Tennessee has how many congressional districts

According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution , the states and their legislatures have primary authority in determining the "times, places, and manner" of congressional elections. Congress may also pass laws regulating congressional elections.

Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution stipulates that congressional representatives be apportioned to the states on the basis of population.

There are 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.

Sanders that the populations of House districts must be equal "as nearly as practicable. The equal population requirement for congressional districts is strict. According to All About Redistricting , "Any district with more or fewer people than the average also known as the 'ideal' population , must be specifically justified by a consistent state policy. And even consistent policies that cause a 1 percent spread from largest to smallest district will likely be unconstitutional.

The United States Constitution is silent on the issue of state legislative redistricting. In the mids, the United States Supreme Court issued a series of rulings in an effort to clarify standards for state legislative redistricting. In Reynolds v. Sims , the court ruled that "the Equal Protection Clause [of the United States Constitution ] demands no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens, of all places as well as of all races.

In addition to the federal criteria noted above, individual states may impose additional requirements on redistricting.

Common state-level redistricting criteria are listed below. In general, a state's redistricting authority can be classified as one of the following: [12]. The term gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to favor one political party, individual, or constituency over another. When used in a rhetorical manner by opponents of a particular district map, the term has a negative connotation but does not necessarily address the legality of a challenged map.

The term can also be used in legal documents; in this context, the term describes redistricting practices that violate federal or state laws. The phrase racial gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to dilute the voting power of racial minority groups. Federal law prohibits racial gerrymandering and establishes that, to combat this practice and to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act , states and jurisdictions can create majority-minority electoral districts.

A majority-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. 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 use of total population tallies in apportionment , and the constitutionality of independent redistricting commissions.

The rulings in these cases, which originated in a variety of states, impact redistricting processes across the nation. In Gill v. Whitford , decided on June 18, , the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the plaintiffs—12 Wisconsin Democrats who alleged that Wisconsin's state legislative district plan had been subject to an unconstitutional gerrymander in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments—had failed to demonstrate standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to bring a complaint.

The court's opinion, penned by Chief 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.

Kagan penned a concurring opinion joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas penned an opinion that concurred in part with the majority opinion and in the judgment, joined by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch. In Cooper v. Harris , decided on May 22, , 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 two of North Carolina's congressional districts, the boundaries of which had been set following the United States Census, had been subject to an illegal racial gerrymander in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

In the court's majority opinion, Kagan described the two-part analysis utilized by the high court when plaintiffs allege racial gerrymandering as follows: "First, the plaintiff must prove that 'race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature's decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district. Second, if racial considerations predominated over others, the design 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. Evenwel v. Abbott was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts in Texas. The plaintiffs, Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger, argued that district populations ought to take into account only the number of registered or eligible voters residing within those districts as opposed to total population counts, which are generally 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 home to smaller concentrations of non-voting residents.

The court ruled on April 4, , that a state or locality can use total population counts for redistricting purposes. The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Harris v. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts that were created by the commission in The plaintiffs, a group of Republican voters, alleged that "the commission diluted or inflated the votes of almost two million Arizona citizens when the commission intentionally and systematically overpopulated 16 Republican districts while under-populating 11 Democrat districts.

The plaintiffs claimed that the commission placed a disproportionately large number of non-minority voters in districts dominated by Republicans; meanwhile, the commission allegedly placed many minority voters in smaller districts that tended to vote Democratic.

As a result, the plaintiffs argued, more 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 United States Department of Justice. At the time of redistricting, certain states were required to obtain preclearance A jurisdiction subject to preclearance needed to get approval from the U. Department of Justice before changing election laws or district maps. Department of Justice before adopting redistricting plans or making other changes to their election laws—a requirement struck down by the United States Supreme Court in Shelby County v.

Holder On April 20, , the court ruled unanimously that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that a partisan gerrymander had taken place. Instead, the court found that the commission had acted in good faith to comply with the Voting Rights Act. There are no state law requirements for drawing congressional districts.

The Tennessee legislature has released its redistricting website , where the public can find relevant information and contacts. Tennessee law does not require public hearings for redistricting. It does not appear that such hearings took place in However, Lieutenant Governor and Senate Speaker Ron Ramsey did invite the public to submit their own maps using publicly available data.

Every 10 years, after the collection of the decennial census data, states redraw their state and congressional district lines. These districts determine how communities are represented at the local, state, and federal levels. The redistricting process is fundamental in influencing how our government works for us. The League of Women Voters of the United States has long been concerned about state redistricting efforts for their state congressional seats both House and Senate and U.

Congressional seats. We hope that with your input we can make GovTrack more accessible to minority and disadvantaged communities who we may currently struggle to reach. Please join our advisory group to let us know what more we can do.

We love educating Americans about how their government works too! Please help us make GovTrack better address the needs of educators by joining our advisory group. Would you like to join our advisory group to work with us on the future of GovTrack?

Now what? Join 10 million other Americans using GovTrack to learn about and contact your representative and senators and track what Congress is doing each day. One-Time Tip or Monthly Support. Or keep using GovTrack for free! Our public interest mission means we will never put our service behind a paywall. Help us develop the tools to bring real-time legislative data into the classroom.