The Independent Redistricting Act

Ending Politician-Drawn Maps for U.S. House Elections Through Independent Citizen Commissions

Executive Summary

Every ten years, lines are redrawn that decide who represents you in Congress. In most states, the politicians who benefit from those lines are the ones who draw them. That is an obvious conflict of interest—like letting players referee their own game. When map-drawers can choose their voters instead of voters choosing their representatives, elections become less competitive, accountability weakens, and trust in government erodes.¹

The Supreme Court has ruled that federal courts cannot resolve partisan-gerrymandering claims because there is no manageable legal standard for how much partisanship is "too much."⁴ In plain terms: the Court has said this is a real problem, but the fix must come mainly from state reforms and Congress—not federal judges.⁴ That makes the status quo especially dangerous. Without a consistent national remedy, the incentives for parties to manipulate districts remain strong, and some states have explored or executed mid-decade redistricting—re-drawing lines again outside the normal census cycle for political advantage.⁹

The Independent Redistricting Act solves the conflict of interest directly: it requires each state to draw U.S. House districts using an independent citizen redistricting commission under clear, enforceable rules.¹² The design is based on models already used in multiple states and reflects widely used criteria in redistricting practice: equal population, Voting Rights Act compliance, contiguity, compactness, respect for communities of interest, and transparent public participation.^{1 7 8}

This reform is not theoretical. A growing number of states already use commissions for congressional maps, and leading election-law sources have documented workable, legally durable commission structures.^{6 15}

It is also broadly popular. Polling consistently shows that large majorities of Americans oppose partisan gerrymandering and support independent map-drawing, including substantial support among Republicans and independents.^{2 10 11 12}

The bottom line: Independent redistricting is one of the most direct "anti-corruption" reforms available. It reduces the incentive to rig elections, increases electoral competitiveness, strengthens legitimacy, lowers costly litigation risk, and—most importantly—restores the principle that voters pick politicians, not the other way around.^{1 2}

---

The Problem Statement

1) Structural conflict of interest

Traditional legislative redistricting embeds a structural conflict: incumbent legislators and party leaders have direct control over district boundaries that determine their own electoral security.¹ This incentivizes:

• Packing opposition voters into fewer districts, and
• Cracking them across many districts to dilute their influence.¹

The resulting maps can produce durable outcomes resistant to normal electoral swings, weakening the feedback loop between public preferences and representation.

2) A narrowed federal judicial pathway after Rucho

In Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), the Supreme Court held that partisan-gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond federal courts' reach.⁴ The Court explicitly noted that Congress has authority under the Elections Clause to "make or alter" regulations governing congressional elections, and it emphasized state-level mechanisms as key avenues for reform.^{4 3}

This creates a policy vacuum: partisan gerrymandering remains a recognized democratic problem, but federal courts largely cannot provide a uniform remedy.⁴ The predictable effect is continued escalation—each cycle, mapmakers adopt more sophisticated methods to entrench advantage.

3) Rising risk of mid-decade manipulation

While redistricting is typically tied to the decennial census, some states permit additional map-drawing outside the ordinary cycle.⁹ The prospect of mid-decade redistricting increases instability and can be used to lock in a partisan advantage after unexpected election outcomes.⁹

4) Public legitimacy and democratic performance

Survey evidence indicates that Americans broadly view gerrymandering as unfair and support reforms that remove politicians from map-drawing.^{2 10 11 12} The gap between public expectations and current processes contributes to declining trust and perceived legitimacy in representation systems.

---

The Proposed Reform

Reform objective

Mandate that U.S. House district maps in every state be drawn by independent citizen redistricting commissions that follow minimum federal standards for:

• independence,
• transparency,
• public participation,
• voting-rights compliance, and
• neutral mapping criteria.^{1 2 7 8}

Constitutional and legal foundation

1. Elections Clause authority: The Constitution assigns states the power to prescribe the "Times, Places and Manner" of congressional elections, while granting Congress power to "make or alter" those regulations.³
2. Commission legitimacy: The Supreme Court has upheld the concept of using commissions as part of a state's lawmaking process for congressional redistricting (not limited to legislatures acting alone).¹⁵
3. Existing federal redistricting constraints: Any reform must preserve one-person-one-vote requirements and comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), which prohibits voting practices that result in denial or abridgement of voting rights on the basis of race or language-minority status.^{8 7}

