Redistricting In Massachusetts
TOOLKIT
REDISTRICTING IN MASSACHUSETTS
Produced for the Drawing Democracy Project by Common Cause Massachusetts, MassVOTE, & Oíste
2011
2
Produced for the Drawing Democracy Project by Common Cause Massachusetts, MassVOTE, & ¿Oìste?
REDISTRICTING IN MASSACHUSETTS
Table of Contents
Why Should I Participate in the Redistricting Process? .................................................................................4
What is Redistricting? ....................................................................................................................................5
Why Do We Redraw the Districts? .................................................................................................................6
How Can You Help Your Community? ............................................................................................................7
When is Redistricting Done? ..........................................................................................................................8
Who Draws the Lines? ...................................................................................................................................8
How Are People Counted for the Purpose of Redistricting? .......................................................................10
What Factors Guide How State Legislative Districts Are Drawn? ................................................................11
What Factors Guide How Congressional Districts Are Drawn? ...................................................................12
When is the “Equal Population” Requirement Met? ...................................................................................12
How Do Racial Considerations Impact Redistricting? ..................................................................................13
How Do Political Considerations Impact Redistricting? ...............................................................................17
Appendix A: Glossary of Redistricting Terms ...............................................................................................17
Appendix B: Redistricting Fact Sheet ...........................................................................................................20
Appendix C: Additional Resources ...............................................................................................................22
Appendix D: Joint Redistricting Committee Members ................................................................................24
Appendix E: How to Measure Population Equality ......................................................................................26
Appendix F: Letter to Legislator Template ...................................................................................................28
Appendix G: Hearing Notice Template ........................................................................................................29
Appendix H: Documentary Appendix ...........................................................................................................31
Voting Rights Act of 1965, Section 2 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1973) ........................................................31
Massachusetts Constitution Article CI (as amended by Articles CIX, CXVII, CXIX) ..................................31
U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 .........................................................................................32
U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 2 ........................................................................................32
Appendix I: Public Hearing Dates and Locations..........................................................................................33
Endnotes ......................................................................................................................................................34
3
Produced for the Drawing Democracy Project by Common Cause Massachusetts, MassVOTE, & ¿Oìste?
REDISTRICTING IN MASSACHUSETTS
Why Should I Participate in the Redistricting Process?
Redistricting Affects Election Outcomes. Redistricting divides the state and its voters into geographical
areas that are then used to elect state legislators and congressional representatives. How voters are
divided into these districts greatly influences who is elected, as redistricting determines the electorate’s
party affiliation and racial, class, and gender composition.1 Effective representation of a community is
not possible without the ability to elect someone that is responsive to the community’s needs.
Redistricting Will Give Your Community a Voice and Access to the Political Process. Redistricting can
determine whether an elected official will be responsive to your needs and those of the community that
you are a part of. Community involvement in redistricting provides local knowledge that can lead to
greater access to the political process. Districts that reflect factors such as local geography, common
interests, and racially defined groups give your community a greater voice in politics. Without
meaningful participation, your community could be fractured into many different districts or
unnecessarily concentrated in a small number of districts. This result could prevent your community
from electing a candidate that will respond to its needs.
Redistricting Can Encourage Citizens to Remain Politically Engaged. Residents who participate in the
redistricting process are more likely to register and vote in subsequent elections and to participate in the
policymaking process. They are also more invested in broader democratic debates and more willing to
hold their representatives accountable.2
Redistricting, If Done Without Your Community’s Input, May
Have These Negative Effects:
Massachusetts is almost dead
last in the nation in terms of
competitive elections. Once in
office, nearly seven in ten
House members don’t even
face a challenge in the next
election. Since 1994 only one
incumbent has been defeated.*

Decreasing electoral competition and protecting incumbents
by creating larger margins of victory and producing “safe
seats”;

Eliminating challengers and incumbents by drawing them
out of the district where they have electoral support;

Eliminating incumbents by pitting them against each other;

Reducing voter turnout by decreasing the likelihood that a voter affects an election outcome;

Diluting minority votes by placing minority groups in such a way that either over-concentrates them
in disproportionately few districts (“packing”), or spreads them across many districts so that they
have minimal influence on the outcomes of elections (“cracking”);

