A free elections law, also known as a free and equal elections clause, is a section in many U.S. state constitutions which mandates that elections of public officials shall be free and not influence by other powers. Most such laws were placed into state constitutions in the late 18th and early 19th century.
| State | Text | Section | First introduced | Still in force? | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | "The privilege of suffrage shall be protected by laws regulating elections, and prohibiting, under adequate penalties, all undue influences from power, bribery, tumult, or other improper conduct." | Ala. Article I, § 3. | 1819 (since modified) | Yes | The original free elections law codified "the privilege of free suffrage" in 1819, but the word "free" was removed in the 1865 Constitution onward. |
| Arizona | “All elections shall be free and equal, and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage.” | Ariz. Const. art. II, § 21 | 1910 | Yes | |
| Arkansas | “Elections shall be free and equal. No power, civil or military, shall ever interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage; nor shall any law be enacted whereby such right shall be impaired or forfeited, except for the commission of a felony, upon lawful conviction thereof.” | Ark. Const. art. 3, § 2 | 1836 | Yes | Kept in force in the current Constitution of 1874 |
| California | “The Legislature shall define residence and provide for registration and free elections.” | Cali. Const. art. II, §3 | 1849 (since modified) | Yes | The 1849 Constitution's free elections law protected "the privilege of free suffrage" from "all undue influences". This was amended in the 1879 version. |
| Colorado | “All elections shall be free and open; and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage.” | Colo. Const. art. II, § 5 | Yes | ||
| Connecticut | “Laws shall be made to support the privilege of free suffrage, prescribing the manner of regulating and conducting meetings of the electors, and prohibiting, under adequate penalties, all undue influence therein, from power, bribery, tumult and other improper conduct.” | Conn. Const. art. VI, §4 | Yes | ||
| Delaware | “All elections shall be free and equal.” | Del. Const. art. I, § 3 | Yes | ||
| Idaho | “No power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere with or prevent the free and lawful exercise of the right of suffrage.” | Idaho Const. art. I, § 19 | Yes | ||
| Illinois | “All elections shall be free and equal.” | Ill. Const. art. III, § 3 | Yes | ||
| Indiana | “All elections shall be free and equal.” | Ind. Const. art. 2, § 1 | 1851 | Yes | |
| Kentucky | “All elections shall be free and equal.” | Ky. Const. § 6 | Yes | ||
| Maryland | “That the right of the People to participate in the Legislature is the best security of liberty and the foundation of all free Government; for this purpose, elections ought to be free and frequent; and every citizen having the qualifications prescribed by the Constitution, ought to have the right of suffrage.” | Md. Dec. of R. art. 7 | Yes | ||
| Massachusetts | “All elections ought to be free; and all the inhabitants of this commonwealth, having such qualifications as they shall establish by their frame of government, have an equal right to elect officers, and to be elected, for public employments.” | Mass. Const. pt. 1, art. IX | Yes | ||
| Missouri | “That all elections shall be free and open; and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage.” | Mo. Const. art. I, § 25 | Yes | ||
| Montana | “All elections shall be free and open, and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage.” | Mont. Const. art. II, § 13 | Yes | ||
| Nebraska | “All elections shall be free; and there shall be no hindrance or impediment to the right of a qualified voter to exercise the elective franchise.” | Ne. Const. art. I, § 22 | Yes | ||
| New Hampshire | “All elections are to be free, and every inhabitant of the state of 18 years of age and upwards shall have an equal right to vote in any election.” | N.H. Const. pt. 1st, art. 11 | Yes | ||
| New Mexico | “All elections shall be free and open, and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage.” | N.M. Const. art. II, § 8 | Yes | ||
| North Carolina | “All elections shall be free.” | N.C. Const. art. I, § 10 | Yes | ||
| Oklahoma | “All elections shall be free and equal. No power, civil or military, shall ever interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage, and electors shall, in all cases, except for treason, felony, and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance on elections and while going to and from the same.” | Okl. Const. art. III, § 5 | Yes | ||
| Oregon | “All elections shall be free and equal.” | Ore. Const. art. II, § 1 | 1857 | Yes | |
| Pennsylvania | “Elections shall be free and equal; and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage.” | Pa. Const. art. I, § 5 | Yes | ||
