This Act may be cited as the “Redistricting Reform Act of 2022”.

Congress finds that it has the authority to establish the terms and conditions States must follow in carrying out congressional redistricting after an apportionment of Members of the House of Representatives because—

A State that has been redistricted in accordance with this Act may not be redistricted again until after the next apportionment of Representatives under section 22(a) of the Act entitled “An Act to provide for the fifteenth and subsequent decennial censuses and to provide for an apportionment of Representatives in Congress”, approved June 18, 1929 (2 U.S.C. 2a), unless a court requires the State to conduct such subsequent redistricting to comply with the Constitution of the United States, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10301 et seq.), the terms or conditions of this Act, or applicable State law.

(a) Requiring plans To meet criteria.—A State may not use a congressional redistricting plan which is not in compliance with this section.

(b) Ranked criteria.—Under the redistricting plan of a State, there shall be established single-member congressional districts using the following criteria as set forth in the following order of priority:

(1) Districts shall comply with the United States Constitution, including the requirement that they substantially equalize total population.

(2) Districts shall comply with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10301 et seq.), including by creating any districts where, if based upon the totality of the circumstances, 2 or more politically cohesive groups protected by such Act are able to elect representatives of choice in coalition with one another, and all applicable Federal laws.

(3) (A) Districts shall be drawn, to the extent that the totality of the circumstances warrant, to ensure the practical ability of a group protected under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10301 et seq.) to participate in the political process and to nominate candidates and to elect representatives of choice is not diluted or diminished, regardless of whether or not such protected group constitutes a majority of a district’s citizen voting age population.

(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the assessment of whether a protected group has the practical ability to nominate candidates and to elect representatives of choice shall require the consideration of the following factors:

(i) Whether the group is politically cohesive.

(ii) Whether there is racially polarized voting in the relevant geographic region.

(iii) If there is racially polarized voting in the relevant geographic region, whether the preferred candidates of the group nevertheless receive a sufficient amount of consistent crossover support from other voters such that the group is a functional majority with the ability to both nominate candidates and elect representatives of choice.

(4) (A) Districts shall be drawn to respect communities of interest and neighborhoods to the extent practicable after compliance with the requirements of paragraphs (1) through (3). A community of interest is defined as an area for which the record before the entity responsible for developing and adopting the redistricting plan demonstrates the existence of broadly shared interests and representational needs, including shared interests and representational needs rooted in common ethnic, racial, economic, Indian, social, cultural, geographic, or historic identities, or arising from similar socioeconomic conditions. The term communities of interest may, if the record warrants, include political subdivisions such as counties, municipalities, Indian lands, or school districts, but shall not include common relationships with political parties or political candidates.

(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), in considering the needs of multiple, overlapping communities of interest, the entity responsible for developing and adopting the redistricting plan shall give greater weight to those communities of interest whose representational needs would most benefit from the community’s inclusion in a single congressional district.

(c) No favoring or disfavoring of political parties.—

(1) PROHIBITION.—A State may not use a redistricting plan to conduct an election if the plan’s congressional districts, considered cumulatively on a statewide basis, have been drawn with the intent, or have the effect, of materially favoring or disfavoring any political party.

(2) DETERMINATION OF EFFECT.—The determination of whether a redistricting plan has the effect of materially favoring or disfavoring a political party shall be based on an evaluation of the totality of circumstances which, at a minimum, shall involve consideration of each of the following factors:

(A) Computer modeling based on relevant statewide general elections for Federal office held over the 8 years preceding the adoption of the redistricting plan setting forth the probable electoral outcomes for the plan under a range of reasonably foreseeable conditions.

(B) An analysis of whether the redistricting plan is statistically likely to result in partisan advantage or disadvantage on a statewide basis, the degree of any such advantage or disadvantage, and whether such advantage or disadvantage is likely to be present under a range of reasonably foreseeable electoral conditions.

(C) A comparison of the modeled electoral outcomes for the redistricting plan to the modeled electoral outcomes for alternative plans that demonstrably comply with the requirements of paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subsection (b) in order to determine whether reasonable alternatives exist that would result in materially lower levels of partisan advantage or disadvantage on a statewide basis. For purposes of this subparagraph, alternative plans considered may include both actual plans proposed during the redistricting process and other plans prepared for purposes of comparison.

