DOCSLIB.ORG

Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2009 Reapportionment Following the 1960 Cen- Percent Casting Votes in Each State for Sus

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2009 Reapportionment Following the 1960 Cen- Percent Casting Votes in Each State for Sus Section 7 Elections This section relates primarily to presiden- 1964. In 1971, as a result of the 26th tial, congressional, and gubernatorial Amendment, eligibility to vote in national elections. Also presented are summary elections was extended to all citizens, tables on congressional legislation; state 18 years old and over. legislatures; Black, Hispanic, and female officeholders; population of voting age; Presidential election—The Constitution voter participation; and campaign specifies how the president and vice finances. president are selected. Each state elects, by popular vote, a group of electors equal Official statistics on federal elections, col- in number to its total of members of Con- lected by the Clerk of the House, are pub- gress. The 23d Amendment, adopted in lished biennially in Statistics of the Presi- 1961, grants the District of Columbia dential and Congressional Election and three presidential electors, a number Statistics of the Congressional Election. equal to that of the least populous state. Federal and state elections data appear also in America Votes, a biennial volume Subsequent to the election, the electors published by CQ Press (a division of Con- meet in their respective states to vote for gressional Quarterly, Inc.), Washington, president and vice president. Usually, DC. Federal elections data also appear in each elector votes for the candidate the U.S. Congress, Congressional Direc- receiving the most popular votes in his or tory, and in official state documents. Data her state. A majority vote of all electors is on reported registration and voting for necessary to elect the president and vice social and economic groups are obtained president. If no candidate receives a by the U.S. Census Bureau as part of the majority, the House of Representatives, Current Population Survey (CPS) and are with each state having one vote, is published in Current Population Reports, empowered to elect the president and Series P20 (see text, Section 1). vice president, again, with a majority of votes required. Almost all federal, state, and local govern- mental units in the United States conduct The 22nd Amendment to the Constitu- elections for political offices and other tion, adopted in 1951, limits presidential purposes. The conduct of elections is tenure to two elective terms of 4 years regulated by state laws or, in some cities each or to one elective term for any per- and counties, by local charter. An excep- son who, upon succession to the presi- tion is that the U.S. Constitution pre- dency, has held the office or acted as scribes the basis of representation in Con- President for more than 2 years. gress and the manner of electing the president and grants to Congress the Congressional election—The Constitu- right to regulate the times, places, and tion provides that representatives be manner of electing federal officers. apportioned among the states according Amendments to the Constitution have to their population, that a census of popu- prescribed national criteria for voting eli- lation be taken every 10 years as a basis gibility. The 15th Amendment, adopted in for apportionment, and that each state 1870, gave all citizens the right to vote have at least one representative. At the regardless of race, color, or previous con- time of each apportionment, Congress dition of servitude. The 19th Amendment, decides what the total number of repre- adopted in 1919, further extended the sentatives will be. Since 1912, the total right to vote to all citizens regardless of has been 435, except during 1960 to sex. The payment of poll taxes as a pre- 1962 when it increased to 437, adding requisite to voting in federal elections one representative each for Alaska and was banned by the 24th Amendment in Hawaii. The total reverted to 435 after Elections 235 U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2009 reapportionment following the 1960 cen- percent casting votes in each state for sus. Members are elected for 2-year presidential and congressional election terms, all terms covering the same years. These voting-age estimates include period. The District of Columbia, Ameri- a number of persons who meet the age can Samoa, Guam, and the Virgin Islands requirement but