Demo Overview Online Contact

Executive Summary

After the 2020 Census, Tennessee had to redraw all 99 seats in the state House of Representatives. The new map had to satisfy federal one-person-one-vote requirements, the federal Voting Rights Act, and the Tennessee Constitution limits on splitting counties between districts. The mapmaking work was led by Doug Himes, House Ethics Counsel for the Tennessee House of Representatives, who used Maptitude for Redistricting.

The enacted map was challenged in Wygant v. Lee. A three-judge chancery panel upheld it as constitutional by a 2-1 vote in November 2023, and the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed in relevant part in December 2025. Along the way the choice of mapping software became a contested issue at trial, and the panel made a factual finding about it: the Court finds Maptitude is superior to the free web tool used to build the alternative maps.

Business Challenge: A Compressed Schedule and a County-Splitting Limit

Tennessee mapmakers must reconcile county integrity with population equality across 99 districts, and that work cannot begin in earnest until detailed census data is released. The pandemic compressed the schedule. According to the findings, initial census data arrived in April 2021 and the follow-up micro-data containing census block data did not arrive until August 2021, which left five months rather than eleven to complete the map before the full General Assembly considered it.

The findings state that Himes utilized a mapmaking software named “Maptitude” and describe it as highly rated software used by multiple state and local governments, as well as federal agencies. County, precinct voting district, and census block data were all loaded into Maptitude. His first step was to determine which counties held enough population to contain whole districts and which would need to be divided. With an ideal district of 69,806 residents, ten counties were sufficient in population to support whole districts.

Map of Tennessee districts with Gibson County split between two districts

The Solution: Contiguity, Variance, and County Splits in One Plan

The plaintiff's expert produced a series of maps intended to show that Tennessee could split fewer counties while still complying with federal requirements. He built those maps in a free web tool rather than in commercial redistricting software. The findings record that the expert asked to use commercial software instead, and that the plaintiffs declined the request because of the cost of the license.

That choice drew direct comparison at trial. The findings record three views:

1. The State's reviewing expert. Sean Trende, a Ph.D. candidate at Ohio State University and an analyst for RealClearPolitics.com, was retained to evaluate the maps. The order records that Trende testified the free tool is okay as a tool, but that Maptitude is the gold standard of redistricting software.
2. The mapmaker. Himes, who used Maptitude for Redistricting, described the free tool as a fun tool for the public to use, but said he would not use it in a professional capacity. He testified that it includes partisan factors that can lend confusion and affect the finished product.
3. The plaintiff's expert. He took the opposite position. The order records that he disagreed and felt the free tool is sufficient and adequate.

The panel did not leave this as a standoff between competing opinions. It tied the dispute to a concrete problem in the work product. Contiguity means that a person can walk to any point within a district without leaving that district, and several of the plaintiff's maps contained individual census blocks that were not connected within particular districts. The findings state that non-contiguity was a problem repeatedly pointed out by Himes, leading to numerous revisions, and that the expert explained this was because he was using the free software to create his maps.

Contiguity was not the only defect driving the revision cycle. Across the "13" series, a "13.5" series, and a "14" series, the findings also record Voting Rights Act concerns around Madison County and House District 80, a prohibited double split of Sullivan County, excess population variance, and shortfalls in core preservation and incumbent pairing.

Results & Benefits

Weighing the testimony and the record, the panel made its own factual finding rather than simply recounting what each witness said. The finding describes the two tools as they were used in this litigation, on the record before the court in 2023. The finding appears in the separate opinion of Chancellor Steven W. Maroney, pages 1 through 37 of which were adopted as the majority decision of the panel on the House plan. The panel divided 2-1 on that plan, but the dissent turned on the burden of proof and on whether the legislature had treated thirty county splits as a safe harbor. No judge disputed the software comparison.

The software also appears in the analysis of whether the legislature acted in good faith. Listing the evidence supporting that conclusion, the order states that the General Assembly supplied the staffing and technology for mapmaking, including the superior Maptitude software.

The findings also show the revision process eventually converging on a legally viable alternative. The plaintiff's expert produced Map 13d_e, submitted to the State in January 2023, which split 24 counties against 30 in the enacted map and marginally improved on the enacted variance at 9.89% against 9.90%. That map solved the Sullivan County double split but at the expense of losing constitutionally required contiguity, which the expert then revised to remedy. As to the final revised version, the findings state that Himes agrees it is a constitutional map.

Enacted map compared with the final revised alternative, as recorded in the 2025 Supreme Court opinion

Measure	Enacted House map	Revised Map 13d_e
Counties split	30	24
Population variance	9.90%	9.89%
Majority-minority districts	13	13

On appeal, the software comparison did not reappear. The December 10, 2025 opinion confirms that Himes prepared a concept map using software called Maptitude, then describes that process: calculating the ideal district population, identifying which counties could remain whole, and applying federal and state requirements. The opinion does not name the free tool, and it does not repeat the comparative findings from the trial court. The decision turned on standing and on the constitutional questions, not on which software produced the maps. It neither adopted nor disturbed the panel finding on software. The Court held that Wygant had standing to challenge only the split of Gibson County and affirmed the trial court's judgment rejecting Wygant's district-specific challenge on the merits. The parts it reversed and vacated concerned the Senate map and the standing of the voter who challenged it, neither of which touched the House mapmaking.

The record in this case points to three practical takeaways for anyone drawing legislative districts:

1. Contiguity is enforced, not assumed. The repeated non-contiguous census blocks in the alternative maps were traced in testimony to the tool used to build them. Districts that fail contiguity are not merely untidy. They generate revision cycles and become a target at trial.
2. Professional plans face professional scrutiny. Every county split in the enacted map had to be explained and defended, split by split. The testimony draws a clear line between tools suited to public exploration and tools used to produce a plan that will be litigated.
3. The tool becomes part of the record. In this case the software named in the findings was Maptitude, and the panel characterized it as highly rated software used by multiple state and local governments and by federal agencies, and as the superior software supplied for the mapmaking work.

Request a Demo Maptitude for Redistricting

Sources: Wygant v. Lee, Memorandum and Final Order, Chancery Court for Davidson County, Tennessee, Nov. 22, 2023. The findings and the software comparison appear in Exhibit A, the Separate Opinion of Chancellor Steven W. Maroney, pages 1 through 37 of which were adopted as the majority decision of the panel on the House plan; passages cited above appear at Exhibit A pages 4, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 31. Appeal: Wygant v. Lee, No. M2023-01686-SC-R3-CV (Tenn. Dec. 10, 2025).