(D) Any other relevant information, including how broad support for the redistricting plan was among members of the entity responsible for developing and adopting the plan and whether the processes leading to the development and adoption of the plan were transparent and equally open to all members of the entity and to the public.

(3) REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION.—

(A) TRIGGER.—In any civil action brought under section 7 in which a party asserts a claim that a State has enacted a redistricting plan which is in violation of this subsection, a party may file a motion not later than 30 days after the enactment of the plan (or, in the case of a plan enacted before the effective date of this Act, not later than 30 days after the effective date of this Act) requesting that the court determine whether a presumption of such a violation exists. If such a motion is timely filed, the court shall hold a hearing not later than 15 days after the date the motion is filed to assess whether a presumption of such a violation exists.

(B) ASSESSMENT.—To make the determination required under subparagraph (A), the court shall do the following:

(i) Determine the number of congressional districts under the plan that would have been carried by each political party’s candidates for the office of President and the office of Senator in the 2 most recent general elections for the office of President and the 2 most recent general elections for the office of Senator (other than special general elections) immediately preceding the enactment of the plan, except that if a State conducts a primary election for the office of Senator which is open to candidates of all political parties, the primary election shall be used instead of the general election and the number of districts carried by a party’s candidates for the office of Senator shall be determined on the basis of the combined vote share of all candidates in the election who are affiliated with such party.

(ii) Determine, for each of the 4 elections assessed under clause (i), whether the number of districts that would have been carried by any party’s candidate as determined under clause (i) results in partisan advantage or disadvantage in excess of the applicable threshold described in subparagraph (C). The degree of partisan advantage or disadvantage shall be determined by one or more standard quantitative measures of partisan fairness that—

(I) use a party’s share of the statewide vote to calculate a corresponding benchmark share of seats; and

(II) measure the amount by which the share of seats the party’s candidate would have won in the election involved exceeds the benchmark share of seats.

(C) APPLICABLE THRESHOLD DESCRIBED.—The applicable threshold described in this subparagraph is, with respect to a State and a number of seats, the greater of—

(i) an amount equal to 7 percent of the number of congressional districts in the State; or

(ii) one congressional district.

(D) DESCRIPTION OF QUANTITATIVE MEASURES; PROHIBITING ROUNDING.—In carrying out this subsection—

(i) the standard quantitative measures of partisan fairness used by the court may include the simplified efficiency gap but may not include strict proportionality; and

(ii) the court may not round any number.

(E) PRESUMPTION OF VIOLATION.—A plan is presumed to violate paragraph (1) if it exceeds the threshold described in subparagraph (C) with respect to 2 or more of the 4 elections assessed under subparagraph (B).

(F) STAY OF USE OF PLAN.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, in any action under this paragraph, the following rules shall apply:

(i) Upon filing of a motion under subparagraph (A), a State’s use of the plan which is the subject of the motion shall be automatically stayed pending resolution of such motion.

(ii) If after considering the motion, the court rules that the plan is presumed under subparagraph (E) to violate paragraph (1), a State may not use such plan until and unless the court which is carrying out the determination of the effect of the plan under paragraph (2) determines that, notwithstanding the presumptive violation, the plan does not violate paragraph (1).

(G) NO EFFECT ON OTHER ASSESSMENTS.—The absence of a presumption of a violation with respect to a redistricting plan as determined under this paragraph shall not affect the determination of the effect of the plan under paragraph (2).

(4) DETERMINATION OF INTENT.—A court may rely on all available evidence when determining whether a redistricting plan was drawn with the intent to materially favor or disfavor a political party, including evidence of the partisan effects of a plan, the degree of support the plan received from members of the entity responsible for developing and adopting the plan, and whether the processes leading to development and adoption of the plan were transparent and equally open to all members of the entity and to the public.

(5) NO VIOLATION BASED ON CERTAIN CRITERIA.—No redistricting plan shall be found to be in violation of paragraph (1) because of the proper application of the criteria set forth in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subsection (b), unless one or more alternative plans could have complied with such paragraphs without having the effect of materially favoring or disfavoring a political party.