are not eligible to vote, each elect one nonvoting delegate, and (e.g. aliens and some institutionalized Puerto Rico elects a nonvoting resident persons). In addition, since 1964, voter commissioner. participation and voter characteristics data have been collected during Novem- The Senate is composed of 100 members, ber of election years as part of the CPS. two from each state, who are elected to These survey data include noncitizens in serve for a term of 6 years. One-third of the Senate is elected every 2 years. Sena- the voting age population estimates, but tors were originally chosen by the state exclude members of the Armed Forces legislatures. The 17th Amendment to the and the institutional population. Constitution, adopted in 1913, prescribed that senators be elected by popular vote. Statistical reliability—For a discussion of statistical collection and estimation, Voter eligibility and participation— sampling procedures, and measures of The Census Bureau publishes estimates statistical reliability applicable to Census of the population of voting age and the Bureau data, see Appendix III. Figure 7.1 Vote Cast for President by Major Political Party: 1996 to 2004 Democratic Republican Other major candidates1 Millions of votes 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1996 2000 2004 1Candidates with 1 million or more votes: 1996—Reform, Ross Perot; 2000—Green, Ralph Nader. Source: Chart prepared by U.S. Census Bureau. For data, see Tables 380 and 381. 236 Elections U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2009 Table 380. Vote Cast for President by Major Political Party: 1948 to 2004 [In thousands (48,834 represents 48,834,000), except percent and electoral vote. Prior to 1960, excludes Alaska and Hawaii; prior to 1964, excludes DC. Vote cast for major party candidates includes the votes of minor parties cast for those candidates] Candidates for President Vote cast for President Democratic Republican Year Total Popular vote Popular vote Democratic Republican popular vote 1 Number Per- Electoral Number Per- Electoral (1,000) (1,000) cent vote (1,000) cent vote 1948 .... Truman ...... Dewey....... 48,834 24,106 49.4 303 21,969 45.0 189 1952 .... Stevenson .... Eisenhower . 61,552 27,315 44.4 89 33,779 54.9 442 1956 .... Stevenson .... Eisenhower . 62,027 26,739 43.1 73 35,581 57.4 457 1960 .... Kennedy ..... Nixon ....... 68,836 34,227 49.7 303 34,108 49.5 219 1964 .... Johnson ..... Goldwater .... 70,098 42,825 61.1 486 27,147 38.7 52 1968 .... Humphrey .... Nixon ....... 73,027 30,989 42.4 191 31,710 43.4 301 1972 .... McGovern .... Nixon ....... 77,625 28,902 37.2 17 46,740 60.2 520 1976 .... Carter ....... Ford ........ 81,603 40,826 50.0 297 39,148 48.0 240 1980 .... Carter ....... Reagan ...... 86,497 35,481 41.0 49 43,643 50.5 489 1984 .... Mondale ..... Reagan ...... 92,655 37,450 40.4 13 54,167 58.5 525 1988 .... Dukakis ...... Bush........ 91,587 41,717 45.5 111 48,643 53.1 426 1992 .... Clinton ...... Bush........ 104,600 44,858 42.9 370 38,799 37.1 168 1996 .... Clinton ...... Dole ........ 96,390 47,402 49.2 379 39,198 40.7 159 2000 .... Gore ........ Bush........ 105,594 50,996 48.3 266 50,465 47.8 271 2004 .... Kerry........ Bush........ 122,349 58,895 48.1 251 61,873 50.6 286 1 Include votes for minor party candidates, independents, unpledged electors, and scattered write-in votes. Source: U.S. House of Representatives, Office of the Clerk, Statistics of the Presidential and Congressional Election, biennial. See also <http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/election.html>. Table 381. Vote Cast for Leading Minority Party Candidates for President: 1948 to 2004 [In thousands (1,169 represents 1,169,000). See headnote, Table 380. Data do not include write-ins, scatterings, or votes for candidates who ran on party tickets not shown] Popular Popular Year Candidate Party vote Candidate Party vote (1,000) (1,000) 1948 . Strom Thurmond . States’ Rights....... 1,169 Henry Wallace ..... Progressive ........ 1,156 1952 . Vincent Hallinan.... Progressive ........ 135 Stuart Hamblen .... Prohibition ......... 73 1956 1 . T. Coleman Andrews. States’ Rights....... 91 Eric Hass ........ Socialist Labor ...... 41 1960 . Eric Hass ........ Socialist Labor ...... 46 Rutherford Decker . Prohibition ......... 46 1964 . Eric Hass ........ Socialist Labor ...... 43 Clifton DeBerry .... Socialist Workers .... 22 1968 . George Wallace .... American Independent. 9,446 Henning Blomen . Socialist Labor ...... 52 1972 1 . John Schmitz...... American.......... 