The legislative part of redistricting is almost complete.  Only nine states are still in the process of drafting the “first” set of maps.  (Tw of those nine states are my home state of Missouri and the neighboring state of Kansas.  In both states, the maps are through one house of the legislature and are under consideration in the second house.)  In three states (Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin), the first set of maps defaulted to the courts when the legislatures and the governors were unable to agree on the new maps.

But in the remaining states, the maps have been adopted.  And that means that the battle over the maps has moved to the courts.  At this point, I am aware of three states in which we have rulings about the new maps.  Two of them are no surprise, or, at least, not much of a surprise.  In Ohio, the Ohio Supreme Court found that the map passed by the Ohio legislature violated the Ohio Constitutions rules on redistricting which bars drawing a map which unduly favors one political party or unduly splits political subdivisions.  In North Carolina, the North Carolina Supreme Court has under review an initial decision upholding the maps drawn by the North Carolina legislature.  The North Carolina Supreme Court will hear arguments on February 2.  Right now, it looks more likely than not that the North Carolina Supreme Court will strike down the map in that state.

The surprise on the list might be Alabama.  Alabama was not on the list of states that we looked at last year.  The failure to do so caused us to miss a change in demography within the state.  For the last several cycles, there has been one minority-majority district in western Alabama (the Seventh District).  In previous decades, the consensus was that — even though approximately one-quarter of the state is African-American — the minority population was too dispersed to creeate a second district that would either be a minority-majority district or close enough to qualify as an influence district.   (Part of the theory of the case is that the new districts dilute the influence of African-Americans in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act or is a racial gerrymander in violation of the Equal Protection Clasue.)  After the last census, however, it appears that by placing Birmingham in one district (the Seventh District) and Montgomery in a separate district in the southern part of the state, you could get two minority-majority districts (or at least two districts that would qualify as influence districts).  For now, the panel of judges hearing the Voting Rights Act case has ordered that Alabama will not be allowed to use the new maps pending a final decision (and has given Alabama thirty days to submit replacement maps or the court will draw maps for this election cycle).  Alabama has asked the Supreme Court to put this ruling on hold, and the Supreme Court has asked the plaintiffs for a response by February 2.

The Alabama ruling may be the tip of the iceberg.  The maps in Texas and Georgia are vulnerable to a similar challenge as the lines in those states failed to recognize that changes in the minority population and the location of those voters would support/require additional minority-majority districts.

In short, we are looking at several busy months in which courts vet the lines drawn in several key states.  From what we have seen out of the legislatures, Republicans have been trying to secure as much of their current seats as possible to lock in as many of their current 213 seats leaving them free to focus on 10-20 swing seats currently held by Democrats.  If the courts require drawing fairer maps, the Republican could find themselves fighting in four years or so to keep a large number of their current suburban districts.  This election cycle is going to be hard for Democrats, but getting maps in which Republicans have to spend time defending some of their own seats might just give the Democrats a chance to keep a narrow majority in the House.  If the Democrats can keep the house and pick up two or three seats (say in at least two of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Ohio, and North Carolina) in the Senate, then we would be able to repass many of the bills currently stalled in the Senate through the House and get sufficient filibuster reform to pass them through the Senate.