Overview
Title
To require States to carry out congressional redistricting in accordance with a redistricting plan developed by an independent redistricting commission, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The "FAIR MAPS Act" is a plan that wants each state to use a special team that is not on any side to draw fair boundaries for where people vote, so no one cheats. If the states don't do this right, a court might step in to help make sure everything is fair.
Summary AI
H.R. 7910, also known as the "FAIR MAPS Act," requires each state to conduct congressional redistricting through an independent commission to eliminate partisan influence in the process. The bill details criteria that must be followed, such as public input, transparency, and fairness, and prohibits mid-decade redistricting unless required by federal court orders. States failing to comply with these requirements may have their redistricting plans developed by a federal court. The legislation aims to ensure fair representation and protect the rights of diverse communities in the political process.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
The proposed bill, titled the "Fair And Impartial Redistricting for Meaningful and Accountable Political Systems Act" (FAIR MAPS Act), introduces measures to standardize how congressional redistricting is conducted across states in the United States. The goal is for states to follow a developed and enacted plan by an independent redistricting commission. If the commission's plan cannot be enacted, a 3-judge court will be responsible for the redistricting plan. The Act includes provisions to prevent mid-decade redistricting and sets criteria for how districts should be drawn, aiming to ensure fairness and impartiality in the political process.
Significant Issues of the Bill
A crucial concern with the bill is the ambiguous definition of what constitutes an "independent redistricting commission." The criteria for appointing commission members and the standard for nonpartisanship are not precisely defined, which raises the potential for states to interpret or manipulate these terms to retain control over the redistricting process. Additionally, the bill lacks clear, standardized guidelines for assessing and ensuring diversity among commission members. Without specific metrics, the risk of commissions failing to represent their state's demographic diversity remains.
The bill outlines a process for public input and transparency but does not specify how public feedback will effectively influence the final redistricting plans. This omission might result in public inputs being marginalized or ignored, reducing the efficacy of the intended open and transparent process.
Furthermore, there is an exemption for Iowa, allowing it to operate outside the general requirements without detailed reasoning. This could be perceived as unfair, granting some states more flexibility than others. The bill also introduces "triggering events," which permit courts to take over the redistricting process under certain conditions. This could lead to excessive judicial involvement, potentially undermining the traditional legislative role in redistricting.
Impact on the Public
The FAIR MAPS Act aims to bring uniformity and impartiality to redistricting, crucial for ensuring fair representation in Congress. By involving independent commissions, the Act could potentially reduce gerrymandering and lead to districts that better reflect local communities. This could increase public trust in electoral processes and create a more balanced political landscape.
Public participation is a cornerstone of the bill, with provisions for hearings and access to redistricting data, which aims to engage citizens in shaping their political representation. However, the lack of detailed implementation guidelines may result in inconsistent public influence across states.
Impact on Stakeholders
For state governments, establishing independent commissions introduces new logistical and potentially financial burdens. States may struggle with the costs and resources required to create and maintain these commissions without a budget cap outlined in the bill.
Political parties may find the bill a double-edged sword. While it could curb practices like gerrymandering, it might also dilute party control over district boundaries. This could result in a more competitive political environment, benefiting smaller parties and independent candidates.
For advocacy groups focused on fair representation, the bill offers a framework to challenge biased district maps through legal channels. However, the potential for excessive court involvement may deter states from litigating redistricting disputes due to legal costs and complexities.
In summary, while the FAIR MAPS Act aspires to foster fairer redistricting nationwide, its success will largely depend on precise implementations and minimizing the potential for loopholes or biased interpretations at the state level. Ensuring adequate resources and clear guidelines for diversity and public influence will be vital to achieving the bill's intended outcomes.
Financial Assessment
The bill titled "FAIR MAPS Act," or H.R. 7910, contains several notable financial references and implications concerning the process of congressional redistricting. Below is a breakdown of these financial components and how they relate to the issues identified in the bill.
Financial Overview
The most significant monetary component of the bill involves allocations for states that are required to carry out redistricting. As per Section 401, the Election Assistance Commission is authorized to make payments to each state in the amount of $150,000 per representative to which the state is entitled, following the receipt of the state apportionment notice. This is a substantial funding provision intended to support the establishment and operation of independent redistricting commissions and assist states in implementing their redistricting plans.