993 Benjamin Spock.... People’s.......... 9 1976 . Eugene McCarthy . Independent ....... 680 Roger McBride..... Libertarian ......... 172 1980 . John Anderson .... Independent ....... 5,251 Ed Clark ......... Libertarian ......... 920 1984 . David Bergland .... Libertarian ......... 227Lyndon H. LaRouche. Independent ....... 79 1988 . Ron Paul ........ Libertarian ......... 410 Lenora B. Fulani . New Alliance ....... 129 1992 . H. Ross Perot ..... Independent ....... 19,722 Andre Marrou ..... Libertarian ......... 281 1996 . H. Ross Perot ..... Reform ........... 7,137 Ralph Nader ...... Green............ 527 2000 . Ralph Nader ...... Green............ 2,530 Pat Buchanan ..... Reform ........... 324 2004 . Ralph Nader ...... Green............ 116 Michael Badnarik . Libertarian ......... 369
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The George Komure Elementary School High Schooler Emily Isakari Headed Back to Her Booth at the School’S Festival
    PAGE 4 Animeʼs uber populatiy. PAGE 9 Erika Fong the WHATʼS Pink Power Ranger IN A NAME? Emily Isakari wants the world to know about George Komure. PAGE 10 JACL youth in action PAGE 3 at youth summit. # 3169 VOL. 152, NO. 11 ISSN: 0030-8579 WWW.PACIFICCITIZEN.ORG June 17-30, 2011 2 june 17-30, 2011 LETTERS/COMMENTARY PACIFIC CITIZEN HOW TO REACH US E-mail: [email protected] LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Online: www.pacificcitizen.org Tel: (213) 620-1767 Food Issue: Yummy Fax: (213) 620-1768 Power of Words Resolution Connecting JACLers Mail: 250 E. First Street, Suite 301 The “Power of Words” handbook, which is being developed to Across the Country Great issue! Made me hungry Los Angeles, CA 90012 implement the Power of Words resolution passed at the 2010 Chicago just reading about the passion and StaFF JACL convention, was sent electronically to all JACL chapter Since the days when reverence these cooks have for Executive Editor Caroline Y. Aoyagi-Stom presidents recently. I would like all JACL members to take a close headquarters was in Utah and all food. How about another special look at this handbook, especially the section titled: “Which Words Are the folks involved in suffering issue (or column) featuring Assistant Editor Lynda Lin Problematic? … And Which Words Should We Promote?” during World War II, many of some of our members and their Who labeled these words as “problematic?” The words are them our personal friends, my interesting hobbies? Reporter euphemisms and we should not use them. There are words that can be wife Nellie and I have enjoyed and Keep up the wonderful work; I Nalea J.
    [Show full text]
  • STATE APPORTIONMENT of CORPORATE INCOME (Formulas for Tax Year 2021 -- As of January 1, 2021)
    STATE APPORTIONMENT OF CORPORATE INCOME (Formulas for tax year 2021 -- as of January 1, 2021) ALABAMA * Double wtd Sales MONTANA * 3 Factor ALASKA* 3 Factor NEBRASKA Sales ARIZONA * Sales/Double wtd Sales NEVADA No State Income Tax ARKANSAS * Sales NEW HAMPSHIRE Double wtd Sales CALIFORNIA * Sales NEW JERSEY Sales COLORADO * Sales NEW MEXICO * 3 Factor/Sales CONNECTICUT Sales NEW YORK Sales DELAWARE Sales NORTH CAROLINA * Sales FLORIDA Double wtd Sales NORTH DAKOTA * 3 Factor/Sales GEORGIA Sales OHIO N/A (2) HAWAII * 3 Factor OKLAHOMA 3 Factor IDAHO * Double wtd Sales OREGON Sales ILLINOIS * Sales PENNSYLVANIA Sales INDIANA Sales RHODE ISLAND Sales IOWA Sales SOUTH CAROLINA Sales KANSAS * 3 Factor SOUTH DAKOTA No State Income Tax KENTUCKY * Sales TENNESSEE Triple wtd Sales LOUISIANA Sales TEXAS Sales MAINE * Sales UTAH Sales MARYLAND (3) 75.0% Sales, 12.5% Property VERMONT Double wtd Sales & Payroll VIRGINIA Double wtd Sales/Sales MASSACHUSETTS Sales/Double wtd Sales WASHINGTON No State Income Tax MICHIGAN Sales WEST VIRGINIA * Double wtd Sales MINNESOTA Sales WISCONSIN * Sales MISSISSIPPI Sales/Other (1) WYOMING No State Income Tax MISSOURI * Sales DIST. OF COLUMBIA Sales Source: Compiled by FTA from state sources. Notes: The formulas listed are for general manufacturing businesses. Some industries have a special formula different from the one shown. * State has adopted substantial portions of the UDITPA (Uniform Division of Income Tax Purposes Act). Slash (/) separating two formulas indicates taxpayer option or specified by state rules. 3 Factor = sales, property, and payroll equally weighted. Double wtd Sales = 3 factors with sales double-weighted Sales = single sales factor (1) Mississippi provides different apportionment formulas based on specific type of business.
