Skip to content

ELEC-011 — Neutral Redistricting Baseline Enforcement Act

A BILL

To enforce and implement the Neutral Redistricting Baseline Amendment by establishing neutral baseline redistricting standards, public deviation procedures, representation safeguards, judicial review, and fallback remedies for congressional and state legislative districts.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Neutral Redistricting Baseline Enforcement Act.”

SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

The purposes of this Act are to—

  1. implement the Neutral Redistricting Baseline Amendment;
  2. require each covered redistricting process to begin with a neutral, public, replicable baseline map;
  3. prohibit partisan, incumbent-protective, candidate-protective, donor-protective, campaign-protective, and election-performance-based manipulation of district lines;
  4. preserve lawful representation safeguards required by the Constitution, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and other laws protecting equal political opportunity;
  5. require every departure from the neutral baseline map to be public, written, criterion-specific, narrowly tailored, and reviewable;
  6. prevent mid-decade redistricting for partisan, incumbent-protective, or factional advantage; and
  7. provide enforceable remedies where a State fails to comply with the neutral-baseline requirement.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

  1. Affected district means a district whose boundary, population, representation, political subdivision, tribal community, community of interest, candidate field, or voters would be materially affected by a covered district plan or proposed deviation.
  2. Algorithmic baseline map means the first redistricting plan generated by applying the approved redistricting method to authorized input data before any discretionary human departure.
  3. Approved redistricting method means the public, deterministic, replicable algorithm or technical method adopted or certified under this Act to generate an algorithmic baseline map.
  4. Authorized input data means population data, census geography, precinct geography where needed for administrability, contiguity data, state boundary data, political-subdivision boundary data, tribal boundary data where lawfully available, water and geographic-feature data, and other neutral data expressly authorized by this Act or by regulation.
  5. Covered district plan means a congressional or State legislative district plan.
  6. Departing plan means any proposed covered district plan that differs materially from the algorithmic baseline map.
  7. Deviation means any material change from the algorithmic baseline map, including alteration of a district boundary, exchange of population between districts, division or consolidation of a political subdivision or compact community, or change in district configuration.
  8. Neutral-baseline article means the constitutional article proposed as the Neutral Redistricting Baseline Amendment and ratified as part of the Constitution.
  9. Prohibited political data means data concerning political party affiliation, voter registration by party, prior election results, partisan performance, candidate residence, incumbent residence, campaign contributions, donor identity, campaign activity, candidate endorsements, demographic proxies selected for partisan effect, or comparable data whose principal use in redistricting is partisan, incumbent-protective, candidate-protective, donor-protective, campaign-protective, factional, or election-performance-based advantage.
  10. Redistricting authority means the State officer, nonpartisan office, independent commission, redistricting commission, legislature, court, special master, or other body authorized by State law to prepare, review, recommend, approve, or adopt a covered district plan.

SEC. 4. APPLICABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.

(a) Applicability.

This Act applies to congressional and State legislative redistricting to the full extent authorized by the neutral-baseline article.

(b) Amendment-dependent operation.

Except as provided in subsection (c), this Act shall take effect only upon ratification of the neutral-baseline article.

(c) Preparatory regulations and guidance.

Congress may authorize preparatory regulations, model technical standards, public data standards, and implementation guidance before ratification, but no covered district plan shall be invalidated under this Act before the neutral-baseline article takes effect.

(d) No waiver of constitutional floor.

No regulation, guidance, State law, court order, or redistricting procedure may waive the mandatory neutrality floor established by the neutral-baseline article.

(e) Relation to existing constitutional authority.

This Act shall be construed to implement the neutral-baseline article's rule that inconsistent redistricting authority, including authority otherwise exercised under article I, section 4, is superseded only to the extent necessary to enforce the neutral-baseline requirements of that article.

SEC. 5. NEUTRAL BASELINE MAP REQUIRED.

(a) Baseline-first rule.

Before any covered district plan may take effect, the State shall generate, publish, and preserve an algorithmic baseline map for that plan.

(b) Timing.

The algorithmic baseline map shall be generated and published before any redistricting authority considers, approves, recommends, or adopts a departing plan.

(c) Publication.

