Tennessee approves new congressional map that dissolves majority Black district – CBS News

The Tennessee General Assembly has formally approved a new congressional map, a move that significantly reconfigures the state's political landscape and effectively dismantles the historically Democratic 5th Congressional District. This redistricting effort, enacted in early 2022, notably divides Nashville, Tennessee's capital and largest city, across three different districts, eliminating the state's sole district where minority voters held a substantial majority and raising concerns about the dilution of minority voting power.

Background: Decades of Redistricting and Demographic Shifts

Redistricting is a constitutionally mandated process in the United States, occurring every ten years following the decennial census. Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution requires an enumeration of the population to apportion representatives among the states. State legislatures are then tasked with redrawing congressional and state legislative district lines to reflect population changes, ensuring districts are roughly equal in population, a principle established by landmark Supreme Court cases like *Reynolds v. Sims* (1964) and *Baker v. Carr* (1962), which enshrined the "one person, one vote" standard.

Historical Context of Tennessee’s Congressional Districts

Tennessee has maintained nine congressional seats since the 1950 census. For decades, the state's political geography reflected a balance, with urban centers like Nashville and Memphis typically electing Democratic representatives, while more rural areas leaned Republican. The 5th Congressional District, encompassing most of Nashville and Davidson County, had been a Democratic stronghold for generations. Its demographic composition, particularly in the latter half of the 20th century, made it a key district for minority representation.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) fundamentally reshaped American electoral politics. Section 2 of the VRA prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. In the wake of the VRA, and subsequent court interpretations, states were often compelled to draw districts that provided minority voters with the opportunity to elect their preferred candidates. This led to the creation of "majority-minority" districts, where a racial or ethnic minority group constituted a majority of the voting-age population. While the 5th District was not a majority-Black district by population, its significant Black voting-age population, combined with other Democratic-leaning demographics, made it reliably elect a Democrat, often a Black representative, especially in the broader historical context of Tennessee's urban cores. For instance, the predecessor to the modern 5th District was represented by Harold Ford Sr., an African American, from 1975 to 1997, though that district was centered in Memphis (the 9th District today). The 5th District in Nashville, while not majority-Black, consistently elected Democrats, including Jim Cooper for many years, who often championed civil rights and urban issues. Its demographic makeup made it a "minority influence" district, where minority voters played a decisive role in elections.

The Supreme Court, in cases like *Shaw v. Reno* (1993) and *Miller v. Johnson* (1995), later established limits on racial gerrymandering, holding that race could not be the predominant factor in drawing district lines unless narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest, such as compliance with the VRA. These rulings introduced a complex legal framework for redistricting, balancing the need to prevent discrimination with prohibitions against drawing districts solely based on race.

Demographic Shifts in Tennessee Post-2010 Census

The 2020 Census revealed significant population growth in Tennessee, with the state's population increasing by 8.9% to over 6.9 million residents. This growth was not evenly distributed. Urban and suburban areas, particularly around Nashville (Davidson County and its surrounding counties), Memphis (Shelby County), and Knoxville (Knox County), experienced substantial increases. Davidson County, home to Nashville, saw its population grow by over 14% between 2010 and 2020. This demographic shift necessitated adjustments to district boundaries to ensure equal population distribution across the nine congressional districts.

The growth also included an increase in the state's minority populations. The Black population in Tennessee grew by approximately 7.6%, and the Hispanic/Latino population surged by over 50%. These demographic changes provided the backdrop for the redistricting process, influencing how new lines could be drawn to reflect both overall population parity and the evolving racial and ethnic composition of the state.

Tennessee’s Political Landscape

Tennessee is a deeply Republican state. The Republican Party holds supermajorities in both the state House of Representatives and the state Senate, granting them unilateral control over the redistricting process. Governor Bill Lee, also a Republican, has the final say on legislative bills. This political dominance meant that the Republican-controlled legislature had the power to draw maps largely to their party's advantage, with limited checks from the Democratic minority.

