II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1972 

To create a more representative and accountable Congress by prohibiting 

partisan gerrymandering and ensuring that any redistricting of congressional district boundaries results in fair, effective, and accountable representation for all people. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 25, 2019 

Mr. BENNET introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To create a more representative and accountable Congress 

by prohibiting partisan gerrymandering and ensuring 

that any redistricting of congressional district boundaries 

results in fair, effective, and accountable representation 

for all people. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fair Maps Act of 

5 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds the following: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 1972 IS

1 (1) Democracy in the United States is rooted in 

2 the notion of actual representation and a rejection of 

3 the earlier British concept of virtual representation. 

4 In 1776, in Thoughts on Government, John Adams 

5 wrote that a legislative assembly ‘‘should be in mini6 ature, an exact portrait of the people at large.’’. 

7 Thomas Paine argued in Common Sense that a leg8 islature should act ‘‘in the same manner as the 

9 whole body [of the people] would [act] were they 

10 present.’’. At the Constitutional Convention, both 

11 Federalists and Anti-Federalists agreed. Federalist 

12 James Wilson declared, for example, that the new 

13 House of Representatives ‘‘ought to be the most 

14 exact transcript of the whole Society’’, while his 

15 counterpart George Mason argued that the ‘‘req16 uisites in actual representation are that the Reps. 

17 should sympathize with their constituents; shd. think 

18 as they think, & feel as they feel.’’. 

19 (2) The Supreme Court made clear in Reynolds 

20 v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), that the objective of 

21 redistricting is to achieve ‘‘fair and effective rep22 resentation for all’’, that legislatures ‘‘should be bod23 ies which are collectively responsive to the popular 

24 will’’, and that the Constitution ‘‘guarantees the op25 portunity for equal participation by all voters’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•S 1972 IS

1 (3) Partisan gerrymandering is incompatible 

2 with democratic principles at the foundation of the 

3 Republic. The drawing of electoral districts to ben4 efit or disadvantage certain political parties denies 

5 people fair, effective, and accountable representation 

6 by allowing representatives to choose their voters 

7 rather than voters to choose their representatives. 

8 (4) In Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 

9 (1986), the Supreme Court explained that it has 

10 ‘‘repeatedly stated that districting that would ‘oper11 ate to minimize or cancel out the voting strength of 

12 racial or political elements of the voting population’ 

13 would raise a constitutional question’’. 

14 (5) The Constitution of the United States em15 powers Congress to ensure that congressional dis16 tricting promotes fair, effective, and accountable 

17 representation for all people, as demonstrated in— 

18 (A) article I, section 2, clause 1, of the 

19 Constitution of the United States; 

20 (B) article I, section 4, clause 1, of the 

21 Constitution of the United States; 

22 (C) article I, section 5, clause 1, of the 

23 Constitution of the United States; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
4 

•S 1972 IS

1 (D) section 5 of the Fourteenth Amend2 ment to the Constitution of the United States; 

3 and 

4 (E) section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment 

5 to the Constitution of the United States. 

6 (6) In Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004), 

7 the Supreme Court recognized that ‘‘the Framers 

8 provided a remedy’’ for partisan gerrymandering ‘‘in 

9 the Constitution’’ through the ‘‘power bestowed on 

10 Congress to regulate elections, and . . . to restrain 

11 the practice of political gerrymandering.’’. 

12 (7) This power ‘‘has not lain dormant,’’ as Con13 gress has repeatedly exercised its authority under 

14 article I, section 4 to regulate congressional dis15 tricting criteria when Congress passed the Appor16 tionment Act of 1842 (5 Stat. 491), the Apportion17 ment Act of 1862 (12 Stat. 572), the Apportionment 

18 Act of 1872 (17 Stat. 28), the Apportionment Act 

19 of 1901 (31 Stat. 733), the Apportionment Act of 

20 1911 (37 Stat. 13), the Apportionment Act of 1941 

21 (55 Stat. 761), and the 1967 amendment to the Ap22 portionment Act of 1929 (Public Law 90–196). 

23 SEC. 3. DISTRICTING CRITERIA. 

24 (a) REQUIRED CRITERIA.—Following each Federal 

25 decennial census of population, each State with more than 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
5 

•S 1972 IS

1 one congressional district shall establish or alter the 

2 boundaries of each congressional district of the State (re3 ferred to in this Act as a ‘‘districting plan’’) in accordance 

4 with each of the following criteria: 

5 (1) Districts shall comply with the United 

6 States Constitution, including the requirement that 

7 they equalize total population. 

8 (2) Districts shall comply with the Voting 

9 Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10301 et seq.). 