    [Show full text]
  • PPM138 Women in Senate Glossy
    WOMEN IN THE SENATE CO LITI O hinkle — p S HN O Y J B From left: Sens. OS Barbara Mikul- T O ski of Mary- PH land, Dianne Feinstein of California, and Olympia Snowe and Susan Col- lins of Maine is that she’s been on all the major committees is the only senator to chair two — Ethics and and deeply engaged in every moving issue of our Environment and Public Works. time.” The women owe some of their success to They may not always get the respect, but Mikulski. As the unofficial “dean” of the women’s EYE-OPENER behind the scenes, female senators more caucus, the Maryland Democrat has acted as a den The Magnificent Seven frequently are getting what they want. Schroeder mother to 11 classes of new female senators. HOLIDAY WEEKEND BRUNCH u u u remembers having to plead with powerful When Mikulski first came into the Senate, committee chairmen to get the funding requests she sought out mentors to help her navigate its SUN. & MON., OCT. 11 & 12 • 11AM–3PM of congresswomen heard. complicated and often arcane rules. She turned “They would say, ‘Now, what can I pass for to Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and Paul NEW ORLEANS PIANO • HURRICANE HOWIE From what was a record high of seven female senators elected in 1992, you girls that won’t cost us any money and will Sarbanes, her Senate colleague from Maryland, BREAKFAST CAFE • BAR make all the women love us?’” she says. calling the two Democrats her “Sir Galahads.” women have gained in numbers – and seniority No one asks those kinds of questions when They helped her land a seat on the powerful LUNCH • DINNER BOOKSTORE women hold the gavel.
    [Show full text]
  • ("DSCC") Files This Complaint Seeking an Immediate Investigation by the 7
    COMPLAINT BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION CBHMISSIOAl INTRODUCTXON - 1 The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee ("DSCC") 7-_. J _j. c files this complaint seeking an immediate investigation by the 7 c; a > Federal Election Commission into the illegal spending A* practices of the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee (WRSCIt). As the public record shows, and an investigation will confirm, the NRSC and a series of ostensibly nonprofit, nonpartisan groups have undertaken a significant and sustained effort to funnel "soft money101 into federal elections in violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended or "the Act"), 2 U.S.C. 5s 431 et seq., and the Federal Election Commission (peFECt)Regulations, 11 C.F.R. 85 100.1 & sea. 'The term "aoft money" as ueed in this Complaint means funds,that would not be lawful for use in connection with any federal election (e.g., corporate or labor organization treasury funds, contributions in excess of the relevant contribution limit for federal elections). THE FACTS IN TBIS CABE On November 24, 1992, the state of Georgia held a unique runoff election for the office of United States Senator. Georgia law provided for a runoff if no candidate in the regularly scheduled November 3 general election received in excess of 50 percent of the vote. The 1992 runoff in Georg a was a hotly contested race between the Democratic incumbent Wyche Fowler, and his Republican opponent, Paul Coverdell. The Republicans presented this election as a %ust-win81 election. Exhibit 1. The Republicans were so intent on victory that Senator Dole announced he was willing to give up his seat on the Senate Agriculture Committee for Coverdell, if necessary.