Increasing election costs by making it harder for candidates to do door-to-door canvassing, as their
district is more spread out.3
4
Produced for the Drawing Democracy Project by Common Cause Massachusetts, MassVOTE, & ¿Oìste?
REDISTRICTING IN MASSACHUSETTS
What is Redistricting?
Redistricting is the process of redrawing the districts that public officials are elected from and represent.
It is conducted every ten years following the federal Census in order to adjust districts for shifts in
population. The districts that are redrawn include those for members of Congress, state Senate, state
House of Representatives and Governor’s Council.
It is important to recognize the difference between the term “redistricting” and the related terms
“reapportionment” and “gerrymandering.” Reapportionment is the constitutionally mandated process
of determining how many representatives in Congress each State receives. A certain number of the 435
congressional seats are allocated to each State based on the proportion of each State’s population
compared to the national population. Following the federal Census, Massachusetts was allocated nine
congressional seats – one less than the
ten which the State currently holds. The
loss of this seat was the result of faster
population growth in other parts of the
country, particularly in southwestern
States. As a result of this loss, the
redistricting process will likely lead to
significant changes in the shape of
Massachusetts’ congressional districts.
Gerrymandering is a method of
redistricting whereby lines are drawn to
make a particular election outcome more
likely. Thus, gerrymandering is used to
entrench a political party, protect
incumbents, or dilute the voting power
of a minority population in order to make
it more difficult to elect a minoritypreferred candidate. Massachusetts has
long been a leading practitioner of
gerrymandering districts for political
gain. After all, it started here almost 200
years ago when Governor Elbridge Gerry
pushed to create one district with such
wiggly borders that it reminded people
of a salamander.
5
Produced for the Drawing Democracy Project by Common Cause Massachusetts, MassVOTE, & ¿Oìste?
REDISTRICTING IN MASSACHUSETTS
Why Do We Redraw the Districts?
First, redistricting is mandated by both the U.S. Constitution and the Massachusetts Constitution. The
redistricting of congressional districts is required by Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, as amended by Section
2 of the 14th Amendment, of the U.S. Constitution.4 State Senate, House, and Council districts are
required to be redrawn after each federal Census by Article CI of the Massachusetts Constitution.
Second, redistricting is necessary for creating
fair and equally populated districts. As people
move around the state and areas get more or
less populous, representative districts no
longer contain an equal number of
inhabitants. Redistricting corrects for these
shifts by redrawing the districts every ten
years, thereby creating relatively equally
populated representative districts. As the
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has
long recognized, equality of votes is essential
to a fair and just government:
“There can be no equality among citizens if the
vote of one counts for considerably more than
that of another in electing public officers. The
true spirit and meaning of the Constitution is
that each voter has an equal voice in the
enactment of laws and in the election of
officers of state. Such equality must be
secured in all laws for the choosing of
representatives in the general court or the
Constitution is violated. One voter or one
group of voters cannot be given a greatly
preponderating power in shaping legislation
through the election of a representative or
representatives by a disproportionately small
number of voters as compared with another
group, and still the equality between voters
secured by the Constitution be preserved.”5
Accordingly, redistricting plays an important
role in helping to provide each voter with a
relatively equal voice in government.
6
Produced for the Drawing Democracy Project by Common Cause Massachusetts, MassVOTE, & ¿Oìste?
REDISTRICTING IN MASSACHUSETTS
How Can You Help Your Community?6
Educate Others. You can help educate your friends, neighbors, and community on the redistricting
process and its importance.
Demand and Attend Hearings. Hearings will be held throughout Massachusetts (see Appendix I for
dates and locations). You can help by mobilizing your community to ensure that their voices are heard
on how the lines should be drawn. Hearings held after the maps are produced by the legislature will
also guarantee that the Redistricting Committee understands the impact that their proposed lines will
have on your community.
Testify at Public Hearings. Hearings will allow community
leaders to testify about either the maps that have already been
proposed by the legislature or those that are proposed by
citizen groups or non-profits. Your community can present
testimony about community interests and preferences,
geographic boundaries, and evidence of ongoing
discrimination.7 You can also urge legislators at the hearing to
develop redistricting plans that consider nonpartisan criteria,
such as compactness and respect for communities of interest.
Provide Feedback on Maps. You can provide feedback on
maps produced by the legislative Redistricting Committee,
community groups or individuals. You can do this by testifying
at public hearings (see above), or writing or calling your
representative or senator.
Identify and Map Local Communities. You can assist
legislators, non-profit organizations, community leaders, and
advocates putting together redistricting plans by mapping the
boundaries of local communities that should be kept within a
district or by identifying large communities that prefer to be
split so as to influence more representatives. This can be done
using maps and population counts for the state, counties and
cities. You can seek help from your community by convening
community forums and town meetings.
Things to consider when
looking at a redistricting map,
besides its shape, include:
Has a large minority population
been “cracked” or “packed”?
Was there a sensible reason for
splitting a community and/or
neighborhood?
Where do incumbents and their
challengers live? Is there a
reason to believe that a district
was carved around an
incumbent or challenger’s
house? Was the district drawn
in a way that makes it harder
for a candidate to win an
election?
Do the districts drawn give a
substantial advantage to one
political party over another?**
Develop and Present Alternative Maps. You may want to go
beyond mapping a local community, district, or regional area, to create a map of the county, city, or
state as a whole. Alternative redistricting maps can be submitted to the Redistricting Committee. You
can present them at a public hearing (see above) or send them to the pertinent legislators, along with
7
Produced for the Drawing Democracy Project by Common Cause Massachusetts, MassVOTE, & ¿Oìste?
REDISTRICTING IN MASSACHUSETTS
petitions showing numerical support for the districts you prefer. These could be used to improve the
opportunities your community has to elect a candidate of choice.8
When is Redistricting Done?
The redistricting process began on December 21, 2010, when the Census Bureau announced the
Massachusetts population count. On March 22, 2011, the Census Bureau released local population data
about the race, age, and ethnicity of inhabitants in each census block. The redistricting process will
continue through the spring and summer as the Redistricting Committee holds public hearings and
begins to draw maps. The legislature will likely enact a redistricting plan for the House in the fall
because the Massachusetts Constitution requires that each member inhabit his or her district for at least
one year preceding the election to that legislative body.9 The district plans for the Senate, Council and
Congress, however, are not subject to this constraint. Therefore, the legislature may enact these plans
as late as the end of 2011 or even early 2012.
Who Draws the Lines?
The Massachusetts Constitution
provides the legislature with
authority over the redistricting
process.10 Accordingly, the
legislature has primary control over
how state and congressional district
lines are drawn, and both the
House and Senate must vote to
approve the redistricting plan
before it can take effect. In both
2009 and 2011, the state legislature
rejected a proposal that would have
delegated its redistricting authority
to an independent redistricting
commission.11 Consequently,
during this round of redistricting,
the Massachusetts legislature will
retain control of the process.
The redistricting chair for the House is Representative Michael Moran and the redistricting chair for the
Senate is Senator Stanley Rosenberg. Furthermore, there will be a joint Redistricting Committee
consisting of seven senators and twenty-one representatives. Democrats, as the majority in both
8
Produced for the Drawing Democracy Project by Common Cause Massachusetts, MassVOTE, & ¿Oìste?
REDISTRICTING IN MASSACHUSETTS
houses, hold most of the seats on the committee, but one senator and four representatives come from
the Republican Party (for a list of members see Appendix D).12
9
Produced for the Drawing Democracy Project by Common Cause Massachusetts, MassVOTE, & ¿Oìste?
REDISTRICTING IN MASSACHUSETTS
How Are People Counted for the Purpose of Redistricting?
The most recent federal
Census is the basis for
redrawing representative
districts.13 The population
data collected during the
federal Census, and
subsequently used for
redistricting, is based on the
“usual residence” of people.
In other words, people are
counted in the place where
they primarily live and sleep.14
Following the Census, the data
is counted and distributed to
the States for use during the
redistricting process. In
addition to the population
count, the Census bureau also
releases local data that totals
individuals in a census block
15
by age, race, and ethnicity. A census block is the smallest geographic unit for which the Census Bureau
collects data. It can vary in size from a city block in urban areas to many square miles in rural areas.16
Population density impacts the size of census blocks, but there is no minimum or maximum population
size for a census block. Massachusetts received census block data on March 22, 2011.
Although the Census Bureau releases data based on census blocks, in Massachusetts districts are drawn
using wards and precincts.17 A precinct is the smallest geographic unit used in Massachusetts for
election purposes and contains one polling place.18 A ward is comprised of one or more precincts within
a municipality.19 These subdivisions act as building blocks for creating representative districts.20
10
Produced for the Drawing Democracy Project by Common Cause Massachusetts, MassVOTE, & ¿Oìste?
REDISTRICTING IN MASSACHUSETTS
What Factors Guide How State Legislative Districts Are Drawn?
The Massachusetts Constitution provides that House, Senate, and Council districts will consist of
“contiguous territory” with “as nearly as may be” an “equal number of inhabitants.”21 Thus, the
Massachusetts Constitution sets out two principal criteria for drawing state legislative districts:
contiguity and equal inhabitants. “Contiguity” refers to drawing a district so that all precincts within that
district are enclosed within a single boundary (or share coastline on a body of water). “Equal
inhabitants” refers to creating a redistricting plan in which all representative districts have a relatively
equal population. Districts must also be drawn, to the extent possible, to minimize the number of
districts that encompass multiple municipalities and counties, or that divide a municipality among
multiple districts.22 Importantly, however, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has called
population equality the “main organizing principle for legislative districts.”23 Accordingly, the need to
draw equally populated districts is of much greater importance than respecting the boundaries of
political subdivisions.24
In addition to these criteria, section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 requires that a redistricting plan
provide minority groups with equal access to the electoral and political processes (discussed in greater
detail below). Likewise, although districts are not required by law to be compact, a redistricting plan
that contains meandering districts that are unexplainable other than on account of racial motivations
can only be justified by an extraordinary government interest (discussed in greater detail below).
Additionally, the Redistricting Committee is permitted to consider political data, but politics may not be
the only criteria used to draw districts (discussed in greater detail below).
Although the Redistricting Committee will have these factors to guide its decision-making process, it is
important to remember that the redistricting process necessarily involves a complicated balancing
process in which many considerations must be weighed and taken into account. As the Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court has characterized the process:
“While it is the responsibility of the Legislature to draw the redistricting plan, there is no
definitive way to find the ‘best’ such plan, because there is no single ‘best’ way for the
Legislature, let alone the courts, to determine which trade-offs between population equality,
minority vote dilution, and territorial cohesion are most appropriate. The interaction of these
factors is extraordinarily complex in the development of the Statewide plan, requiring an
accumulation of difficult, interlocking judgments.”25
Even if there is no “best” plan, the Redistricting Committee may still produce a plan that is “wrong.”
Accordingly, it is imperative that all voices are heard in the process so that a high-quality redistricting
plan is enacted.
11
Produced for the Drawing Democracy Project by Common Cause Massachusetts, MassVOTE, & ¿Oìste?
REDISTRICTING IN MASSACHUSETTS
What Factors Guide How Congressional Districts Are Drawn?
The most important factor for drawing
congressional districts is equal population.26
Therefore, the Redistricting Committee must
draw each congressional district to enclose nearly
an identical number of people. Another essential
factor that guides congressional redistricting is
compliance with section 2 of the Voting Rights Act
(which is discussed in greater detail below).
The Supreme Court has also identified other
criteria that are considered “traditional
redistricting principles”:





