I.The US Census and its importance for the Latinos Community

1. Federal Funding
2. Apportionment
3. Redistricting

II.Redistricting and its importance for the Latino community

1. What is a district?
2. When must redistricting occur?
3. Who draws the lines?
4. Redistricting timeline?

III.Laws governing redistricting

a. Federal requirements for redistricting

1. Single Member
2. Equal Population
3. Voting Rights Act

b. State and local requirements for redistricting

1. Communities of Interest
2. Other Traditional criteria for redistricting

IV.Redistricting in your state

Redistricting Fundamentals

I. The U.S. Census and its Importance to the Latino community

The United States Constitution requires that a census be taken every ten years to determine how many people reside in the United States and its territories, regardless of their citizenship. The Census provides a count on the total population of the United States. The first census was taken in 1790, when there were nearly four million people living in our country. The most recent census taken on April 1, 2010 ("the 2010 Census") revealed that at least 308.7 million people now live in the United States, including at least 50.5 million Latinos.
The NALEO Educational Fund and nonprofit partners launched a successful and historic campaign, the Ya Es Hora Campaign, to encourage the Latino community to participate in the 2010 Census and get an accurate count of Latino community. The 2010 Census revealed that Latinos are the second largest population group in the United States.
a. Federal Funding: The number of people identified in the 2010 Census will be used to determine how much federal funding your state and local governments will receive during the next decade. Higher population totals translate into more dollars for hospitals, housing, schools, social services, and transportation to meet the needs of our communities. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the total federal aid distributed to state and local governments in Fiscal Year 2009 was $552.1 billion. That amounts to an average of approximately $1,800 for each person in the United States. b. Apportionment: Population totals from the 2010 Census are also used to determine how many House of Representative Members your state will have in Congress during the next ten years. This process is called "apportionment." The number of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives has changed over time, increasing with our nation's population. In 1787, the Constitution set the initial number of representatives at 65. Congress increased that number to 105 representatives after the 1790 Census. The current total of 435 has been used since 1913. c. Redistricting: Redistricting is the process of redrawing district boundaries. The 2010 Census population data is used to redraw the geographical boundaries of districts from which we will elect our officials at the federal, state, and local level. These new districts will define our political representation for the next ten years. It is essential that Latinos have an equal voice in redistricting, to ensure they have a fair opportunity to elect their candidates of choice. The key to electoral success is to participate effectively in redistricting efforts in your community.

II. Redistricting and its importance for the Latino community

a. What is a district?

A "district" is a geographical area used to elect one or more representatives to a legislative body, such as Congress, a state legislature, or a local government. Only eligible residents who live in a district are allowed to vote in an election for a representative from that district. A district that elects one representative is called a "single-member district." A district that elects two or more representatives is called a "multi-member district." Today, every state uses districts to elect members of their legislatures. Approximately 13 states use multi-member districts to elect members of at least one branch of their state legislature, with the remaining states using single-member districts. Districts also are used to elect members of the U.S. House of Representatives in all states with two or more seats in the House. The image above shows Arizona's congressional districts, which were adopted following the 2000 Census.

In the seven states that elect only one member to the U.S. House of Representatives (Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming), all eligible state residents can vote to elect that representative. This is an example of what is called an "at-large election." Jurisdictions with at-large elections do not redistrict.

b. When must Redistricting Occur?

Redistricting usually occurs at least once every 10 years in any state that elects members of Congress, the state legislature or local governments from districts (either single-member or multi-member).

