1 / 27

Redistricting

Redistricting. Required in House races since 1820s Done by states (44 states by legislatures, 6 by commissions) Gerrymandering : redistricting so as to maximize the number of legislative seats won by a party or group.

gustave
Download Presentation

Redistricting

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Redistricting • Required in House races since 1820s • Done by states (44 states by legislatures, 6 by commissions) • Gerrymandering: redistricting so as to maximize the number of legislative seats won by a party or group. • Governor Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts created a salamander-shaped district to help Democrats in 1811.

  2. Gerrymandering • Techniques • Packing • Cracking • Motivations • Partisan • Incumbency Protection • Racial

  3. Districting Principles(In descending order of importance) • Equal population • Contiguity • Compactness • Existing political communities • Fairness

  4. Equal population • Implied by having districts • Bad: Many states before 1960s • Illinois in 1940s (112k-914k) • Georgia in 1960s (272k-824k) • Good: Absolute equality • Is this really good? • Equal citizens is not the same as equal voters

  5. Equal Population is Most Important: • Equal population • Colgrave v. Green (1946): “political question” • Baker v. Carr (1962): Tennessee state districts • Gray v. Sanders (1963): Ga. unit rule • Wesberry v. Sanders (1964): “one person, one vote” doctrine • Veith v. Pennsylvania (2002): no deviation allowed

  6. Equality in 2000 Source: National Conf. of State Leg.

  7. Contiguity • General idea: keep the district together Bad Good

  8. Contiguity in the real world: NC

  9. Compactness • General idea: min(border/area) Good Bad

  10. Compactness in the real world: Nebraska

  11. Compactness in the real world

  12. Compactness in the real world: Florida

  13. Respect for existing political communities • Iowa & Counties • Politicians like it • May be better for citizens • Getting more difficult with computer drafting of districts and (nearly) equal populations

  14. Partisan FairnessThe Seats/Votes Relationship • Results should be symmetric • The “price” of a seat (in terms of votes) should not depend on which party gets more votes • Results should be unbiased • tied votes should give both parties equal numbers of seats Seats Seats The Ideal World Bias is the 60% 60% Asymmetry is the “kink” 50% Votes Votes 50% 50%

  15. Responsiveness • More responsive: seats are “cheaper” for the winning party • “Swing Ratio:” The slope of the seats votes relationship More Responsive Less Responsive Seats Seats 50% 50% Votes Votes 50% 50%

  16. Racial fairness • From 15th amendment • “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall note be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” • Voting Rights Act of 1965 • Prevented dilution • 1980: Mobile v. Bolden • S.C. says you have to show intent • 1982: VRA extension allows effect • 1990: Justice dept. moved to requiring maximizing minority representation through pre-clearance

  17. Voting Rights Act enacted in 1965 • Prohibited any voting qualifications or prerequisites • Suspended any test or other device as a prerequisite • Required 16 states to submit all changes in electoral laws to the Department of Justice • Authorized appointment of federal registrars if local registrars continued to discriminate • Amendments to the VRA in 1982 explicitly encouraged states to create “majority-minority” districts (to pack districts in order to elect minorities)

  18. Packing -> Democratic loss of South in 1990's. • “Paradox of Representation” • More minority lawmakers and more conservative House. • Shaw v Reno (1993) • After 1990 census, NC created two majority-minority districts that were approved by the DOJ. • Some white voters sued. • Court ruled non-minority citizens could sue over racial gerrymandering if district lines were so “bizarre”.

  19. Miller v. Johnson (1995) • Race can't be “predominant factor” in drawing a district. • Hunt v. Cromartie (1999) • Political gerrymandering is OK • Even if most Democrats happen to be black. • Majority-minority district is not evidence enough to prove race was main motivation. • Vieth v. Jubelirer • (2004, PA political redistricting) • LULAC v. Perry • (2006, Texas redistricting) • Crawford v. Marion County Election Board • (2008, Indiana voter ID)

  20. Apportionment methods • 1790 to 1830--The "Jefferson method" of greatest divisors • Fixed “ratio of representation” with rejected fractional remainders • Size of House can vary • 1840--The "Webster method" of major fractions • Fixed “ratio of representation” with retained major fractional remainders • Size of House can vary • 1850-1900--The "Vinton" or "Hamilton" method • Predetermined # of reps • Seats for state = Population of State/(Population of US/N of Seats) • Remaining seats assigned one at a time according to “largest remainder” • “Alabama paradox” • 1940-2000--The method of equal proportions

  21. Method of equal proportions • “Results in a listing of the states according to a priority value--calculated by dividing the population of each state by the geometric mean of its current and next seats—that assigns seats 51 through 435.” • Geometric Mean of Two Numbers: Square Root of Their Product • Examples • Geometric Mean of 1 & 2: 1.4142… • Geometric Mean of 7 & 8: 7.483… • Priority Value of 8th Seat for a State ≈ Population / 7.483 • Each of the 50 states is given one seat out of the current total of 435. The next, or 51st seat, goes to the state with the highest priority value • After being awarded a seat, a state’s priority value goes down (why?) Source: http://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/apportionment.html

  22. States’ Priority values after 2000 Seat # State State seat Priority # 51 CA 2 23992697 52 TX 2 14781356 53 CA 3 13852190 54 NY 2 13438545 55 FL 2 11334137 ... ... ... ... 431 IA 5 655598 432 FL 25 654377 433 OH 18 650239 434 CA 53 646330 435 NC 13 645931 436 UT 4 645684 437 NY 30 644329 438 TX 33 643276 439 MI 16 642646 440 IN 10 642025

  23. Reapportionment Court Challenges • Department of Commerce v. United States House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316 (1999) • The Census Bureau can’t sample • Utah v. Evans (2002) • UT wanted NC’s final seat • Imputation challenged • Mormon missionaries miscounted • The DC compromise proposal

  24. Reapportionment Change in 2000

  25. Projected Changes for 2010

More Related