Creating geographically compact and
contiguous districts;
Respecting the borders of political subdivisions;
Preserving communities of interest;
Preserving the cores of existing districts;
Protecting incumbents.27
When is the “Equal Population” Requirement Met?
In 1962, the Supreme Court issued the landmark ruling Baker v. Carr, in which it announced that
representative districts must comply with the command of the Equal Protection Clause that no State
may “deny to any person . . . the equal protection of the laws.”28 In subsequent cases, the Supreme
Court declared that in congressional districts population equality should be achieved “as nearly as is
practicable”29 and that state legislative districts must be “substantially equal.”30 These cases stand for
the principle of “one person, one vote” – that all people should have a relatively equal ability to
participate in the political and electoral processes. This principle is only satisfied if all representative
districts contain an approximately equal number of inhabitants.
Congressional Districting. The standards for population equality are different for congressional districts
than for state legislative districts. Article I, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted by the
Supreme Court to require congressional districts to be drawn as evenly as possible.31 Under this
standard, “absolute population equality” is “the paramount objective” in congressional apportionment
and districting.32 Accordingly, the redistricting process in Massachusetts should produce congressional
districts with minimal population deviations from the ideal district size. The 2010 Census determined
that the population of Massachusetts is 6,547,629. Dividing this population amongst the nine
congressional districts apportioned to the State reveals an ideal district size of 727,514.
State Legislative Districting. On the other hand, the Redistricting Committee will have a great deal more
leeway in drawing state legislative districts. Although these districts must not deviate too greatly from
the ideal population size, the Supreme Court has allowed much larger deviations in these districts than
in congressional districts.33 The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment requires that state
legislative districts are drawn to provide “substantially equal state legislative representation for all
citizens, of all places as well as of all races.”34 Under this standard, a state legislative redistricting
scheme with a deviation of plus or minus 5% from the ideal district size is presumptively valid. 35 For an
12
Produced for the Drawing Democracy Project by Common Cause Massachusetts, MassVOTE, & ¿Oìste?
REDISTRICTING IN MASSACHUSETTS
explanation of how population deviation is measured see Appendix E. The ideal population size for the
House is 40,923, for the Senate is 163,691, and for the Governor’s Council is 818,454.
12
Produced for the Drawing Democracy Project by Common Cause Massachusetts, MassVOTE, & ¿Oìste?
REDISTRICTING IN MASSACHUSETTS
How Do Racial Considerations Impact Redistricting?
Racial Gerrymandering & Minority Vote Dilution. Unfortunately, redistricting plans can be drawn to
dilute or weaken the voting strength of minority groups. Dilution of minority voting strength can result
in underrepresentation or an absence of representation of minority groups. A plan can dilute minority
voting strength in two ways: “cracking” and “packing.”36 “Cracking” involves breaking up a
geographically compact minority group into multiple districts.37 In this manner, a redistricting plan can
prevent a minority group that is large enough to hold a majority in a district from electing a minoritypreferred representative. For example, in the diagram below, the minority population makes up 40% of
the total population, but does not have a majority in any of the five districts.
Cracking
Packing
Minority Population
White Population
Minority Population
White Population
“Packing” refers to the practice of encompassing a minority group within as few districts as possible,
thereby concentrating their voting power.38 Manipulating districts in this manner will allow a
redistricting scheme to minimize the total amount of majority-minority districts.39 For example, in the
diagram above, the minority population is larger than the white population, but nonetheless holds a
majority in only one of the five districts.
Compliance with the Voting Rights Act. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 protects against
minority vote dilution by prohibiting a State from enacting a redistricting scheme that denies minorities
the ability to fairly and equally participate in the political process.40 The focus of this federal law is on
whether a redistricting scheme has a discriminatory effect or result, rather than whether it was enacted
with a discriminatory intent.41 Section 2 does not guarantee minority groups equal representation: “The
ultimate right of § 2 is equality of opportunity, not a guarantee of electoral success for minoritypreferred candidates of whatever race.”42 Nonetheless, it “guarantees minorities a level playing field,
that is, an opportunity for victory at the polls equal to the opportunity enjoyed by others.” 43
In the important case Thornburg v. Gingles the Supreme Court made clear that section 2 does not apply
to all minority populations. Section 2 only requires the legislature to consider the impact of a
13
Produced for the Drawing Democracy Project by Common Cause Massachusetts, MassVOTE, & ¿Oìste?
REDISTRICTING IN MASSACHUSETTS
redistricting scheme on a minority group’s voting strength if the group is: (i) large and compact enough
to constitute a majority in a district; (ii) politically cohesive, and (iii) historically unable to defeat the
white majority’s preferred candidates, absent special circumstances. 44 Together, these three criteria
comprise what has come to be known as the “Gingles test.” It is important to note that the
“compactness” requirement of the first prong focuses on the geographic compactness of the minority
group – that is, this requirement cannot be met by joining two or more minority population centers that
are far apart from each other.45 Moreover, the geographically compact minority group must also be
large enough to make up a mathematical majority (over 50% of the population) within a representative
district.46 Therefore, a minority group that would not constitute a majority is not protected against vote
dilution by section 2 even if a district could be created that provided the minority group with a great
deal of influence in the political process, such as by comprising 45% of the electorate.
Once a redistricting plan is enacted, a minority group that has its voting strength diluted may challenge
the districting scheme in court. In order for section 2 to provide a remedy, however, the minority group
must first demonstrate that it satisfies the Gingles test (see above). Next, the minority group must show
that the totality of circumstances prove that the minority voting strength is diluted through the
redistricting scheme. Factors that should be considered in the totality of circumstances analysis include,
but are not limited to: the history of voting discrimination in the State; the extent of racially polarized
voting in the State; the extent to which members of the minority population endure the effects of past
14
Produced for the Drawing Democracy Project by Common Cause Massachusetts, MassVOTE, & ¿Oìste?
REDISTRICTING IN MASSACHUSETTS
discrimination in education, employment or healthcare; and the ability of members of the minority to be
elected to public office.47 If an analysis of the circumstances reveals that the minority population is
deprived of an equal opportunity to participate in the electoral process, then the redistricting plan must
be redrawn to remediate this problem. Section 2, however, does not require a State to maximize the
number of majority-minority districts within a redistricting plan.48
Following the last redistricting process, two vote dilution challenges were brought against the plan for
Massachusetts House districts. In Black Political Task Force v. Galvin, a federal court found that the plan
violated section 2 because it diluted the opportunity of the African-American population in Boston to
participate in the political process.49 In the originally enacted plan, only one of Boston’s seventeen
House districts was a majority-minority district, despite the fact that the black population comprised
over 20% of the city’s total population.50 Accordingly, the court ordered the legislature to re-draw the
districts to increase the number of majority-minority districts so that the black population would have
an equal opportunity to participate in the electoral process.51 On the other hand, in Meza v. Galvin, the
same court denied a section 2 challenge which contended that the redistricting plan impermissibly
diluted the voting strength of the Hispanic population of Chelsea and East Boston.52 The court
expressed doubt as to whether the Hispanic population could satisfy the Gingles test and dismissed the
claim that the totality of circumstances demonstrated dilution of the voting strength of this group.
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act also has implications for redistricting in certain parts of the United
States. This section requires certain States with a history of using racially discriminatory voting practices
to obtain pre-clearance from the Department of Justice prior to enacting a redistricting plan. The preclearance requirements of section 5, however, do not apply to Massachusetts.
Equal Protection Challenges to Racial Gerrymandering. A redistricting plan may also be vulnerable to
the constitutional claim that it dilutes the voting strength of a minority group in violation of the Equal
Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. In order for a constitutional challenge to succeed, a plaintiff
must not only demonstrate that the redistricting plan has a discriminatory effect, but must also prove
that it was enacted with a discriminatory intent.53 Although the need to show a discriminatory intent
will typically make constitutional challenges more difficult than a section 2 challenge, circumstances may
arise where it is possible to show a violation of the Equal Protection Clause without also proving a
violation of section 2.54
Weight of Racial Considerations in Redistricting. In drawing district lines, the legislature is not
prohibited from considering racial data.55 For example, in order to comply with section 2 of the Voting
Rights Act, the legislature must consider racial data to ensure that the redistricting plan does not
impermissibly dilute voting. Nonetheless, race should not be the most important consideration when
district lines are drawn. If race is the “predominant factor” influencing a redistricting plan, the State is
required to demonstrate that the plan is carefully designed to advance a “compelling state interest.”56
Under certain circumstances, a State can have a compelling interest in remedying past discrimination.57
15
Produced for the Drawing Democracy Project by Common Cause Massachusetts, MassVOTE, & ¿Oìste?
REDISTRICTING IN MASSACHUSETTS
Moreover, the Supreme Court has suggested that a State may have a compelling interest in drawing
districts to comply with the Voting Rights Act.58
16
Produced for the Drawing Democracy Project by Common Cause Massachusetts, MassVOTE, & ¿Oìste?
REDISTRICTING IN MASSACHUSETTS
How Do Political Considerations Impact Redistricting?
The Redistricting Committee can use the redistricting process to affect the outcome of future elections
by discriminating against a political party or designing non-competitive districts. “Partisan
gerrymandering” involves drawing lines that entrench the political party that is in control of the
redistricting process.59 For example, in the diagram below, there is a democratic majority in all four
districts even though democrats make up only 60% of the total population.
Partisan Gerrymander
Bipartisan (Sweetheart)
Gerrymander
Democratic Population
Republican Population
Democratic Population
Republican Population
“Bipartisan gerrymandering” involves drawing lines to prevent competitive elections from occurring in
any district. This practice is also known as “sweetheart” gerrymandering because it ensures that each
political party will be able to hold certain districts in future elections.60 For example, in the diagram
above, the districts are drawn so that both the Democratic and Republican parties can each easily win
two non-competitive elections.
The Redistricting Committee may consider politics when designing a redistricting plan. Indeed, “*c+ourts
recognize that politics is an inherent part of any redistricting plan.”61 The Supreme Court has stated that
avoiding contests between incumbents is a valid redistricting principle.62 Nonetheless, the weight given
to political considerations should not be so great that other
redistricting principles are severely discounted. Overt political
gerrymanders flout democratic principles.63
Unfortunately, under current legal precedents it is very difficult
