Redistricting: Reading Between the Lines
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ANRV377-PL12-11 ARI 7 April 2009 8:54 Redistricting: Reading Between the Lines Raymond La Raja Department of Political Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts 01060; email: [email protected] Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2009. 12:203–23 Key Words The Annual Review of Political Science is online at apportionment, representation, race, electoral competition, elections polisci.annualreviews.org This article’s doi: Abstract 10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.071105.095822 The redistricting process evokes major questions about representative Copyright c 2009 by Annual Reviews. democracy, fairness, and political accountability. This article covers the All rights reserved state of the field along three dimensions. First, it explains how redis- by Ms. Erika Yanez on 05/03/10. For personal use only. 1094-2939/09/0615-0203$20.00 tricting bears on questions about racial and minority representation. Second, it examines how redistricting influences electoral competition, focusing on the alleged power of partisans and incumbents to draw maps that eliminate all but token opposition. Third and last, it discusses the Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2009.12:203-223. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org issues surrounding the redistricting process itself and how various pro- cedural reforms may influence political outcomes. Although significant progress has been made in understanding how different redistricting schemes create various biases in the electoral system, a review of the literature shows that major questions have not been resolved regarding the effects of redistricting on electoral competition, partisan polariza- tion, and representation of communities of interest, especially minori- ties. Moreover, there is insufficient evidence from empirical research to justify any particular reform of the redistricting process. In addition to filling these gaps, future work might also broaden the scope of research to assess how redistricting affects other aspects of democracy, including political participation, efficacy, and trust. 203 ANRV377-PL12-11 ARI 7 April 2009 8:54 INTRODUCTION the legislature. But as incumbency reelection rates increased, scholars debated whether redis- Research on redistricting engages an enor- tricting contributed to this trend. Starting in the mously complex set of issues. The seemingly 1980s, research turned to the impact of redis- simple task of drawing lines every so often to tricting plans on racial and minority represen- catch up with population changes is fraught tation, as well as questions about partisan fair- with legal and moral questions about repre- ness. Since the 1990s, there has been a renewed sentative democracy, fairness, and political ac- focus on political competition because the vast countability. The stakes are high for pragmatic majority of legislative incumbents appear invul- reasons too. Line-drawing potentially affects nerable. With popular calls for greater impar- careers of politicians and influences which po- tiality in drawing districts, the redistricting pro- litical party controls government. Given the cess itself has come under intense scrutiny. In political implications, it is understandable that recent years, scholars have been assessing how for much of American history, the courts have various election laws and institutions promote been reluctant to engage the issue directly and, or impede particularly valued outcomes such as to this day, appear to avoid setting clear legal electoral competition. standards. Yet the courts have ventured into Implicit in debates over apportionment and these political questions, starting with Baker v. redistricting is an understanding of how a polity Carr (1962), a case that set in motion dramatic conceives of representational fairness. Is it sim- changes in the apportionment and redistricting ply “one person, one vote” or does repre- process. In Baker, the plaintiffs argued that ru- sentational fairness require descriptive or sub- ral counties were overrepresented in Tennessee stantive results? Does representational fairness because the state legislature had never bothered connote districts that embody geographically to make districts of equal size as the state con- bounded interests, or does it require that all stitution required.1 The Supreme Court ruled citizens or coherent groups of citizens have that questions about electoral apportionment an equal chance of electing a representative of were justiciable, a ruling that invited further their choice? To what degree should districts challenges on the constitutionality or legality of be shaped so that the two major political par- electoral apportionment schemes. Since 1962, ties have a fairly equal chance to win a contest? courts have been drawn into debates about how Undoubtedly, preferences for particular elec- reapportionment and redistricting affect mi- toral laws and redistricting methods will reflect nority representation, partisanship, and other by Ms. Erika Yanez on 05/03/10. For personal use only. perspectives on such questions. Given the di- hot-button issues. versity of normative views on the subject, it is Judicial interventions in the reapportion- not surprising that the literature reveals a lack of ment process during the 1960s stimulated consensus about ideal outcomes expected from scholarly research on consequences of court Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2009.12:203-223. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org the redistricting process. decisions, especially the effect of redistricting This article covers the state of the field on the electoral prospects of incumbents (Tufte across three dimensions. After providing a short 1973, Ferejohn 1977). The conventional view history of reapportionment and redistricting, was that redistricting would loosen up tradi- I explain how redistricting bears on questions tional centers of power, bringing fresh faces to about racial and minority representation. Next, I look at how redistricting influences electoral competition, focusing on the alleged power of 1Plaintiff Charles Baker lived in Shelby County, TN, which had roughly 10 times as many residents as some of the ru- partisans and incumbents to draw maps that ral districts. The state of Tennessee had not redistricted eliminate all but token opposition. Finally, I since 1900, even though its constitution required redistrict- discuss the issues surrounding the redistrict- ing every 10 years. Baker argued he failed to receive “equal protection under the laws” as provided by the Fourteenth ing process itself, and how various procedu- Amendment. ral reforms may influence political outcomes. 204 La Raja ANRV377-PL12-11 ARI 7 April 2009 8:54 I conclude with general remarks about the state ber of Congress represent the people and the of the field and recommendations for future other represent the states. In this manner, research. malapportionment was cemented in the U.S. Constitution by giving each state two Senate votes. Through the decades there was signif- BACKGROUND icant “backsliding” toward the federal model The conflict over the state-level redistricting among states with popular representation in process in the United States is not a recent phe- both chambers. By 1960, two thirds of state nomenon, although the Supreme Court’s en- constitutions provided that the legislature rep- try into this realm in the 1960s opened up a resent counties or towns in at least one chamber, new era of controversy. The seeds of uncer- usually in the form of one-county-one vote. tainty emerge from a basic constitutional fact: Malapportionment was compounded by the Article 1, Section 2 requires a decennial cen- fact that, even for the lower chambers that sus for the purpose of assuring a fair distribu- were supposed to be based on population, many tion of seats in the U.S. House of Representa- state constitutions did not require postcensus tives. The Constitution is silent, however, about redrawing of lines. So as people moved to cities how Representatives from each state should from rural areas during the great migrations be chosen; the Framers left these decisions to of the industrial revolution, the rural areas be- the state legislatures. By the 1840s, 22 of the came vastly overrepresented and akin to British 31 states used single-member districts for con- “rotten boroughs.” Indeed, even in states gressional elections, but many others states, in- where the constitution mandated periodic re- cluding New Jersey, Georgia, New Hampshire, districting, the legislatures simply ignored their and Alabama used at-large elections or multi- responsibility. member districts (Calabrese 2007). Legisla- Although controversy emerged now and tion proposing single-member districts initially then over the distribution of power across dis- was passed by Congress in 1842 but was re- tricts, routine redistricting in the states did not sisted by many states and hardly enforced at all emerge as standard practice until after the court (Benenson 1990). cases of the 1960s, and even then, many states Not surprisingly, the process for select- remained lax carrying it out (Persily et al. 2002). ing state legislators has also varied remark- Until that point, the courts were reluctant to ably through time and across states. During the enter what Justice Felix Frankfurter termed by Ms. Erika Yanez on 05/03/10. For personal use only. colonial period and early years of the Repub- the “political thicket” of redistricting in his lic, many states expressed popular rule by giv- majority opinion in Colegrove v. Green (1946). ing representation to towns or counties