Bill Overview
Title: Redistricting Reform Act of 2022
Description: This bill outlines criteria for congressional redistricting and generally prohibits mid-decade redistricting.
Sponsors: Sen. Klobuchar, Amy [D-MN]
Target Audience
Population: People living in the United States
Estimated Size: 331000000
- Redistricting typically affects the way congressional districts are drawn, impacting voting districts for elections.
- In the United States, there are 331 million people as of the 2020 census, all of whom live in districts that could be affected.
- Redistricting can change political representation which affects public policy and resource allocation.
Reasoning
- The Redistricting Reform Act of 2022 would primarily affect democratic representation and potentially the distribution of resources across the United States.
- Redistricting is a political process, traditionally undertaken once every ten years following the census, but with this policy, they aim to implement a more standardized and less politically driven process.
- The diversity of the United States means different areas may react differently; for instance, urban areas might see a more distinct impact considering the density and political diversity.
- Given the scale of the budget, attention would typically be focused on compliance with the legal framework, education, and public engagement to ensure districts are drawn fairly.
- Wellbeing scores measure subjective quality of life, which can be influenced by perceived fairness and trust in political systems and representation.
- The diversity of the interviews aims to incorporate perspectives from both urban and rural populations, different occupations, and both those impacted and not impacted directly by changes in district boundaries.
Simulated Interviews
School Teacher (New York City, NY)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Concerned about gerrymandering, hopeful this reform could lead to fairer representation for her community.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Farmer (Rural Kansas)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Neutral stance; feels disconnected from national politics, but supports fair processes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Retired Government Worker (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Skeptical; believes changes won't significantly alter current political landscape.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
University Student (Austin, TX)
Age: 25 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Strong proponent; believes it will ensure equitable political representation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Nurse (Suburban Ohio)
Age: 53 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Optimistic about reforms ensuring accountability in resource allocation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Retired Factory Worker (Northern Michigan)
Age: 68 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Hopes reforms lead to better representation in government.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Software Engineer (Portland, OR)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Believes policy aligns with principles of fairness and equity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Police Officer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Hopeful the changes lessen political corruption.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Journalist (Tallahassee, FL)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Excited to cover potential shifts in political power dynamics.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Small Business Owner (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Uncertain if redistricting will significantly affect economic policies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $40000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $60000000)
Year 3: $30000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $50000000)
Year 5: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $30000000)
Year 10: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $20000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $10000000)
Key Considerations
- Federal oversight of state compliance with redistricting criteria will be crucial.
- Potential legal challenges and court injunctions could delay or complicate implementation.
- States with current mid-decade redistricting practices could resist the change leading to political pushback.