for a group to successfully challenge a redistricting plan by
alleging a political gerrymander. In recent cases, the Supreme
Court has dismissed challenges on the ground that it could not
determine a proper standard for identifying when there is “too
much partisanship in districting.”64 Because of the difficulty in
distinguishing between permissible and impermissible political
17
Produced for the Drawing Democracy Project by Common Cause Massachusetts, MassVOTE, & ¿Oìste?
REDISTRICTING IN MASSACHUSETTS
considerations, challengers face an uphill battle when arguing that a redistricting plan constitutes
political gerrymandering.65
18
Produced for the Drawing Democracy Project by Common Cause Massachusetts, MassVOTE, & ¿Oìste?
REDISTRICTING IN MASSACHUSETTS
16
Produced for the Drawing Democracy Project by Common Cause Massachusetts, MassVOTE, & ¿Oìste?
REDISTRICTING IN MASSACHUSETTS
Appendix A: Glossary of Redistricting Terms
Absolute deviation
The difference between the population of a
district and the ideal district size. A district’s
absolute deviation is calculated by subtracting
the ideal district’s size from the population of
the district being measured. For example, to
calculate the deviation of a fictional
congressional district with 735,000 people, you
would subtract the ideal district size (728,849)
from the population of the district. This would
reveal an absolute deviation of 6,151.
Census data
Information and statistics on the U.S. population
gathered every decade by the U.S. Census
Bureau and released to the States.
Community of interest
A geographic area, such as a neighborhood or
community, where residents have shared social,
economic, or political interests.
Compactness
A term used to describe a district's geographic
shape, often focusing on the extent to which the
district’s territory is dispersed from its center.
Apportionment (or reapportionment)
Constitutionally mandated process of
determining how many congressional
representatives each State receives. A certain
number of the 435 congressional seats are
allocated to each State based on the proportion
of the State’s population compared to the
national population. Thus, the larger the State
population, the more congressional
representatives the state will be apportioned.
Unlike redistricting, apportionment does not
involve map drawing.
Contiguity
A term used to describe a district in which all
precincts within that district are enclosed within
a single boundary.
Cracking or fracturing
A form of vote dilution that involves breaking up
a geographically compact minority group, that is
large enough to hold a majority in a district, into
multiple districts in order to prevent the
minority group from electing a minoritypreferred representative.
Bi-partisan (sweetheart) gerrymandering
Drawing lines to prevent competitive elections
from occurring in any district. This practice is
also known as “sweetheart” gerrymandering
because it ensures that each political party
holds certain districts in future elections.
Deviation
The measure of how much a district or plan
varies from the ideal population size.
Census block
The smallest geographic unit for which the
Census Bureau collects data. Census blocks are
formed by streets, roads, bodies of water, other
physical features, and legal boundaries shown
on Census Bureau maps. They can vary in size
from a city block in urban areas to many square
miles in rural areas.
Dilution or vote dilution
When the voting strength of a politically
cohesive minority group is weakened by a
redistricting plan.
District
Geographic area that defines the constituency
of an elected official.
17
Produced for the Drawing Democracy Project by Common Cause Massachusetts, MassVOTE, & ¿Oìste?
REDISTRICTING IN MASSACHUSETTS
Gerrymandering
Method of drawing electoral districts whereby
lines are drawn to make a particular election
outcome more likely, giving one group or party
an unfair advantage over another. It is used to
entrench a political party, protect incumbents,
or dilute the voting power of a minority
population in order to make it more difficult to
elect a minority-preferred candidate.
Ideal population size
The number of persons required for each district
to have equal population. It is calculated by
dividing the state’s total population by the
number of representative districts. For
example, according to the Census, the
population of Massachusetts is 6,547,629.
When this number is divided by 9, the number
of congressional representatives, it reveals an
ideal congressional district size of 727,514
people.
Influence district
District in which a large minority group can
influence the outcome of an election, even
though it is too small to control the election
results when voting as a bloc.
Majority-minority district
A district in which racial or ethnic minorities
constitute a majority of the population.
Minority vote dilution
Minority vote dilution occurs when minority
voters are deprived of an equal opportunity to
participate in the electoral process, likely
resulting in underrepresentation or an absence
of representation of the minority group. A
redistricting plan can dilute minority voting
strength by “cracking” or “packing.”
Natural boundaries
Natural geographic features, such as rivers, that
are district boundaries.
18
Produced for the Drawing Democracy Project by Common Cause Massachusetts, MassVOTE, & ¿Oìste?
REDISTRICTING IN MASSACHUSETTS
One-person, one-vote
A constitutional requirement developed by the
U.S. Supreme Court that each district within a
State be substantially equal in population.
Redistricting
Redistricting is the process by which census data
is used to redraw the districts that public
officials are elected from and represent in order
to account for shifts in population. The districts
that are redrawn include those for members of
Congress, state Senate, state House of
Representatives and Governor’s Council. Both
the U.S. Constitution and the Massachusetts
Constitution mandate redistricting.
Packing
The practice of placing a minority group within
as few districts as possible, at levels higher than
necessary in order for minority voters to elect
their preferred candidate. Packing is a form of
vote dilution, as it concentrates the minority
group’s voting power and minimizes the number
of majority-minority districts.
Relative deviation
The percentage difference between the ideal
district and a particular district’s population.
The relative deviation is calculated by dividing
the absolute deviation of a district by the ideal
district size. When the district is larger than the
ideal district, it is expressed as a positive
number, and vice versa. For example, if the
absolute deviation is 7,486 and the ideal district
size is 727,514 then the relative deviation would
be 1.03%.
Partisan gerrymandering
The deliberate drawing of district boundaries to
secure an advantage for the political party that
is in control of the redistricting process.
Political subdivision
A segment of a state, such as a county, city or
town.
Precinct
A geographic area that contains one polling
place. It is the smallest geographic unit used in
Massachusetts for election purposes.
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act
A section of the Voting Rights Act that applies
nationwide and prohibits states from enacting
voting practices or procedures that deny
minorities the ability to fairly and equally
participate in the political process. Section 2
guarantees that minorities have the same
opportunity as other persons to elect a
candidate of their choice, rather than
proportional representation.
Racial gerrymandering
The deliberate drawing of district boundaries to
secure an advantage for one race.
Racially polarized voting or racial bloc voting
A pattern of voting along racial lines where
voters of one race overwhelming support one
candidate and those of another race support
another candidate.
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act
A section of the Voting Rights Act that requires
that certain jurisdictions obtain preclearance of
voting changes, including redistricting plans,
from the U.S. Department of Justice or the
federal district court for the District of Columbia
before those laws take effect. Massachusetts is
not subject to section 5.
Reapportionment
Same as apportionment.
19
Produced for the Drawing Democracy Project by Common Cause Massachusetts, MassVOTE, & ¿Oìste?
REDISTRICTING IN MASSACHUSETTS
Total maximum deviation
The difference between the relative deviation of
the largest district and the smallest district. For
example, suppose the redistricting plan created
congressional districts with the following
populations and relative deviations:
1. 735,000
2. 723,538
3. 729,867
4. 730,453
5. 731,245
6. 721,130
7. 724,359
8. 723,882
9. 728,155
relative deviations of these two districts is
1.91%, which is the total maximum deviation.
Traditional redistricting principles
Factors traditionally used by a state to perform
redistricting, including creating geographically
compact and contiguous districts, respecting the
borders of political subdivisions, preserving
communities of interest, preserving the cores of
existing districts, and protecting incumbents.
1.03%
-0.55%
0.32%
0.40%
0.51%
-0.88%
-0.43%
-0.50%
0.09%
Voting age population (VAP)
The number of people that are at least 18 years
of age.
Voting eligible population (VEP)
The number of people who are eligible to vote.
The largest relative deviation is in district 1
(1.03%) and the smallest relative deviation is in
district 6 (-0.88%). The difference between the
Ward
Area comprised of one or more precincts within
a municipality.
Appendix B: Redistricting Fact Sheet
Redistricting Matters: Where district lines are drawn can determine whether a community can obtain
effective representation through the electoral process. Participating in the redistricting process will help
to ensure that your community is fairly represented at the state and national levels for the next decade.
What Redistricting Is: It is the process of redrawing congressional, state senate, state representative,
and governor’s council districts in order to equalize the number of inhabitants in each district.
How to Participate: There are many ways to get involved in redistricting:
Educate Others
Demand and Attend Hearings
Testify at Public Hearings
Provide Feedback on Maps
Identify and Map Local Communities
Develop and Present Alternative Maps
Who Draws the Lines: The districts will initially be drawn by a joint House and Senate Redistricting
Committee. The legislation creating the districts must then be voted on by all the members of both
houses and signed by the Governor.
20
Produced for the Drawing Democracy Project by Common Cause Massachusetts, MassVOTE, & ¿Oìste?
REDISTRICTING IN MASSACHUSETTS
When Redistricting Happens:
December 21, 2010: Census Bureau released state and national population counts
March 22, 2011: Census Bureau released local census data, which includes information about the
age, race, and ethnicity of residents in each census block
March-June 2011: Redistricting Committee will hold public hearings
Early Fall 2011: Redistricting Committee expected to begin to release proposed district maps
House districts expected to be released first, followed by other maps later in the year or early in
2012
November 2011: Massachusetts Senate and House expected to vote on House district map
Late 2011 or early 2012: Massachusetts Senate and House expected to vote on Congress, Senate,
and Council district maps
Criteria for Drawing Districts: Equal population is the primary guiding principle for drawing both
congressional and state legislative districts. All parts of a state legislative district must also be
contiguous with each other.
The Role of Racial Data: Federal law prohibits the use of redistricting plans to deny minority groups the
ability to fairly and equally participate in the electoral process. Accordingly, the Redistricting Committee
is required to consider racial data to ensure that the district plans present minority groups with a “level
playing field” – that is, to have an equal opportunity to partake in the political process.
Recent Massachusetts Cases: During the last round of redistricting, two cases were brought alleging that
the House redistricting plan diluted minority voting strength in violation of federal law:
Black Political Task Force v. Galvin: Federal court found that the House districting plan diluted the
voting strength of Boston’s African-Americans by splitting up much of the black population amongst
majority-white districts.
Meza v. Galvin: Federal court dismissed claim that House districting plan diluted the voting strength
of the Hispanic population in Chelsea and East Boston.
The Role of Political Data: The Redistricting Committee may consider political data when designing a
redistricting plan. The weight given to political considerations, however, should not be so great that
other redistricting principles are severely discounted.
21
Produced for the Drawing Democracy Project by Common Cause Massachusetts, MassVOTE, & ¿Oìste?
REDISTRICTING IN MASSACHUSETTS
Appendix C: Additional Resources
Additional Background Information:

