House Apportionment 2000: States Gaining, Losing, and on the Margin

CRS Report for Congress
House Apportionment 2000: States Gaining,
1
Losing, and on the Margin
Royce Crocker
Specialist in American National Government
Government and Finance Division
Summary
On December 28, 2000, the Commerce Department released 2000 Census
population figures and the resulting reapportionment of seats in the House of
Representatives. The apportionment population of the 50 states in 2000 is 281,424,177,^th
a figure 13.4% greater than in 1990. Twelve seats will shift among 18 states in the 108
Congress as a result of the reapportionment. (In the 103^rd Congress, 19 seats shifted
among 21 states after the 1990 Census.) The next census data release will occur by
April 1, 2001, when the Census Bureau will provide states the small area data necessary
to re-draw congressional and state legislative districts in time for the 2002 election. This
report will not be updated.
Background
The Census Bureau’s release of the first figures from the 2000 Census will shift 12
seats among 18 states for the 108^th Congress (beginning in January 2003). Connecticut,
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin will each lose
one seat, and New York and Pennsylvania will each lose two seats. California, Colorado,
Nevada, and North Carolina, will each gain one seat, and Arizona, Florida, Georgia, and
Texas will each gain two seats.²
The reapportionment of House seats in 2000 is based on an apportionment
population that is different from the actual resident population of each state. For
apportionment purposes since 1970, (with the exception of 1980) the Census Bureau has
added to each state’s resident population the foreign-based military and other federal
employees and their dependents who are from the state but not residing therein at the time

¹ This report originally was authored by David C. Huckabee, who has retired from CRS.
² See Table 1 for each state’s data. These allocations are based on a 435 seat House of
Representatives. The 435-seat House was established in 1929 by the Permanent Apportionment^th
Act, (46 Stat. 21, 26-27) which ended the 19 century practice of increasing the House size after
every census but one. There have been no permanent increases in the House size for most of the^th

20 century.