Relation to Identified Issues
1. Financial Implications and Limitations
One of the issues raised in the bill pertains to the potential for high financial costs due to the absence of a specified budget ceiling for these redistricting activities. Although the allocation of $150,000 per representative presents a significant financial resource for states, the absence of a budget cap noted in Section 401(e) raises concerns over unchecked expenses. This could lead to inefficient use of funds if the process is not carefully monitored and controlled.
2. Unequal Treatment and Inconsistent Application
The financial awards, as outlined, apply uniformly across states based on their number of representatives. However, Section 401(d)(3) mentions an exception for the State of Iowa, which is not required to meet the same conditions for receiving funds as other states. This disparity could contribute to perceptions of unfairness or bias in the bill's application, aligning with the issue identified regarding unequal treatment of different states.
Ambiguity and Accountability
The bill stipulates that the Election Assistance Commission will provide these payments "subject to the availability of appropriations." This clause introduces a level of uncertainty regarding the actual funding that may be disbursed, depending on congressional appropriations. The lack of clarity on how much funding is ultimately available highlights potential challenges in ensuring the intended support is delivered to all states.
Furthermore, while civil enforcement measures in Section 402 empower the Attorney General and private citizens to ensure compliance with the bill's provisions, there is no detailed mechanism to ensure financial accountability for the significant funds allocated to states. This could pose a risk of misuse or inefficient deployment of the allocated resources.
Conclusion
Overall, the financial allocations outlined in the FAIR MAPS Act provide necessary support for states to undertake independent redistricting initiatives. However, without clear budgetary constraints and robust oversight mechanisms, there are potential risks of financial mismanagement. Additionally, the unequal conditions applied to states like Iowa could foster a sense of bias, potentially jeopardizing the uniform application and fairness the bill aims to achieve.
Issues
The criteria for the 'independent redistricting commissions', particularly regarding how members are appointed and the definition of 'nonpartisanship', are vague and potentially open to manipulation, which might undermine the impartiality of the redistricting process. This is raised in Sections 201, 202, and 204.
There is a lack of clear, standardized mechanisms for how the diversity of memberships in independent redistricting commissions will be assessed and ensured, as noted in Sections 201(a)(2)(B), 202(b)(2), and 205. This could lead to commissions that do not accurately represent the demographic makeup of the states.
The process for public input and transparency within the bill is outlined but lacks specific guidelines on effective implementation, especially on how the public's feedback will be integrated into the final redistricting plans. This is discussed in Sections 203 and 513.
The potential for unequal treatment of states, particularly with the exemption of Iowa from certain requirements without clear justification, could lead to perceptions of unfairness or bias in the bill's application. This is highlighted in Sections 101(d) and 401(d)(3).
The concept of 'triggering events' that would cause courts to step in and enact redistricting plans could lead to excessive judicial involvement in what is traditionally a legislative process. This raises concerns about the balance of power and is discussed in Sections 301 and 502.
The identification and handling of conflicts of interest in the commission's membership selection process are not sufficiently detailed, potentially allowing individuals with vested political interests to influence redistricting. This issue is found in Sections 101(c), 202(a)(3), and 512(a)(2).
The financial implications of the bill are significant, with no specified budget cap for redistricting costs, leading to unchecked expenses. This issue is discussed in Section 401(e).
There is ambiguity in the criteria for redistricting, particularly how to objectively measure and enforce 'partisan fairness', which could lead to varied interpretations and enforcement across states. This is a concern in Section 103(b)(2).
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title; finding of constitutional authority; table of contents Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The "Fair And Impartial Redistricting for Meaningful and Accountable Political Systems Act" (FAIR MAPS Act) aims to standardize how congressional redistricting is done by requiring independent state commissions and prohibiting mid-decade redistricting, asserting Congressional authority under the Constitution to regulate election processes. The Act is divided into five titles, addressing various aspects like commission criteria and court roles, and includes provisions specifically linked to redistricting following the 2020 Census.
101. Requiring congressional redistricting to be conducted through plan of independent State commission Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill requires that congressional redistricting in each state be done by an independent commission, unless such a plan cannot be enacted, in which case a 3-judge court will create the plan. There are exceptions for states with pre-existing independent commissions that meet specific criteria, and for Iowa, which uses a legislative agency with a unique process.
102. Ban on mid-decade redistricting Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
A state that has been redrawn following this Act cannot be redistricted again until after the next census, unless a court orders it to ensure compliance with the U.S. Constitution, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the state's constitution, or this Act's conditions.
