Redistricting could obscure rural voices, crack some urban Democratic control, and cause more political polarization

Most rural areas lost population from 2010 to 2020, so they will lose some legislative representation.

Some legislators in Colorado complained that the proposed map would ignore the concerns of many rural areas because they're lumped into districts with cities, Matthew Bennett reports for the Aspen Daily News. But one of the 11 committee members who approved the map said the larger-than-desired districts couldn't be avoided, since most of the state's 64 counties are rural.

North Dakota could lose at least one rural district as the two rural legislative districts near Grand Forks are slated to be combined, Sam Easter reports for the Grand Forks Herald.

Grouping rural areas with cities may obscure rural voices, but the practice also generally weakens Democratic power. In Oklahoma, the Republican-controlled legislature is roping more rural areas into the Oklahoma City district to do just that, Dan Snyder reports for KOKH in Oklahoma City.

"Tennessee legislators are considering splitting up the growing city of Nashville into multiple congressional districts, a redistricting plan that would almost certainly doom the sitting Democratic representative and send a Republican to Washington in his place," reports NBC's Jane C. Timm.

David Wasserman of the Cook Political Report with Amy Walter believes the states' new maps for congressional districts could help flip as many as five House seats to Republicans nationwide, and will likely increase political polarization, Lou Jacobson reports for Poynter.

"The widening urban-vs.-rural chasm has increased parties’ ability to draw safe seats without resorting to crazy-looking gerrymanders, so the most predictable net effect of this round is a significant decline in the number of competitive seats," Wasserman told Jacobson. "When seats are in the bag, there’s no incentive for parties to recruit candidates with broad appeal, and that means that fringier candidates win primaries instead."

Also, "The more safe or nearly safe seats that are created, the more the candidates will be responsive to challengers in primaries, because it’s unlikely they would lose a general election," Jacobson reports. "Since primary challenges are usually launched from the right (for Republicans) or from the left (for Democrats), both parties’ caucuses in the House could end up being even more conservative and liberal, respectively, than they are today."