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

of the census. In 2000, these additional persons increased the census count for the 50
states by 574,330. If the foreign-based military and federal employees had not been
included in the counts, North Carolina would have not gained its 13^th seat. Utah would
have gained an additional seat instead.
Tables
Table 1 sets out the apportionment population as of April 1, 1990, April 1, 2000 and
the resulting seat assignments of each of the 50 states. The table also illustrates the
change from 1990 (shown by total and percent), the current House seat allocation, and
what it will be at the beginning to the 108^th Congress, and the average sized congressional^th
district for each state. For the 108 Congress, the national average size congressional
district will be 645,632, and districts will range in size from 493,782 (for Wyoming’s
single district) to a maximum of 902,195 (for Montana’s single district).
Table 1. Apportionment of Seats in the House of Representatives
Based on the 2000 Census
^{1990 C}^eⁿ^s^u^s^{2000 C}^eⁿ^s^u^s^Sea^t²⁰⁰³
^Sta^t^e^ch^an^ge^average^d^Appo^rt^io^n-^Sea^t^s^Appo^rt^io^n-^Overs^eas^C^h^an^{ge from}¹⁹⁹⁰^Sea^t^s
^from¹⁹⁹⁰^{CD po}^p.^m^e^nt^po^p.^a^m^e^nt^po^p.^b^federal^c^Total^P^ercen^t
^A^L^4,040,587⁷⁴^,461,130^14,⁰³⁰^420,543^10.41⁷^635,300
^A^K^550,043¹^628,933^2,001^78,890^14.34¹^626,932
^A^Z^3,665,228⁶⁵^,140,683^10,051^1,475,455^40.26⁸⁺²^641,329
^A^R^2,350,725⁴²^,679,733^6,³³³^329,008^14.00⁴^668,350
^C^A^29,760,021⁵²^33,930,798^59,150^4,170,777^14.01⁵³¹^639,088
^C^O^3,294,394⁶⁴^,311,882^10,621^1,017,488^30.89⁷⁺¹^614,466
^C^T^3,287,116⁶³^,409,535^3,⁹⁷⁰^122,419^3.72⁵^-¹^681,113
^D^E^666,168¹^785,068^1,468^118,900^17.85¹^783,600
^FL^12,937,926²³^16,028,890^46,512^3,090,964^23.89²⁵⁺²^639,295
^G^A^6,478,216¹¹^8,206,975^20,522^1,728,759^26.69¹³⁺²^629,727
^H^I^1,108,229²¹^,216,642^5,¹⁰⁵^108,413^9.78²^605,768
^I^D^1,006,749²¹^,297,274^3,³²¹^290,525^28.86²^646,976
^I^L^11,430,602²⁰^12,439,042^19,749^1,008,440^8.82¹⁹^-¹^653,647
^I^N^5,544,159¹⁰^6,090,782^10,²⁹⁷^546,623^9.86⁹^-¹^675,609
^I^A^2,776,755⁵²^,931,923^5,⁵⁹⁹^155,168^5.59⁵^585,265
^K^S^2,477,574⁴²^,693,824^5,⁴⁰⁶^216,250^8.73⁴^672,104
^K^Y^3,685,296⁶⁴^,049,431^7,⁶⁶²^364,135^9.88⁶^673,628
^L^A^4,219,973⁷⁴^,480,271^11,²⁹⁵^260,298^6.17⁷^638,425
^ME^1,227,928²¹^,277,731^2,⁸⁰⁸^49,803^4.06²^637,462
^MD^4,781,468⁸⁵^,307,886^11,⁴⁰⁰^526,418^11.01⁸^662,061
^MA^6,016,425¹⁰^6,355,568^6,⁴⁷¹^339,143^5.64¹⁰^634,910
^MI^9,295,297¹⁶^9,955,829^17,³⁸⁵^660,532^7.11¹⁵^-¹^662,563
^MN^4,375,099⁸⁴^,925,670^6,¹⁹¹^550,571^12.58⁸^614,935
^MS^2,573,216⁵²^,852,927^8,²⁶⁹^279,711^10.87⁴^-¹^711,164
^MO^5,117,073⁹⁵^,606,260^11,⁰⁴⁹^489,187^9.56⁹^621,690
^MT^799,065¹^905,316^3,121^106,251^13.30¹^902,195
^N^E^1,578,385³¹^,715,369^4,¹⁰⁶^136,984^8.68³^570,421
^N^V^1,201,833²²^,002,032^3,⁷⁷⁵^800,199^66.58³⁺¹^666,086
^N^H^1,109,252²¹^,238,415^2,⁶²⁹^129,163^11.64²^617,893
^N^J^7,730,188¹³^8,424,354^10,⁰⁰⁴^694,166^8.98¹³^647,258
^N^M^1,515,069³¹^,823,821^4,⁷⁷⁵^308,752^20.38³^606,349
^N^Y^17,990,455³¹^19,004,973^28,516^1,014,518^5.64²⁹^-²^654,361
^N^C^6,628,637¹²^8,067,673^18,360^1,439,036^21.71¹³⁺¹^619,178

