Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Redistricting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
New Hampshire hearing spotlights constitutional amendment and bill to bar partisan data in redistricting
Summary
Supporters told the House Election Law Committee that CACR 2 and HB 363 would curb partisan gerrymandering by restricting use of voter data and by adding clear redistricting criteria; speakers cited court rulings, efficiency‑gap measures and local complaints about noncontiguous maps.
Representative Heath Howard introduced CACR 2, a proposed constitutional amendment that would prohibit using partisan data when drawing district lines and would bar maps “drawn in any way that favors or disfavors any political party or candidate.” Proponents said the change would give courts clearer standards to consider and reduce incentives for partisan mapmaking.
Supporters who testified included longtime court reporter Bob Perry and independent mappers. Perry cited interstate court rulings and said CACR 2’s language — using “shall” and a specific ban on favoring parties or incumbents — would give New Hampshire judges clearer guidance than existing constitutional text. David Andrews, a former redistricting data‑hub analyst, testified that numeric measures show partisan bias in recent maps and described how the amendment would prohibit using measures such as incumbents’ residency and voter‑file data during the map‑drawing stage while still permitting later analysis of maps.
Advocates repeatedly referenced the efficiency gap as evidence of bias: “the efficiency gap is around 15% for the state senate and about 25% for the Executive Council,” David Andrews told the committee, and local mapping groups documented individual House districts with very high efficiency gaps. Witnesses also described practical examples of allegedly incoherent pairings — Senate District 9, which now links towns 50 miles apart, was cited by multiple speakers as illustrating “packing” or non‑contiguity that harms local representation.
Representative Connie Lane introduced HB 363, a statutory counterpart that would require specific redistricting criteria be considered in 2031 maps, including population equality, contiguity, compactness, preservation of towns and wards, and an explicit prohibition on intent or effect of favoring political parties, incumbents or candidates. Supporters argued the statute is a faster, implementable step even if a constitutional amendment could be desirable.
Opponents and several committee members pressed witnesses on practical questions — how to define “communities of interest,” whether party affiliation can be treated as a community of interest, and how county lines and constitutional population deviation rules would interact with the new criteria. Witnesses acknowledged tradeoffs: Drafting criteria that avoid unintended consequences (for example, excessive “floterial” or floating districts or large deviations) will be technically complex in New Hampshire’s multiseat House.
The public record submitted in the hearing showed broad public testimony in favor of reform, and several civic groups and citizens’ assemblies urged the committee to back both the constitutional change and the statutory standards to make future maps more transparent and legally reviewable. No formal votes were taken during the public hearing; sponsors and supporters asked the committee to recommend “Ought to Pass” so voters would have a chance to decide CACR 2 in a future election and so statutory criteria would exist ahead of the next decennial cycle.
Why this matters: Redistricting affects representation for state legislative, executive council, senate and congressional seats and can shape outcomes for a decade. Advocates said clearer standards and limits on partisan data would make maps more competitive and restore voter confidence; critics stressed careful drafting is required to avoid technical problems or unworkable definitions.