The State shall publish—

  1. the algorithmic baseline map;
  2. the approved redistricting method;
  3. source code or a complete technical specification sufficient for independent replication;
  4. authorized input data;
  5. parameter settings;
  6. population totals and deviations for each district;
  7. compactness and boundary-respect measures;
  8. a plain-language explanation of the method; and
  9. instructions for public comment and proposed corrections.

(d) No final adoption by silence.

Publication of the algorithmic baseline map does not by itself enact that map unless State law separately authorizes automatic adoption after completion of the public process required by this Act and the neutral-baseline article.

SEC. 6. APPROVED REDISTRICTING METHOD.

(a) Minimum requirements.

The approved redistricting method shall—

  1. be deterministic and replicable from public inputs;
  2. prioritize equal population and contiguity;
  3. use compactness and boundary-respect measures defined in advance;
  4. avoid use of prohibited political data;
  5. identify how ties or equivalent map outputs are resolved;
  6. generate a complete baseline plan for each covered district plan;
  7. produce machine-readable and human-readable outputs; and
  8. be capable of independent replication by a court, expert, candidate, civic organization, local government, tribal government, or member of the public using public data.

(b) Method selection.

A State may use shortest splitline, modified shortest splitline, or another neutral deterministic method if the method satisfies subsection (a).

(c) Prohibited selection purpose.

A State may not select, tune, reject, or modify a redistricting method because it predictably favors or disfavors a political party, candidate, incumbent, faction, donor, campaign, viewpoint, racial group, language-minority group, region, or community.

SEC. 7. PROHIBITED DATA AND COMMUNICATIONS.

(a) Baseline-map prohibition.

A redistricting authority, staff member, contractor, consultant, or other person generating, tuning, selecting, rejecting, or modifying the algorithmic baseline map may not use prohibited political data.

(b) Departing-plan disclosure.

If a person submits, sponsors, or advocates a departing plan and has used any data described in the definition of prohibited political data, the person shall disclose each data category used and the reason each category was used. Disclosure under this subsection does not make the data use lawful if otherwise prohibited.

(c) Private map-design communications.

A communication concerning district configuration, baseline-map alteration, or a departing plan between a redistricting authority and a legislator, legislative staff member, party officer, candidate, incumbent, campaign, donor, lobbyist, consultant, or outside organization shall be placed in the public record unless protected by a court order or by a specific privilege recognized by law.

SEC. 8. PUBLIC DEVIATIONS FROM BASELINE.

(a) Written findings required.

A departing plan may be considered, approved, recommended, adopted, or defended only if each material deviation from the algorithmic baseline map is supported by written findings identifying the specific permissible deviation criterion, the facts supporting the deviation, the data used, the population affected, and why no narrower deviation is adequate.

(b) Permissible deviation criteria.

A deviation from the algorithmic baseline map may be justified only to—

  1. comply with the Constitution;
  2. comply with Federal law;
  3. comply with a State constitution;
  4. comply with a State voting-rights law consistent with the neutral-baseline article;
  5. maintain contiguity;
  6. reduce avoidable population deviation;
  7. preserve a federally recognized tribal community or reservation where lawful and administratively feasible;
  8. preserve a municipality, county, precinct, or other political subdivision where lawful and administratively feasible;
  9. preserve a compact community of interest supported by public evidence;
  10. address a significant geographic barrier or transportation discontinuity;
  11. correct a data error, topology error, census-geography error, or implementation error;
  12. improve election-administration feasibility without using prohibited political data; or
  13. comply with a final court order.

(c) Narrow tailoring.

Each deviation shall be no broader than reasonably necessary to satisfy the identified permissible deviation criterion.

(d) State-law limitation.

A State voting-rights law may justify a deviation only if the law is consistent with the neutral-baseline article, protects equal political opportunity or lawful representation safeguards, and does not authorize a departure broader than necessary to remedy the identified legal or representational injury.

(e) Prohibited justifications.

A deviation may not be justified by partisan advantage, incumbent protection, candidate protection, donor preference, campaign strategy, retaliation against voters, dilution of a disfavored community, or a desire to avoid lawful electoral competition.

SEC. 9. REPRESENTATION-SAFEGUARD REVIEW.

(a) Required review.