^{1990 C}^eⁿ^s^u^s^{2000 C}^eⁿ^s^u^s^Sea^t²⁰⁰³
^Sta^t^e^ch^an^ge^average^d^Appo^rt^io^n-^Sea^t^s^Appo^rt^io^n-^Overs^eas^C^h^an^{ge from}¹⁹⁹⁰^Sea^t^s
^from¹⁹⁹⁰^{CD po}^p.^m^e^nt^po^p.^a^m^e^nt^po^p.^b^federal^c^Total^P^ercen^t
^N^D^638,800¹^643,756^1,556^4,956^0.78¹^642,200
^O^H^10,847,115¹⁹^11,374,540^21,⁴⁰⁰^527,425^4.86¹⁸^-¹^630,730
^O^K^3,145,585⁶³^,458,819^8,¹⁶⁵^313,234^9.96⁵^-¹^690,131
^O^R^2,842,321⁵³^,428,543^7,¹⁴⁴^586,222^20.62⁵^684,280
^P^A^11,881,643²¹^12,300,670^19,⁶¹⁶^419,027^3.53¹⁹^-²^646,371
^R^I^1,003,464²¹^,049,662^1,³⁴³^46,198^4.60²^524,160
^SC^3,486,703⁶⁴^,025,061^13,⁰⁴⁹^538,358^15.44⁶^668,669
^SD^696,004¹^756,874^2,030^60,870^8.75¹^754,844
^T^N^4,877,185⁹⁵^,700,037^10,⁷⁵⁴^822,852^16.87⁹^632,143
^T^X^16,986,510³⁰^20,903,994^52,174^3,917,484^23.06³²⁺²^651,619
^U^T^1,722,850³²^,236,714^3,⁵⁴⁵^513,864^29.83³^744,390
^VT^562,758¹^609,890^1,063^47,132^8.38¹^608,827
^VA^6,187,358¹¹^7,100,702^22,¹⁸⁷^913,344^14.76¹¹^643,501
^W^A^4,866,692⁹⁵^,908,684^14,⁵⁶³^1,041,992^21.41⁹^654,902
^W^V^1,793,477³¹^,813,077^4,⁷³³^19,600^1.09³^602,781
^W^I^4,891,769⁹⁵^,371,210^7,⁵³⁵^479,441^9.80⁸^-¹^670,459
^W^Y^453,588¹^495,304^1,522^41,716^9.20¹^493,782
^T^o^ta^l:^248,102,973⁴³⁵^281,424,177^574,330^33,^321,204^13.43⁴³⁵^N^a^{t. m}^e^aⁿ^:^645,632
^Minim^u^m^:^493,782
^H^ous^e^sⁱ^z^e^:^C^ons^{t. m}ⁱ^nim^u^m^:^e⁵⁰^Me^diaⁿ^:^642,850
^H^ous^e^sⁱ^z^e^:^C^ons^{t. m}^a^xⁱ^m^u^m^:^e^9,380^Ma^xⁱ^m^u^m^:^902,195
^a^U^.^{S. C}^ong^r^e^s^s^,^H^ous^e^,^Appor^tionm^eⁿ^{t Population}^{and State}^Re^pr^e^s^eⁿ^tation,^H^.^D^o^c^.^102-^{18, 102}^nd^C^ong^{., 1}^st^sess.^,
⁽^W^a^s^hing^{ton: G}^P^O^,¹⁹⁹¹⁾^{, pp. 3,4.}^b
^U.^S^.^Dep^t^.^o^f^Co^m^m^e^rce,^Bu^reau^o^f^t^h^e^C^eⁿ^s^u^s^,^C^e^ns^us^{2000 Show}^s^Re^sⁱ^de^nt^{Population of 281,421,906;}
^Appor^tionm^eⁿ^{t C}^ounts^D^e^liv^e^r^e^d^{to Pr}^e^s^ideⁿ^t,^P^r^e^s^s^R^e^le^a^s^e^C^B⁰⁰^-^C^N^.^.^{64 (}^W^a^s^hing^{ton, D}^e^c^.^{28, 2000)}^,^Ta^b^l^e
¹^{. (P}^le^a^s^e^note^tha^t^re^sⁱ^de^{nt popula}^{tion tota}^{l doe}^s^{not inc}^l^ude^the^f^o^re^ig^n-ba^s^e^{d m}^ilita^ry^a^{nd othe}^{r f}^e^de^ra^l
^e^m^ploy^e^e^s^inc^l^ude^{d in the}^a^ppor^tionm^eⁿ^{t popula}^tion.)^c
^{Ibid., D}^e^riv^e^{d f}^r^om^Ta^b^l^{e 2}^.^d
^T^h^{e average si}^{ze co}ⁿ^g^ressi^oⁿ^a^l^dⁱ^st^ri^ct^f^o^{r each}^st^at^eⁱ^s^cal^cu^l^a^t^e^d^oⁿ^t^h^e^r^e^sⁱ^de^{nt population}^f^o^{r each}^st^at^{e (w}^hⁱ^ch
^is^the^a^pportionm^eⁿ^{t popula}^{tion m}ⁱ^nus^the^ov^e^r^s^e^a^s^m^ilita^ry^(a^{nd othe}^{r f}^e^de^ra^{l) e}^m^ploy^e^e^s^.^e
^A^r^tic^le^{1, Se}^c^{tion 2 of}^the^{Constitution e}^s^ta^blishe^{s the}^mⁱ^nim^u^m^siz^e^of^the^House^(one^Re^pre^s^eⁿ^ta^tiv^e^pe^r^sta^t^e⁾^,^aⁿ^d
^a^m^a^xⁱ^m^u^m⁽^one^f^o^r^e^v^e^r^y^{30,000 pe}^r^s^ons⁾^.
Priority Lists and Seat Assignments
The reapportionment process for the House relies on rounding principles, but the
actual procedure involves computing a “priority list” of seat assignments for the states.
The Constitution allocates the first 50 seats because each state must have at least one
Representative. A priority list assigns the remaining 385 seats for a total of 435. Table
2 displays the end of the “priority list” that will be used to allocate Representatives based
on the 2000 Census apportionment population. The law only provides for 435 seats in the
House, but the tables illustrate not only the last seats assigned by the apportionment
formula (ending at 435), but the states that would just miss getting additional
representation.³

³ The figures in Table 2 for the “population needed to gain or lose a seat” are misleading because
it is unlikely that one state’s population total would be adjusted without others changing as well.
Since the method of equal proportions used to allocate seats in the House uses all state
populations simultaneously, changes in several state populations may also result in changes to
the “populations needed to gain or lose a seat.”