The Joint Redistricting Committee Website, http://www.malegislature.gov/District, offers legal
resources, public hearing locations and dates, census data, and other useful resources for
redistricting in Massachusetts.

The Brennan Center’s A Citizen’s Guide to Redistricting, available for download at
www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/a_citizens_guide_to_redistricting_2010_edition, is a
great way to learn more about the redistricting process and its intricacies.

The Impact of Redistricting in Your Community: A Guide to Redistricting, a joint publication of the
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Asian American Justice Center (AAJC), and the
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), provides additional information
about the legal issues involved in redistricting and how the redistricting process can directly impact
minority communities.

The American Civil Liberties Union’s Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Redistricting but
Were Afraid to Ask, has additional background information on the redistricting process. It is
available at http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/redistricting_manual.pdf.

The National Conference of State Legislators has many resources and materials, available at
www.ncsl.org/Default.aspx?TabID=746&tabs=1116,115,792#792, including information that
legislators and other key stakeholders are reading in preparation for the redistricting process.

For additional resources and information on the redistricting process, you can visit the Brookings
Institution at http://www.brookings.edu/topics/congressional-redistricting.aspx, FairVote’s Voting
and Democracy Research Center at http://www.fairvote.org/index.php?page=1389, or George
Mason University’s United States Election Project at http://elections.gmu.edu/Redistricting.html.

The Redistricting Game, available at www.redistrictinggame.org, is a fun and informative
redistricting simulation that teaches how redistricting works.

For developments related to redistricting across the United States, you can visit Americans for
Redistricting Reform, at www.americansforredistrictingreform.org.