(d) Factors prohibited from consideration.—In developing the redistricting plan for the State, the State may not take into consideration any of the following factors, except as necessary to comply with the criteria described in paragraphs (1) through (3) of subsection (b), to achieve partisan fairness and comply with subsection (c), and to enable the redistricting plan to be measured against the external metrics described in section 5(c):

(1) The residence of any Member of the House of Representatives or candidate.

(2) The political party affiliation or voting history of the population of a district.

(e) Additional criteria.—A State may not rely upon criteria not set forth in this section to justify non-compliance with the requirements of this section.

(f) Applicability.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—This section applies to any authority, whether appointed, elected, judicial, or otherwise, responsible for enacting the congressional redistricting plan of a State.

(2) DATE OF ENACTMENT.—This section applies to any congressional redistricting plan that would be, or is, in effect after the date of enactment of this Act, regardless of the date of enactment by the State of the congressional redistricting plan.

(g) Severability of criteria.—If any of the criteria set forth in this section or any amendment made by this section, or the application of such criteria to any person, circumstance, or amendment, is held to be unconstitutional, the remaining criteria set forth in this section, and the application of such criteria to any person, circumstance, or amendment, shall not be affected by the holding.

(a) Public notice and input.—

(1) USE OF OPEN AND TRANSPARENT PROCESS.—The entity responsible for developing and adopting the congressional redistricting plan of a State shall solicit and take into consideration comments from the public throughout the process of developing the plan, and shall carry out its duties in an open and transparent manner which provides for the widest public dissemination reasonably possible of its proposed and final redistricting plans.

(2) WEBSITE.—

(A) FEATURES.—The entity shall maintain a public internet site which is not affiliated with or maintained by the office of any elected official and which includes the following features:

(i) All proposed redistricting plans and the final redistricting plan, including the accompanying written evaluation under subsection (c).

(ii) All comments received from the public submitted under paragraph (1).

(iii) Access in an easily usable format to the demographic and other data used by the entity to develop and analyze the proposed redistricting plans, together with any reports analyzing and evaluating such plans and access to software that members of the public may use to draw maps of proposed districts.

(iv) A method by which members of the public may submit comments directly to the entity.

(B) SEARCHABLE FORMAT.—The entity shall ensure that all information posted and maintained on the site under this paragraph, including information and proposed maps submitted by the public, shall be maintained in an easily searchable format.

(3) MULTIPLE LANGUAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL NOTICES.—The entity responsible for developing and adopting the plan shall make each notice which is required to be posted and published under this section available in any language in which the State (or any jurisdiction in the State) is required to provide election materials under section 203 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10503).

(b) Development of plan.—

(1) HEARINGS.—The entity responsible for developing and adopting the congressional redistricting plan shall hold hearings both before and after releasing proposed plans in order to solicit public input on the content of such plans. These hearings shall—

(A) be held in different regions of the State and streamed live on the public internet site maintained under subsection (a)(2);

(B) be sufficient in number, scheduled at times and places, and noticed and conducted in a manner to ensure that all members of the public, including members of racial, ethnic, and language minorities protected under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, have a meaningful opportunity to attend and provide input both before and after the entity releases proposed plans.

(2) POSTING OF MAPS.—The entity responsible for developing and adopting the congressional redistricting plan shall make proposed plans, amendments to proposed plans, and the data needed to analyze such plans for compliance with the criteria of this Act available for public review, including on the public internet site required under subsection (a)(2), for a period of not less than 5 days before any vote or hearing is held on any such plan or any amendment to such a plan.

(c) Written evaluation of plan against external metrics.—The entity responsible for developing and adopting the congressional redistricting plan for a State shall include with each redistricting plan voted upon by such entity, or a committee of such entity, and published under this section a written evaluation that measures each such plan against external metrics which cover the criteria set forth in section 4(b), including the impact of the plan on the ability of members of a class of citizens protected by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10301 et seq.) to elect candidates of choice, the degree to which the plan preserves or divides communities of interest, and any analysis used by the State to assess compliance with the requirements of section 4(b) and (c).

(d) Public input and comments.—The entity responsible for developing and adopting the congressional redistricting plan for a State shall make all public comments received about potential plans, including alternative plans, available to the public on the internet site required under subsection (a)(2), at no cost, not later than 24 hours prior to holding a vote on final adoption of a plan.