Table 2. Population Needed to Gain or Lose a Seat Using the 2000
Census Apportionment Population
^P^rⁱ^o^ri^ty^S^t^ate^S^eat^{2000 a}^p^p^o^r^t^ioⁿ^m^eⁿ^t^popul^atⁱ^oⁿ^P^rⁱ^o^ri^t^y^val^ue^P^o^p^.ⁿ^eed^ed^to^gaⁱⁿ^o^r^lo^se^se^a^t
⁴²⁰^C^A⁵¹^33,930,798^671,929.90^-¹^,325,368
⁴²¹^T^N⁹⁵^,700,037^671,755.50^-^221,227
⁴²²^MA¹⁰^6,355,568^669,935.36^-^230,072
⁴²³^N^Y²⁹^19,004,973^666,943.75^-^605,818
⁴²⁴^C^O⁷⁴^,311,882^665,337.67^-^127,372
⁴²⁵^P^A¹⁹^12,300,670^665,144.05^-^359,885
⁴²⁶^T^X³²^20,903,994^663,702.45^-^567,519
⁴²⁷^MO⁹⁵^,606,260^660,703.78^-^127,450
⁴²⁸^C^A⁵²^33,930,798^658,881.42^-^679,651
⁴²⁹^MN⁸⁴^,925,670^658,220.10^-^93,814
⁴³⁰^G^A¹³^8,206,975^657,083.72^-^142,386
⁴³¹^I^A⁵²^,931,923^655,597.81^-^44,337
⁴³²^FL²⁵^16,028,890^654,376.65^-^212,933
⁴³³^O^H¹⁸^11,374,540^650,239.14^-^79,688
⁴³⁴^C^A⁵³^33,930,798^646,330.20^-^33,940
⁴³⁵^N^C¹³^8,067,673^645,930.64^-³^,084
^Las^t^s^e^{at as}^sⁱ^gne^{d by}^law
⁴³⁶^U^T⁴²^,236,714^645,683.70⁺⁸⁵⁵
⁴³⁷^N^Y³⁰^19,004,973^644,328.90⁺^47,245
⁴³⁸^T^X³³^20,903,994^643,275.93⁺^86,268
⁴³⁹^MI¹⁶^9,955,829^642,645.62⁺^50,891
⁴⁴⁰^I^N¹⁰^6,090,782^642,024.48⁺^37,057
⁴⁴¹^MT²^905,316^640,155.07⁺⁸^,168
⁴⁴²^I^L²⁰^12,439,042^638,109.37⁺^152,465
⁴⁴³^MS⁵²^,852,927^637,933.77⁺^35,763
⁴⁴⁴^C^A⁵⁴^33,930,798^634,248.18⁺^624,984
⁴⁴⁵^W^I⁹⁵^,371,210^633,002.89⁺^109,696
⁴⁴⁶^O^K⁶³^,458,819^631,490.94⁺^79,090
⁴⁴⁷^P^A²⁰^12,300,670^631,011.04⁺^290,837
⁴⁴⁸^FL²⁶^16,028,890^628,704.74⁺^439,176
⁴⁴⁹^O^R⁶³^,428,543^625,963.33⁺^109,365
⁴⁵⁰^MD⁹⁵^,307,886^625,540.08⁺^173,020
^So^u^r^c^e^:^C^o^m^p^u^t^atⁱ^ons^of^pr^ior^ity^v^a^lue^s^a^{nd popula}^tions^ne^e^d^e^d^{to g}^a^{in or}^los^e^a^s^e^a^t^by^C^R^S^{. Se}^e^C^R^S^R^e^por^t
^R^L^30711,^The^H^ous^e^Appor^tionm^eⁿ^{t For}^m^{ula in The}^o^r^y^{and Pr}^ac^tic^e^{, by}^R^o^y^c^e^C^r^oc^k^e^r^,^f^o^r^aⁿ^e^x^plaⁿ^a^{tion of}
^f^o^rm^u^l^{a f}^o^{r al}^l^o^catⁱⁿ^{g Ho}^u^s^{e seat}^s.^a
^E^ach^st^at^{e’s cl}^ai^m^t^o^rep^r^esen^t^a^tⁱ^oⁿⁱⁿ^t^h^{e Ho}^u^s^{e i}^s^b^a^sed^oⁿ^{a “p}^ri^o^rⁱ^t^y^val^u^{e” d}^e^t^e^rmⁱⁿ^ed^b^y^t^h^{e f}^o^l^l^o^wⁱⁿ^g^f^o^rm^u^l^a:^½^th
^P^V^{= P}^{/ [}ⁿ⁽ⁿ^-¹^)]^{; w}^h^e^r^e^P^V⁼^the^s^t^a^t^e^’^s^pr^ior^ity^v^a^lue^,^P⁼^the^s^t^a^t^e^’^s^popula^{tion, a}^{nd n =}^the^s^t^a^t^e^’^sⁿ^th
^seatⁱⁿ^t^h^{e Ho}^u^s^e.^F^o^{r exam}^p^l^e,^t^h^{e p}^rⁱ^o^ri^t^y^val^u^{e o}^f^Wⁱ^scoⁿ^sⁱⁿ^{’s 9}^se^a^t^is:^½
^PV^WI⁹⁼⁵^{,371,210 / [}⁹⁽^{9 -}^{1 )}^]^½
⁼^{5,371,210 / [}^{72 ]}
⁼^{5,371,210 / 8.485281374238570}
⁼^633,002.89
^T^h^e^a^c^t^ua^{l s}^e^a^t^a^s^sⁱ^gⁿ^m^e^nts^a^r^e^m^a^de^by^ra^nk^ing^a^{ll of}^the^s^t^a^t^e^s^{’ priority}^v^a^lue^s^f^r^om^hig^h^e^s^{t to low}^e^s^t^{until 435 s}^e^a^t^s
^{are al}^l^o^cat^ed^.^b
^T^h^e^s^e^fⁱ^g^u^r^e^s^r^e^pr^e^s^eⁿ^{t the}^popula^{tion a}^s^t^a^t^e^w^ould^e^ithe^r^ne^e^d^{to los}^e^{in or}^de^r^{to dr}^{op be}^low^the^{435th s}^e^a^t^c^u^tof^f^,
^or^{to g}^a^{in to r}ⁱ^s^e^a^bov^e^the^c^u^tof^f^.^I^f^{, in the}^c^a^s^e^of^Wⁱ^s^c^ons^{in, 109,696 m}^o^r^e^pe^r^s^ons^ha^{d be}^eⁿ^c^ounte^dⁱⁿ^the
^C^e^ns^us^{, the}^s^t^a^t^e^’^s^pr^ior^ity^v^a^lue^w^{ould ha}^v^e^be^eⁿ^inc^r^e^a^s^e^d^{to 645,930.77}^w^h^ic^h^w^{ould ha}^v^e^r^e^s^u^lte^{d in a}^ne^w^th
^s^e^que^nc^e^num^ber^of^{435 b}^ecau^{se No}^rt^h^Caro^lⁱⁿ^{a’s 1}³^s^e^a^t^w^{ould ha}^v^e^oc^c^upie^d^the^{436th pos}^{ition in the}
^priority^list.
Options for States Losing Seats
The apportionment counts transmitted by the Census Bureau to the President (who
then sends them to Congress) are considered final. Thus, most states which will lose seats