The National Conference of State Legislatures’ Redistricting Profiles has state-specific information
on redistricting laws and points of contact.

Redistricting the Nation, www.redistrictingthenation.com, offers a district look-up tool for
congressional and state legislative districts where you can search for the compactness scores of
current districts.
22
Produced for the Drawing Democracy Project by Common Cause Massachusetts, MassVOTE, & ¿Oìste?
REDISTRICTING IN MASSACHUSETTS
Tools for Map Drawing:

U.S. Census Bureau Redistricting Data is available for Massachusetts. Visit the Census Bureau’s web
page, www.census.gov/rdo/, to learn more about the data that will be used to draw districts, and for
geographic and population data.

The Public Mapping Project, www.publicmapping.org, provides information about the redistricting
process and makes available the District Builder software, which is an open source software
redistricting application designed to give the public transparent, accessible, and easy-to-use online
mapping tools.

The Pew Hispanic Center’s Census 2010 feature, available at
http://pewhispanic.org/data/census2010/, provides state and county population data by Hispanic
origin in 2010 and 2000 in the form of downloadable Excel files.
23
Produced for the Drawing Democracy Project by Common Cause Massachusetts, MassVOTE, & ¿Oìste?
REDISTRICTING IN MASSACHUSETTS
Appendix D: Joint Redistricting Committee Members
The general mailing address for all Senators and Representatives is:
State House
[Insert Room Number]
Boston, MA 02133
Specific room and phone numbers are provided below.
Senate Members
Chair: Sen. Stanley Rosenberg of Amherst | (617) 722-1532 | Room 320
Vice-Chair: Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz of Boston | (617) 722-1673 | Room 413-C
Democratic Members:
Sen. Barry Finegold of Andover | (617) 722-1612 | Room 416B
Sen. Karen Spilka of Ashland | (617) 722-1640 | Room 511-C
Sen. James Timilty of Walpole | (617) 722-1222 | Room 507
Sen. Dan Wolf of Harwich | (617) 722-1570 | Room 511B
Republican Member:
Sen. Bruce Tarr of Gloucester | (617) 722-1600 | Room 308
House Members
Chair: Rep. Michael Moran of Brighton | (617) 722-2460 | Room 443
Vice-Chair: Rep. Cheryl Coakley-Rivera of Springfield | (617) 722-2014 | Room 39
Democratic Members:
Rep. Demetrius Atsalis of Barnstable | (617) 722-2080 | Room 26
Rep. Garrett Bradley of Hingham | (617) 722-2520 | Room 479
Rep. Antonio Cabral of New Bedford | (617) 722-2017 | Room 466
Rep. Marcos Devers of Lawrence | (617) 722-2011 | Room 146
Rep. Linda Dorcena Forry of Dorchester | (617) 722-2080 | Room 26
Rep. Sean Garballey of Arlington | (617) 722-2090 | Room 540
Rep. Anne Gobi of Spencer | (617) 722-2210 | Room 473F
Rep. Patricia Haddad of Somerset | (617) 722-2600 | Room 370
Rep. John Keenan of Salem | (617) 722-2263 | Room 473B
24
Produced for the Drawing Democracy Project by Common Cause Massachusetts, MassVOTE, & ¿Oìste?
REDISTRICTING IN MASSACHUSETTS
Rep. Stephen Kulik of Worthington | (617) 722-2380 | Room 238
Rep. Vincent Pedone of Worcester | (617) 722-2410 | Room 20
Rep. Alice Peisch of Wellesley | (617) 722-2070 | Room 473G
Rep. Byron Rushing of Boston | (617) 722-2006 | Room 121
Rep. Christopher Speranzo of Pittsfield | (617) 722-2396 | Room 136
Rep. Joseph Wagner of Chicopee | (617) 722-2370 | Room 42
Republican Members:
Rep. Paul Frost of Auburn | (617) 722-2489 | Room 542
Rep. Brad Hill of Ipswich | (617) 722-2100 | Room 128
Rep. Brad Jones of North Reading | (617) 722-2100 | Room 124
Rep. Elizabeth Poirier of North Attleborough | (617) 722-2100 | Room 124
25
Produced for the Drawing Democracy Project by Common Cause Massachusetts, MassVOTE, & ¿Oìste?
REDISTRICTING IN MASSACHUSETTS
Appendix E: How to Measure Population Equality
Population is measured using the most recent federal Census data. The level of population equality
between districts is determined by comparing each district’s deviation from an ideal population size.
The ideal district size is calculated by dividing the state’s population total by the number of
representative districts. For example, according to the Census, the population of Massachusetts is
6,547,629. When this number is divided by 9, the number of congressional representatives, it reveals an
ideal congressional district size of 728,849 people.
Ideal congressional district size = 6,547,629 / 9 = 727,514
Next, it is possible to calculate the absolute deviation of a single district, which is the difference between
the population of that district and the ideal district size.66 The absolute deviation of any single district is
determined by subtracting the ideal district’s size from the population of the district which is being
measured. For example, to calculate the deviation of a fictional congressional district with 735,000
people, you would subtract the ideal district size from the population of the district. This would reveal
an absolute deviation of 6,151:
Absolute deviation = 735,000 – 727,514 = 7,486.
After the absolute deviation is calculated, you can determine the relative deviation, which is the
percentage difference between the ideal district and the district’s actual population. 67 When the district
is larger than the ideal district it is expressed as a positive number, whereas when it is smaller than the
ideal district it is expressed as a negative number. To calculate the relative deviation you would divide
the absolute deviation by the ideal district size, which would reveal that the deviation is equal to 1.03%
Relative deviation = 7,486 / 727,514 = 0.0102 or 1.03%
Another statistic that is important when examining the population equality of different districts is the
total maximum deviation, which is the difference between the relative deviation of the largest district
and the smallest district. For example, suppose the redistricting plan created nine congressional districts
with the following populations and relative deviations:
1. 735,000
2. 723,538
3. 729,867
1.03%
-0.55%
0.32%
4. 730,453
5. 731,245
6. 721,130
0.40%
0.51%
-0.88%
7. 724,359
8. 723,882
9. 728,155
-0.43%
-0.50%
0.09%
The largest relative deviation is in district 1 (1.03%) and the smallest relative deviation is in district 6 (0.88%). The difference between the relative deviations of these two districts is 1.91%, which is the total
maximum deviation.
Total maximum deviation = 1.03% – -0.88% = 1.91%
26
Produced for the Drawing Democracy Project by Common Cause Massachusetts, MassVOTE, & ¿Oìste?
REDISTRICTING IN MASSACHUSETTS
Finally, the average deviation is calculated by averaging the deviations of all districts. The average
deviation of the nine districts above is equal to
(1.03% + 0.55% + 0.32% + 0.40% +
Average deviation = 0.51% + 0.88%+ 0.43% + 0.50% + 0.09%) = 0.52%
9 Districts
27
Produced for the Drawing Democracy Project by Common Cause Massachusetts, MassVOTE, & ¿Oìste?
REDISTRICTING IN MASSACHUSETTS
Appendix F: Letter to Legislator Template
[DATE]
The Honorable [LEGISLATOR FULL NAME]
Room [NUMBER]
State House
Boston, MA 02133
Dear [Rep./Sen.] [LAST NAME]:
In the coming months the Redistricting Committee will re-draw the representative districts of
Massachusetts. The lines that are drawn during the redistricting process will have a
tremendous impact upon elections in the Commonwealth for at least the next decade. I am
writing to express my hope that redistricting is conducted in a transparent manner and that it
results in the drawing of fair districts that present all communities with an equal opportunity
to participate in the political process.
I am writing on behalf of my community [insert description of community]. I hope that you
will urge the members of the Redistricting Committee to keep this community intact within a
representative district.
Additionally, the democratic process would be best served if there is an opportunity for all
communities to analyze and comment on the district plans presented by the Redistricting
Committee prior to the time these plans are voted on by the full Senate and House. I am
urging that the plans be publicly released at least two weeks before any vote is held and the
Redistricting Committee provide communities with an opportunity to respond to the proposed
plans with concerns.
Finally, I would like to express my hope that the entire redistricting process is conducted in a
transparent and public manner. Although a fair result is the ultimate objective, an open
process will only help the legislature to achieve this goal.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
28
Produced for the Drawing Democracy Project by Common Cause Massachusetts, MassVOTE, & ¿Oìste?
REDISTRICTING IN MASSACHUSETTS
Appendix G: Hearing Notice Template
29
Produced for the Drawing Democracy Project by Common Cause Massachusetts, MassVOTE, & ¿Oìste?
REDISTRICTING IN MASSACHUSETTS
30
Produced for the Drawing Democracy Project by Common Cause Massachusetts, MassVOTE, & ¿Oìste?
REDISTRICTING IN MASSACHUSETTS