    [Show full text]
  • Suffolk University Virginia General Election Voters SUPRC Field
    Suffolk University Virginia General Election Voters AREA N= 600 100% DC Area ........................................ 1 ( 1/ 98) 164 27% West ........................................... 2 51 9% Piedmont Valley ................................ 3 134 22% Richmond South ................................. 4 104 17% East ........................................... 5 147 25% START Hello, my name is __________ and I am conducting a survey for Suffolk University and I would like to get your opinions on some political questions. We are calling Virginia households statewide. Would you be willing to spend three minutes answering some brief questions? <ROTATE> or someone in that household). N= 600 100% Continue ....................................... 1 ( 1/105) 600 100% GEND RECORD GENDER N= 600 100% Male ........................................... 1 ( 1/106) 275 46% Female ......................................... 2 325 54% S2 S2. Thank You. How likely are you to vote in the Presidential Election on November 4th? N= 600 100% Very likely .................................... 1 ( 1/107) 583 97% Somewhat likely ................................ 2 17 3% Not very/Not at all likely ..................... 3 0 0% Other/Undecided/Refused ........................ 4 0 0% Q1 Q1. Which political party do you feel closest to - Democrat, Republican, or Independent? N= 600 100% Democrat ....................................... 1 ( 1/110) 269 45% Republican ..................................... 2 188 31% Independent/Unaffiliated/Other ................. 3 141 24% Not registered
    [Show full text]
  • December 2020 Edition
    The Search for Brave Candidates While many people in the party were thrilled about having a by Amber Jewell candidate like Jo Jorgensen, many others were extremely disappointed. They believed her to be a cookie cutter Libertarians often candidate, put into place as a safe option – and several ridicule those who believed that she wasn’t even the best option with which to support the two-party play it safe. On the flip side, her running mate Spike Cohen system. They strongly was seen as a force to be reckoned with. His presence showed oppose the idea of a certain amount of strength through his passion and choosing “the lesser of communication that made him a great candidate. two evils” and use the oppositional argument As a third party, Libertarians have to work harder than the old against everyone who parties in order to be taken seriously. This has created a claims that a binary challenge in choosing candidates. Many candidates want to be choice is the only way. seen as boisterous so that they can draw attention to the LP in For example, in this past an effort to bring in more members. Others may only want to election, most people be “paper candidates,” not actively involved in campaigning, seemed to despise the just to get names on ballots. But choosing a serious candidate choices of Donald that does not reflect that same boring tactics as the Trump and Joe Biden; so, Libertarians tried vehemently to Republicans and Democrats can be tough. remind others that there are other options.
    [Show full text]
  • Write-Ins Race/Name Totals - General Election 11/03/20 11/10/2020
    Write-Ins Race/Name Totals - General Election 11/03/20 11/10/2020 President/Vice President Phillip M Chesion / Cobie J Chesion 1 1 U/S. Gubbard 1 Adebude Eastman 1 Al Gore 1 Alexandria Cortez 2 Allan Roger Mulally former CEO Ford 1 Allen Bouska 1 Andrew Cuomo 2 Andrew Cuomo / Andrew Cuomo 1 Andrew Cuomo, NY / Dr. Anthony Fauci, Washington D.C. 1 Andrew Yang 14 Andrew Yang Morgan Freeman 1 Andrew Yang / Joe Biden 1 Andrew Yang/Amy Klobuchar 1 Andrew Yang/Jeremy Cohen 1 Anthony Fauci 3 Anyone/Else 1 AOC/Princess Nokia 1 Ashlie Kashl Adam Mathey 1 Barack Obama/Michelle Obama 1 Ben Carson Mitt Romney 1 Ben Carson Sr. 1 Ben Sass 1 Ben Sasse 6 Ben Sasse senator-Nebraska Laurel Cruse 1 Ben Sasse/Blank 1 Ben Shapiro 1 Bernard Sanders 1 Bernie Sanders 22 Bernie Sanders / Alexandria Ocasio Cortez 1 Bernie Sanders / Elizabeth Warren 2 Bernie Sanders / Kamala Harris 1 Bernie Sanders Joe Biden 1 Bernie Sanders Kamala D. Harris 1 Bernie Sanders/ Kamala Harris 1 Bernie Sanders/Andrew Yang 1 Bernie Sanders/Kamala D. Harris 2 Bernie Sanders/Kamala Harris 2 Blain Botsford Nick Honken 1 Blank 7 Blank/Blank 1 Bobby Estelle Bones 1 Bran Carroll 1 Brandon A Laetare 1 Brian Carroll Amar Patel 1 Page 1 of 142 President/Vice President Brian Bockenstedt 1 Brian Carol/Amar Patel 1 Brian Carrol Amar Patel 1 Brian Carroll 2 Brian carroll Ammor Patel 1 Brian Carroll Amor Patel 2 Brian Carroll / Amar Patel 3 Brian Carroll/Ama Patel 1 Brian Carroll/Amar Patel 25 Brian Carroll/Joshua Perkins 1 Brian T Carroll 1 Brian T.