(a) Deadline for enactment of plan.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), each State shall enact a final congressional redistricting plan following transmission of a notice of apportionment to the President by the earliest of—

(A) the deadline set forth in State law, including any extension to the deadline provided in accordance with State law;

(B) February 15 of the year in which regularly scheduled general elections for Federal office are held in the State; or

(C) 90 days before the date of the next regularly scheduled primary election for Federal office held in the State.

(2) SPECIAL RULE FOR PLANS ENACTED PRIOR TO EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ACT.—If a State enacted a final congressional redistricting plan prior to the effective date of this Act and the plan is not in compliance with the requirements of this Act, the State shall enact a final redistricting plan which is in compliance with the requirements of this Act not later than 45 days after the effective date of this Act.

(b) Development of plan by court in case of missed deadline.—If a State has not enacted a final congressional redistricting plan by the applicable deadline under subsection (a), or it appears likely that a State will fail to enact a final congressional redistricting plan by such deadline—

(1) any citizen of the State may file an action in the United States district court for the applicable venue asking the district court to assume jurisdiction;

(2) the United States district court for the applicable venue, acting through a 3-judge court convened pursuant to section 2284 of title 28, United States Code, shall have the exclusive authority to develop and publish the congressional redistricting plan for the State; and

(3) the final congressional redistricting plan developed and published by the court under this section shall be deemed to be enacted on the date on which the court publishes the final congressional redistricting plan, as described in subsection (e).

(c) Applicable venue.—For purposes of this section, the “applicable venue” with respect to a State is the District of Columbia or the judicial district in which the capital of the State is located, as selected by the first party to file with the court sufficient evidence that a State has failed to, or is reasonably likely to fail to, enact a final redistricting plan for the State prior to the expiration of the applicable deadline set forth in subsection (a).

(d) Procedures for Development of Plan.—

(1) CRITERIA.—In developing a redistricting plan for a State under this section, the court shall adhere to the same terms and conditions that applied (or that would have applied, as the case may be) to the development of a plan by the State under section 4.

(2) ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND RECORDS.—The court shall have access to any information, data, software, or other records and material that was used (or that would have been used, as the case may be) by the State in carrying out its duties under this Act.

(3) HEARING; PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.—In developing a redistricting plan for a State, the court shall—

(A) hold one or more evidentiary hearings at which interested members of the public may appear and be heard and present testimony, including expert testimony, in accordance with the rules of the court; and

(B) consider other submissions and comments by the public, including proposals for redistricting plans to cover the entire State or any portion of the State.

(4) USE OF SPECIAL MASTER.—To assist in the development and publication of a redistricting plan for a State under this section, the court may appoint a special master to make recommendations to the court on possible plans for the State.

(e) Publication of plan.—

(1) PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF INITIAL PLAN.—Upon completing the development of one or more initial redistricting plans, the court shall make the plans available to the public at no cost, and shall also make available the underlying data used to develop the plans and a written evaluation of the plans against external metrics (as described in section 5(c)).

(2) PUBLICATION OF FINAL PLAN.—At any time after the expiration of the 14-day period which begins on the date the court makes the plans available to the public under paragraph (1), and taking into consideration any submissions and comments by the public which are received during such period, the court shall develop and publish the final redistricting plan for the State.

(f) Use of interim plan.—In the event that the court is not able to develop and publish a final redistricting plan for the State with sufficient time for an upcoming election to proceed, the court may develop and publish an interim redistricting plan which shall serve as the redistricting plan for the State until the court develops and publishes a final plan in accordance with this section. Nothing in this subsection may be construed to limit or otherwise affect the authority or discretion of the court to develop and publish the final redistricting plan, including the discretion to make any changes the court deems necessary to an interim redistricting plan.

(g) Appeals.—Review on appeal of any final or interim plan adopted by the court in accordance with this section shall be governed by the appellate process in section 7.

(h) Stay of State proceedings.—The filing of an action under this section shall act as a stay of any proceedings in State court with respect to the State’s congressional redistricting plan unless otherwise ordered by the court.

(a) Civil Enforcement.—

(1) ACTIONS BY ATTORNEY GENERAL.—The Attorney General may bring a civil action for such relief as may be appropriate to carry out this Act.

(2) AVAILABILITY OF PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Any citizen of a State who is aggrieved by the failure of the State to meet the requirements of the Constitution or Federal law, including this Act, with respect to the State’s congressional redistricting, may bring a civil action in the United States district court for the applicable venue for such relief as may be appropriate to remedy the failure.

