Rhode Island

• Congressional and Legislative Process

  Primary Authority: Congressional and legislative maps are enacted by the Rhode Island General Assembly, subject to the Governor’s veto. The General Assembly can override a veto with a 3/5 vote in each chamber. Democrats currently have veto-proof majorities in both chambers.

  If a bill is presented to the governor during session, the governor has 6 days to sign or veto it; otherwise, it becomes law without signature. If the bill is delivered to the governor after session adjournment, the governor must sign or veto it within 10 days of session adjournment; otherwise, it becomes law. Sundays are excluded from these calculations.

  Mapping Timeline: Not specified.

  Redistricting Criteria: As nearly equal in population as possible; As compact as possible. [R.I. Const. art. VII, § 1; art. VIII, § 1]

  Map Challenges: Not specified.

• Ballot Measure & Referendum Process

  Types of Measures: Only the Rhode Island General Assembly can refer amendments to the ballot. There is no initiative or referendum process. [R.I. Const. art. XIV]

• Previous Redistricting Cycles

  2020

  • Congressional
    • Original Plan – H7323/S2162
      • Passed = February 15, 2022 (D-controlled)
      • Signed = February 16, 2022
    • Litigation History
      • None
  • Legislative
    • Original Plans (H/S) – H7323/S2162
      • Passed = February 15, 2022 (D-controlled)
      • Signed = February 16, 2022
    • Litigation History
      • None

  2010

  • Congressional
    • Original Plan – H 7209; S 2178
      • Passed = February 2, 2012 (D-controlled)
      • Signed = February 8, 2012
    • Litigation History
      • None
  • Legislative
    • Original Plans – H 7209; S 2178
      • Passed = February 2, 2012 (D-controlled)
      • Signed = February 8, 2012
    • Litigation History
      • Puyana v. State of Rhode Island, C.A. No. PC12-1272 (R.I. Super. Ct. May 28, 2013): Plaintiffs challenged the General Assembly’s enacted state House plan as unconstitutional, and on May 23, 2013, a Rhode Island Superior Court granted the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, thereby upholding the plan.

  2000

  • Congressional
    • Original Plan – H 7056
      • Enacted = February 20, 2002 (D-controlled)
    • Revised Plan – H 7725A
      • Enacted = June 28, 2002 (D-controlled)
    • Litigation History
      • None
  • Legislative
    • Original Plans – H 7056
      • Enacted = February 20, 2002 (D-controlled)
    • Revised Senate Plan – S 3137
      • Enacted = June 4, 2004 (D-controlled)
    • Litigation History
      • Metts v. Murphy, 363 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2004): Plaintiffs challenged the General Assembly’s 2002 state Senate plan as violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The district court had initially dismissed the complaint on the grounds the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the preconditions necessary for a Section 2 claim, but on March 30, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings to allow for a fuller development of the evidence and legal analysis thereon. While the case was pending on remand, the General Assembly enacted a revised state Senate Plan (S 3137) on June 4, 2004.
      • Parella v. Montalbano, 899 A.2d 1226 (R.I. 2006): Plaintiffs challenged the General Assembly’s enacted state Senate plan as violating the Rhode Island Constitution’s Compactness Clause. On June 6, 2006, the state Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling upholding the plan as constitutional.

Current districts for Rhode Island by chamber, shaded by the incumbent’s party.

No resolved cases on record for Rhode Island.