5.6 Redistricting

Redistricting shapes electoral maps and impacts political representation. It's a complex process balancing equal population, compactness, and communities of interest. Parties often seek advantage through tactics like packing or cracking opposition voters.

Fair redistricting aims to ensure equal representation and reflect population diversity. However, partisan gerrymandering remains contentious. Some states use independent commissions to reduce bias, while others rely on legislatures or courts. Measuring fairness objectively remains challenging.

Goals of redistricting

• Redistricting involves redrawing the boundaries of electoral districts to account for population changes and ensure fair representation
• The process is often highly politicized, with parties seeking to gain an advantage by manipulating district lines
• Key goals include maintaining equal population across districts, protecting incumbents, and in some cases, engaging in partisan gerrymandering to favor one party over another

Ensuring fair representation

Top images from around the web for Ensuring fair representation

• 

  8.5 THE ELECTORAL PROCESS – Introduction to Human Geography View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Redistricting in Wisconsin: Where We're At View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  8.5 THE ELECTORAL PROCESS – Introduction to Human Geography View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Redistricting in Wisconsin: Where We're At View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 2

Top images from around the web for Ensuring fair representation

• 

  8.5 THE ELECTORAL PROCESS – Introduction to Human Geography View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Redistricting in Wisconsin: Where We're At View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  8.5 THE ELECTORAL PROCESS – Introduction to Human Geography View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Redistricting in Wisconsin: Where We're At View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 2

• One of the primary goals of redistricting is to ensure that each district has roughly equal population, so that each person's vote carries equal weight
• This principle of "one person, one vote" is enshrined in the US Constitution and has been upheld by the Supreme Court
• Redistricting also aims to create districts that reflect the diversity of the population, including racial, ethnic, and linguistic minorities
• Ensuring fair representation helps maintain the legitimacy of the democratic process and prevents the disenfranchisement of certain groups

Protecting incumbents

• Incumbents often seek to influence the redistricting process to protect their own seats and maintain their electoral advantage
• This can involve drawing district lines to include more favorable voters or exclude potential challengers
• Incumbent protection is a common goal of both parties, as sitting legislators have a vested interest in preserving their own power
• Critics argue that prioritizing incumbent protection over other criteria can lead to uncompetitive districts and reduced accountability to voters

Partisan gerrymandering

• Partisan gerrymandering involves manipulating district boundaries to favor one political party over another
• This can be achieved through various tactics, such as packing opposition voters into a few districts or cracking them across multiple districts to dilute their voting power
• While both parties engage in partisan gerrymandering, it has become an increasingly contentious issue in recent years, with accusations of extreme bias and unfairness
• The Supreme Court has ruled that partisan gerrymandering is a political question beyond the scope of federal courts, leaving it up to states to regulate the practice

Criteria for drawing districts

• Several key criteria are typically considered when redrawing district boundaries, with the goal of creating fair and representative districts
• These criteria are often enshrined in state constitutions or statutes, and may be enforced by courts or independent redistricting commissions
• Balancing these sometimes competing criteria can be a complex and controversial process, with significant implications for electoral outcomes

Equal population

• The principle of "one person, one vote" requires that districts have roughly equal populations, to ensure that each person's vote carries equal weight
• Population equality is typically measured using data from the decennial census, which provides detailed information on population distribution and demographics
• In congressional districts, the Supreme Court has held that population differences between districts must be justified by a compelling state interest and be as small as practicable
• For state legislative districts, the Court has allowed somewhat greater population deviations, but still requires a good-faith effort to achieve equality

Contiguous territory

• Contiguity requires that all parts of a district be connected to each other, without any intervening territory from another district
• This criterion helps ensure that districts are geographically coherent and that representatives can effectively serve their constituents
• Some states allow limited exceptions to contiguity, such as for islands or areas separated by water
• In practice, contiguity is often one of the easiest criteria to satisfy, as long as districts are drawn as continuous shapes on a map

