1 / 67

Redistricting 101

kylemore
Download Presentation

Redistricting 101

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 101

    2. The Brennan Center and Redistricting

    3. Today’s Conversation This is meant to be both a refresher course for those of you who know this very well and, also, if you can keep in the back of your mind- picture this as a “train the trainers” session and we offer both this particular PowerPoint and the structures of it for you to take back to your own communities and help them answer some of these very questions. So, that’s the reason that we’ve pitched it to this level, and we hope a level will be usefully to you. This, too, is prone to plenty of feedback if you have it. This is meant to be both a refresher course for those of you who know this very well and, also, if you can keep in the back of your mind- picture this as a “train the trainers” session and we offer both this particular PowerPoint and the structures of it for you to take back to your own communities and help them answer some of these very questions. So, that’s the reason that we’ve pitched it to this level, and we hope a level will be usefully to you. This, too, is prone to plenty of feedback if you have it.

    4. Today’s Conversation

    5. What is “Redistricting”? It has a very long history, well back before this country, but even in this country right at it’s very founding. There’s also a history of those who have the power to draw the lines using it to keep those they dislike out. At the very first Continental Congress, Patrick Henry, who was vehemently opposed to the new constitution, tried to arrange the Virginia district so that James Madison, the author of that constitution, the primary author, would not be able to get a seat in Congress. So, right from the very beginning, an attempt to keep disfavored political voices out of the structure using the redistricting process. Also right from the very beginning, a warning didn’t work. James Madison, in fact, was elected. Gerrymandering is part of a political strategy but does not predetermine the result of an election. Next, Elbridge Gerry, in 1812, the Governor of Massachusetts, signed off on a redistricting plan to keep his party in power. One of the districts, in particular, followed town lines curving around the area of Massachusetts, just north of Boston. An editorial artist, an enterprising editorial artist, looked at the district and decided it looked more like a salamander than a representative district-added claws, and a beak, and wings and from then on was dubbed the “gerrymander”-what we know today as gerrymander and those who apparently live Elbridge Gerry’s home town are very upset at the bastardization of the name. One other redistricting footnote for the history, out of curiosity, and that is, Elbridge Gerry, inventor in some ways of or equeter of the name of the gerrymander went to work as the Vice President for James Madison, one of the gerrymander’s first American victims. And, it’s not ancient history. We have had the gerrymander and, most recently in Texas, we’ve had districts described by some as a Mayan bird. The forms change somewhat, and the animals change somewhat, but the concept of drawing district lines for particular purposes has stayed the same.It has a very long history, well back before this country, but even in this country right at it’s very founding. There’s also a history of those who have the power to draw the lines using it to keep those they dislike out. At the very first Continental Congress, Patrick Henry, who was vehemently opposed to the new constitution, tried to arrange the Virginia district so that James Madison, the author of that constitution, the primary author, would not be able to get a seat in Congress. So, right from the very beginning, an attempt to keep disfavored political voices out of the structure using the redistricting process. Also right from the very beginning, a warning didn’t work. James Madison, in fact, was elected. Gerrymandering is part of a political strategy but does not predetermine the result of an election. Next, Elbridge Gerry, in 1812, the Governor of Massachusetts, signed off on a redistricting plan to keep his party in power. One of the districts, in particular, followed town lines curving around the area of Massachusetts, just north of Boston. An editorial artist, an enterprising editorial artist, looked at the district and decided it looked more like a salamander than a representative district-added claws, and a beak, and wings and from then on was dubbed the “gerrymander”-what we know today as gerrymander and those who apparently live Elbridge Gerry’s home town are very upset at the bastardization of the name. One other redistricting footnote for the history, out of curiosity, and that is, Elbridge Gerry, inventor in some ways of or equeter of the name of the gerrymander went to work as the Vice President for James Madison, one of the gerrymander’s first American victims. And, it’s not ancient history. We have had the gerrymander and, most recently in Texas, we’ve had districts described by some as a Mayan bird. The forms change somewhat, and the animals change somewhat, but the concept of drawing district lines for particular purposes has stayed the same.