Before final adoption of a covered district plan, the redistricting authority shall evaluate whether the algorithmic baseline map or a departing plan unlawfully dilutes voting strength, violates Federal or State voting-rights law, subordinates traditional districting principles without legal necessity, or creates a legally impermissible racial gerrymander.

(b) Limited use of sensitive representation data.

Race, ethnicity, language-minority, tribal, citizenship-age population, voting-age population, and comparable representation data may be used only for review and lawful correction under subsection (a), not for partisan, incumbent-protective, candidate-protective, donor-protective, campaign-protective, factional, or election-performance-based advantage.

(c) Public explanation.

Where a map uses representation data to support a deviation, the redistricting authority shall publish findings explaining the legal basis, factual basis, affected districts, alternative maps considered, and reasons the deviation is narrowly tailored.

(d) No quota or entitlement.

Nothing in this Act authorizes a quota, racial target, partisan target, or predetermined electoral outcome.

SEC. 10. PUBLIC COMMENT, RESPONSE, AND ARCHIVE.

(a) Comment periods.

The State shall provide a public comment period of not less than 30 days after publication of the algorithmic baseline map and not less than 14 days after publication of any materially departing plan, unless a court finds that an emergency election deadline requires a shorter period.

(b) Hearings.

The State shall hold public hearings accessible to residents in different regions of the State and shall provide remote participation to the greatest practicable extent.

(c) Response to material objections.

Before final adoption of a covered district plan, the State shall publish a response to material objections. The response shall state whether the objection is accepted, rejected, or resolved by modification and shall identify the supporting facts and legal criteria.

(d) Public archive.

The State shall maintain a public archive containing the approved redistricting method, data, baseline map, departing plans, written findings, public comments, responses to material objections, hearing materials, final enacted plan, and any judicial order relating to the plan.

SEC. 11. STATE PLAN SUBMISSION AND CERTIFICATION.

(a) Certification.

Before a covered district plan takes effect, the State shall certify that the plan complies with this Act and the neutral-baseline article.

(b) Certification contents.

The certification shall include—

  1. the algorithmic baseline map;
  2. each departing plan considered;
  3. each written deviation finding;
  4. the public-comment record;
  5. the response to material objections;
  6. any representation-safeguard findings;
  7. any court order affecting the plan; and
  8. a statement identifying the State official or body responsible for maintaining the public archive.

(c) Filing.

The State shall file the certification with the chief election officer of the State and with any Federal officer or repository designated by regulation.

SEC. 12. LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION AND JUDICIAL FALLBACK.

(a) Baseline-first legislative rule.

A State legislature may not consider or enact a covered district plan until the algorithmic baseline map and the required written findings have been published.

(b) Constrained amendments.

If legislative amendments are permitted, each amendment shall be accompanied by written findings satisfying section 8 and shall be published before final passage unless a court finds that an emergency election deadline requires shorter notice.

(c) No secret substitute map.

A State may not enact a covered district plan that has not been published, reviewed, and subjected to public comment under this Act, except pursuant to a final court order.

(d) Fallback trigger.

Judicial fallback is available if—

  1. the State fails to enact a covered district plan by the applicable legal deadline;
  2. the State rejects two plans found compliant by a redistricting authority;
  3. the State enacts a plan without the findings, publication, comment, certification, or review required by this Act;
  4. a court invalidates an enacted plan and no timely lawful replacement is enacted; or
  5. a court finds that the redistricting process has been materially corrupted by prohibited data use, undisclosed map-design communications, or bad-faith evasion of this Act.

(e) Court authority.

Upon a fallback trigger, the court may adopt the algorithmic baseline map, adopt a redistricting-authority recommended plan, appoint a special master, order limited corrections, set an expedited schedule, or provide other relief necessary to implement a lawful district plan.

(f) Remedial preference.

In selecting a remedial plan, the court shall give preference to the algorithmic baseline map or the least-departing lawful plan unless the court finds that a greater departure is necessary to comply with the Constitution, Federal law, State constitutional law, or the neutral-baseline article.

SEC. 13. MID-DECADE REDISTRICTING LIMIT.

(a) General rule.