	The most common reason for redistricting is because of what is called "malapportionment," which means districts are no longer roughly equal in population. As this picture illustrates, after 10 years, it may be necessary to redraw districts to ensure that each has approximately the same number of people. Districts originally equal in population, represented by the blue dotted lines are no longer equal. The purple lines represent new districts lines drawn to balance the districts to equal population. This requirement, known as "the one person, one vote" or "equal population requirement" is discussed obligatory under the federal rules for redistricting. Redistricting is not required for every elected office. Congressional redistricting is not necessary (and not possible) for the seven states that elect only one member to the U.S. House of Representatives. In addition, redistricting may not be mandatory if a state or local government's districts remain roughly equal in population after the decennial census. At the local level, redistricting is not needed for governmental bodies whose members are elected "at large" (that is, by all eligible residents in the community).
c. Who Draws the Lines?	Responsibility and procedures for redistricting vary from state to state. In most states, the legislature is responsible for redistricting. Approximately 28 states give one or both houses of the legislature primary authority for adopting statewide congressional and legislative redistricting plans and require approval by the governor. Click here for a list of state legislatures responsible for redistricting. The list includes a summary of the legislative body that redistricts, deadlines, and the role of the governor in the process. Eleven states use a combination of legislatures and commissions for redistricting. In Arkansas and Ohio, commissions are responsible for redrawing state legislative districts, and the state legislature is responsible for redrawing congressional districts. In Iowa, the Legislative Services Agency (an agency that serves members of the state legislature) draws redistricting plans, which are then considered for approval by the state legislature and governor. Maine, New York, and Vermont use commissions as advisory boards to the state legislatures in the redistricting process. The remaining five states, Connecticut, Illinois, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas use commissions as backups, with the commissions assuming responsibility if the legislatures fail to adopt redistricting plans by deadlines set by state law.
Eleven states use a board or commission for redistricting. Although many independent commissions were adopted for the purpose of providing fair representation to all people, they are not immune from adopting plans that may discriminate against some population groups. For example, the first statewide legislative plan adopted by the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission resulted in an objection from the United States Department of Justice because of its discriminatory effect on the Latino community in several districts. A court may order its own redistricting plan into place when a state fails to enact one or more of its redistricting plans in a timely manner or it enacts redistricting plans that violate federal or state law. Regardless of who draws the lines, it is essential that the Latino community participate in the redistricting process to ensure that they receive fair representation.

d. Redistricting Timeline

The timing of the redistricting process varies from state to state. New congressional, legislative, and local redistricting plans must be adopted early enough to be used for the 2012 elections. Some state and local governments will require that redistricting plans be adopted even earlier, for elections in 2011.

Generally, the timeline for the redistricting process will look something like this:

The U.S. Census Bureau is required to release all redistricting data used by the states for congressional and legislative districts by April 1, 2011, which is one year after the census was taken.

Hearings are typically held shortly after the census data is available to allow members of the public to provide input on how new districts should be drawn. Public hearings often are held around the state, and can include opportunities for community members to testify before the redistricting entity to present information that needs to be considered before plans are drawn.

After public hearings are completed, the state redistricting entity adopts a redistricting plan, which should be based upon input it received during those hearings.

Some states require a court to review and approve a redistricting plan before it goes into effect. Other states that are covered in whole or in part by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act must first obtain approval from either the U.S. Department of Justice or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia before their redistricting plans can be implemented.

Florida's legislature has provided a good example of a typical redistricting timeline. For more information about timelines for statewide redistricting plans in other states click on this link.

III. Laws governing redistricting

a. Federal requirements that must be followed in redistricting

There are three federal requirements that must be followed in redistricting: single member districts, equal population, and the Voting Rights Act. These requirements are explained below, along with a discussion of the redistricting plans to which they apply.

i. Single-member districts: In Congressional redistricting for the US House of Representatives, states which have more than one representative, federal law requires that single-member districts be used to elect members.

In states with only one seat in the US House of Representatives, all eligible residents of that state are allowed to vote for that representative.

ii. Equal Population/ One person, one vote: This requirement applies to all redistricting plans. Districts must be roughly equal in population. This federal requirement has been in effect since a series of United States Supreme Court decisions that began with Baker v. Carr in 1962. One person, one vote applies to all redistricting, including congressional districts, state legislative districts, districts to elect members of county governments, municipal districts, and administrative districts and districts for other forms of local governments. The requirement does not apply to governmental bodies whose members are elected "at-large" by all residents of a community.

The following illustrates how districts can become unequally populated over time.

Graphic 1 depicts four equally populated districts drawn after the 2000 Census. Each district has 5 people, which is what is called the "ideal population" for that redistricting plan.

To identify the ideal population for a redistricting simply divide the community's total population by the number of districts. In this case, it is 20 ÷ 4 = 5.

