Loren Lippincott
Every ten years the boundary lines for our three congressional districts are redrawn based on the U.S. Census. The same is true for our 49 legislative districts, the State School Board, Board of Regents and the domains of many other elected officials. Many factors are taken into account in this process. But once in a while districts are redrawn middecade, as is currently happening in Texas. Since the nation’s headlines have been filled with the recent Texas redraw drama, let’s take a look at how that process is conducted here.
In Nebraska, the state legislature has primary control of the redistricting process for both state legislative and our three congressional districts. The political district boundaries pass just like any other legislation, with a majority vote of the body. The first draft is often done by a legislative committee chosen by leadership and the bill then follows the same process as other legislation and is finally signed by the governor.
Historically, mid-decade redistricting is uncommon due to legal and political constraints. The Supreme Court’s ruling in LULAC v. Perry (2006) clarified mid-decade redistricting is constitutional, but many states have statutes or constitutional provisions limiting it to court-ordered cases or state-specific triggers.
States like Texas and New York stand out because of frequent court challenges leading to redraws. These states often face allegations of partisan or racial “gerrymandering” (the manipulation of an electoral constituency to favor one political party), prompting judicial intervention.
States in which one political party controls both executive and legislative branches are more likely to attempt mid-decade redistricting for political gain, though this is often contested legally.
States with many congressional seats, such as Texas with 38 and Florida with 28, have more opportunities for gerrymandering and thus face more scrutiny and litigation, leading to additional redistricting. Politically competitive states like North Carolina and Ohio are battlegrounds for partisan map-drawing, increasing the likelihood of legal challenges and redraws. States with strong anti-gerrymandering laws or active state courts see more frequent redraws due to judicial rulings.
Texas, North Carolina, Ohio, Florida and New York are among the states that have most frequently performed congressional redistricting over the past 50 years, primarily due to mid-decade redraws driven by court orders, partisan efforts or state-specific rules. Texas stands out for its bold 2003 mid-decade redistricting and the ongoing proposals in 2025. North Carolina and Ohio are notable for repeated court-mandated redraws.
In other states, mid-term redistricting is rare and controversial. However, proponents argue it can have certain advantages depending on the context, and can address inequalities. Presently there are nine states (all New England states plus Hawaii) where 41.3 percent of the votes cast are Republican but those Republicans have ZERO representation in the U.S. House. In six other blue states where an average of 41 percent of votes cast are Republican, only 19.6 percent of their House Representatives are Republican.
Mid-term redistricting can also adjust for significant population changes that occur between censuses, such as rapid urbanization, migration or demographic shifts. Redistricting ensures districts more accurately reflect current population distributions, maintaining the principle of “one person, one vote.” If district boundaries are found to be malapportioned (e.g., due to unequal population growth), mid-term redistricting can restore equitable representation sooner rather than waiting for the next census cycle.
Court decisions may invalidate existing district maps due to gerrymandering, Voting Rights Act violations or other legal issues. Mid-term redistricting allows for timely corrections to ensure compliance with legal standards.
In cases of significant political or administrative changes, such as the forming of new counties or municipalities, mid-term redistricting can align boundaries with updated governance structures.
Adjusting boundaries midterm can also better reflect changing community interests or demographic trends, potentially improving representation for underrepresented groups.
In rare cases, such as natural disasters or major economic shifts causing rapid population movement, mid-term redistricting could help maintain fair representation in affected areas.
While as the Texas scenario shows, mid-decade redistricting can be controversial, in my mind the benefits listed above outweigh the negatives. And with statistics showing that the average American family moves once every seven years, it would appear that a more regular re-balancing of districts is warranted to keep things equitable.
Loren Lippincott represents Legislative District 34 in the Nebraska State Senate. Read his column in the Nance County Journal.