| South Carolina | “All elections shall be free and open, and every inhabitant of this State possessing the qualifications provided for in this Constitution shall have an equal right to elect officers and be elected to fill public office.” | S.C. Const. art. I, § 5 | Yes | ||
| South Dakota | “Elections shall be free and equal, and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage.” | S.D. Const. art. VII, § 1 | Yes | ||
| Tennessee | “The elections shall be free and equal, and the right of suffrage, as hereinafter declared, shall never be denied to any person entitled thereto, except upon conviction by a jury of some infamous crime, previously ascertained and declared by law, and judgment thereon by court of competent jurisdiction.” | Tenn. Const. art. I, § 5 | Yes | ||
| Texas | “The privilege of free suffrage shall be protected by laws regulating elections and prohibiting under adequate penalties all undue influence in elections from power, bribery, tumult, or other improper practice.” | Tex. Const. art. VI, § 2(c) | Yes | ||
| Utah | “All elections shall be free, and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage.” | Utah Const. art. I, § 17 | Yes | ||
| Vermont | “That all elections ought to be free and without corruption, and that all voters, having a sufficient, evident, common interest with, and attachment to the community, have a right to elect officers, and be elected into office, agreeably to the regulations made in this constitution.” | Vt. Const. ch. 1, art. 8 | Yes | ||
| Virginia | “That all elections ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed, or deprived of, or damaged in, their property for public uses, without their own consent, or that of their representatives duly elected, or bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented for the public good.” | Va. Const. art. I, § 6 | Yes | ||
| Washington | “All Elections shall be free and equal, and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage.” | Wash. Const. art. I, § 19 | Yes | ||
| Wyoming | “Elections shall be open, free and equal, and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent an untrammeled exercise of the right of suffrage.” | Wyo. Const. art. I, § 27 | Yes |
On February 4, 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled 4-3 against both congressional and legislative maps drawn by the North Carolina General Assembly's Republican majority on the grounds of the maps violating the free elections clause. [1]
In addition, as of 2020, the state constitutions of California, Washington, Montana, Idaho, Arizona, Colorado and Virginia all provide for both free elections mandates and for redistricting commissions to redraw congressional, legislative and additional districts.
Redistricting in the United States is the process of drawing electoral district boundaries. For the United States House of Representatives, and state legislatures, redistricting occurs after each decennial census.
North Carolina is currently divided into 14 congressional districts, each represented by a member of the United States House of Representatives. After the 2000 census, the number of North Carolina's seats was increased from 12 to 13 due to the state's increase in population. In the 2022 elections, per the 2020 United States census, North Carolina gained one new congressional seat for a total of 14.
Congressional districts, also known as electoral districts in other nations, are divisions of a larger administrative region that represent the population of a region in the larger congressional body. Countries with congressional districts include the United States, the Philippines, and Japan.
The Constitution of the State of Ohio is the basic governing document of the State of Ohio, which in 1803 became the 17th state to join the United States of America. Ohio has had three constitutions since statehood was granted.
North Carolina's 2nd congressional district is located in the central part of the state. The district contains most of Wake County. Prior to court-mandated redistricting in 2019, it also included northern Johnston County, southern Nash County, far western Wilson County, and all of Franklin and Harnett counties. The 2nd district has been represented by Democratic Rep. Deborah Ross since 2021.
North Carolina's 4th congressional district is located in the central region of the state. The district includes all of Alamance County, Durham County, Granville County, Orange County, and Person County, as well as a portion of Caswell County. With a Cook Partisan Voting Index rating of D+16, it is the most Democratic district in North Carolina.
North Carolina's 1st congressional district is located in the northeastern part of the state. It consists of many Black Belt counties that border Virginia and it extends southward into several counties of the Inner Banks and the Research Triangle. It covers many rural areas of northeastern North Carolina, among the state's most economically poor, as well as outer exurbs of urbanized Research Triangle. It contains towns and cities such as Greenville, Rocky Mount, Wilson, Goldsboro, Henderson, and Roanoke Rapids.
