
    • Redistricting
    • State-by-land redistricting procedures
    • Bulk-minority districts
    • State legislative and congressional redistricting afterwards the 2010 census
    • Margin of victory in country legislative elections earlier and after the 2010 demography
    • Margin of victory analysis for the 2014 congressional elections

    External links

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

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ ane.0 1.1 All Most Redistricting, "Why does it thing?" accessed April 8, 2015
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.three Indy Calendar week, "Croaky, stacked and packed: Initial redistricting maps met with skepticism and dismay," June 29, 2011
    3. ↑ 3.0 three.1 3.2 3.iii The Atlantic, "How the Voting Rights Act Hurts Democrats and Minorities," June 17, 2013
    4. ↑ 4.0 iv.1 4.2 4.iii Redrawing the Lines, "The Part of Section ii - Majority Minority Districts," accessed April vi, 2015
    5. ↑ Missouri Secretarial assistant of State, "Terminal Senate Statewide Judicial Redistricting Commission Letter; March xv, 2022," accessed March 22, 2022
    6. ↑ Missouri Secretary of State, "Final Business firm Apportionment; Jan 20, 2022," accessed March 22, 2022
    7. ↑ The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, "Election Regulations," accessed April 13, 2015
    8. ↑ Brookings, "Redistricting and the United States Constitution," March 22, 2011
    9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    10. ↑ Brennan Center for Justice, "A Citizen'southward Guide to Redistricting," accessed March 25, 2015
    11. ↑ The Constitution of the Us of America, "Article i, Section two," accessed March 25, 2015
    12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.four 12.5 12.6 All About Redistricting, "Where are the lines drawn?" accessed Apr 9, 2015
    13. ↑ xiii.0 13.i 13.2 13.three FairVote, "Redistricting Glossary," accessed April ix, 2015
    14. ↑ All About Redistricting, "Who draws the lines?" accessed June 19, 2017
    15. ↑ Encyclopædia Britannica, "Gerrymandering," November 4, 2014
    16. ↑ Congressional Research Service, "Congressional Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A Legal Overview," Apr xiii, 2015
    17. ↑ The Wall Street Journal, "Supreme Courtroom to Consider Limits on Partisan Cartoon of Election Maps," June 19, 2017
    18. ↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear potentially landmark case on partisan gerrymandering," June nineteen, 2017
    19. ↑ Supreme Court of the Us, "Gill 5. Whitford: Conclusion," June 18, 2018
    20. ↑ Election Constabulary Weblog, "Breaking: SCOTUS to Hear NC Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 27, 2016
    21. ↑ Ballot Access News, "U.S. Supreme Court Accepts Some other Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 28, 2016
    22. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Cooper v. Harris: Decision," May 22, 2017
    23. ↑ The Washington Mail, "Supreme Courtroom to hear challenge to Texas redistricting programme," May 26, 2015
    24. ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Agrees to Settle Meaning of 'One Person Ane Vote,'" May 26, 2015
    25. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Evenwel v. Abbott," accessed May 27, 2015
    26. ↑ Associated Printing, "Supreme Court to hear Texas Senate districts case," May 26, 2015
    27. ↑ Supreme Courtroom of the United States, "Harris v. Arizona Contained Redistricting Commission: Cursory for Appellants," accessed Dec 14, 2015
    28. ↑ Supreme Court of the The states, "Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission," April 20, 2016
    29. ↑ The New York Times, "Court Skeptical of Arizona Plan for Less-Partisan Congressional Redistricting," March 2, 2015
    30. ↑ The Atlantic, "Will the Supreme Court Let Arizona Fight Gerrymandering?" September fifteen, 2014
    31. ↑ Us Supreme Court, "Arizona Land Legislature v. Arizona Contained Redistricting Committee: Stance of the Court," June 29, 2015
    32. ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Upholds Creation of Arizona Redistricting Commission," June 29, 2015
    33. ↑ Yale Police School, The Avalon Project, "Voting Rights Act of 1965; August 6, 1965," accessed April half-dozen, 2015
    34. ↑ 35.0 35.1 35.2 35.3 35.4 All About Redistricting, "Missouri," accessed May 7, 2015
    35. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "2020 Demography Apportionment Results Delivered to the President," Apr 26, 2021
    36. ↑ Missouri Secretary of State, "Final Senate Statewide Judicial Redistricting Commission Letter; March 15, 2022," accessed March 22, 2022
    37. ↑ Missouri Secretary of State, "Final House Apportionment; Jan 20, 2022," accessed March 22, 2022
    38. ↑ 'Missouri Secretary of State, "Supreme Court Appointment for Judicial Commission for Redistricting," Jan 11, 2022
    39. ↑ Missouri Office of Administration, "Judicial Redistricting Committee Releases Tentative Land Senate Redistricting Program, Map," March 14, 2022
    40. ↑ The Missouri Times, "TWMP Cavalcade: New Senate map commune by commune," March xvi, 2020
    41. ↑ 42.0 42.i Missouri Contained, "Bipartisan commission approves new Missouri House districts," Jan 20, 2022
    42. ↑ Missouri Function of Administration, "Firm Independent Bipartisan Citizens Commission Files Final Redistricting Plan with Secretary of State," January 24, 2022
    43. ↑ Barone, 1000. & McCutcheon, C. (2013). The annual of American politics 2014 : the senators, the representatives and the governors : their records and ballot results, their states and districts. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Printing.
    44. ↑ All About Redistricting, "Litigation in the 2010 cycle, Missouri," accessed May vii, 2015
    45. ↑ The Daily Cougar, "Redistricting volition impact November election," October 16, 2012
    46. ↑ The Journal of Politics, "Incumbency, Redistricting, and the Decline of Competition in U.Due south. House Elections," February 2006
    47. ↑ Polity, "The Effects of Not-Legislative Approaches to Redistricting on Contest in Congressional Elections," October three, 2011
    48. ↑ Marquette University Constabulary School Faculty Weblog, "Why Practise Republicans Overperform in the Wisconsin Land Assembly? Partisan Gerrymandering Vs. Political Geography," February 11, 2021