Appendix H: Documentary Appendix
Voting Rights Act of 1965, Section 2 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1973)
Denial or Abridgement of Right to Vote on Account of Race or Color Through Voting Qualifications or
Prerequisites; Establishment of Violation
(a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed
or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of
the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of
the guarantees set forth in section 4(f)(2) as provided in subsection (b).
(b) A violation of subsection (a) of this section is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it
is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political
subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by
subsection (a) of this section in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the
electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The extent
to which members of a protected class have been elected to office in the State or political subdivision is
one circumstance which may be considered: Provided, That nothing in this section establishes a right to
have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population.
Massachusetts Constitution Article CI (as amended by Articles CIX, CXVII, CXIX)
Section 1. The federal census shall be the basis for determining the representative districts for the ten
year period beginning with the first Wednesday in the third January following the taking of said census.
The House of Representatives shall consist of one hundred and sixty members. The General Court shall,
at its first regular session after the year in which said census was taken, divide the Commonwealth into
one hundred and sixty representative districts of contiguous territory so that each representative will
represent an equal number of inhabitants, as nearly as may be; and such districts shall be formed, as
nearly as may be, without uniting two counties or parts of two or more counties, two towns or parts of
two or more towns, two cities or parts of two or more cities, or a city and a town, or parts of cities and
towns, into one district. Such districts shall also be so formed that no town containing less than twentyfive hundred inhabitants according to said census shall be divided. The General Court may by law limit
the time within which judicial proceedings may be instituted calling in question any such division. Every
representative, for one year at least immediately preceding his election, shall have been an inhabitant of
the district for which he is chosen and shall cease to represent such district when he shall cease to be an
inhabitant of the Commonwealth. The manner of calling and conducting the elections for the choice of
representatives, and of ascertaining their election, shall be prescribed by law.
Section 2. Said federal census shall likewise be the basis for determining the senatorial districts and also
the councillor districts for the ten year period beginning with the first Wednesday in the third January
following the taking of said census. The Senate shall consist of forty members. The General Court shall,
31
Produced for the Drawing Democracy Project by Common Cause Massachusetts, MassVOTE, & ¿Oìste?
REDISTRICTING IN MASSACHUSETTS
at its first regular session after the year in which said census is taken, divide the Commonwealth into
forty districts of contiguous territory, each district to contain, as nearly as may be, an equal number of
inhabitants according to said census; and such districts shall be formed, as nearly as may be, without
uniting two counties, or parts of two or more counties, into one district. The General Court may by law
limit the time within which judicial proceedings may be instituted calling in question such division. Each
district shall elect one senator, who shall have been an inhabitant of this Commonwealth five years at
least immediately preceding his election and at the time of his election shall be an inhabitant of the
district for which he is chosen; and he shall cease to represent such senatorial district when he shall
cease to be an inhabitant of the Commonwealth. The manner of calling and conducting the elections for
the choice of senators and councillors, and of ascertaining their election, shall be prescribed by law.
Section 3. Original jurisdiction is hereby vested in the supreme judicial court upon the petition of any
voter of the Commonwealth, filed with the clerk of the supreme judicial court for the Commonwealth,
for judicial relief relative to the establishment of House of Representatives, councillor and senatorial
districts.
U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 2, Clause 3
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included
within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the
whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding
Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three
Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of
ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed
one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such
enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts
eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four,
Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five,
and Georgia three.
U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 2
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers,
counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to
vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States,
Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the
Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of
age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or
other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of
such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such
State.
32
Produced for the Drawing Democracy Project by Common Cause Massachusetts, MassVOTE, & ¿Oìste?
REDISTRICTING IN MASSACHUSETTS
Appendix I: Public Hearing Dates and Locations
The Redistricting Committee is expected to announce at least two additional hearings. Locations and
times are subject to change. Please check the Redistricting Committee website for an up-to-date list of
public hearings: http://www.malegislature.gov/District/Calendar.
Van Sickle Middle School
Springfield
Saturday, March 26, 2011
10:00 am
Pittsfield City Hall
Pittsfield
Saturday, June 11, 2011
10:00 am
Clark University
Worcester
Monday, April 11, 2011
6:00 pm
Quincy High School
Quincy
Monday, June 6, 2011
6:00 pm
Massasoit Community College
Canton
Monday, May 2, 2011
6:00 pm
Lawrence High School
Lawrence
Monday, June 13, 2011
6:00 pm
Joseph Lee Elementary School
Dorchester
Saturday, May 14, 2011
10:00 am
Lynn City Hall
Lynn
Monday, June 20, 2011
6:00 pm
New Bedford Public Library
New Bedford
Monday, May 16, 2011
6:00 pm
Cape Cod Community College
Barnstable
Monday, June 27, 2011
6:00 pm
Greenfield Community College
Greenfield
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
6:00 pm
33
Produced for the Drawing Democracy Project by Common Cause Massachusetts, MassVOTE, & ¿Oìste?
REDISTRICTING IN MASSACHUSETTS
Endnotes
* Redistricting, COMMON CAUSE MASSACHUSETTS,
http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4849049; Emily W. Allen,
Accountability in Decline: Vanishing Competition in the Massachusetts State Legislature, COMMON CAUSE
MASSACHUSETTS (2002), http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7BFB3C17E2-CDD1-4DF6-92BEBD4429893665%7D/Accountability%20in%20Decline%20_Color_.pdf.
** Redistricting: What to Look For, BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE (2010),
http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/Democracy/13%20What%20to%20Look%20For.pdf.
1
See Justin Levitt, A Citizen’s Guide to Redistricting, BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE 2 (2010) [hereinafter
Brennan Center Redistricting Guide], available at
http://brennan.3cdn.net/7182a7e7624ed5265d_6im622teh.pdf.
2
See Penda D. Hair & Pamela S. Karlan, Redistricting for Inclusive Democracy, ADVANCEMENT PROJECT 27
(2002), http://web.archive.org/web/20061025234729/http://www.advancementproject.org/RFD.pdf.
3
See Brennan Center Redistricting Guide at 10-13.
4
See Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964) (“We hold that, construed in its historical context, the
command of Art. I, § 2, that Representatives be chosen ‘by the People of the several States’ means that
as nearly as is practicable one man’s vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as
another’s”)
5
Attorney General v. Suffolk County Apportionment Commissioners, 224 Mass. 598, 604 (1916).
6
Unless otherwise noted, the information in this section was gathered from the Brennan Center
Redistricting Guide.
7
Get Involved, REDRAWING THE LINES, http://www.redrawingthelines.org/getinvolved.
8
Id.
9
Mass. Const. Article CI.
10
Id.
11
Journal of the House, March 5, 2009, http://www.mass.gov/legis/journal/hj030509.pdf; Associated