North Carolina's 6th congressional district is located in north central portion of the state. As a result of court-mandated redistricting in 2019, it was shifted into the central Triad region and contains all of Guilford County and a portion of Forsyth County. The cities of Greensboro, Winston-Salem, and High Point are located in the district.
Redistricting in Pennsylvania refers to the decennial process of redrawing state legislative and federal congressional districts in Pennsylvania.
The U.S. state of Arizona, in common with the other U.S. states, must redraw its congressional and legislative districts every ten years to reflect changes in the state and national populations. Redistricting normally follows the completion of the United States census, which is carried out by the federal government the first year of every decade; the most recent census took place in 2020. Historically, Arizona's legislature had control over the redistricting process. However, Proposition 106, passed in 2000, delegated the power to draw congressional and legislative boundaries to a bipartisan independent commission. The Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) comprises two Democrats, two Republicans, and one independent chair. County and local redistricting, which normally takes place along the same timeline as congressional and legislative redistricting, is carried out by the individual county and local governments rather than the AIRC.
Gerrymandering is the practice of setting boundaries of electoral districts to favor specific political interests within legislative bodies, often resulting in districts with convoluted, winding boundaries rather than compact areas. The term "gerrymandering" was coined after a review of Massachusetts's redistricting maps of 1812 set by Governor Elbridge Gerry noted that one of the districts looked like a mythical salamander.
The 2020 United States redistricting cycle is in progress following the completion of the 2020 United States census. In all fifty states, various bodies are re-drawing state legislative districts. States that are apportioned more than one seat in the United States House of Representatives are also drawing new districts for that legislative body.
Rucho v. Common Cause, No. 18-422, 588 U.S. ___ (2019) is a landmark case of the United States Supreme Court concerning partisan gerrymandering. The Court ruled that while partisan gerrymandering may be "incompatible with democratic principles", the federal courts cannot review such allegations, as they present nonjusticiable political questions outside the jurisdiction of these courts.
Redistricting in North Carolina has been a controversial topic due to allegations and admissions of gerrymandering.
Redistricting in Wisconsin is the process by which boundaries are redrawn for municipal wards, Wisconsin State Assembly districts, Wisconsin State Senate districts, and Wisconsin's congressional districts. Redistricting typically occurs—as in other U.S. states—once every decade, usually in the year after the decennial United States census. According to the Wisconsin Constitution, redistricting in Wisconsin follows the regular legislative process, it must be passed by both houses of the Wisconsin Legislature and signed by the Governor of Wisconsin—unless the Legislature has sufficient votes to override a gubernatorial veto. Due to political gridlock, however, it has become common for Wisconsin redistricting to be conducted by courts. The 1982, 1992, and 2002 legislative maps were each enacted by panels of United States federal judges; the 1964 and 2022 maps were enacted by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
The 2010 United States redistricting cycle took place following the completion of the 2010 United States census. In all fifty states, various bodies re-drew state legislative districts. States that are apportioned more than one seat in the United States House of Representatives also drew new districts for that legislative body. The resulting new districts were first implemented for the 2011 and 2012 elections.
Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355 (1932), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States involving a governor's power to veto a congressional redistricting proposal passed by a state's legislature. In an opinion by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, the Court unanimously held that the U.S. Constitution did not prohibit Minnesota's governor from vetoing that state's redistricting map.
The independent state legislature theory or independent state legislature doctrine (ISL) is a judicially rejected legal theory that posits that the Constitution of the United States delegates authority to regulate federal elections within a state to that state's elected lawmakers without any checks and balances from state constitutions, state courts, governors, ballot initiatives, or other bodies with legislative power. In June 2023, in the case Moore v. Harper, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6–3 decision that the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution does not give state legislatures sole power over elections and rejected the ISL.
Moore v. Harper, 600 U.S. 1 (2023), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that rejected the independent state legislature theory (ISL), a theory that asserts state legislatures have sole authority to establish election laws for federal elections within their respective states without judicial review by state courts, without presentment to state governors, and without constraint by state constitutions. The case arose from the redistricting of North Carolina's districts by its legislature after the 2020 United States census, which the state courts found to be too artificial and partisan, and an extreme case of gerrymandering in favor of the Republican Party.