Compactness of shape

• Compactness refers to the geographic shape of a district, with the goal of creating districts that are as compact and regular in shape as possible
• Compact districts are thought to be more easily identifiable and understandable to voters, and to facilitate communication between representatives and their constituents
• There are various mathematical measures of compactness, such as the Polsby-Popper test or the Reock test, which quantify how close a district's shape is to a perfect circle or square
• In practice, compactness often conflicts with other criteria, such as preserving communities of interest or achieving population equality, leading to trade-offs and compromises

Preserving communities of interest

• Communities of interest are groups of people who share common social, cultural, or economic interests, and who would benefit from being represented together in a single district
• Examples might include neighborhoods with shared ethnic or linguistic heritage, rural areas with common agricultural interests, or urban communities facing similar economic challenges
• Preserving communities of interest helps ensure that districts reflect the real-world patterns of how people live and interact, rather than arbitrary political boundaries
• However, defining and identifying communities of interest can be a subjective and controversial process, with potential for abuse or manipulation

Types of gerrymandering

• Gerrymandering refers to the manipulation of district boundaries to achieve a desired political outcome, such as favoring one party or protecting incumbents
• There are several common tactics used in gerrymandering, each with its own distinct effects on the electoral process
• While some forms of gerrymandering are considered acceptable or even necessary to achieve other redistricting goals, extreme or egregious cases can undermine the fairness and integrity of elections

Packing opposition voters

• Packing involves concentrating opposition voters into a small number of districts, where they win by overwhelming margins but waste many of their votes
• By packing opposition voters into a few districts, the party in control of redistricting can limit their ability to compete in other districts
• An example might be drawing a district to include several heavily Democratic urban neighborhoods, resulting in a district that votes 80% or 90% Democratic
• Packing can be an effective tactic for the party in power, but it can also lead to uncompetitive districts and reduced responsiveness to voters

Cracking opposition voters

• Cracking involves splitting opposition voters across multiple districts, where they constitute a minority in each district and are unable to elect their preferred candidates
• By spreading opposition voters thinly across many districts, the party in control can dilute their voting power and prevent them from forming a majority in any one district
• An example might be splitting a heavily Republican rural area into several districts, each of which has a slight Democratic majority
• Cracking can be a powerful tool for the party in control, but it can also lead to distorted representation and a lack of accountability to certain groups of voters

Incumbent protection

• Incumbent protection involves drawing district lines to favor sitting legislators, regardless of party affiliation
• This can involve including more favorable voters in an incumbent's district, excluding potential challengers, or avoiding pairing incumbents in the same district
• An example might be drawing a district to include an incumbent's hometown or key supporters, while excluding areas that have voted against them in the past
• While incumbent protection is a common goal of both parties, it can lead to uncompetitive districts and a lack of accountability to voters

Racial gerrymandering

• Racial gerrymandering involves manipulating district lines to dilute the voting power of racial or ethnic minorities
• This can involve packing minority voters into a single district to limit their influence elsewhere, or cracking them across multiple districts to prevent them from forming a majority
• Racial gerrymandering is prohibited under the Voting Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, and has been the subject of numerous legal challenges
• An example might be drawing a district to include several predominantly African American neighborhoods, while excluding adjacent white neighborhoods with similar political preferences

Redistricting process

• The redistricting process varies by state, but typically involves a combination of legislative action, independent commissions, and judicial oversight
• The process is often highly political and contentious, with significant implications for electoral outcomes and the balance of power between parties
• In recent years, there has been a growing movement towards greater transparency and public participation in the redistricting process, as well as efforts to reduce partisan bias and protect voting rights

State legislature's role

• In most states, the state legislature has primary responsibility for drawing new district maps following each decennial census
• The legislature typically proposes and votes on redistricting plans, which may be subject to gubernatorial veto or judicial review
• The majority party in the legislature often has a significant advantage in the redistricting process, as they can draw maps that favor their own electoral prospects
• However, some states have adopted reforms to limit partisan gerrymandering and ensure a more fair and transparent process

