Redistricting is the process of drawing the lines of districts from which public officials are elected. When it’s conducted fairly, it accurately reflects population changes and racial diversity, and is used by legislators to equitably allocate representation in Congress and state legislatures. When politicians use redistricting to manipulate the outcome of elections, however, it’s called gerrymandering — a practice that undermines democracy and stifles the voice of voters. Voters should be picking their politicians. Not the other way around.

Sophia Lakin, Deputy Director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, answers some of the most frequently asked questions about redistricting.

What’s the difference between redistricting and gerrymandering?

The process of redistricting is lawful and equitable when it’s conducted properly. It is also frequently a necessary process to reflect changes in population changes and racial diversity after each decennial Census. When redistricting is used as a tool to manipulate electoral outcomes or discriminate against certain groups, it ceases to be lawful and equitable, and we call it gerrymandering.

Why bother with redistricting?

The Constitution and the federal courts require it. It’s also the fair and equitable thing to do. Historically many states did not redistrict to reflect shifts and growth in their populations. In a series of cases in the 1960s, one of which coined the phrase “one person, one vote,” the Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed “equality” of voting power and that the electoral systems in states which failed to allocate voting power on the basis of population were unconstitutional. According to the 2020 Census data, nearly all of this country’s population growth this last decade was due to the growth in communities of color. Redistricting is an opportunity to ensure that our maps reflect that growing diversity.

https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1426641430773129217?s=20

Who conducts redistricting?

In most states, the state legislature is responsible for drawing district lines. However, 15 states (Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington) use special redistricting commissions to draw state legislative districts. Six of these states (Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, New Jersey, Washington) also use a board or commission to draw congressional plans, while 10 states (Maine, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Connecticut, Illinois, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas) use an advisory or remedial commission in the event the legislature is unable to pass new plans. Iowa is different from all others in that district plans are developed by nonpartisan legislative staff with limited criteria for developing plans.

Is redistricting the same as reapportionment?

Reapportionment refers to the allocation of representatives to previously established voting areas, as when Congress allocates, or “apportions,” seats in the House of Representatives to the several states following the decennial census. So, for example, based on the population changes captured in the 2020 census, the reapportionment process reshuffled the 435 congressional seats among the 50 states such that certain states like Texas gained congressional seats while some states like New York lost seats. Redistricting is the process of redrawing district lines based on population changes and in some cases may have to take into account a loss or gain of a representative after the reapportionment process.

What is vote dilution?
Vote dilution refers to the use of redistricting plans and other voting practices that minimize or cancel out the voting strength of particular voters, often voters of color. While race-based vote dilution is prohibited by the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act, the practice continues to ​diminish the true political strength of communities of color in particular by fracturing ​those populations across multiple districts or improperly concentrating them together in a single district. Again, the 2020 census shows that nearly all of the country’s growth over the past decade is attributable to the growth in our nation’s communities of color. Redistricting plans should reflect that reality.

How can we make sure redistricting is conducted fairly?
We all need to be involved in the process. We should stay informed of plans to redraw federal, state, and local district lines; attend meetings where plans are presented and evaluated; contact organizations willing to evaluate proposed plans and offer alternatives; write letters of support or opposition to elected officials and the Department of Justice; and seek needed legal advice. The goal of redistricting is to provide fair and effective representation for all. We can help achieve that goal by actively participating in the redistricting process.

On this day nine years ago, the U.S. government began accepting applications under Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, a policy commonly known as DACA.

Thanks to DACA, undocumented people who came to the United States as children could receive temporary protection from deportation that allows them to live, work, go to school, and provide for their loved ones freely in the country they’ve called home. It has been life-changing, even life-saving, for hundreds of thousands, and a result of years of organizing and determination by immigrants rights advocates. But DACA recipients always knew the program was not a permanent solution for them and their families.

The policy only grants protection for two years, causing people to revolve their lives around a ticking clock and forcing them to pay costly application fees every time they need to renew. From the get-go, the program has faced relentless attacks from anti-immigrant politicians, including President Trump, threatening to end the program and put people at risk of deportation once again. In 2017, the Trump administration announced its decision to end DACA. Fortunately their move was blocked by the courts, but a new legal effort from the Texas Attorney General’s office has once again put DACA in jeopardy.

Last month, a federal judge in Texas ruled against DACA, immediately putting a partial end to it. Judge Andrew Hanen ruled that the government cannot approve new applications from people eligible for DACA. People who’ve already had DACA are still protected and can renew it for now, but that could change depending on future court rulings in the case. The news is devastating, particularly for people who recently applied for DACA for the first time, or had plans to apply, and their families.

Along with the humanitarian impact of the ruling, it also has an impact on the U.S. economy as we continue to recover from financial consequences of the pandemic. If the DACA program entirely ended, an estimated 685,000 workers could be removed from the workforce and cost the economy$460.3 billion over 10 years.

Judge Hanen’s decision was a cruel reminder that Congress has failed repeatedly to give us a real solution: a pathway to citizenship for immigrants who came here as children.

The Biden administration and Congress have a mandate from voters to deliver a pathway to citizenship for millions of immigrants – including immigrant youth, Temporary Protected Status holders, farmworkers and essential workers – who for too long have lived in fear of deportation, even as they raise families, contribute to our communities, and keep this country running. Right now, Congress is considering a “human infrastructure” package that includes an earned pathway to citizenship. Millions of people could benefit and a strong majority of voters support it. The House and Senate must act to ensure this promise becomes a reality.

Temporary solutions will continue to leave immigrant communities at risk of being torn apart. People should not be expected to continue living their lives in two-year increments. Politicians must stop playing games with our families and communities.

President Biden and Congress, your time to act is now.