After a covered district plan is enacted following a Federal decennial census, the State may not enact a replacement plan before the next Federal decennial census except as provided in subsection (b).

(b) Exceptions.

Mid-decade redistricting is permitted only—

  1. to comply with a final court order;
  2. to correct a legally material census, boundary, or data error;
  3. to comply with the Constitution, Federal law, the neutral-baseline article, or State constitutional law;
  4. to implement a newly enacted State constitutional redistricting requirement consistent with the neutral-baseline article; or
  5. to remedy a plan held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction.

(c) No partisan-purpose exception.

Partisan advantage, incumbent protection, candidate protection, change in legislative control, change in executive control, or dissatisfaction with the prior plan is not a lawful basis for mid-decade redistricting.

SEC. 14. JUDICIAL REVIEW, STANDING, AND REMEDIES.

(a) Action authorized.

An action to enforce this Act or the neutral-baseline article may be brought by—

  1. a voter residing in an affected district;
  2. a candidate for office in an affected district;
  3. a political subdivision divided or materially affected by a covered district plan;
  4. a tribal government divided or materially affected by a covered district plan;
  5. a community organization representing members in an affected district;
  6. the Attorney General of the United States;
  7. the attorney general or chief election officer of a State; or
  8. another person authorized by Congress or State law.

(b) Jurisdiction.

The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction over an action under this Act.

(c) Expedited review.

A court shall expedite any action under this Act to the greatest practicable extent, especially where delay may affect candidate filing, ballot preparation, primary elections, general elections, or representation during an election cycle.

(d) Remedies.

A court may grant declaratory relief, injunctive relief, remand to a redistricting authority, invalidation of an unlawful departing plan, adoption of a lawful baseline or least-departing remedial plan, appointment of a special master, costs, reasonable attorney's fees where authorized by law, and other appropriate relief.

(e) Interim election relief.

Where an election deadline prevents final resolution before an election, the court may enter interim relief necessary to minimize constitutional and statutory injury while preserving orderly election administration.

SEC. 15. ENFORCEMENT BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

(a) Civil action.

The Attorney General may bring a civil action for declaratory or injunctive relief to enforce this Act and the neutral-baseline article.

(b) Intervention.

The Attorney General may intervene in any action raising a substantial question under this Act or the neutral-baseline article.

(c) No exclusive enforcement.

The authority of the Attorney General under this section is not exclusive and does not limit any private, State, tribal, local-government, or community enforcement authority recognized by section 14.

SEC. 16. REGULATIONS AND TECHNICAL STANDARDS.

(a) Regulations.

The Attorney General, after consultation with the Election Assistance Commission, the Bureau of the Census, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, may issue regulations necessary to implement this Act.

(b) Technical standards.

Regulations may address algorithm documentation, data publication, code preservation, public archive format, certification forms, conflict disclosures, emergency deadlines, and independent replication standards.

(c) Limitation.

No regulation may authorize use of prohibited political data in the algorithmic baseline map, expand permissible deviation criteria beyond those stated in section 8, or dilute the mandatory neutrality floor established by the neutral-baseline article.

SEC. 17. RELATION TO OTHER LAW.

(a) More protective law preserved.

This Act supplements and does not diminish any protection provided by the Constitution, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, another Federal voting-rights law, a State constitution, a State voting-rights law, State redistricting criteria, State open-meetings law, State public-records law, or another law governing districting.

(b) More protective rule controls.

Where another law requires greater transparency, broader public participation, stricter anti-gerrymandering protection, or stronger minority-vote protection, the more protective provision controls to the extent consistent with the neutral-baseline article and Federal law.

(c) No authorization of prohibited purpose.

No State law, Federal regulation, remedial order, or transition rule may authorize a covered district plan adopted for a purpose prohibited by the neutral-baseline article.

(d) No State-law nullification.

No State voting-rights law, State redistricting criterion, or State procedural rule may be construed to nullify the neutral-baseline process, permit prohibited political data in the algorithmic baseline map, or authorize a deviation broader than necessary to remedy the identified legal or representational injury.

SEC. 18. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of this Act and the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected.

SEC. 19. TRANSITION.

(a) First covered cycle.

This Act applies to the first redistricting cycle beginning more than two years after ratification of the neutral-baseline article, unless Congress provides an earlier effective date for congressional districts.