Independent commissions

• Some states have established independent redistricting commissions to take the process out of the hands of partisan legislators
• These commissions are typically composed of a mix of partisan and non-partisan members, and are charged with drawing maps based on objective criteria such as equal population and compactness
• Examples of states with independent commissions include Arizona, California, and Michigan
• While independent commissions are not a panacea for all redistricting problems, they can help reduce partisan bias and increase public trust in the process

Judicial oversight

• Courts play an important role in overseeing the redistricting process and ensuring that maps comply with legal requirements
• Federal courts have jurisdiction over claims arising under the US Constitution or federal laws such as the Voting Rights Act
• State courts may also have jurisdiction over claims based on state constitutional provisions or statutes
• Courts can strike down redistricting plans that violate legal requirements, and in some cases may even draw their own maps if the legislature is unable to agree on a plan

Public input and transparency

• There is growing recognition of the importance of public input and transparency in the redistricting process
• Many states now require public hearings or comment periods to allow citizens to provide feedback on proposed maps
• Some states also require that redistricting data and draft maps be made publicly available, to allow for independent analysis and verification
• Increasing public participation and transparency can help build trust in the process and ensure that maps reflect the interests of communities, not just political parties

Measures of partisan bias

• Partisan bias refers to the extent to which a redistricting plan favors one party over another, beyond what would be expected based on the underlying distribution of voters
• There are several statistical measures that have been developed to quantify partisan bias, each with its own strengths and limitations
• These measures can be used to evaluate the fairness of a redistricting plan, and to compare plans across states or over time

Efficiency gap

• The efficiency gap is a measure of partisan bias that compares the number of "wasted" votes for each party across all districts
• Wasted votes are defined as all votes cast for a losing candidate, plus all votes cast for a winning candidate in excess of the number needed to win
• The efficiency gap is calculated by dividing the difference in wasted votes between the two parties by the total number of votes cast
• A large efficiency gap indicates that one party is systematically disadvantaged by the redistricting plan, as they are wasting more votes than the other party

Mean-median difference

• The mean-median difference is a measure of partisan bias that compares the average vote share for each party across all districts to the median vote share
• If the mean and median are equal, that suggests a balanced and symmetric distribution of voters across districts
• If the mean is significantly higher or lower than the median, that suggests an asymmetric distribution that favors one party over the other
• A large mean-median difference indicates that one party is systematically advantaged by the redistricting plan, as they are winning more seats than their overall vote share would suggest

Seats-to-votes curve

• The seats-to-votes curve is a graphical representation of the relationship between a party's vote share and the number of seats they win in the legislature
• A proportional seats-to-votes curve would show a straight line, with each party winning a share of seats equal to their share of votes
• A curved or S-shaped seats-to-votes curve indicates a bias towards one party, as they are winning a disproportionate share of seats relative to their vote share
• The shape and steepness of the seats-to-votes curve can provide insight into the extent and nature of partisan bias in a redistricting plan

Declination

• Declination is a newer measure of partisan bias that aims to capture the asymmetry of a redistricting plan in a single number
• It is calculated by comparing the average margin of victory for each party in the districts they win, relative to the overall vote share for each party
• A positive declination indicates a bias towards the party with the higher average margin of victory, while a negative declination indicates a bias towards the other party
• Declination has been proposed as a more stable and reliable measure of partisan bias than some other measures, as it is less sensitive to small changes in vote shares or turnout

Legal challenges to redistricting

• Redistricting plans are often subject to legal challenges, based on a variety of constitutional and statutory grounds
• These challenges can be brought by political parties, civil rights groups, or individual voters who believe that a plan violates their rights or dilutes their voting power
• The outcome of these challenges can have significant implications for the fairness and competitiveness of elections, as well as the balance of power between parties

Voting Rights Act

• The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a landmark federal law that prohibits racial discrimination in voting and redistricting
• Section 2 of the Act prohibits any voting practice or procedure that results in the denial or abridgement of the right to vote on account of race or color
• This has been interpreted to prohibit redistricting plans that dilute the voting power of racial or ethnic minorities, such as by packing them into a single district or cracking them across multiple districts
• Plaintiffs bringing a Section 2 challenge must show that a minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to form a majority in a single district, that the group is politically cohesive, and that the majority votes as a bloc to defeat the minority's preferred candidate