Graphic 2 depicts the population of State A 10 years later. Overtime the number of people residing in districts can change due to people relocating and births or deaths.

In this case, due to population growth, the ideal population (24 people ÷ 4 districts) now requires that each district have 6 people in it.

The difference between a district's actual population and the ideal population is called a "deviation." The deviation is either positive or negative, depending upon whether the district has more people or less people than the ideal population. For example, the district with 8 people would have a positive deviation of plus two people (+ 2) from the ideal population, while the district with 4 people would have a negative deviation of minus two people (- 2).

The total difference between the most populated and least populated districts from the ideal population is called the redistricting plan's "total deviation." The total deviation is easily calculated by adding the positive value (what is called the "absolute value" in math) of the deviation for the most and least populated districts. In the example above, the total deviation is 2 + 2 = 4 people. The total deviation also can be expressed as a percentage of the ideal population, simply by dividing that number by the ideal population. In the example, the redistricting plan's total deviation is 4 ÷ 6 = .67, or 67 percent.

The specific requirements for meeting "equal population" vary, depending upon the type of redistricting plan:

Equal population in congressional districts: Congressional districts must have populations that are "as nearly as practicable" equal in population. This standard has been applied by courts to reject any congressional plan that does not include districts that are as mathematically equal as is reasonably possible. To illustrate this point, if Congressional Plan A has a total deviation of 25 people but it is reasonably possible to draw another plan (Congressional Plan B) with a total deviation of just 2 people, then Congressional Plan A will not meet the equal population requirement. Instead, the redistricting entity would have to enact Congressional Plan B.

Equal population in districts for state legislatures and for local governments: State and local governments have more flexibility in complying with the equal population requirement. Their districts must be "substantially equal" in population. State and local redistricting plans are usually (but not always) assumed to meet this standard if they have a total deviation of 10 percent or less. To illustrate this point, if the ideal population for a county commission district is 100 people, a redistricting plan for the commission typically could have 95 people in its least populated district and 105 people in its most populated district (a total deviation of 10 percent from the ideal district of 100) and still satisfy the equal population requirement.

If the total deviation exceeds what courts have found is acceptable, a new redistricting plan will have to be adopted that redraws districts so that they are equally populated within acceptable limits.

iii. Voting Rights Act: The Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits racial discrimination in voting practices in all federal, state, and local elections. Congress has amended the Act and reauthorized the Act's temporary provisions five times, most recently in 2006.

The image shows President Lyndon Johnson meeting with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and other civil rights leaders after he signed the Voting Rights Act into law.

Redistricting is a change in election law because it changes districts for the purpose of elections. All redistricting plans must comply with the federal Voting Rights Act. Specifically, there are two provisions of the Voting Rights Act that apply to redistricting:

Section 2: Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is a permanent provision of the Act. It is the Act's general non-discrimination provision. Section 2 prohibits use of any voting qualification or standard, practice or procedure affecting voting (such as redistricting) that results in a denial or limitation on voting because of a voter's race or ethnicity. Section 2 applies nationwide and applies to all redistricting, including congressional, legislative, and local government districts.

Section 2 provides that a violation is established if the totality of the circumstances shows that a redistricting plan results in districts in which a racial or ethnic group of voters, including Latinos, "have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice." One of the circumstances that can be considered is the extent to which members of the underrepresented group, such as Latinos, have been elected to office.

The United States Supreme Court has described other evidence necessary to meet that standard. Additional factors, such as the history of discrimination against the underrepresented group and other examples of ways in which underrepresented voters have been excluded from the economic, political, and social life of a community, also are considered.

The Texas congressional redistricting plan adopted in 2003 provides a good example of when a redistricting plan violates Section 2 because it denies Latino voters an equal opportunity to elect their candidates of choice. The Illinois congressional redistricting plan adopted in 1991 offers an excellent example of when Section 2 requires that an irregularly shaped district be drawn to provide Latino voters with an equal opportunity to elect their candidates of choice.