    6. A Brief History Practice actually started way back in the earliest days of the country, when Patrick Henry (who opposed the Constitution) tried to gerrymander the lines to deny a seat in the first Congress to James Madison (its author). Curiously, the man who gave his name to the “gerrymander” actually served under Madison, the first American target of the practice. Before Elbridge Gerry became Madison’s vice president, he was governor of Massachusetts – and signed a redistricting plan designed to benefit his party. The fanciful monsters change, but the approach is still alive and well. Practice actually started way back in the earliest days of the country, when Patrick Henry (who opposed the Constitution) tried to gerrymander the lines to deny a seat in the first Congress to James Madison (its author). Curiously, the man who gave his name to the “gerrymander” actually served under Madison, the first American target of the practice. Before Elbridge Gerry became Madison’s vice president, he was governor of Massachusetts – and signed a redistricting plan designed to benefit his party. The fanciful monsters change, but the approach is still alive and well.

    7. Today’s Conversation

    8. Key Redistricting Dates

    9. Today’s Conversation

    10. Blunt Measure #1: Voter Choice

    11. Redistricting is a Part of the Process In New York State Senate in 2002, after redistricting: 21 districts within 55-45 margin, 14 districts 52-48 All were blowouts Smallest margin was 31% 11 of the 21 didn’t even have a challenger And districts with 30-year incumbent: Frank Padavan 30% Gore over Bush Ds didn’t even field a candidateIn New York State Senate in 2002, after redistricting: 21 districts within 55-45 margin, 14 districts 52-48 All were blowouts Smallest margin was 31% 11 of the 21 didn’t even have a challenger And districts with 30-year incumbent: Frank Padavan 30% Gore over Bush Ds didn’t even field a candidate

    12. Blunt Measure #2: Shape Illinois, 17th Congressional DistrictIllinois, 17th Congressional District

    13. Is this a Good District? Congressional districts Top left: AZ-2, Drawn to give racial minorities meaningful representation, drawn by a bi-partisan commission Top center: SC-1, drawn by a court, shares coastline and shipping corridor Top Right: AR-3, drawn by legislature, mostly follows county lines, unequal population, votes are worth significantly less/more, one major party did not run a candidate at all in this district Bottom Left: Virginia-2 – mostly follows county lines, drawn by legislature, one major party did not run a candidate at all in this district Bottom Center: TX-23, drawn to deprive racial minority power, drawn by legislature, mostly follows county lines Bottom Right: PA-6, drawn by legislature, among the most competitive districts in the countryCongressional districts Top left: AZ-2, Drawn to give racial minorities meaningful representation, drawn by a bi-partisan commission Top center: SC-1, drawn by a court, shares coastline and shipping corridor Top Right: AR-3, drawn by legislature, mostly follows county lines, unequal population, votes are worth significantly less/more, one major party did not run a candidate at all in this district Bottom Left: Virginia-2 – mostly follows county lines, drawn by legislature, one major party did not run a candidate at all in this district Bottom Center: TX-23, drawn to deprive racial minority power, drawn by legislature, mostly follows county lines Bottom Right: PA-6, drawn by legislature, among the most competitive districts in the country

    14. Is this a Good District?

    15. Is she a good singer?

    16. Why does redistricting matter?

    17. Why Does Redistricting Matter?

    18. Today’s Conversation

    19. Legislators Draw Their Own Lines More states give the legislature control for Congress (more states don’t have any rules for Congress, so the legislature takes over as a default). The numbers only work out the same because 7 of the states have 1 congressional district, and don’t have to worry about redistricting for CongressMore states give the legislature control for Congress (more states don’t have any rules for Congress, so the legislature takes over as a default). The numbers only work out the same because 7 of the states have 1 congressional district, and don’t have to worry about redistricting for Congress

    20. Redistricting Institutions On the right, I’ve deleted the 7 states entirely that only have 1 congressional district (and therefore no redistricting).On the right, I’ve deleted the 7 states entirely that only have 1 congressional district (and therefore no redistricting).