(b) Active-election transition rule.

If implementation would materially disrupt an election for which candidate filing, ballot preparation, early voting, absentee voting, or voting has already begun, Congress may provide a transition rule delaying application only for that election cycle and only to the extent necessary to avoid election-administration disruption.

(c) Written findings.

A transition rule under subsection (b) shall include written findings identifying the election-administration deadline, the specific disruption to be avoided, the offices affected, the affected election cycle, and why a narrower transition rule is inadequate.

(d) Existing districts.

Districts in effect on the date of ratification may remain in effect until the first covered redistricting cycle, unless a court finds that continued use would cause greater constitutional injury.

(e) No repeated or indefinite deferral.

No transition rule may delay application of this Act beyond the next regularly scheduled redistricting cycle or authorize repeated or indefinite deferral.

(f) No extended safe harbor for prohibited purpose.

No transition rule may authorize a district plan adopted for a purpose prohibited by the neutral-baseline article to remain in effect unless required by a court to prevent greater constitutional injury.

Budgetary Impact Statement

Budget authority may be required for Federal technical standards, State certification systems, public data repositories, litigation, special masters, and State implementation assistance; no dollar estimate is assigned pending source-backed cost data.

Note: Preliminary ARRP assessment only; not a CBO, OMB, agency, or legislative-counsel score.

Drafting Notes

  • This is reserve Federal enabling legislation. It is designed to operate only if the Neutral Redistricting Baseline Amendment is ratified.
  • The model State act remains ELEC-011's least-complex adequate remedy. This Act supplies the Federal enforcement vehicle for the constitutional reserve path.
  • The Act tracks the State model's core architecture: neutral first draft, prohibition on prohibited political data, public deviations, representation-safeguard review, public comment, certification, judicial fallback, mid-decade redistricting limits, and judicial review.
  • The Act uses an affected-person standing model aligned with the amendment draft while preserving Attorney General enforcement.
  • The Act avoids giving Congress authority to dilute the amendment's mandatory neutrality floor.
  • The Act treats State voting-rights laws as permissible protective floors, not as vehicles to override or weaken the neutral-baseline requirement.
  • The Act limits active-election transition delay to one election cycle, requires written findings, and bars repeated or indefinite deferral.
  • The Act construes the amendment as superseding inconsistent Elections Clause and redistricting authority only to the extent necessary, without altering apportionment among States, Representative qualifications, or unrelated constitutional structures.
  • The internal project review examined official Constitution Annotated sources for Article I, Section 2, Article I, Section 4, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Fifteenth Amendment, and reviewed California Constitution Article XXI as a state constitutional redistricting comparator.
  • The internal project review added California implementation and adoption analogues and technical source leads, but this remains a reserve Federal vehicle. Before publication-ready use, qualified review should test jurisdiction, three-judge-court routing, remedies, certification repositories, agency rulemaking assignments, state implementation costs, and technical standards.

Source Notes

  • Relation to constitutional amendment: This Act implements the Neutral Redistricting Baseline Amendment and should be read with the amendment's mandatory neutrality floor.
  • Relation to State model: The Act parallels the Model State Algorithmic Redistricting Baseline and Public Deviation Act but relies on Federal enforcement power created by the proposed amendment.
  • Relation to existing law: The internal project review examined official public sources for Rucho v. Common Cause, Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, Allen v. Milligan, Louisiana v. Callais, Iowa Code chapter 42, and California, New York, and Washington state voting-rights-law comparators. The internal project review examined official Constitution Annotated sources for Article I, Section 2, Article I, Section 4, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Fifteenth Amendment, and California Constitution Article XXI as a state constitutional comparator. The internal project review added California implementation/adoption analogues and technical source leads. Article V, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Federal three-judge-court redistricting jurisdiction, Reynolds v. Sims, state constitutional redistricting provisions, public-records and open-meetings laws, final algorithm selection, and state-specific cost modeling still need deeper review.
  • Rule of construction: Nothing in this draft should be construed to authorize partisan, incumbent-protective, candidate-protective, donor-protective, campaign-protective, factional, or election-performance-based manipulation prohibited by the amendment.