Editing Redistricting (section)

===Redistricting criteria===
The [[Reapportionment Act of 1929]] did not state any size and population requirements for congressional districts, last stated in the [[Apportionment Act of 1911]], since the 1911 Act was still in force. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the 1911 Act was no longer in force even though Congress never repealed it. The previous apportionment acts required districts be contiguous, compact, and equally populated.<ref>Apportionment Act of 1842, 5 Stat. 491.</ref><ref>Apportionment Act of 1862, 12 Stat. 572.</ref><ref>[[Vieth v. Jubelirer]], 541 U.S. 267, 276 (2004).</ref>

Each state can set its own standards for congressional and legislative districts.<ref>
{{cite web
|url=http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/redistricting-looms-over-2010-election-landscape-2009-06-13.html
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090618070653/http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/redistricting-looms-over-2010-election-landscape-2009-06-13.html
|url-status=dead
|archive-date=June 18, 2009
|title=TheHill.com - Redistricting looms over 2010 landscape
|work= [[The Hill (newspaper)|The Hill]]
|access-date=2009-08-25
}}
</ref> In addition to equalizing the population of districts and complying with federal requirements, criteria may include attempting to create compact, contiguous districts, trying to keep political units and communities within a single district, and avoiding the drawing of boundaries for purposes of partisan advantage or incumbent protection.<ref>Miller, Jason C.,[http://ssrn.com/abstract=1635614 Community as a Redistricting Principle: Consulting Media Markets in Drawing District Lines] (July 6, 2010). Indiana Law Journal Supplement, Vol. 5, 2010.</ref>

Redistricting may follow other criteria depending on state and local laws:<ref name="ARCUSER">{{citation |title=ArcGIS is Making Redistricting More Efficient and Transparent |newspaper=ArcUser |url=http://www.esri.com/~/media/Files/Pdfs/news/arcuser/0518/arcuser-spring-2018.pdf|date=Spring 2018|pages=26}}</ref>
# compactness<ref name="cambridge.org">{{Cite journal |last1=Katz |first1=Jonathan N. |last2=King |first2=Gary |last3=Rosenblatt |first3=Elizabeth |date=2020 |title=Theoretical Foundations and Empirical Evaluations of Partisan Fairness in District-Based Democracies |url=https://authors.library.caltech.edu/records/awqcc-r3g16/files/S000305541900056Xsup001.pdf?download=1 |journal=American Political Science Review |language=en |volume=114 |issue=1 |pages=164–178 |doi=10.1017/S000305541900056X |s2cid=53991300 |issn=0003-0554}}</ref>
# [[Contiguity (probability theory)|contiguity]]
# equal [[population]]
# preservation of existing political communities
# partisan fairness<ref name="cambridge.org"/>
# racial fairness<ref>{{Cite book|title = The Politics of Congressional Elections|last = Jacobson|first = Gary|publisher = PEARSON Education|year = 2013|location = New Jersey|pages = 9}}</ref>