Before the 2022 redistricting, Tennessee's congressional delegation consisted of seven Republicans and two Democrats. The two Democratic representatives, Jim Cooper (5th District, Nashville) and Steve Cohen (9th District, Memphis), represented the state's two largest urban centers, which are also its most diverse areas. The primary objective for the Republican majority in redistricting was widely understood to be the maximization of Republican representation, potentially aiming for an 8-1 or even 9-0 delegation.

The 2020 Census and Initial Proposals

The release of the 2020 Census data confirmed that Tennessee would retain its nine congressional seats, meaning no new seats needed to be created, nor any eliminated. The task was solely to redraw the existing nine districts to equalize their populations, with each district needing to contain approximately 770,000 residents.

Following the census data release, various proposals for new congressional maps emerged. The Republican-controlled legislative committees, primarily the House State Government Committee and the Senate State and Local Government Committee, took the lead in drafting maps. These committees held a series of public hearings, though critics argued that these hearings were often perfunctory and that the ultimate map was developed with limited transparent public input. Democratic proposals, which generally aimed to preserve the existing political balance and maintain the integrity of urban centers, were largely disregarded by the Republican majority. The map that ultimately gained traction and passed through the legislature was a product of the Republican caucus, designed to significantly alter the political leanings of the 5th Congressional District.

Key Developments: The New Map’s Approval

The legislative journey of Tennessee's new congressional map was marked by partisan debate and a swift passage through the Republican-dominated General Assembly. The core of the controversy centered on the drastic redrawing of the 5th Congressional District, historically a Democratic stronghold encompassing Nashville.

The Proposed Republican Map

The Republican-backed map, which ultimately became law, proposed a fundamental restructuring of the 5th District. Instead of keeping Nashville (Davidson County) largely intact within one district, the new plan "cracked" the county into three separate congressional districts:
1. The new 5th District: This district was redrawn to include a sliver of southern Davidson County, extending south into Republican-leaning Williamson and Maury counties, and then westward to Lewis, Hickman, and Marshall counties. This effectively transformed the district from a Democratic-leaning urban core into a predominantly Republican suburban and rural district.
2. The 6th District: This district, previously represented by Republican John Rose and encompassing a swath of rural and exurban counties east of Nashville, was extended westward to absorb a significant portion of eastern Davidson County.
3. The 7th District: This district, represented by Republican Mark Green and covering areas west and south of Nashville, was extended eastward to include a portion of western Davidson County.

This division of Nashville across three districts was the most contentious aspect of the map. Proponents argued it was necessary to balance populations given Nashville's growth and to ensure that all parts of the state had a voice. Opponents, however, quickly labeled it a clear example of partisan gerrymandering, designed to dilute the Democratic vote in Nashville and effectively eliminate one of the state's two Democratic congressional seats.

The map also made minor adjustments to other districts to achieve population parity, but these changes were less dramatic than those imposed on the 5th District and Nashville. The 9th Congressional District, centered in Memphis and represented by Democrat Steve Cohen, remained largely intact, retaining its majority-Black population. This was likely due to legal considerations under the Voting Rights Act, as significantly altering the 9th District could have presented a more direct and potent legal challenge.

Legislative Process and Arguments

The redistricting bill, House Bill 1097 / Senate Bill 1066, moved rapidly through the Tennessee General Assembly in early 2022.
– Committee Votes: The map first passed through the House State Government Committee and the Senate State and Local Government Committee, largely on party-line votes. Democratic amendments aimed at keeping Nashville whole or preserving the existing district's character were consistently rejected.
– Floor Votes: The bill then proceeded to the full chambers for a vote. In the House of Representatives, the map passed by a vote of 70-26. In the Senate, it passed by a vote of 26-6. Both votes demonstrated the Republican supermajority's firm control over the process, with virtually all Democrats voting against the measure.