Section 5: Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is a temporary provision of the Act that will be in place until 2031, unless it is renewed by Congress. Section 5 only applies to certain state and local governments, which generally have a history of discrimination against one or more racial or ethnic underrepresented groups. Section 5 prevents the implementation of any voting qualification or standard, practice or procedure affecting voting (such as redistricting) until after approval – "preclearance" – is obtained from either the U.S. Department of Justice or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Nearly all redistricting plans from covered jurisdictions are submitted to the Department of Justice instead of the federal district court because the process is usually more efficient.

The map below also depicts the location of these "covered" jurisdictions.

Two states with large Latino populations, Arizona and Texas, are covered statewide by Section 5. That means that all redistricting plans used in those states, including congressional, legislative, and local redistricting plans, must be precleared before they can be implemented. Other states with large Latino populations, such as California, Florida and New York, have one or more counties that are covered by Section 5. Because congressional and legislative redistricting plans in those states will have districts in one more covered counties, those statewide plans also must be precleared before they can be implemented.

To obtain preclearance, the covered jurisdiction must establish that a redistricting plan does not have the purpose or the effect of making it harder for underrepresented groups, including Latinos, to elect their candidates of choice. That makes it critical that the Latino community provide input on the redistricting plan to the U.S. Department of Justice.

Section 5 is a powerful tool for stopping discrimination against Latinos before a redistricting plan is used for elections. The Justice Department's 2002 objection to Arizona's state legislative redistricting plan is a good example for how Section 5 helps ensure that Latinos receive fair representation and equal participation in elections.

b. State and local requirements for redistricting

In additional to federal requirements, states and localities can develop their own criteria for their redistricting process. The table below identifies some of these criteria. The requirements may vary from state to state and from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The following section reviews redistricting criteria that are considered traditional requirements for redistricting. You state may include some of these traditional criteria in its redistricting.

Most states require that legislative plans be compact, contiguous and respect political boundaries. Each of these concepts is explained in greater detail below. About half of the states require legislative districts that preserve communities of interest. As the table below depicts, states usually do not impose these additional requirements for congressional districting. However, the redistricting entity or a reviewing court often will consider even those criteria that are not mandatory under state law.

i. Communities of Interest: A Community of Interest (COI) is a neighborhood or community that would benefit from being maintained in a single district because of shared interests, views, or characteristics. A community of interest is a community of common interest

Graphic 1: Before redistricting	Graphic 2: After redistricting Central America

Members of the Latino community often share similar demographic, economic or social characteristics. As a result, preservation of communities of interest can be critical for the Latino community to secure fair representation under a redistricting plan. However, in defining a community of interest, we need to look beyond race. Latinos are a diverse group with a rich ancestry from Mexican, Salvadoran, Puerto Rican, Dominican, Columbian, Chilean, and much more.

The picture to the left is an example of how district lines can separate or unify a community. In this example, the colored figures represent a diverse Central American community. This Central American community shares common a income level, a common education level, their family size is about the same, and they attend the same social and cultural celebrations. The Central American community in this jurisdiction of four districts comprise one quarter of the total population. Most Central Americans reside in the same neighborhood, which is shown in the center of the jurisdiction. However, the redistricting plan has divided the Central American community between all four districts. Central Americans make up only ¼ of the population in each of the four districts. As a result, they may not have an opportunity to elect their candidates of choice.

Having the opportunity to elect a candidate of your choice increases the probability that that candidate once elected will represent your community interests in the governing body they are elected to. Additionally, your elected represented will advocate to bring resources that reflect your community needs and priorities.

On the other hand, the picture to the right depicts how the Central American community in this region can achieve fair representation if their community of interest is kept together.

In this example, the Central American community now makes up ¾ of the population in one district. That will likely provide this community with an opportunity to elect one out of the four representatives.

Therefore, preserving the community of interest has provided the Central American community in this region with an equal opportunity to elect their candidates of choice.

Characteristics for defining a community of interest

There is no single definition for identifying your community of interest. In defining your community of interest be as comprehensive as possible and include both qualitative and quantitative data to show how your community shares many common characteristics. Additionally, make sure that you can identify the geographic boundaries of your community of interest. The community of interest should typically be relatively compact in a common area.