    [Show full text]
  • A History of Maryland's Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016
    A History of Maryland’s Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016 A History of Maryland’s Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016 Published by: Maryland State Board of Elections Linda H. Lamone, Administrator Project Coordinator: Jared DeMarinis, Director Division of Candidacy and Campaign Finance Published: October 2016 Table of Contents Preface 5 The Electoral College – Introduction 7 Meeting of February 4, 1789 19 Meeting of December 5, 1792 22 Meeting of December 7, 1796 24 Meeting of December 3, 1800 27 Meeting of December 5, 1804 30 Meeting of December 7, 1808 31 Meeting of December 2, 1812 33 Meeting of December 4, 1816 35 Meeting of December 6, 1820 36 Meeting of December 1, 1824 39 Meeting of December 3, 1828 41 Meeting of December 5, 1832 43 Meeting of December 7, 1836 46 Meeting of December 2, 1840 49 Meeting of December 4, 1844 52 Meeting of December 6, 1848 53 Meeting of December 1, 1852 55 Meeting of December 3, 1856 57 Meeting of December 5, 1860 60 Meeting of December 7, 1864 62 Meeting of December 2, 1868 65 Meeting of December 4, 1872 66 Meeting of December 6, 1876 68 Meeting of December 1, 1880 70 Meeting of December 3, 1884 71 Page | 2 Meeting of January 14, 1889 74 Meeting of January 9, 1893 75 Meeting of January 11, 1897 77 Meeting of January 14, 1901 79 Meeting of January 9, 1905 80 Meeting of January 11, 1909 83 Meeting of January 13, 1913 85 Meeting of January 8, 1917 87 Meeting of January 10, 1921 88 Meeting of January 12, 1925 90 Meeting of January 2, 1929 91 Meeting of January 4, 1933 93 Meeting of December 14, 1936
    [Show full text]
  • September 2005 a Brief Schedule of Conference Is Grass Roots Activist Training Events the Main Track at the Week- Ceive a CD-ROM Resource Book
    Lone Star Liberty The Official Monthly Newsletter of the Libertarian Party of Texas September 2005 A Brief Schedule of Conference is Grass Roots Activist Training Events The main track at the Week- ceive a CD-ROM resource book. end For Winners Conference is the In order to help keep the costs The Weekend for Winners will Grassroots Activist Training being pro- down in bringing the training to Texas, kickoff 6 p.m Friday, September 16 vided by the Leadership Institute. The it will be open to anyone, regardless with a reception at host hotel, Radisson Institute is providing professional train- of Party affiliation. As a result we are Town Lake in Austin. (Registration ers to come to Austin and provide two able to offer professional services for will open at 4 p.m.) The reception will full days of workshops for anyone in- just $100. feature light snacks and the live music terested in effective politics. Because candidates need pic- of Too Blue. (www.tooblue-austin- The training covers all aspects tures, we have arranged for Jayne band.com) of campaigning including fundraising, Allen, of Quintessence Photography, to Saturday's events begin bright outreach, issue development, presen- offer onsite non-copyright digital pho- and early at 8:30 a.m. You can choose tations, etc. Participants will also re- tographs. Track 1, Track 2, or if you are under 12 you can choose the Children's Pro- Track 2 Focus: Training, Issues & Outreach gram. See the neighboring articles and The professional activist train- On Sunday, Wes will host a page 2 for information.
