While there are no time constraints on the delimitation process in some countries, other countries impose quite rigid constraints on the length of time permitted for the redistricting process. The existence or absence of a legal deadline, however, does not necessarily relate to the time actually taken to redraw districts.
Neither the United States nor the United Kingdom imposes a mandatory time limit for completion of the redistricting process. Although there is no federal law and few state constitutions that set time limits, candidate-filing deadlines for upcoming congressional elections serve as a practical deadline for federal redistricting in the United States. If a state legislature does not complete redistricting by the candidate-filing deadline, the courts will intervene and either draw a plan of their own or implement a districting plan proposed by one of the parties to the court case. Hence, the practical, if not legally imposed, time period for redistricting in the United States is two years, beginning with the date that numbers from the decennial census are released and ending with the candidate-filing deadline for the first congressional election of the decade.
In the United Kingdom, the redistribution process can take more than twice as long as it does in the United States. The last English Boundary Commission Report, completed in 2006, took six years to prepare.
By contrast, redistricting in Australia and New Zealand takes less than one year. In 1984, for example, Australia undertook an extensive redistribution. Districts for the 125 seats in the Lower House were redrawn to create 148 new districts. The entire process--drawing up proposals, holding public inquiries, and modifying proposals to produce a final plan--took only six months to complete. In New Zealand a representation commission is required file its report no later than eight months after formal deliberations begin.
Two factors that appear to affect the length of time needed for redistricting are the design of the public inquiry process and whether the legislature is permitted to debate or modify a redistricting plan. The elaborate public inquiry process utilised in the United Kingdom adds considerably to the time needed for redistribution. (See the case study of the United Kingdom, The United Kingdom Redistribution Process, for a description of the public inquiry process in that country.) In Canada, the major source of delay has traditionally been Parliament. A sixty-day restriction was eventually placed on Parliament for the review of proposed federal redistribution plans.
Given the political nature of redistricting in the United States, it is remarkable how quickly the process is completed. Legislatures in most states are responsible for drawing the lines and enacting the final congressional districting plan. Part of the reason for the timeliness in most states is the lack of any structured public input into the redistricting process. While some states did hold public hearings during redistricting in 1991, it is doubtful that these hearings led to significant modifications in any redistricting plans.
Conclusion
The major disadvantage of a lengthy redistricting process is the same as that associated with a lengthy time interval between redistributions, i.e., large population deviations may result. In England, for example, there were wide discrepancies in district populations following the 1983 redistribution because the Boundary Commission redrew constituencies with voter registration counts from 1976, the year the redistribution process began.