Press, Mass. Senate Nixes Independent Redistricting Panel, Jan. 20, 2011,
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/01/20/mass_senate_nixes_independ
ent_redistricting_panel/.
12
Bill S.9 (adopted in Senate on Feb. 10, 2011; adopted in House on Mar. 2, 2011), available at
http://www.malegislature.gov/Bills/187/Senate/S00009
13
Mass Const. Art. CI, section 1, Art. CXVII, Art. CXIX.
14
Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Redistricting but Were Afraid to Ask, AMERICAN CIVIL
LIBERTIES UNION 10 (2010) [hereinafter ACLU Redistricting Guide], available at
http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/2010_REDISTRICTING_GUIDE_web.pdf.
15
Brennan Center Redistricting Guide at 16.
34
Produced for the Drawing Democracy Project by Common Cause Massachusetts, MassVOTE, & ¿Oìste?
REDISTRICTING IN MASSACHUSETTS
16
http://factfinder.census.gov/home/en/epss/glossary_c.html#census_block. The Census Bureau has
stated that census blocks are configured based on a number of factors, including topography, water
features, land survey systems and the age, type and density of development. Census Bureau, GEOGRAPHIC
AREAS REFERENCE MANUAL 11-10 (1994), available at
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/GARM/Ch11GARM.pdf.
17
Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education, MASSACHUSETTS ELECTION ADMINISTRATION, CAMPAIGN FINANCE
nd
Ed.) [Hereinafter MCLE Election, Campaign Finance and Lobby Law]; M.G.L. ch.
54, §§ 2, 4.
AND LOBBYING LAW 167 (2
18
MCLE Election, Campaign Finance and Lobby Law at 167.
19
Id. at 167.
20
Id. at 166.
21
Mass. Const. Art. CI.
22
House districts “shall be formed, as nearly as may be, without uniting two counties or parts of two or
more counties, two towns or parts of two or more towns, two cities or parts of two or more cities, or a
city and a town, or parts of cities and towns, into one district.” Senate districts “shall be formed, as
nearly as may be, without uniting two counties, or parts of two or more counties, into one district.”
Mass. Const. Art. CI.
23
McClure v. Secretary of the Commonwealth, 436 Mass. 614, 616 (2002).
24
Mayor of Cambridge v. Secretary of the Commonwealth, 436 Mass. 476 (2002); McClure, 436 Mass.
614.
25
McClure v. Secretary of the Commonwealth, 436 Mass. at 624.
26
Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725, 732-33 (1983).
27
Redistricting Law 2010, NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATORS 105-106 (2010) [hereinafter NCSL
Redistricting Guide].
28
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962).
29
Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. at 8.
30
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 568 (1964).
31
Wesberry, 376 U.S. at 18 (“While it may not be possible to draw congressional districts with
mathematical precision, that is no excuse for ignoring our Constitution's plain objective of making equal
representation for equal numbers of people the fundamental goal for the House of Representatives.
That is the high standard of justice and common sense which the Founders set for us.”).
32
Karcher, 462 U.S. at 732-33.
33
See Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. at 579 (“Since, almost invariably, there is a significantly larger number
of seats in state legislative bodies to be distributed within a State than congressional seats, it may be
feasible to use political subdivision lines to a greater extent in establishing state legislative districts than
in congressional districting while still affording adequate representation to all parts of the State. To do
35
Produced for the Drawing Democracy Project by Common Cause Massachusetts, MassVOTE, & ¿Oìste?
REDISTRICTING IN MASSACHUSETTS
so would be constitutionally valid, so long as the resulting apportionment was one based substantially
on population and the equal-population principle was not diluted in any significant way. Somewhat
more flexibility may therefore be constitutionally permissible with respect to state legislative
apportionment than in congressional districting.”).
34
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. at 568 (emphasis added).
35
E.g., White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755, 763-64 (1973) (“*W+e cannot glean an equal protection violation
from the single fact that two legislative districts in Texas differ from one another by as much as 9.9%,
when compared to the ideal district.”).
36
ACLU Redistricting Guide at 11.
37
Id.
38
Id.
39
Id.
40
Voting Rights Act of 1965 § 2, 42 U.S.C. § 1973(a) (“No . . . standard, practice, or procedure shall be
imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or
abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color . . .”);
Black Political Task Force v. Galvin, 300 F. Supp. 2d 291, 299 (D. Mass. 2004) (stating the “critical issue in
a vote dilution case is whether the challenged districting scheme deprives minority voters of an equal
opportunity to participate in the electoral process and to elect candidates of their choice.”) Brennan
Center Redistricting Guide at 46.
41
Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 43-44 (1986). When Congress amended the Voting Rights Act in
1982 it made clear that a section 2 challenge did not require proof that a standard or practice was
instituted with an intent to discriminate.
42
Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1014 n.11 (1994); Section 2 explicitly states that “nothing in this
section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their
proportion in the population.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973(b).
43
Black Political Task Force v. Galvin, 300 F. Supp. 2d at 298 (citing Vecinos De Barrio Uno v. City of
Holyoke, 72 F.3d 973, 979 (1st Cir. 1995)).
44
Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. at 50-51.
45
League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399, 435 (2006); NCSL Redistricting Guide
at 74.
46
Bartlett v. Strickland, 129 S. Ct. 1231 (2009).
47
Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. at 44-45; S. Rep. No. 97-417 at 28-29 (1982).
48
Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997.
49
Black Political Task Force v. Galvin, 300 F. Supp. 2d 291.
50
Id. at 311.
36
Produced for the Drawing Democracy Project by Common Cause Massachusetts, MassVOTE, & ¿Oìste?
REDISTRICTING IN MASSACHUSETTS
51
Id. at 316.
52
Meza v. Galvin, 322 F. Supp. 2d. 52 (D. Mass. 2004).
53
Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630, 642-43 (1993).
54
Meza v. Galvin, 322 F. Supp. 2d at 74 (“we hesitate to dispose mechanically of plaintiffs' constitutional
claims because we think it may be possible, as an analytical matter, for them to prove the requisite
intent for that claim despite their inability to make out a § 2 claim.”).
55
Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996).
56
Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 920 (1995); Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234 (2001). Under the Equal
Protection Clause, any law that creates distinctions based on race is constitutionally suspect. The
Supreme Court has traditionally subjected such laws to “strict scrutiny,” which requires the government
to defend the law by demonstrating that it is “narrowly tailored” to a “compelling state interest.”
57
Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899, 909 (“A State's interest in remedying the effects of past or present racial
discrimination may in the proper case justify a government's use of racial distinctions.”); NCSL
Redistricting Guide at 76.
58
Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952.
59
Brennan Center Redistricting Guide at 7.
60
Id.
61
NCSL Redistricting Guide at 115; Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735, 752-53 (1973).
62
Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725.
63
Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267, 292 (2004) (plurality opinion).
64
Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. at 286; League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399.
In Vieth, Justice Kennedy elaborated on the difficulty of determining a proper judicial standard for
identifying political gerrymanders: “When presented with a claim of injury from partisan
gerrymandering, courts confront two obstacles. First is the lack of comprehensive and neutral principles
for drawing electoral boundaries. No substantive definition of fairness in districting seems to command
general assent. Second is the absence of rules to limit and confine judicial intervention. With uncertain
limits, intervening courts — even when proceeding with best intentions — would risk assuming political,
not legal, responsibility for a process that often produces ill will and distrust.” Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S.
at 306-07 (Kennedy, J concurring).
65
66
MCLE Election, Campaign Finance and Lobby Law at 171.
67
Id.
37
Produced for the Drawing Democracy Project by Common Cause Massachusetts, MassVOTE, & ¿Oìste?