(B) SPECIAL RULE FOR CLAIMS RELATING TO PARTISAN ADVANTAGE.—For purposes of subparagraph (A), a person who is aggrieved by the failure of a State to meet the requirements of section 4(c) may include—

(i) any political party or committee in the State; and

(ii) any registered voter in the State who resides in a congressional district that the voter alleges was drawn in a manner that contributes to a violation of such section.

(C) NO AWARDING OF DAMAGES TO PREVAILING PARTY.—Except for an award of attorney’s fees under subsection (d), a court in a civil action under this section shall not award the prevailing party any monetary damages, compensatory, punitive, or otherwise.

(3) DELIVERY OF COMPLAINT TO HOUSE AND SENATE.—In any action brought under this section, a copy of the complaint shall be delivered promptly to the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate.

(4) EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION AND APPLICABLE VENUE.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The district courts of the United States shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine claims asserting that a congressional redistricting plan violates the requirements of the Constitution or Federal law, including this Act.

(B) APPLICABLE VENUE.—The applicable venue for such an action shall be the United States District Court for the District of Columbia or for the judicial district in which the capital of the State is located, as selected by the person bringing the action.

(C) SPECIAL RULE.—In a civil action that includes a claim that a redistricting plan is in violation of subsection (b) or (c) of section 4 the United States District Court for the District of Columbia shall have jurisdiction over any defendant who has been served in any United States judicial district in which the defendant resides, is found, or has an agent, or in the United States judicial district in which the capital of the State is located.

(D) PROCESS.—Process may be served in any United States judicial district where a defendant resides, is found, or has an agent, or in the United States judicial district in which the capital of the State is located.

(5) USE OF 3-JUDGE COURT.—If an action under this section raises statewide claims under the Constitution or this Act, the action shall be heard by a 3-judge court convened pursuant to section 2284 of title 28, United States Code.

(6) REVIEW OF FINAL DECISION.—A final decision in an action brought under this section shall be reviewable on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. There shall be no right of appeal in such proceedings to any other court of appeals. Such appeal shall be taken by the filing of a notice of appeal within 10 days of the entry of the final decision. A final decision by the Court of Appeals may be reviewed by the Supreme Court of the United States by writ of certiorari.

(b) Expedited Consideration.—In any action brought under this section, it shall be the duty of the district court, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and the Supreme Court of the United States (if it chooses to hear the action) to advance on the docket and to expedite to the greatest possible extent the disposition of the action and appeal.

(c) Remedies.—

(1) ADOPTION OF REPLACEMENT PLAN.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—If the district court in an action under this section finds that the congressional redistricting plan of a State violates, in whole or in part, the requirements of this Act—

(i) the court shall adopt a replacement congressional redistricting plan for the State in accordance with the process set forth in section 6; or

(ii) if circumstances warrant and no delay to an upcoming regularly scheduled election for the House of Representatives in the State would result, the district court, in its discretion, may allow a State to develop and propose a remedial congressional redistricting plan for review by the court to determine whether the plan is in compliance with this Act, except that—

(I) the State may not develop and propose a remedial plan under this clause if the court determines that the congressional redistricting plan of the State was enacted with discriminatory intent in violation of the Constitution or section 4(b); and

(II) nothing in this clause may be construed to permit a State to use such a remedial plan which has not been approved by the court.

(B) PROHIBITING USE OF PLANS IN VIOLATION OF REQUIREMENTS.—No court shall order a State to use a congressional redistricting plan which violates, in whole or in part, the requirements of this Act, or to conduct an election under terms and conditions which violate, in whole or in part, the requirements of this Act.

(C) SPECIAL RULE IN CASE FINAL ADJUDICATION NOT EXPECTED WITHIN 3 MONTHS OF ELECTION.—

(i) DUTY OF COURT.—If final adjudication of an action under this section is not reasonably expected to be completed at least 3 months prior to the next regularly scheduled primary election for the House of Representatives in the State, the district court shall, as the balance of equities warrant—

(I) develop, adopt, and order the use of an interim congressional redistricting plan in accordance with section 6(f) to address any claims under this Act for which a party seeking relief has demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success; or

(II) order adjustments to the timing of primary elections for the House of Representatives and other related deadlines, as needed, to allow sufficient opportunity for adjudication of the matter and adoption of a remedial or replacement plan for use in the next regularly scheduled general elections for the House of Representatives.