Arguments by Proponents:
Republican legislators defended the map by asserting that it adhered to traditional redistricting principles:
– Equal Population: They argued the map achieved the necessary population equality among districts as mandated by federal law.
– Compactness and Contiguity: They stated the districts were reasonably compact and contiguous.
– Following County Lines: They emphasized efforts to keep counties whole where possible, though acknowledged the need to split Davidson County due to its large population. They contended that splitting a large urban county was a common practice in redistricting nationwide when a single county's population exceeds that of a congressional district.
– Reflecting Population Growth: They maintained the map reflected the significant population growth across the state, particularly in suburban and rural areas, and sought to give these growing areas appropriate representation.
– Avoiding Racial Gerrymandering: They explicitly denied any intent of racial gerrymandering, arguing the map was drawn based on political considerations and population shifts, not race.

Arguments by Opponents:
Democratic legislators and civil rights advocates vehemently opposed the map, raising several key objections:
– Partisan Gerrymandering: They accused the Republican majority of drawing a map solely to maximize their party's power and eliminate a Democratic seat, a clear abuse of the redistricting process.
– Dilution of Minority Voting Power: While not explicitly a majority-Black district, the old 5th District had a significant Black voting-age population (approximately 38%), which, combined with other minority groups and progressive voters, allowed for the election of preferred candidates. Opponents argued that splitting this cohesive voting bloc across three districts would dilute the collective political power of minority voters in Nashville.
– Cracking Communities of Interest: Critics argued that splitting Nashville, a unified metropolitan area with shared interests in transportation, economic development, and social services, across three distinct districts would diminish its voice in Congress and make it harder for its residents to advocate for their needs.
– Lack of Transparency: Opponents criticized the speed with which the map was pushed through and the limited opportunities for meaningful public input, suggesting the process was predetermined.

Governor’s Approval

Following legislative approval, the bill was sent to Governor Bill Lee's desk. As expected, given the Republican supermajority and his party affiliation, Governor Lee signed the redistricting bill into law on February 14, 2022. His approval cemented the new boundaries, setting the stage for the upcoming election cycle under the controversial map. Governor Lee did not issue extensive public statements specifically defending the map against its critics, largely deferring to the legislative process.

Impact: Who Is Affected by the New Map

The approval of Tennessee's new congressional map has far-reaching implications, fundamentally altering the political landscape for voters, incumbent representatives, and the partisan balance of the state's delegation. The most significant impact centers on Nashville and its surrounding communities.

The 5th Congressional District and Incumbent Jim Cooper

The previous 5th Congressional District was a reliably Democratic seat, represented for decades by Congressman Jim Cooper. Cooper, a moderate Democrat, had served in Congress since 2003, consistently winning re-election with strong support from Nashville's urban core and its diverse population. The district's demographic makeup included a significant African American voting-age population (around 38%), along with a diverse coalition of progressive voters, students, and young professionals.

The new map fundamentally dismantled this district. By splitting Nashville into three parts and attaching each part to a different, predominantly Republican suburban or rural district, the new 5th District was transformed. It now includes only a small portion of southern Davidson County, extending into much more conservative Williamson, Maury, Lewis, Hickman, and Marshall counties. This redrawing dramatically reduced the Black voting-age population within the new 5th District and shifted its overall political leanings to a strong Republican advantage.

Faced with this drastically altered district, which he described as "gerrymandered beyond recognition," Congressman Cooper announced in January 2022 that he would not seek re-election. His decision highlighted the effectiveness of the redistricting plan in eliminating a long-standing Democratic voice from Tennessee's delegation.