    [Show full text]
  • Partisan Gerrymandering and the Construction of American Democracy
    0/-*/&4637&: *ODPMMBCPSBUJPOXJUI6OHMVFJU XFIBWFTFUVQBTVSWFZ POMZUFORVFTUJPOT UP MFBSONPSFBCPVUIPXPQFOBDDFTTFCPPLTBSFEJTDPWFSFEBOEVTFE 8FSFBMMZWBMVFZPVSQBSUJDJQBUJPOQMFBTFUBLFQBSU $-*$,)&3& "OFMFDUSPOJDWFSTJPOPGUIJTCPPLJTGSFFMZBWBJMBCMF UIBOLTUP UIFTVQQPSUPGMJCSBSJFTXPSLJOHXJUI,OPXMFEHF6OMBUDIFE ,6JTBDPMMBCPSBUJWFJOJUJBUJWFEFTJHOFEUPNBLFIJHIRVBMJUZ CPPLT0QFO"DDFTTGPSUIFQVCMJDHPPE Partisan Gerrymandering and the Construction of American Democracy In Partisan Gerrymandering and the Construction of American Democracy, Erik J. Engstrom offers an important, historically grounded perspective on the stakes of congressional redistricting by evaluating the impact of gerrymandering on elections and on party control of the U.S. national government from 1789 through the reapportionment revolution of the 1960s. In this era before the courts supervised redistricting, state parties enjoyed wide discretion with regard to the timing and structure of their districting choices. Although Congress occasionally added language to federal- apportionment acts requiring equally populous districts, there is little evidence this legislation was enforced. Essentially, states could redistrict largely whenever and however they wanted, and so, not surpris- ingly, political considerations dominated the process. Engstrom employs the abundant cross- sectional and temporal varia- tion in redistricting plans and their electoral results from all the states— throughout U.S. history— in order to investigate the causes and con- sequences of partisan redistricting. His analysis
    [Show full text]
  • THE AMERICAN POWER All- Stars
    THE AMERICAN POWER All- Stars Scorecard & Voting Guide History About every two years, when Congress takes up an energy bill, the Big Oil Team and the Clean Energy Team go head to head on the floor of the U.S. Senate -- who will prevail and shape our nation’s energy policy? The final rosters for the two teams are now coming together, re- flecting Senators’ votes on energy and climate legislation. Senators earn their spot on the Big Oil Team by voting to maintain America’s ailing energy policy with its en- trenched big government subsidies for oil companies, lax oversight on safety and the environment for oil drilling, leases and permits for risky sources of oil, and appointments of regulators who have cozy relationships with the industry. Senators get onto the Clean Energy Team by voting for a new energy policy that will move Amer- ica away from our dangerous dependence on oil and other fossil fuels, and toward cleaner, safer sources of energy like wind, solar, geothermal, and sustainable biomass. This new direction holds the opportunity to make American power the energy technology of the future while creating jobs, strengthening our national security, and improving our environment. Introduction Lobbyists representing the two teams’ sponsors storm the halls of the Congress for months ahead of the votes to sway key players to vote for their side. The Big Oil Team’s sponsors, which include BP and the American Petroleum Institute (API), use their colossal spending power to hire sly K-Street lobbyists who make closed-door deals with lawmakers, sweetened with sizable campaign contribu- tions.
    [Show full text]
  • Districting Principles for 2010 and Beyond (In Addition to Population Equality and the Voting Rights Act)
    April 18, 2019 Districting Principles for 2010 and Beyond (In addition to Population Equality and the Voting Rights Act) This webpage compares districting principles, or criteria, used by each state as it redrew legislative and congressional districts following the 2010 Census. It also includes new principles adopted by Colorado, Michigan, Missouri, New York, Ohio, and Utah for the 2020 cycle. The webpage begins with a summary table, in which readers can see at a glance what principles have been used by each state. The table is followed by relevant constitutional, statutory, and other excerpts for each state that determine the principles it uses. For more information, contact Wendy Underhill. Preserve House Preserve Preserve Cores of Avoid Not Nested in Political Communities Prior Pairing Not Favor Favor Senate or Contiguous Compact Subdivisions of Interest Districts Incumbents Incumbent Party Competitive Congress All States 50 40 44 26 11 12 16 16 5 19 Alabama C, L C, L L C, L C, L Alaska L L L L L Arkansas L L L L L L Arizona C, L C, L C, L C, L C, L C, L L California C, L C, L C, L C, L C, L C, L L Colorado C, L C, L C, L C, L C, L C, L C, L Connecticut L L Delaware L L L Florida C, L C, L C, L C, L C, L Georgia C, L C, L C, L C, L C, L April 18, 2019 Preserve House Preserve Preserve Cores of Avoid Not Nested in Political Communities Prior Pairing Not Favor Favor Senate or Contiguous Compact Subdivisions of Interest Districts Incumbents Incumbent Party Competitive Congress Hawaii C, L C, L C, L C, L C, L L Idaho C, L C, L C, L C, L
    [Show full text]