Which states use independent commissions vs legislative mapmaking for congressional districts?
Executive summary
A clear national split exists: a majority of states leave congressional redistricting to their legislatures, while a smaller but growing cohort relies on commissions or hybrid systems to draw lines; according to consolidated reporting, 33 states are legislature‑dominant, 11 states (plus D.C.) use commissions for congressional maps, and two states employ hybrid models that share authority between commissions and legislatures [1] [2] [3]. The funding, selection rules and practical power of those commissions vary widely, producing important differences in how insulated mapmaking is from partisan actors [4] [5].
1. The numerical picture: commissions are influential but not dominant
Authoritative trackers agree the legislature remains the primary mapmaker in most states: Ballotpedia’s state-by-state tally reports 33 states where legislatures play the dominant role in congressional redistricting, while nine states use commissions outright and two use hybrid systems — totaling 11 commission-involved jurisdictions counting hybrids [1] [2]. LGBT Map’s Democracy Maps similarly reports 11 states plus D.C. that have an independent commission for congressional redistricting and additional states with advisory or backup panels, underscoring that commission models cover roughly a fifth of the electorate but not a majority of states [3].
2. What “independent commission” means in practice — and why it matters
Groups that advocate for commissions define Independent Redistricting Commissions (IRCs) as bodies separate from legislatures intended to keep politicians from drawing their own districts; Campaign Legal Center and other observers stress that IRCs vary by structure, selection criteria and legal authority, and are designed to place voters — not officeholders — at the center of mapmaking [4]. The Brennan Center notes that commissions insulated from partisan interests tended to produce more competitive seats in recent cycles, while court-drawn maps showed the most competitiveness overall, highlighting that independence can have measurable electoral consequences [6].
3. Examples and subdivisions: citizen, political‑appointee, backup and advisory models
Not all commissions are identical: some are citizen-led and exclude current officeholders, others are political‑appointee commissions, and some operate only as advisory or backup mechanisms if legislatures fail to act [4] [7] [2]. The American Academy of Arts and Sciences lists seven states that established independent citizen commissions — Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Michigan, Montana and Washington — illustrating a core group of voter‑driven IRCs, though other states’ commissions may include political appointees or allow legislative overrides [8] [5].
4. Hybrids, backups and the legislative default
A substantial number of states use hybrid or multi‑step systems: Connecticut and Maine require supermajorities for legislative approval, some states have governor advisory bodies whose plans go to the legislature, and several have “backup” commissions that step in only if the legislature misses a deadline — all mechanisms that blur a simple binary of “commission vs legislature” [7] [9] [6]. Ballotpedia and the Bipartisan Policy Center emphasize that these mechanisms matter because they change who ultimately controls the map when political stalemate occurs [1] [9].
5. Politics, litigation and the shifting terrain
Redistricting remains a contested political and legal battleground: mid‑decade remaps, litigation and legislative pushes to alter who draws lines have been frequent in recent cycles, and the Brennan Center and redistricting scholars document that state choices about commissions versus legislative control have tangible partisan effects and invite litigation when parties perceive unfair advantage [6] [10]. Advocates for commissions present them as anti‑gerrymander reforms [4], while critics point out variation in commission design and the potential for political capture via appointment rules [5].
6. What reporting can and cannot say from the provided sources
The assembled sources converge on the broad allocation of authority — legislature‑dominant in 33 states, commissions in 11 (including hybrids), and a handful of advisory/backup mechanisms — and provide named examples of citizen commissions and hybrid models [1] [8] [2]. The sources do not, however, supply a single, fully enumerated list of all 11 commission states within this packet, nor do they uniformly catalogue every state’s exact commission rules; therefore a definitive roster should be drawn from a dedicated state‑by‑state table (Ballotpedia/NCSL/Brennan Center) for readers who need a line‑by‑line inventory beyond the totals and examples cited here [1] [11] [6].