Voters in Nashville and Davidson County

The division of Nashville into three congressional districts represents a significant blow to the city's political unity and influence.
– Dilution of Urban Voice: Historically, Nashville had a single, unified voice in Congress through its representative. Now, its interests will be represented by three different members, each potentially beholden to different constituencies outside the city limits. This fragmentation can make it harder for Nashville to advocate for federal funding, infrastructure projects, or policies specific to urban challenges.
– Voter Confusion: Voters in Nashville will need to re-familiarize themselves with their new district boundaries and the candidates running in those districts. This can lead to confusion and potentially depress voter engagement in the short term.
– Shift in Representation: Residents of Nashville, particularly those in the newly drawn 6th and 7th Districts, will now be represented by congressmen whose primary bases of support are in rural and exurban areas. This could lead to a misalignment between the needs and priorities of Nashville residents and their representatives in Washington. For example, issues like public transportation, affordable housing, and urban development might receive less attention compared to issues relevant to agricultural or suburban communities.

Minority Voters

While the 5th District was not a majority-Black district, it was a "minority-influence" district where African American voters, in coalition with other groups, consistently played a decisive role in electing their preferred candidate. The new map's effect on this district has raised serious concerns about the dilution of minority voting power.
– Cracking: Critics argue that the map constitutes "cracking," a gerrymandering technique where a concentrated group of voters (in this case, minority voters and other Democratic-leaning residents in Nashville) is split across multiple districts to diminish their collective electoral strength. By scattering these voters, their ability to form a cohesive voting bloc and elect a candidate of their choice is significantly reduced.
– Impact on Representation: The new map makes it highly improbable for a minority candidate, or a candidate strongly aligned with minority interests, to win in any of the three new districts that encompass Nashville. This effectively reduces the overall representation for minority communities in Tennessee's congressional delegation, even if the 9th District in Memphis remains a majority-Black district.

Other Incumbent Representatives

While Jim Cooper's district was the most dramatically affected, other incumbents also saw changes to their districts:
– Rep. John Rose (R-TN-06): His 6th District now extends into eastern Davidson County. This adds a new, more urbanized constituency to his base, but given the overwhelming Republican lean of the rest of his district, his re-election prospects remain strong.
– Rep. Mark Green (R-TN-07): His 7th District now includes parts of western Davidson County. Similar to Rep. Rose, this introduces new voters, but his district remains heavily Republican.
– Other Republican Incumbents: Districts like the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 8th, represented by Republicans, saw minor adjustments to achieve population parity but remained safely Republican. The 9th District, represented by Democrat Steve Cohen, saw minimal changes and remains a secure Democratic seat.

Partisan Balance of the Delegation

The primary objective and most immediate impact of the new map is a significant shift in the partisan balance of Tennessee's congressional delegation.
– Likely 8R-1D Split: With the elimination of the competitive 5th District and its transformation into a Republican-leaning seat, the map is widely expected to result in an 8-1 Republican majority in Tennessee's nine-member delegation. This means Republicans could gain one seat, solidifying their dominance in federal representation from the state.
– National Implications: While one seat might seem minor, in a closely divided U.S. House of Representatives, every seat gained through redistricting contributes to the national struggle for partisan control. Tennessee's map is part of a broader national trend of aggressive partisan gerrymandering following the 2020 census, where both parties, where they have unilateral control, have drawn maps to maximize their electoral advantage.

What Next: Legal Challenges and Upcoming Elections

The approval of Tennessee's new congressional map is not the final chapter. The controversial nature of the redistricting has set the stage for anticipated legal battles and will undoubtedly shape the political landscape of the state for the upcoming election cycle and potentially beyond.