103. Criteria for redistricting Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Under the proposed redistricting plan, congressional districts must be drawn to respect the U.S. Constitution, adhere to the Voting Rights Act, ensure fair representation for protected groups, and respect communities of interest. The plan must not favor or disfavor any political party, and factors like politicians' residences or party affiliations cannot influence the drawing of district boundaries. If any criteria are deemed unconstitutional, the other criteria will still apply.
201. Independent redistricting commission Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section establishes an independent redistricting commission in each state with a total of 15 members appointed through a process aimed at ensuring diversity and representation. It details procedures for appointing members and alternates, conducting commission business, ensuring impartiality of staff and contractors, handling disqualifications and waivers, and outlines termination procedures for the commission.
202. Establishment of selection pool of individuals eligible to serve as members of commission Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
This section outlines the criteria and process for choosing members of an independent redistricting commission. Eligible individuals must meet specific voting and registration requirements, and can't have recent political or lobbying ties. A state agency selects potential members, ensuring diversity and impartiality, and submits these candidates to a select committee, which can approve or reject the choices, with opportunities for revisions if needed.
Money References
- (vi) An assurance that, during the covered periods described in paragraph (3), the individual has not taken and will not take any action which would disqualify the individual from serving as a member of the commission under paragraph (2). (2) DISQUALIFICATIONS.—An individual is not eligible to serve as a member of the commission if any of the following applies during any of the covered periods described in paragraph (3): (A) The individual or (in the case of the covered periods described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (3)) an immediate family member of the individual holds public office or is a candidate for election for public office. (B) The individual or (in the case of the covered periods described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (3)) an immediate family member of the individual serves as an officer of a political party or as an officer, employee, or paid consultant of a campaign committee of a candidate for public office or of any political action committee (as determined in accordance with the law of the State). (C) The individual or (in the case of the covered periods described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (3)) an immediate family member of the individual holds a position as a registered lobbyist under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) or an equivalent State or local law. (D) The individual or (in the case of the covered periods described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (3)) an immediate family member of the individual is an employee of an elected public official, a contractor with the government of the State, or a donor to the campaign of any candidate for public office or to any political action committee (other than a donor who, during any of such covered periods, gives an aggregate amount of $1,000 or less to the campaigns of all candidates for all public offices and to all political action committees). (E) The individual paid a civil money penalty or criminal fine, or was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, for violating any provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.).
203. Public notice and input Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines how the independent redistricting commission of a state should work openly and transparently by holding public meetings and maintaining a dedicated website. This website should feature information about the commission and its activities, allow for public input, and provide access to maps and data used in the redistricting process. Additionally, the commission must hold hearings, publish plans, and consider public feedback in the development and finalization of redistricting plans, ensuring these processes occur across diverse geographic locations and in multiple languages as required. The final plan undergoes further checks before being enacted, including a review by the Department of Justice.
204. Establishment of related entities Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Each state must create or designate a nonpartisan agency within its legislature to appoint an independent redistricting commission, ensuring that the agency is impartial and transparent in its operations. Additionally, states must establish a Select Committee on Redistricting to review the commission's work, with members appointed from various political parties, by specific deadlines.
205. Report on diversity of memberships of independent redistricting commissions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section requires the Comptroller General to report to Congress by May 15 of each year ending in one on how well the independent redistricting commissions from the previous year meet diversity requirements.
301. Enactment of plan developed by 3-judge court Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
If a state fails to create a necessary redistricting plan by a set deadline, a 3-judge U.S. district court will take over. The court will develop, hold hearings, gather public comments, and publish a final redistricting plan, which becomes law once it's published. If needed, they can create a temporary plan until the final one is ready.
302. Special rule for redistricting conducted under order of Federal court Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
If a Federal court requires a state to redraw its legislative districts after a census adjustment to comply with the Constitution or Voting Rights Act, it must follow section 203 guidelines unless the court decides to change the timeline to ensure the new plan is completed on time.
401. Payments to States for carrying out redistricting Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section explains the process for the Election Assistance Commission to provide payments to states for redistricting, specifying conditions like the need for an independent commission, excluding states with only one representative, and certain exceptions such as Iowa. It also includes requirements for states to certify compliance with specific redistricting-related provisions before receiving payments and mentions the authorization of necessary funds.
Money References
- (a) Authorization of payments.—Subject to subsection (d), not later than 30 days after a State receives a State apportionment notice, the Election Assistance Commission shall, subject to the availability of appropriations provided pursuant to subsection (e), make a payment to the State in an amount equal to the product of— (1) the number of Representatives to which the State is entitled, as provided under the notice; and (2) $150,000.