in the 108^th Congress, have only one possible option for retaining them: urge Congress to
increase the size of the House. Any other option such as changing the formula used in the
computations, or changing the components of the apportionment population (such as
omitting the foreign-based military and federal civilian employees) will only affect a
small number of states if the House stays at 435 seats.⁴
As noted above, the 435-seat limit was imposed in 1929 by 46 Stat. 21, 26-27.
Altering the size of the House would require new law setting a different limit. Article 1,
Section 2 of the Constitution establishes a minimum House size (one Representative for
each state), and a maximum House size (one for every 30,000, or 9,380 based on the 2000
Census). In 2003, a House size of 473 would result in no states losing seats they held
from the 103^rd to the 107^th Congresses, but, by retaining seats through an increase in the
House size, other states would also have their delegations become larger. At a House size
of 473, California’s delegation size, for example, would be 57 instead of 53 seats.⁵
The Redistricting Process
The apportionment figures released on December 28, 2000 are made up of three
components: total resident population figures for the 50 states and the District of
Columbia, the foreign-based military and other federal employees allocated to each state
and DC, and sum of these numbers which become the apportionment population.
These numbers (minus DC) are all that is needed to reapportion the House, but the
states need figures for very small geographic areas in order to draw new legislative and
congressional districts. The Census Bureau must provide small-area population totals to
the legislature and governor of each state by one year after the census (e.g., April 1, 2001).
The Census Bureau data to be delivered by April 1, 2001, is often referred to as the
PL 94-171 program (89 Stat.1023). This program provides to each state information from
the questionnaires sent to 100% of the households in the nation. As such, the information
is very limited — including age, race and Hispanic origin. No other demographic
information that might be useful to redistrictors, such as income or employment status,
are available in the 94-171 data.
Census data are usually reported by political jurisdictions (states, cities, counties, and
towns), and within political jurisdictions by special census geography (such as census
designated places, tracts, block numbering areas, and blocks). The PL 94-171 program
allows states which participate in it (46 in 2000), to request census data by certain non-
traditional census geography such as voting districts (precincts), and state legislative

