John Tanner and Jim Cooper Fairness and Independence in Redistricting Act
- Bill Number
- H.R. 5426
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Government Operations and Politics
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-09-17: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- Last Updated
- 2026-04-07T20:58:46Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
This legislation, titled the "John Tanner and Jim Cooper Fairness and Independence in Redistricting Act," seeks to promote fair congressional redistricting by limiting states to one redistricting cycle per decennial census (every 10 years) and requiring the process to be handled by independent commissions rather than solely by state legislatures. It aims to reduce political bias in drawing district lines, ensuring districts reflect population changes from the U.S. Census while complying with federal voting laws.
Key Provisions
- Limit on Redistricting Frequency: States may redistrict congressional districts only once after each census-based apportionment of House seats. Additional redistricting is prohibited unless ordered by a court to address constitutional issues or violations of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (a federal law protecting voting access for minorities).
- Requirement for Independent Commissions:
- Each state must create an independent redistricting commission shortly after receiving its census apportionment notice.
- Commission composition: Includes a chair (selected by other members) and an equal number of members (at least one per category) appointed by leaders from the two major political parties in the state legislature's upper and lower houses. For states with a single-house legislature, appointments are based on the two strongest parties in recent gubernatorial elections.
- Eligibility rules: Members must be registered voters with no recent public office, political candidacy, or party employment; they cannot run for Congress until after the next census.
- Operations: All meetings are public; a state-maintained website provides data, maps, interactive tools for public input, and submission options for proposed plans. Commissions terminate after the next federal election post-census.
- Development of Redistricting Plans:
- Plans must follow criteria like equal population ("one person, one vote"), compliance with federal voting laws, geographic continuity (prioritizing counties, then cities, then neighborhoods), compactness, and contiguity (connected districts, except for water barriers).
- Prohibited factors: Cannot consider past voting patterns, party affiliations, or incumbents' residences (except to meet Voting Rights Act needs or state competitiveness laws).
- Public involvement: Commissions must hold regional meetings, solicit input via the website, and post draft plans publicly at least 7 days before legislature submission, including maps, population data by race, and public interest statements.
- Approval Process:
- Commissions submit plans to the state legislature, which can approve without changes or reject. If approved, the governor signs or the legislature overrides a veto—amendments are not allowed.
- If not enacted by November 1 post-census, the commission submits to the state's highest court, which selects one plan without modification by December 1.
- If the state court fails or no commission is formed, a federal district court develops and publishes a plan by December 1, using the same criteria.
- Special rules apply for court-ordered redistricting (e.g., extended deadlines).
- Funding and Support: The Election Assistance Commission provides states with $150,000 per House seat (excluding single-district states) to fund commissions and redistricting, contingent on establishing a commission. Appropriations are authorized as needed.
- No Impact on State/Local Elections: The law applies only to federal congressional districts, not state or local ones.
- Effective Date: Applies to redistricting after the 2030 census.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Amends the 1929 Census Act (2 U.S.C. 2a) and 1967 redistricting law (2 U.S.C. 2c) to replace vague state-controlled processes with mandatory independent commissions and court backups, explicitly citing this Act as the governing standard.
- Introduces strict timelines, prohibitions on partisan factors, and public transparency requirements, shifting authority from legislatures to neutral bodies—pre-existing state commissions (if any) are grandfathered in.
- Adds federal funding and court intervention mechanisms not previously required, while preserving court-ordered exceptions for legal compliance.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: State legislatures lose primary control over redistricting, potentially reducing political influence but increasing administrative burdens for commissions and courts. Federal agencies like the Election Assistance Commission gain roles in funding and oversight. Courts may see more involvement in non-litigated cases.
- On Citizens: Could lead to fairer, more competitive districts with less gerrymandering (manipulating lines for partisan gain), enhancing voter representation and trust in elections. Public input mechanisms empower individuals to propose plans and access data.
- On International Relations: No direct impacts, as this is a domestic electoral process.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- States and Legislatures: Must form and fund commissions; limited to approval/rejection roles without amendments.
- Citizens and Voters: Gain transparency and input opportunities; benefit from potentially less biased districts affecting representation.
- Political Parties and Incumbents: Face restrictions on using party data or protecting seats, promoting neutrality but possibly disrupting established advantages.
- Courts (State and Federal): Act as backstops for plan selection or creation if commissions or legislatures fail.
- Independent Commissions: New entities responsible for impartial plan development.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Constitutional Basis: Relies on Article I, Section 4 (Congress's power over federal election "times, places, and manner") and the 14th Amendment, Section 5 (enforcing equal population apportionment), to justify federal override of state processes—potentially inviting challenges on states' rights under the 10th Amendment.
- Legal Implications: Strengthens Voting Rights Act enforcement by mandating compliance and court access to commission data; promotes "one person, one vote" via population equality. Could reduce lawsuits over gerrymandering by standardizing neutral criteria, but may spark litigation if states resist commission formation.
- Political Implications: Aims to curb partisan redistricting, fostering competitive elections and diverse representation. Named after bipartisan figures (John Tanner and Jim Cooper), it signals a push for nonpartisan reform, though implementation may face partisan opposition in Congress or states. No effect on state/local districts preserves federalism balance.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Recent Actions
- 2025-09-17: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 2025-09-17: Introduced in House
- 2025-09-17: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- John Tanner and Jim Cooper Fairness and Independence in Redistricting Act — issued 2025-09-17 — PDF (22 pages)