Talk:2020 United States redistricting cycle

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Kansas

This is just a thought I want to put out there. Kansas may now have a Democratic governor, but Republicans still have a two-thirds supermajority in both houses of the legislature so they can easily override her veto of any maps. Assuming that is still the case after the 2020 elections, shouldn't the Kansas Governor be listed as "Veto Override" instead of "Democratic" under both "Partisan control of state governments" tables? At least until the 2020 election?

Or perhaps a citation of some kind with the fact about the two-thirds supermajority at the bottom of the tables. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yorksa10 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are probably right, but do you have a source confirming this? If you are correct, then the table should list KS in the same way that MD and MA are listed. Orser67 (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this link is what you are looking for. The GOP had 85 seats of the 125 seats in the Kansas House going into the 2018 election (Kansas Senate is not up for election until 2020.) Based on this link, The GOP gained one seat from the Democrats. I don't have a more recent article to share. https://www.cjonline.com/news/20181106/kansas-house-gop-retains-grip-despite-push-by-democrats — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yorksa10 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Montana

While Montana currently has only 1 seat, most recent projections show them gaining a 2nd representative after the 2020 census. How is redistricting controlled there just in case they do gain the seat? CrazyC83 (talk) 01:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would use an independent commission. I'll add that to the body of the article. Orser67 (talk) 06:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania's "bipartisan" commission has its fifth member chosen by the state Supreme Court, which is currently majority Democrat, if the other four members can't agree on a fifth member. In effect, this means Democrats have control over legislative redistricting in Pennsylvania. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.34.89.139 (talk) 00:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Missouri

Several portions of the article (and the maps) discuss Missouri's former redistricting commission. This commission was abolished by the voters in the November 2020 election. Missouri's congressional districts are now drawn by the legislature. ^[1]

Mopolguy (talk) 16:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://apnews.com/article/missouri-voter-dump-redistricting-reform-a9e177612d135176ff53718b9b0e5436

New York and Iowa

New York and Iowa currently both have commissions to draw their districts; New York by constitutional amendment (a "politicians commission", using the parlance of the page) and Iowa has a statutory commission. While they are both able to be overruled by the legislature I'm not sure I like the idea that we should just pretend they don't exist? Nevermore27 (talk) 01:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delayed response. It's possible that the article could handle the topic of advisory commissions better, but it does discuss advisory commissions such as the ones employed by New York and Iowa in a couple places, including in the "notes" section where it's explained that the legislature can override plans created by those commissions. Orser67 (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Litigation

I'm starting to add a litigation section to the article. Losipov suggested adding a table counting lawsuits, what do others think? Should the section be reformatted to be sorted by each state and the lawsuits facing their maps rather than topic of the lawsuits? Thank you in advance for any feedback!Wildfire35 (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current format, with litigation written in prose and organized by topic, and with an asterisk in the "final disposition" section for redistricting plans facing lawsuits, makes the most sense. Orser67 (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final Disposition Change

Hey all, as we pass the halfway point of congressional redistricting, I'm going to start changing the final disposition table to include the date that final maps were enacted, as I think this will be more helpful down the line (in say 5 or 10 years) when people are looking for info on enacted maps. Anyone is welcome to help, and if anyone disagrees with this step feel free to let me know here. Wildfire35 (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://apnews.com/article/missouri-voter-dump-redistricting-reform-a9e177612d135176ff53718b9b0e5436

[1]