Core design elements

1) Commission structure and selection (independence by design)

Each state must establish a commission of 9–15 members selected through a multi-step process designed to prevent capture and ensure partisan balance.¹

• Application + screening by a neutral body (e.g., state auditors or a judicial/ethics panel).¹
• Randomized selection from screened pools to reduce cherry-picking.¹
• Partisan balance requirement: equal numbers from the two largest parties plus a meaningful bloc of independents/minor-party registrants.¹
• Eligibility restrictions: exclude current officeholders, senior party officers, recent campaign consultants, major political donors/lobbyists, and immediate family members of disqualified persons.¹

2) Transparency requirements (process integrity)

To make maps auditable and discourage back-room dealmaking, commissions must:

• meet in public with recorded votes,
• publish draft maps and data used,
• provide public comment periods and hearings, and
• accept and publish public map submissions in standardized formats.^{1 7}

3) Ranked map-drawing criteria (clear rules + fewer loopholes)

The Act sets a priority order so the process is not arbitrary. This reflects common criteria described in nonpartisan redistricting guidance and CRS summaries of prevailing practice.^{1 7}

Tier 1 — Legal compliance (mandatory):

• Equal population (as required for congressional districts),⁷
• Compliance with the VRA, including Section 2 minority-vote protections.⁸

Tier 2 — Basic district integrity:

• Contiguity,⁷
• Compactness using published metrics (e.g., Polsby–Popper, Reock) and/or state-defined compactness standards.^{1 7}

Tier 3 — Representation coherence:

• Respect for communities of interest (COIs),⁷
• Preservation of political subdivisions (counties/cities) when consistent with Tier 1–2.⁷

Tier 4 — Anti-gerrymandering safeguards:

• Prohibit intent or effect of unduly favoring/disfavoring a party or incumbent, consistent with state "anti-favoritism" approaches and emerging reforms.⁷
• Encourage competitiveness where feasible without violating VRA protections.¹

4) Data-use rules (prevent "surgical" partisan optimization)

To reduce intentional partisan engineering, the Act:

• restricts the commission from using partisan voting history, party-registration data, or incumbent addresses during initial map drafting, and
• permits limited use only for final-stage auditing to ensure the map does not produce extreme partisan skew.^{1 2}

5) Deadlines, contingency procedures, and review

To prevent delay-based manipulation:

• Federal minimum deadlines require maps be finalized in time for candidate filing and election administration.¹
• If a commission fails, an independent special master or court-supervised process draws the map under the same ranked criteria and transparency rules.^{1 2}
• The Act provides expedited judicial review (e.g., direct or fast-track review in federal court) focused on compliance with the Act's standards and the VRA.¹

6) Federal vs. state implementation paths (legislative strategy)

Document B proposes two viable legislative pathways:

• Option A: One national framework bill requiring each state to use a compliant commission for congressional districts;¹
• Option B: Modular bills separating (1) commission requirements and (2) transparency/criteria requirements to broaden coalition support and ease passage.¹

---

Impact Analysis

1) Democratic and governance benefits

Reduced self-dealing: Independent commissions remove the direct incentive for incumbents to insulate themselves.¹
Higher accountability: More competitive districts increase the probability that poor performance is punished at the ballot box.¹⁴
Higher legitimacy: When citizens perceive elections as fair, institutional trust improves; polling shows strong public desire for independent map-drawing.^{2 10 11 12}

2) Evidence from practice and research

• Adoption precedent: Many states already use redistricting commissions for congressional plans, demonstrating operational feasibility.⁶
• Empirical evaluation: Research on commissions finds meaningful variation in independence and design quality, but stronger structural protections (screening, random selection, eligibility rules, transparency) are associated with better outcomes and reduced partisan bias.^{14 16}
• Turnout and engagement: Independent commission reforms can increase voter confidence and participation, especially where they increase competition and reduce the perception of "rigged" outcomes.¹³

3) Economic and administrative impact

Commission-based redistricting has real administrative costs (staffing, hearings, mapping systems), but these costs are typically modest relative to statewide election administration—and can reduce downstream costs from prolonged redistricting litigation and repeated map revisions.^{2 7}
A national framework can also lower per-state costs by funding shared open-source tools, training, and standardized data publishing.¹

4) Civil-rights and compliance impact

The Act explicitly preserves and operationalizes VRA compliance as the top-tier criterion.^{8 7} This is critical: any anti-gerrymandering reform that ignores vote dilution risks creating unlawful maps or undermining minority representation.