    v•e

    Ballotpedia
    About

    Overview • What people are maxim • Back up Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

    Executive: Leslie Graves, President • Gwen Beattie, Principal Operating Officer • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Ballot Product and Applied science Strategy

    Communications: Megan Brown • Sarah Groat • Lauren Nemerovski
    External Relations: Alison Prange • Sara Key • Kari Berger • Hannah Nelson
    Operations: Meghann Olshefski • Lauren Dixon • Kelly Rindfleisch
    Policy: Christopher Nelson • Caitlin Styrsky • Molly Byrne • Katharine Frey • Jimmy McAllister
    Research: Josh Altic, Managing Editor
    Tech: Matt Latourelle, Tech Manager • Nathan Bingham • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Margaret Kearney • Joseph Sanchez

    Contributors: Scott Rasmussen
    Editorial

    Geoff Pallay, Editor-in-Master • Daniel Anderson, Managing Editor • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor • Cory Eucalitto, Managing Editor • Mandy Gillip, Managing Editor • Jerrick Adams • Victoria Antram • Dave Beaudoin • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Kate Carsella • Kelly Coyle • Megan Feeney • Nicole Fisher • Juan García de Paredes • Sara Horton • Tyler King • Doug Kronaizl • Amee LaTour • David Luchs • Brittony Maag • Roneka Matheny • Andrew McNair • Jackie Mitchell • Elisabeth Moore • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Samantha Post • Paul Rader • Ethan Rice • Myj Saintyl • Maddie Sinclair Johnson • Abbey Smith • Janie Valentine • Caitlin Vanden Boom • Joel Williams • Samuel Wonacott • Mercedes Yanora
    Flag of Missouri

    five•eastward

    Land of Missouri
    Jefferson City (capital)
    Elections

    What'southward on my ballot? | Elections in 2022 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

    Government

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

    smithevendtond.blogspot.com

    Source: https://ballotpedia.org/Redistricting_in_Missouri

    0 Response to "What Body Draws Missouri Federal Congressional Districts Constitution"

    Post a Comment

    Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

    Iklan Atas Artikel

    Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

    Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

    Iklan Bawah Artikel