    21. … and if that should fail More states give the legislature control for Congress (more states don’t have any rules for Congress, so the legislature takes over as a default). The numbers only work out the same because 7 of the states have 1 congressional district, and don’t have to worry about redistricting for CongressMore states give the legislature control for Congress (more states don’t have any rules for Congress, so the legislature takes over as a default). The numbers only work out the same because 7 of the states have 1 congressional district, and don’t have to worry about redistricting for Congress

    22. 2001 Cycle in Wisconsin Republican Governor and Assembly, the Senate was controlled by Democrats Redistricting process for state legislative districts deadlocked, and control fell to the courts Each house passed a plan, but there was deadlock between the state senate and assembly. -Baumgart et al. v. Wendelberger et al. (Case No. 01-C-0121, E.D. Wis). No. 02-0057-OA SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 2002 WI 13; 249 Wis. 2d 706; 639 N.W.2d 537; 2002 Wisc. LEXIS 10 February 5, 2002, Oral Argument February 12, 2002, Opinion Filed SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: As Corrected February 19, 2002. PRIOR HISTORY: ORIGINAL ACTION for declaratory and injunctive relief. DISPOSITION: Petition for original action denied without prejudice. CASE SUMMARY PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Petitioners senate and assembly Republicans (Republicans) filed a petition to commence an original action on the issue of state legislative redistricting. The respondents senate and assembly Democrats and election board (Democrats) objected to the petition and the intervenors state education council (council) objected to state supreme court's assumption of original jurisdiction. OVERVIEW: The Republicans sought to have the court declare the existing legislative districts constitutionally invalid due to population shifts documented by the 2000 census. They further requested that the election board be enjoined from conducting the 2002 elections using the existing districts. Finally, they requested the court to remap the state's Senate and Assembly districts in time for the 2002 election cycle. The council argued against the assumption of original jurisdiction, as a three-judge panel of the federal district court had already taken jurisdiction over state legislative redistricting, scheduled a trial, and was ready to decide the state and federal questions presented by the case. The state supreme court held that, while redistricting implicated the sovereign rights of the people and warranted the state supreme court's original jurisdiction, any redistricting plan adopted by the state would be subject to federal court review for compliance with federal law. As conflicts could arise between any federal and state court decision, and there was not enough time to resolve potential conflicts before the upcoming elections, the petition was denied without prejudice. OUTCOME: The court denied the petition without prejudice. Each house passed a plan, but there was deadlock between the state senate and assembly. -Baumgart et al. v. Wendelberger et al. (Case No. 01-C-0121, E.D. Wis). No. 02-0057-OA

    23. Today’s Conversation

    24. “How” Starts with Federal Protections

    25. Equal Population Remember the gerrymander? They used to build districts by lumping towns or counties together. Each would get a given number of state representatives – and each district would get one state senator. Population grew unevenly, though, so you’d get situations where 1 Senator would be representing 10 people, and just across the border, 1 Senator would be representing 1000 people. This meant that one vote was worth more than another. In California, one vote in the smallest state district was worth 422 times the vote of a person in L.A. Then came a series of decisions starting with Baker v. Carr, in 1962: one person, one vote. That means different things for different types of districts. Congress is as equal as possible: state legislature is about 10% variance.Remember the gerrymander? They used to build districts by lumping towns or counties together. Each would get a given number of state representatives – and each district would get one state senator. Population grew unevenly, though, so you’d get situations where 1 Senator would be representing 10 people, and just across the border, 1 Senator would be representing 1000 people. This meant that one vote was worth more than another. In California, one vote in the smallest state district was worth 422 times the vote of a person in L.A. Then came a series of decisions starting with Baker v. Carr, in 1962: one person, one vote. That means different things for different types of districts. Congress is as equal as possible: state legislature is about 10% variance.