402. Civil enforcement Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines the procedures for civil enforcement actions related to congressional redistricting in the United States, allowing both the Attorney General and citizens to bring cases to court if a state's redistricting plan doesn't meet legal requirements. It includes rules for expedited consideration by courts, potential remedies if plans violate the law, and specifies that no legislative privilege can be claimed to avoid legal challenges to redistricting plans.
403. State apportionment notice defined Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
In this section, “State apportionment notice” is defined as the notification sent to a state by the Clerk of the House of Representatives indicating how many Representatives the state is allowed, based on the census law established in 1929.
404. No effect on elections for State and local office Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Nothing in this Act or any changes made by it will alter how states conduct their elections for state or local offices, including the way they draw up election districts.
405. Effective date Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
This section states that the rules and changes made by this Act will apply to the process of redrawing voting districts based on the U.S. Census that takes place in 2030 and any future censuses that happen every ten years after that.
501. Application of certain requirements for redistricting carried out pursuant to 2020 Census Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines how the rules for redistricting after the 2020 Census are similar to those for redistricting after the 2030 Census. It specifies that redistricting should follow a plan made by an independent commission or, if there's no approved plan, by a three-judge court. Additionally, if certain conditions are met, a U.S. district court will create the redistricting plan by December 15, 2024. Payments to states for election assistance are dependent on the state meeting certain certification requirements.
502. Triggering events Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
For the redistricting process following the 2020 census, this section identifies "triggering events" where a state fails to meet specific deadlines, such as not establishing a nonpartisan agency, not appointing a Select Committee, or not approving a selection pool or final plan, as required by various sections of the legislation.
511. Use of independent redistricting commissions for redistricting carried out pursuant to 2020 Census Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines the formation and functioning of an independent redistricting commission in each state to redraw electoral districts based on the 2020 Census. It specifies the appointment process for the commission's members, including ensuring diversity among members, rules for conducting business, and guidelines for handling staff and contractors to ensure impartiality, as well as preserving records for potential legal actions related to redistricting.
512. Establishment of selection pool of individuals eligible to serve as members of commission Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines the criteria and process for selecting individuals to serve on an independent redistricting commission. It details the eligibility requirements and disqualifications, describes how a nonpartisan state agency should form a selection pool of 36 eligible individuals divided into political categories, and explains the review process by the Select Committee on Redistricting.
Money References
- (B) The individual or an immediate family member of the individual serves as an officer of a political party or as an officer, employee, or paid consultant of a campaign committee of a candidate for public office or of any political action committee (as determined in accordance with the law of the State). (C) The individual or an immediate family member of the individual holds a position as a registered lobbyist under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) or an equivalent State or local law. (D) The individual or an immediate family member of the individual is an employee of an elected public official, a contractor with the government of the State, or a donor to the campaign of any candidate for public office or to any political action committee (other than a donor who, during any of such covered periods, gives an aggregate amount of $1,000 or less to the campaigns of all candidates for all public offices and to all political action committees). (E) The individual paid a civil money penalty or criminal fine, or was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, for violating any provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.). (F) The individual or an immediate family member of the individual is an agent of a foreign principal under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended (22 U.S.C. 611 et seq.). (3) IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBER DEFINED.—In this subsection, the term “immediate family member” means, with respect to an individual, a father, stepfather, mother, stepmother, son, stepson, daughter, stepdaughter, brother, stepbrother, sister, stepsister, husband, wife, father-in-law, or mother-in-law.
513. Criteria for redistricting plan; public notice and input Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines the process for creating a redistricting plan, emphasizing public involvement and transparency. It requires the independent redistricting commission to hold public meetings, consider public input, and ensure the availability of information in multiple languages, while also detailing the steps for developing and enacting the final redistricting plan by November 15, 2024.
514. Establishment of related entities Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Each state is required to set up a nonpartisan agency within its legislative branch, or designate an existing one, to appoint members for the independent redistricting commission. This agency must remain neutral, and if it's newly created, it will end after a redistricting plan becomes law. Additionally, each state must form a Select Committee on Redistricting consisting of members from different political parties to approve or disapprove the commission’s selection pool, with rules adjusted for states with a unicameral legislature.
515. Report on diversity of memberships of independent redistricting commissions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section mandates that by November 15, 2024, the U.S. Comptroller General must submit a report to Congress evaluating how well the independent redistricting commissions in each state, formed under the specified title, fulfill diversity requirements for their membership as outlined in sections 511(a)(2)(B) and 512(b)(2).