Anticipated Legal Challenges

The significant changes to the 5th Congressional District and the division of Nashville have prompted strong indications of legal action from various groups.
– Potential Plaintiffs: Likely plaintiffs include the Tennessee Democratic Party, national civil rights organizations such as the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and potentially individual voters in the affected districts.
– Grounds for Challenge:
– Voting Rights Act (Section 2): A primary legal avenue for challenge will be Section 2 of the VRA. While the 5th District was not a majority-minority district, plaintiffs could argue that the map, through "cracking," dilutes the voting strength of African Americans and other minority groups in Nashville, thereby denying them an equal opportunity to elect their preferred candidates. This would likely involve demonstrating a pattern of racially polarized voting and showing that a reasonably compact alternative district could have been drawn to allow minority voters to elect their candidate of choice.
– Equal Protection Clause (Racial Gerrymandering): Plaintiffs might also argue that the map constitutes unconstitutional racial gerrymandering under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. While the state denies race was the predominant factor, opponents could attempt to show that the map's design was driven by racial considerations, even if disguised as partisan motives, particularly given the strong correlation between race and voting patterns in the affected areas.
– State Constitutional Claims: Depending on the specific provisions of the Tennessee State Constitution regarding elections and representation, plaintiffs might also bring claims in state court. State constitutions can sometimes offer broader protections than federal law, though many state constitutions give legislatures wide latitude in drawing district lines.
– Partisan Gerrymandering: While the U.S. Supreme Court, in *Rucho v. Common Cause* (2019), ruled that federal courts generally cannot hear partisan gerrymandering claims, state courts may still be able to address such challenges based on state constitutional provisions. However, Tennessee's state constitution does not explicitly prohibit partisan gerrymandering, making this a more challenging legal argument.

– Judicial Forums: Lawsuits could be filed in both state and federal courts. Federal courts would handle claims under the VRA and the U.S. Constitution, while state courts would address state constitutional claims. The legal process is often lengthy, involving discovery, expert testimony on demographics and voting patterns, and multiple appeals.
– Timeline for Litigation: Given the imminence of the 2022 primary and general elections, any legal challenge would likely seek expedited review, potentially requesting preliminary injunctions to block the use of the new map. However, courts are often reluctant to change election maps close to an election, preferring to allow the map to be used for one cycle before making a final determination.

Upcoming Elections

The new congressional map will be in effect for the 2022 election cycle.
– Primary Elections (August 2022): Candidates will run in the newly drawn districts. The Republican primary for the new 5th District is expected to be competitive, with multiple candidates vying for the heavily favored Republican seat. The Democratic primaries in the 6th and 7th Districts will also see candidates attempting to represent the portions of Nashville now included in those districts, though they face an uphill battle in the general election.
– General Election (November 2022): The general election will be the first test of the new map's impact. The expectation is that the new 5th District will flip from Democratic to Republican, solidifying an 8-1 Republican advantage in the state's congressional delegation.
– Voter Education: There will be a critical need for voter education campaigns to inform residents of their new district boundaries, polling places, and candidates. This is particularly important in Nashville, where many voters will find themselves in a new congressional district with different representatives.

Political Fallout and Long-Term Implications

The redistricting decision has generated significant political fallout and will have long-term implications for Tennessee's political landscape.
– Continued Debate and Activism: The controversy surrounding the map is unlikely to subside. Civil rights groups and Democratic activists will continue to advocate for fairer maps and greater transparency in future redistricting cycles.
– Impact on Voter Engagement: The perception of a gerrymandered map could lead to cynicism and disengagement among some voters, particularly those who feel their voices have been diluted. Conversely, it could galvanize others to increase their activism and participation.
– Future Legislative Action: Should courts intervene and strike down parts of the map, the legislature would be forced to redraw the districts again, potentially leading to another round of intense political debate.
– Shaping Tennessee's Representation: For at least the next decade, the new map will largely determine who represents Tennessee in the U.S. House of Representatives. It is set to reinforce the state's conservative leanings at the federal level, potentially altering the types of issues and priorities championed by the state's delegation.

National Context of Redistricting

Tennessee's redistricting battle is not unique. It is part of a nationwide trend following the 2020 census, where states with single-party control have used their power to draw maps that heavily favor their party. States like North Carolina, Ohio, New York, Florida, and Texas have all seen contentious redistricting processes, often resulting in legal challenges. The aggregated impact of these state-level decisions can significantly influence the balance of power in the U.S. House of Representatives for the next ten years, making redistricting one of the most consequential political processes in American democracy.