(ii) PROHIBITING FAILURE TO ACT ON GROUNDS OF PENDENCY OF ELECTION.—The court may not refuse to take any action described in clause (i) on the grounds of the pendency of the next election held in the State or the potential for disruption, confusion, or additional burdens with respect to the administration of the election in the State.

(2) NO STAY PENDING APPEAL.—Notwithstanding the appeal of an order finding that a congressional redistricting plan of a State violates, in whole or in part, the requirements of this Act, no stay shall issue which shall bar the development or adoption of a replacement or remedial plan under this subsection, as may be directed by the district court, pending such appeal. If such a replacement or remedial plan has been adopted, no appellate court may stay or otherwise enjoin the use of such plan during the pendency of an appeal, except upon an order holding, based on the record, that adoption of such plan was an abuse of discretion.

(3) SPECIAL AUTHORITY OF COURT OF APPEALS.—

(A) ORDERING OF NEW REMEDIAL PLAN.—If, upon consideration of an appeal under this Act, the Court of Appeals determines that a plan does not comply with the requirements of this Act, it shall direct that the District Court promptly develop a new remedial plan with assistance of a special master for consideration by the Court of Appeals.

(B) FAILURE OF DISTRICT COURT TO TAKE TIMELY ACTION.—If, at any point during the pendency of an action under this section, the District Court fails to take action necessary to permit resolution of the case prior to the next regularly scheduled election for the House of Representatives in the State or fails to grant the relief described in paragraph (1)(C), any party may seek a writ of mandamus from the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The Court of Appeals shall have jurisdiction over the motion for a writ of mandamus and shall establish an expedited briefing and hearing schedule for resolution of the motion. If the Court of Appeals determines that a writ should be granted, the Court of Appeals shall take any action necessary, including developing a congressional redistricting plan with assistance of a special master to ensure that a remedial plan is adopted in time for use in the next regularly scheduled election for the House of Representatives in the State.

(4) EFFECT OF ENACTMENT OF REPLACEMENT PLAN.—A State’s enactment of a redistricting plan which replaces a plan which is the subject of an action under this section shall not be construed to limit or otherwise affect the authority of the court to adjudicate or grant relief with respect to any claims or issues not addressed by the replacement plan, including claims that the plan which is the subject of the action was enacted, in whole or in part, with discriminatory intent, or claims to consider whether relief should be granted under section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10302(c)) based on the plan which is the subject of the action.

(d) Attorney’s Fees.—In a civil action under this section, the court may allow the prevailing party (other than the United States) reasonable attorney fees, including litigation expenses, and costs.

(e) Relation to Other Laws.—

(1) RIGHTS AND REMEDIES ADDITIONAL TO OTHER RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.—The rights and remedies established by this section are in addition to all other rights and remedies provided by law, and neither the rights and remedies established by this section nor any other provision of this Act shall supersede, restrict, or limit the application of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10301 et seq.).

(2) VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965.—Nothing in this Act authorizes or requires conduct that is prohibited by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10301 et seq.).

(f) Legislative privilege.—No person, legislature, or State may claim legislative privilege under either State or Federal law in a civil action brought under this section or in any other legal challenge, under either State or Federal law, to a redistricting plan enacted under this Act.

(g) Removal.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—At any time, a civil action brought in a State court which asserts a claim for which the district courts of the United States have exclusive jurisdiction under this Act may be removed by any party in the case, including an intervenor, by filing, in the district court for an applicable venue under this section, a notice of removal signed pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure containing a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal. Consent of parties shall not be required for removal.

(2) CLAIMS NOT WITHIN THE ORIGINAL OR SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION.—If a civil action removed in accordance with paragraph (1) contains claims not within the original or supplemental jurisdiction of the district court, the district court shall sever all such claims and remand them to the State court from which the action was removed.

Nothing in this Act or in any amendment made by this Act may be construed to affect the manner in which a State carries out elections for State or local office, including the process by which a State establishes the districts used in such elections.

This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall apply on the date of enactment of this Act.