5) Risks and mitigations

Risk: "Commission capture" via friendly applicants.
Mitigation: neutral screening + random selection, strict eligibility rules, transparency, and public documentation.¹

Risk: Hidden partisan proxies ("data laundering").
Mitigation: ban on partisan datasets during drafting; audit stage uses objective fairness thresholds and public reporting.¹

Risk: Litigation and delay.
Mitigation: ranked criteria, clear deadlines, expedited review, and special-master backup.^{1 7}

---

Conclusion

Redistricting determines whose voices matter—and whether elections function as accountability mechanisms or as managed outcomes. When politicians draw their own districts, the system invites self-dealing. The Supreme Court has made clear that the primary path forward is democratic: states and Congress must set rules that prevent extreme partisan manipulation.^{4 3}

The Independent Redistricting Act is a practical, legally grounded, and publicly supported fix. It replaces a conflict-ridden process with independent commissions, transparent rules, ranked criteria, and enforceable safeguards.^{1 2 7 8}

If democratic legitimacy is worth protecting, the maps must be drawn by a process the public can trust—and that begins by removing the people with the strongest incentive to rig the outcome.

---

Reference List

1. Document B (policy draft): "13 - Independent Redistricting Act"
   Link: ./13%20-%20Independent%20Redistricting%20Act.docx

2. Document A (source library): "Independent Redistricting Source Library"
   Link: ./Independent%20Redistricting%20Source%20Library.md.docx

3. U.S. Constitution, Elections Clause (Art. I, §4, cl. 1)
   Link: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-4/clause-1/

4. Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. ___ (2019) (opinion PDF)
   Link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf

5. Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (case summary and links)
   Link: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/13-1314

6. National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), "Redistricting Commissions" (updated Aug. 29, 2025)
   Link: https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/redistricting-commissions

7. Congressional Research Service, IN11618, "Congressional Redistricting Criteria and Considerations" (updated Sept. 25, 2025)
   Link: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IN11618

8. Voting Rights Act, Section 2 (52 U.S.C. § 10301)
   Link: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/10301

9. NCSL, "Mid-Decade Redistricting" (updated Dec. 12, 2025)
   Link: https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/mid-decade-redistricting

10. Common Cause / Noble Predictive Insights polling on independent commissions and mid-decade redistricting (2025)
    Link: https://www.commoncause.org/press-release/new-poll-strong-support-for-ban-on-mid-decade-redistricting/

11. YouGov (reported by YouGov), "New polling reveals Americans see gerrymandering as unfair…" (2025)
    Link: https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/54682-new-polling-reveals-americans-see-gerrymandering-as-unfair-want-it-to-be-illegal

12. Campaign Legal Center (summarizing bipartisan polling on commissions, incl. R Street Institute 2022 polling)
    Link: https://campaignlegal.org/update/polling-shows-bipartisan-support-independent-redistricting-commissions-stop-gerrymandering

13. Brennan Center for Justice, "The Effects of Independent Redistricting Commissions on Voter Turnout" (2019)
    Link: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/effects-independent-redistricting-commissions-voter-turnout

14. PlanScore, "Commissions Reduce Gerrymandering & Improve Fairness…" (June 10, 2025)
    Link: https://planscore.org/comcom/

15. 2 U.S.C. § 2a (reapportionment; includes "redistricted in the manner provided by the law thereof" language)
    Link: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/2a

16. APSR / Cambridge Core, "Do politicians gerrymander…?" (evidence on incentives and outcomes)
    Link: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/do-politicians-gerrymander-to-earn-increased-political-campaign-contributions-evidence-from-us-states/E60FF0A4D7E6C0CB602704D19CD4EA07

Changelog

• December 28, 2024 — Initial draft published