10 (3) Districts shall provide racial, ethnic, and 

11 language minorities with an equal opportunity to 

12 participate in the political process and to elect can13 didates of choice and shall not dilute or diminish 

14 their ability to elect candidates of choice whether 

15 alone or in coalition with others. 

16 (4) Districts shall respect communities of inter17 est, neighborhoods, and political subdivisions to the 

18 extent practicable. A community of interest is de19 fined as an area with recognized similarities of inter20 ests, including ethnic, racial, economic, social, cul21 tural, geographic, or historic identities. Communities 

22 of interest may, in certain circumstances, include po23 litical subdivisions such as counties, municipalities, 

24 or school districts, but shall not include common reVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:45 Jun 28, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1972.IS S1972

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
6 

•S 1972 IS

1 lationships with political parties or political can2 didates. 

3 (b) PROHIBITED CRITERIA.—Except to the extent 

4 necessary to comply with subsection (a)(2) and (3) and 

5 section 4, in establishing or altering the boundaries of any 

6 congressional district of a State, the State may not con7 sider the following criteria: 

8 (1) The political party registration or affiliation 

9 of the residents of the State. 

10 (2) The voting history of the residents of the 

11 State. 

12 (3) The election results of the precincts of the 

13 State. 

14 (4) The place of residence of any incumbent, 

15 political candidate, or potential political candidate. 

16 (c) PERMISSIBLE CRITERIA.—A State may consider 

17 other criteria, in addition to the required criteria under 

18 subsection (a), in establishing or altering the boundaries 

19 of its congressional districts, to the extent such other cri20 teria do not conflict with the requirements of this section 

21 or result in a violation of section 4. The permissible cri22 teria under this subsection may include any of the fol23 lowing: 

24 (1) Geographic contiguity and compactness. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
7 

•S 1972 IS

1 (2) Respect for counties, cities, and other polit2 ical subdivisions. 

3 SEC. 4. PROHIBITION ON PARTISAN GERRYMANDERING. 

4 A State shall not establish a districting plan that has 

5 the purpose or, except as necessary to comply with para6 graphs (1) through (3) of section 3(a), will have the effect 

7 of unduly favoring or disfavoring any political party. 

8 SEC. 5. ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES. 

9 (a) RIGHT OF ACTION.— 

10 (1) IN GENERAL.—Any eligible voter of a State 

11 may bring a civil action before a 3-judge court con12 vened in accordance with section 2284 of title 28, 

13 United States Code, for a violation of section 3 or 

14 4. 

15 (2) COURT ORDER.—A court in a civil action 

16 under this subsection— 

17 (A) may issue an order— 

18 (i) invalidating the districting plan of 

19 such State on the grounds that the plan 

20 violates section 3 or 4; and 

21 (ii) enjoining the use of that dis22 tricting plan and requiring the State to de23 velop a remedial districting plan that does 

24 not violate section 3 or 4 in accordance 

25 with subsection (b); 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
8 

•S 1972 IS

1 (B) shall consider any violation of section 

2 3 to be probative evidence that the districting 

3 plan has the purpose of unduly favoring or 

4 disfavoring a political party in contravention of 

5 section 4; and 

6 (C) in connection with an asserted claim of 

7 a violation of section 4, may consider, among 

8 other things, statistical evidence of the extent 

9 and durability of partisan bias, electoral respon10 siveness, and the ability of each party to trans11 late votes into seat share. 

12 (b) REMEDIES RELATED TO PROHIBITED PARTISAN

13 GERRYMANDERING.—In remedying a violation of section 

14 4, a court shall apply the following: 

15 (1) If the court finds that the State has estab16 lished a districting plan with the purpose of unduly 

17 favoring or disfavoring a political party, the court 

18 shall appoint a special master or panel of special 

19 masters to develop a remedial districting plan, which 

20 shall be approved by the court before taking effect. 

21 (2) If the court finds that the State has estab22 lished a districting plan that will have the effect, but 

23 does not have the purpose, of unduly favoring or 

24 disfavoring a political party, the court may, in its 

25 discretion— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
9 

•S 1972 IS

1 (A) appoint a special master or panel of 

2 special masters to develop a remedial districting 

3 plan, which shall be approved by the court be4 fore taking effect; or 

5 (B) allow the State the opportunity to de6 velop a remedial districting plan, which shall be 

7 approved by the court before taking effect. 

8 (c) ADOPTION OF REMEDIAL MAPS.—Any remedial 

9 districting plan shall comply with the requirements of sec10 tion 3 and 4 and shall not become effective until approved 

11 by the court after an evidentiary hearing at which mem12 bers of the public may appear and present evidence, in13 cluding expert testimony with respect to the compliance 

14 of the remedial plan with all of the provisions of the Act. 