A community of interest should have many common characteristics, beyond just race alone. Below are some examples of date you could use to define your community of interest. This is not a complete list, be as comprehensive as possible

Examples of quantitative data (your community numbers):

Examples of qualitative data (your community story):

ii. Other traditional criteria for redistricting

Compactness: A term used to describe a district's shape. There is no single accepted definition of what qualifies as a "compact" district. However, the compactness inquiry may focus on whether a district is irregularly shaped either by area or by the dispersion of population. There are three commonly used measures of compactness:

• Dispersion: These measures evaluate how much a district's area is spread out from a central point. For example, a circle is very compact. In contrast, a bar-bell or figure-eight shaped district is less compact under this measure.
• Perimeter: These measures determine compactness by comparing the boundary length of districts between redistricting plans. The greater the boundary length of a district, the less compact it is.
• Population: These measures assess compactness by determining where people live compared to others inside and outside of a district.

The following two examples illustrate measurements of compactness for two congressional districts.

This image depicts Florida's Third Congressional District, which was adopted by a federal court in 1992 after the state legislature failed to adopt a redistricting plan. According to the Congressional Research Service, the District was one of the least compact districts in the country following the 1990 redistricting cycle. It had a perimeter score that ranked 434th out of 435 congressional districts, a dispersion score that ranked 429th out of 435 districts, and a population score that ranked 428th out of 435 districts. In 1996, a federal court found that the District was unconstitutional.

In comparison, Wyoming's at-large congressional district, which is nearly a perfect square, is one of the most compact districts in the country. Most congressional districts fall somewhere between these two extremes. Compactness does not necessarily trump other redistricting requirements. In some cases, redistricting entities may choose to have less compact districts to preserve communities of interest and to ensure that underrepresented communities have an equal opportunity to elect their candidates of choice.

Competition and Partisanship: Typically, state and local jurisdictions that require competitiveness prohibit undue favoritism of one party over another. Tony Sissons has described Arizona's requirement for competitive districts in the following way: "A competitive district is one in which candidates of any political party stand a reasonable chance of winning if they can appeal to more voters than contestants of other parties."

Contiguity: A requirement that a district be a single, unbroken shape. A district may be divided by a natural feature such as water, which allows districts that include islands to meet contiguity requirements. "Point contiguity" occurs when two portions of a district only meet at a single point. An example of point contiguity is provided at the right. Point contiguity generally is impermissible. Some courts have found that use of point contiguity supported a finding that a district violated either federal or state law.

Nesting: A state legislative criteria requiring that the geographic boundaries of two or more lower legislative districts (typically, state house districts) are wholly contained within the boundaries of an upper legislative district (typically, a state senate district). This requirement does not apply to congressional redistricting. Political Boundaries: A criteria that provides that as much as possible, districts should follow the boundaries of counties, cities, wards, and precincts.

Preserve cores of old districts: A requirement that redistricting maximize preservation of the main portions of districts under the preceding redistricting plan. It usually has the effect of protecting incumbents, who tend to benefit the most by preserving the core constituency that elected them.

IV. Redistricting in your state: How to find out more information about redistricting in your state

Click on either your state's name or your state flag to go to your state's redistricting website, if there is one. In some cases, links may only be available for state house or senate committee websites. Other states do not have active websites yet. Links for those sites will be added as they become available.

Some states may have multiple websites. Where more than one website is available, the state flag and state name links will take you to the site that has the most content that may be useful to you, such as to a state legislative research agency or a commission webpage.

Keep in mind that if your legislature is responsible for redistricting, you should click on the links to websites for both the senate and house redistricting or reapportionment committees to stay informed of key meetings, hearing dates, and votes on proposed plans.

The link for New Jersey is to the website of the New Jersey Apportionment Commission, which is responsible for state legislative redistricting. The New Jersey Redistricting Commission is responsible for the state's congressional redistricting, but does not currently have an active website.

If your state's redistricting website(s) become(s) active or change(s) and you would like this list updated to reflect it, please e-mail the link to Astrid Garcia, Director of State Election Policy and Redistricting for the NALEO Educational Fund, at agarcia@naleo.org.