⁴ After the 1990 Census Montana and Massachusetts challenged the apportionment formula, and
the inclusion of the foreign-based military and civilians in the apportionment population. The
Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of the equal proportions formula and the inclusion
of the foreign-based military and civilians in the counts in two separate cases: U.S. Dept. of
Commerce v. Montana 112 S.Ct. 1415 (1992) and Franklin v. Massachusetts 112 S.Ct. 2767
(1992).
⁵ For a fuller discussion of this topic see CRS Report 95-791 GOV, House of Representatives:
Setting the Size at 435, by David C. Huckabee.

districts.⁶ These special political jurisdiction counts enable redistrictors to assess past
voting behavior when redrawing congressional and state legislative districts.
In most states, redrawing congressional districts is the responsibility of the state
legislature with the concurrence of the governor. In six states: Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho,
Montana, New Jersey, and Washington, a non-partisan, or bi-partisan commission is
responsible for drawing the plans.⁷ Some states have explicit deadlines in law to
complete their congressional districting. Most do not, so the effective deadline for the
legislatures or commissions to complete their work will be whatever filing deadlines are
established in the states for primaries for the 2002 elections.
Although many states have standards mandating equal populations, compactness,
contiguousness, and other goals to not split counties, towns, and cities, federal law
controls the redistricting process. Other than a requirement that multi-member states
cannot elect Representatives at-large (2 U.S.C. 2c), no federal statutory law establishes
explicit standards for redistricting. The principle laws that apply are the Supreme Court
decisions mandating one person, one vote and the Voting Rights Act.
The fundamental federal rule governing redistricting congressional districts, one
person, one vote, was promulgated by the Supreme Court in Wesberry v. Sanders (376
U.S. 7, 1964). The Court has refined that ruling in a series of cases culminating in
Karcher v. Daggett (462 U.S. 725, 1983) that one person, one vote means that any
population deviation among districts in a state must be justified, but the deviations from
absolute equality may be permitted if the states strive to make districts more compact,
respect municipal boundaries, preserve the cores of prior districts, or avoid contests
between incumbents.
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) applies nationwide. It prohibits states or
localities from imposing a “voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard,
practice or procedure ... in a manner which results in the denial or abridgement of the right
to vote on account of race or color.” Section 5 of the act applies only to certain
jurisdictions which must have their redistricting plans pre-cleared by a court or the Justice
Department before they become effective.⁸ The Supreme Court interpreted the VRA’s
application to redistricting in a series of cases responding, in part, to the extraordinarily
complicated districts created by many states in the 1990s to maximize minority
representation (beginning with Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630, 1993). The court ended the
decade by establishing new principles concerning such practices: (1) race may be
considered in districting to remedy past discrimination; (2) but, states must have a
compelling state interest to ignore traditional redistricting principles and “gerrymander”
to establish majority-minority districts; (3) courts will apply “strict scrutiny” to such
assertions that racial “gerrymanders” are necessary to determine whether such plans are
narrowly tailored to achieve the compelling state interest.

⁶ U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Strength in Numbers: Your Guide to Census

2000 Redistricting Data, (Washington: July, 2000), p. 4.

⁷ National Conference of State Legislatures, Redistricting Law 2000, (Washington: February,
1999), pp. 143-145. Arizona adopted a redistricting commission initiative in 2000 by 56% of the
vote.
⁸ Section 2: 42 U.S.C. Section 1973(a) (1996); Section 5: 42 U.S.C. Section 1973(c).