15 (d) REMEDY PENDING APPEAL.—Notwithstanding 

16 the pendency of any appeal of an order finding a violation 

17 of section 3 or 4, no stay shall be issued which shall bar 

18 the development and adoption of a remedial districting 

19 plan, whether developed by the State or by the special 

20 master or panel of special masters (as the case may be), 

21 pending such appeal. 

22 (e) INTERIM PLAN.—In the event that an upcoming 

23 Federal election requires an interim districting plan to be 

24 used in such election, nothing shall be construed to limit 

25 the authority of the court to modify such interim disVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:45 Jun 28, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1972.IS S1972

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
10 

•S 1972 IS

1 tricting plan in the future or shall be interpreted as lim2 iting the right of citizens of the State to obtain other or 

3 further relief in connection with the State’s enacted plan. 

4 The agreement of a State to interim relief or the adoption 

5 by a State of an alternative plan shall not— 

6 (1) moot or invalidate a finding that a dis7 tricting plan is the result of intentional discrimina8 tion against voters on the basis of race, ethnicity, or 

9 partisan affiliation; or 

10 (2) impair the right of voters to seek other re11 lief under applicable law for such discriminatory ac12 tion, including under section 3(c) of the Voting 

13 Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10302(c)). 

14 (f) LEGISLATIVE PRIVILEGE.—No person, legisla15 ture, or State may claim legislative privilege under either 

16 State or Federal law in a civil action brought under this 

17 section or in any other legal challenge, under either State 

18 or Federal law, to a districting plan. 

19 SEC. 6. SAFE HARBOR. 

20 With respect to any claim under section 4, a State’s 

21 enacted congressional districting plan shall have a rebutta22 ble presumption of validity if that plan was created by a 

23 nonpartisan or bipartisan redistricting commission, where 

24 support from members of more than one political party 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
11 

•S 1972 IS

1 and, if applicable, nonaffiliated members, is required to 

2 approve a districting plan. 

3 SEC. 7. TRANSPARENCY AND REPORTING. 

4 (a) DATA.—Each State shall provide public access, 

5 in an easily useable format, to the demographic data and 

6 shape files used by the State to develop and analyze pro7 posed districting plans. 

8 (b) NOTICE.—Prior to considering a congressional 

9 districting plan, the mapdrawing authority of a State shall 

10 hold one or more public hearings on such plan after giving 

11 notice of not less than 10 days, including on a website 

12 maintained by the State, of the mapdrawing authority’s 

13 intent to hold such hearings. The mapdrawing authority 

14 of a State shall accept comments on all congressional dis15 tricting plans so noticed as well as alternative map pro16 posals covering all or part of a State and make all such 

17 comments and alternative map proposals publicly available 

18 on a website maintained by the State. 

19 (c) REPORT.—Any proposed congressional districting 

20 plan to be voted on by the mapdrawing authority of a 

21 State shall be accompanied by a written report, made 

22 available to the public not less than 72 hours before any 

23 initial vote, describing how the proposed plan satisfies the 

24 requirements of section 3 and 4, including an evaluation 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
12 

•S 1972 IS

1 of the districting plan under multiple accepted measures 

2 of partisan fairness. 

3 SEC. 8. PROHIBITION ON MID-DECADE DISTRICTING. 

4 A State that has an approved remedial districting 

5 plan in accordance with section 5 may not be redistricted 

6 again until after the next apportionment of Representa7 tives under section 22(a) of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to 

8 provide for the fifteenth and subsequent decennial cen9 suses and to provide for an apportionment of Representa10 tives in Congress’’, approved June 18, 1929 (2 U.S.C. 2a), 

11 unless a court requires the State to conduct such subse12 quent redistricting to comply with the Constitution of the 

13 United States, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 

14 10301 et seq.), the Constitution of the State, or the terms 

15 or conditions of this Act. 

16 SEC. 9. OTHER LAWS. 

17 (a) NO PREEMPTION.—Nothing in this Act shall be 

18 construed to preempt any cause of action under State law, 

19 or limit or abrogate any cause of action under Federal 

20 law. 

21 (b) VOTING RIGHTS ACT.—Nothing in this Act shall 

22 be construed to preempt or alter any provision of the Vot23 ing Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10301 et seq.). 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
13 

•S 1972 IS

1 SEC. 10. SEVERABILITY. 

2 If any provision of this Act or the application of such 

3 provision to any person or circumstance is held to be un4 constitutional, the remainder of this Act and the applica5 tion of the provision to any other person or circumstance 

6 shall not be affected. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS