Fair Districts USA
Eliminating Gerrymandering Through Fair Redistricting
Building Fair Congressional Districts
Our platform provides transparent, data-driven solutions to eliminate gerrymandering and ensure every citizen's vote carries equal weight in congressional representation.
Fair Representation
Equal population distribution across all districts
Community Integrity
Preserving communities of interest and geographic cohesion
Transparent Process
Open-source algorithms and public accountability
National Redistricting Overview
Congressional Districts by State
Gerrymandering Risk Assessment
Fair Redistricting Methodology
Core Fairness Principles
Equal Population
Each district contains approximately equal population based on latest census data
Contiguity
All parts of a district must be geographically connected
Compactness
Districts should be reasonably compact, not stretched or oddly shaped
Communities of Interest
Preserve natural communities, counties, and municipalities where possible
Fairness Metrics
State-by-State Analysis
Comprehensive review of all 50 states' congressional districts and redistricting challenges
Alabama
7 DistrictsCurrent issues: Potential packing of minority voters, irregular district boundaries.
Recommendation: Increase compactness, ensure fair minority representation.
Alaska
1 DistrictAt-large district covers entire state.
Status: Fair representation, no redistricting issues.
Arizona
9 DistrictsIndependent redistricting commission provides oversight.
Status: Good model for fair redistricting process.
Arkansas
4 DistrictsRural-urban divide creates natural geographic challenges.
Recommendation: Review urban core representation.
California
52 DistrictsIndependent Citizens Redistricting Commission ensures fairness.
Status: National model for independent redistricting.
Colorado
8 DistrictsNew independent commission implemented in 2020.
Status: Recent reforms show promising results.
Connecticut
5 DistrictsBipartisan commission with judicial backup system.
Status: Mixed results, room for improvement.
Delaware
1 DistrictAt-large district covers entire state.
Status: No redistricting concerns.
Florida
28 DistrictsRecent maps show significant partisan advantage and unusual shapes.
Priority: Implement fair districts amendments enforcement.
Georgia
14 DistrictsConcerns about minority representation and partisan gerrymandering.
Recommendation: Independent commission consideration.
Hawaii
2 DistrictsGeographic constraints limit manipulation potential.
Status: Natural boundaries provide fair representation.
Idaho
2 DistrictsBipartisan commission oversees redistricting process.
Status: Generally fair with room for improvement.
Illinois
17 DistrictsHistorically gerrymandered with oddly-shaped districts.
Priority: Reform needed to ensure fair representation.
Indiana
9 DistrictsLegislative control raises partisan concerns.
Recommendation: Consider independent oversight.
Iowa
4 DistrictsGold standard: Non-partisan staff draws districts.
Status: National model for fair redistricting.
Kansas
4 DistrictsSome concerns about urban area representation.
Recommendation: Review compactness standards.
Kentucky
6 DistrictsSplit control creates some balance in process.
Status: Could benefit from reform measures.
Louisiana
6 DistrictsVoting Rights Act compliance issues and partisan concerns.
Priority: Ensure minority representation compliance.
Maine
2 DistrictsLegislative process with advisory commission input.
Status: Generally fair, minor concerns.
Maryland
8 DistrictsExtreme gerrymandering with highly irregular shapes.
Critical: Immediate reform needed.
Massachusetts
9 DistrictsSome oddly-shaped districts raise fairness concerns.
Recommendation: Independent commission consideration.
Michigan
13 DistrictsNew independent commission shows promising results.
Status: Successful reform implementation.
Minnesota
8 DistrictsDivided government provides some balance.
Status: Generally fair with court oversight.
Mississippi
4 DistrictsVoting Rights Act considerations important.
Status: Ongoing monitoring required.
Missouri
8 DistrictsVoters approved reform, but legislature reversed it.
Priority: Restore voter-approved reforms.
Montana
2 DistrictsGained second district, commission oversees process.
Status: New system under evaluation.
Nebraska
3 DistrictsUnicameral legislature provides unique process.
Status: Generally fair, some concerns.
Nevada
4 DistrictsRapid population growth creates redistricting challenges.
Recommendation: Monitor population shifts.
New Hampshire
2 DistrictsLegislative process with some bipartisan input.
Status: Generally compact and fair.
New Jersey
12 DistrictsBipartisan commission with tiebreaker system.
Status: Good model for fair process.
New Mexico
3 DistrictsLegislative process with court backup.
Status: Recent maps show improvement.
New York
26 DistrictsCommission process overridden, court intervention occurred.
Status: Reform implementation challenged.
North Carolina
14 DistrictsExtreme partisan gerrymandering with court battles.
Critical: Major reform needed.
North Dakota
1 DistrictAt-large district covers entire state.
Status: No redistricting concerns.
Ohio
15 DistrictsVoters approved reform, but implementation struggles.
Priority: Enforce voter-approved changes.
Oklahoma
5 DistrictsLegislative process with some partisan concerns.
Recommendation: Independent oversight consideration.
Oregon
6 DistrictsLegislative process with secretary of state backup.
Status: Generally fair with room for improvement.
Pennsylvania
17 DistrictsCourt intervention improved previous gerrymandered maps.
Status: Significant improvement from court oversight.
Rhode Island
2 DistrictsSmall state with limited manipulation potential.
Status: Geographic constraints limit issues.
South Carolina
7 DistrictsConcerns about minority representation and partisan fairness.
Recommendation: Independent oversight needed.
South Dakota
1 DistrictAt-large district covers entire state.
Status: No redistricting concerns.
Tennessee
9 DistrictsUrban areas split to dilute voting power.
Priority: Address urban representation issues.
Texas
38 DistrictsLarge state with significant partisan gerrymandering concerns.
Priority: Major reform needed for fair representation.
Utah
4 DistrictsLegislature overrode voter-approved independent commission.
Priority: Restore voter-approved reforms.
Vermont
1 DistrictAt-large district covers entire state.
Status: No redistricting concerns.
Virginia
11 DistrictsNew bipartisan commission shows promise.
Status: Successful reform implementation.
Washington
10 DistrictsBipartisan commission provides fair oversight.
Status: Good model for fair redistricting.
West Virginia
2 DistrictsLost a district, geographic constraints help fairness.
Status: Generally fair with natural boundaries.
Wisconsin
8 DistrictsExtreme partisan gerrymandering, ongoing legal battles.
Critical: Immediate reform needed.
Wyoming
1 DistrictAt-large district covers entire state.
Status: No redistricting concerns.
Redistricting Tools and Resources
Fairness Calculator
Calculate efficiency gap, partisan bias, and other fairness metrics for any district map.
- Efficiency Gap Analysis
- Partisan Symmetry Tests
- Compactness Scoring
- Population Deviation Check
Interactive Map Builder
Draw your own district boundaries and test them against fairness criteria.
- Drag-and-Drop Interface
- Real-time Validation
- Census Data Integration
- Export Capabilities
Legal Compliance Checker
Ensure proposed districts meet all federal and state legal requirements.
- Voting Rights Act Compliance
- Equal Protection Analysis
- State Constitutional Review
- Court Decision Database
Reform Recommendations
Immediate Actions
- Establish independent redistricting commissions in high-risk states
- Implement transparent, public redistricting processes
- Adopt mathematical fairness standards
- Require public comment periods for all proposed maps
Long-term Solutions
- Constitutional amendments for fair redistricting
- Federal legislation establishing minimum standards
- Algorithmic redistricting with human oversight
- Continuous monitoring and evaluation systems
© 2024 Damaged Nation. All rights reserved.