    26. Minority Representation Sadly, many techniques to deprive minorities of a meaningful vote. At-large: Many districts with multiple seats were kept as “at-large” districts. In these districts, the majority vote would predictably beat the minority vote for every seat. In this district, there are 20 (say) white voters and 16 minority voters. And the majority will win every time. Districts can improve the situation, but they don’t necessarily do so. One district-based technique is called “cracking”: split the minority community up so that its voting power is diluted. Here, each district has 5 white voters and 4 minority voters. In “packing”, the objective is to cram as many minorities as possible into one district, to limit minority power to that one over-full district. Minorities are “bleached” from the surrounding areas, leaving the white voters firmly in control. Sadly, many techniques to deprive minorities of a meaningful vote. At-large: Many districts with multiple seats were kept as “at-large” districts. In these districts, the majority vote would predictably beat the minority vote for every seat. In this district, there are 20 (say) white voters and 16 minority voters. And the majority will win every time. Districts can improve the situation, but they don’t necessarily do so. One district-based technique is called “cracking”: split the minority community up so that its voting power is diluted. Here, each district has 5 white voters and 4 minority voters. In “packing”, the objective is to cram as many minorities as possible into one district, to limit minority power to that one over-full district. Minorities are “bleached” from the surrounding areas, leaving the white voters firmly in control.

    27. The Voting Rights Act

    28. The Voting Rights Act

    29. After Federal Law, add State Limitations

    30. State Limitations

    31. Contiguity

    32. State Limitations

    33. Political Boundaries

    34. State Limitations

    35. Compactness Florida Congressional District 3, 1992 (see Citizen’s Guide to Redistricting, page 50). Florida Congressional District 3, 1992 (see Citizen’s Guide to Redistricting, page 50).

    36. State Limitations

    37. Communities of Interest

    38. Communities of interest

    39. State Limitations

    40. Partisanship and Competition

    41. State Limitations

    42. Nesting

    43. Wisconsin Political Boundaries: Legislature has emphasized its intent to preserve political units where possible, down to the ward level, but a ward-based standard allows substantial dividing of larger political entities Compactness: General requirement for districts to be as compact as possible Communities of Interest: Legislature has declared it will protect communities of interest, but has not produced a definition Partnership/Competition: Legislature has declared intent to encourage competition Nesting: Each state Senate district must comprise 3 House of Representative districts

    44. Today’s Conversation

    45. The Status Quo

    46. The Status Quo

    47. The Status Quo

    48. Today’s Conversation

    49. Short term goals: What can you accomplish for this redistricting cycle?

    50. Previous Efforts in Wisconsin Census Correction Amendment, 2009 Joint Assembly Resolution 63 Proposal excluded incarcerated individuals from being counted in the population base used in the apportionment and redistricting process for legislative county and other districts

    51. Recent Census Change

    52. Fixing prisoner counts: The right approach

    53. Fixing prisoner counts: Second best

    54. And further…

    55. Short term goals: What can you accomplish for this redistricting cycle?

    56. Meaningful transparency

    57. Was there input from communities? In 1992, race riots in Los Angeles took a heavy took on many neighborhoods, including the area known of Koreatown. When residents of Koreatown appealed to their local officials for assistance with the cleanup and recovery efforts, however, each of their purported representatives – members of the City Council and the state Assembly – passed the buck, claiming that the area was a part of another official’s district. It turned out that Koreatown, an area barely over one mile square, was split into four City Council districts and five state Assembly districts, with no legislator feeling primarily responsible to the Asian-American community. In 1992, race riots in Los Angeles took a heavy took on many neighborhoods, including the area known of Koreatown. When residents of Koreatown appealed to their local officials for assistance with the cleanup and recovery efforts, however, each of their purported representatives – members of the City Council and the state Assembly – passed the buck, claiming that the area was a part of another official’s district. It turned out that Koreatown, an area barely over one mile square, was split into four City Council districts and five state Assembly districts, with no legislator feeling primarily responsible to the Asian-American community.

    58. Short term goals: What can you accomplish for this redistricting cycle?

    59. Prevent misuses for partisan and/or personal interests

    60. Prevent misuses for partisan and/or personal interests

    61. Today’s Conversation

    62. Long-term: Influencing Redistricting

    63. Meaningful Independence

    64. Meaningful Diversity

    65. Meaningful Guidance

    66. Meaningful Participation

    67. Training Others

    68. Further Information

More Related