Equal Protection Clause

• The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits states from denying any person the equal protection of the laws
• In the context of redistricting, this has been interpreted to require that districts have roughly equal populations, to ensure that each person's vote carries equal weight
• The Supreme Court has held that population deviations between districts must be justified by a compelling state interest and be as small as practicable
• The Equal Protection Clause has also been used to challenge redistricting plans that discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity, even if they do not violate the Voting Rights Act

State constitutional provisions

• Many state constitutions have provisions that govern the redistricting process or set criteria for drawing district lines
• These provisions may require that districts be compact, contiguous, or respectful of political subdivisions such as counties or cities
• Some states also have provisions that explicitly prohibit partisan gerrymandering or require that maps be drawn by an independent commission
• Plaintiffs may bring challenges under these state constitutional provisions, arguing that a redistricting plan violates one or more of the required criteria

Recent Supreme Court cases

• The Supreme Court has issued several important rulings on redistricting in recent years, with significant implications for the legal landscape
• In the 2019 case of Rucho v. Common Cause, the Court held that partisan gerrymandering claims are non-justiciable political questions that federal courts cannot adjudicate
• This decision effectively closed the door to federal court challenges to partisan gerrymandering, leaving it up to states to regulate the practice through their own laws or constitutions
• In the 2013 case of Shelby County v. Holder, the Court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act that required certain states with a history of discrimination to obtain federal approval before changing their voting laws or redistricting plans
• This decision has made it easier for states to enact redistricting plans that may disadvantage minority voters, without the additional layer of federal oversight

Impact on electoral outcomes

• Redistricting can have a significant impact on electoral outcomes, both in terms of which party controls the legislature and which individual candidates are elected
• The way that district lines are drawn can affect the competitiveness of elections, the representation of different communities and interests, and the overall fairness and legitimacy of the political process

Congressional vs state legislative districts

• Redistricting affects both congressional districts, which elect members of the US House of Representatives, and state legislative districts, which elect members of state senates and assemblies
• Congressional districts are typically larger and more politically diverse than state legislative districts, which may be more homogeneous and closely tied to local communities
• The impact of redistricting on congressional elections can be particularly significant, as the balance of power in the House can hinge on a small number of swing districts
• In state legislatures, redistricting can affect the balance of power between urban and rural areas, or between different regions of the state

Swing states

• Swing states are those where the partisan balance is relatively even, and where small changes in district boundaries can have a big impact on electoral outcomes
• Examples of swing states in recent elections include Florida, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin
• In these states, the party that controls the redistricting process may be able to draw maps that give them a significant advantage in future elections
• Conversely, a more neutral or balanced redistricting process in a swing state can lead to more competitive elections and a more representative legislature

Safe seats

• Safe seats are districts where one party has a strong and consistent advantage, and where the incumbent is unlikely to face a serious challenge from the other party
• Redistricting can create more safe seats by packing voters of one party into a single district, or by cracking them across multiple districts where they are a minority
• Safe seats can lead to less competitive elections and less responsive legislators, as incumbents may feel less pressure to appeal to a broad range of voters
• However, safe seats can also provide a degree of stability and continuity in the legislature, and may allow legislators to focus on long-term policy goals rather than short-term electoral considerations

Competitive districts

• Competitive districts are those where both parties have a realistic chance of winning, and where small shifts in voter preferences can lead to a change in party control
• Redistricting can create more competitive districts by drawing boundaries that balance the partisan makeup of the district, or by respecting natural communities and political subdivisions
• Competitive districts can lead to more responsive and accountable legislators, as they must appeal to a broader range of voters and work to build coalitions across party lines
• However, competitive districts can also lead to more polarized and negative campaigning, as both parties may see the seat as a key battleground in the larger struggle for control of the legislature

Alternatives to current system