Ratf**Ked Book Discussion Toolkit

Ratf**ked Book Discussion Toolkit

For more information about LWV-Wake or our work on redistricting reform go to www.lwvwake.org.

Revised October 2017

Table of Contents

Contributors ...... 3 Introduction ...... 4 Leading League Book Discussions ...... 5 Facilitator’s Discussion Guide ...... 6—10 Discussion Questions—Handout for Participants ...... 11 Action Steps—Handout for Participants ...... 12 Chapter Summaries & Takeaways ...... 13—27

2 Contributors

This toolkit was developed by a team of members of the League of Women Voters of Wake County. The following members contributed to this project.

Elaine Okal—Committee Chair Marcia Ballard Karen-Marie Allen Sheila Denn Marty McLean Terri Ring Marlene Wilson Dianna Wynn

For information or questions regarding this toolkit, please email the League of Women Voters of Wake County at [email protected].

3 Introduction

Gerrymandering, the partisan drawing of voting maps, has always been a part of American politics. The term itself dates back to 1812 and incorporates the name of Eldridge Gerry, governor of Massachusetts, who signed a bill approving voting maps that favored his party. At the time, the Boston Gazette suggested that the contorted shape of the districts resembled a salamander. Thus, we now use the term gerrymander to refer to voting districts specifically created to advantage one political party over another. David Daley’s book, Ratf**ked: The True Story Behind the Secret Plan to Steal America’s Democracy, details the efforts of Republican legislators and political strategists to redraw voting maps. The 2010 REDMAP strategy targeted specific states across the nation, including North Carolina. The objective was to create legislative voting districts that would favor Republican candidates. Never before had gerrymandering been done with such precision. North Carolina is now con- sidered one of the most gerrymandered states in the nation and has been engaged in ongoing ligation regarding the validity of its voting maps. Daley’s book received many positive reviews. The New Yorker describes the book as “compelling.”1 The New York Review of Books states that Daley “has written a sobering and convincing account.”2 Kirkus Review declares the book “an alarming study” and “a chilling intimation of the growing en- trenchment of partisan politics.”3 The League of Women Voters has long been fighting for impartial approach to redistricting when drawing voting maps. Daley’s book is a must read for anyone who wants to understand gerrymandering and its impact on elections. This toolkit was created by members of the League of Women Voters of Wake County in North Carolina. The material contained in this document is easily adapted for use by Leagues in other communities or in other states. For more information about LWV-Wake or its work on redistricting reform go to www.lwvwake.org.

1 Kolbert, Elizabeth, “Drawing the Line: How Redistricting Turned America from Blue to Red,” The New Yorker, (June 27, 2016). 2 Drew, Elizabeth, “American Democracy Betrayed,” The New York Review of Books, (August 18, 2016). 3 “Ratf**ked,“ Kirkus Review, (June 7, 2016).

4 Leading League Book Discussions

When leading a League book discussion, you are speaking on behalf of the League. Therefore, it’s important that you maintain a nonpartisan stance throughout the discussion. Leading an enjoyable League book discussion is similar to facilitating any good discussion. The following guidelines will help you facilitate a constructive session.

• As the discussion leader, you should be more prepared than the participants to discuss the book. Read the entire book and prepare a list of discussion questions. • Wear your League name badge and have name badges available for participants. • As the book discussion facilitator, you are speaking on behalf of the League. Remember to keep your comments strictly nonpartisan. • Introduce the discussion by describing the League and its nonpartisan stance, especially if nonmembers are participating. Remind League members that the nature of the discussion must remain nonpartisan. • Listen more than you speak. Remember your role is to guide the discussion, not lecture the group. • Ask your prepared questions one at a time. If the discussion is flowing well, don’t feel obli- gated to cover all your prepared questions. • Ask a question, then give participants time to think about and answer it. Don’t immediate- ly provide your personal answer to your own question. • Make sure that everyone has an opportunity to participate. Don’t allow one person, including yourself, to dominate the entire discussion. • Encourage alternative opinions and perspectives, but make sure participants are civil and respectful of others. • Keep the discussion on track, but don’t be overly rigid about the direction of the conversation. If the discussion gets too far off topic, bring the participants back to the original question or move on to the next question. • Don’t worry about getting through all the prepared questions, but do leave time to wrap up the discussion. • Conclude the discussion by summarizing the major thoughts or conclusions that emerged from the discussion, describing action steps on an issue where applicable, and announcing any upcoming League events.

5 Facilitator’s Discussion Guide

Introduction to the Discussion

1. Introduce yourself. 2. Have each attendee introduce themselves by name. (Keep this very brief.) 3. Introduce the League of Women Voters. • The League of Women Voters is a nonpartisan grassroots organization established in 1920. • The League has been active in redistricting-related matters in various states as early as the 1930s. • LWV-US established an official national position supporting nonpartisan redistricting in 1966. The League has led redistricting reform efforts in many states and engaged in litigation when necessary. • The League of Women Voters of North Carolina has been active on the issue since the early 1990’s along with many local League’s across the state. • LWV-Wake has an active Redistricting Committee. Leaguers are contacting legislators, writing letters to the editor, speaking to community groups, observing legislative ses- sions, testifying and legislative hearings, and developing educational materials. 4. Ground Rules for Discussion • League members must keep the discussion nonpartisan. • Give everyone an opportunity to participate. Don’t dominate the discussion. • Alternative perspectives are encouraged. Express disagreement respectfully. 5. Address the term Ratf**ked in the title. • To make the discussion more welcoming for those uncomfortable with the word, we will refer to it as “Rat-effed.” • The term was used as early as the 1920s to describe a “dirty deed done dirt cheap.” One of the Watergate sources referenced in Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein's book All the President’s Men used the term to describe political sabotage and political she- nanigans by seamy strategists.

6 Discussion Questions

Discussion questions are sequenced to promote a logical progression of ideas and to cover the most important concepts. Facilitators should try to at least cover questions 1 through 5. Always end the discussion with question 10. Of course, the questions are flexible depending on the nature of the group’s discussion and any recent developments related to the redistricting issue.

1. The focus of David Daley’s book is on the GOP’s REDMAP strategy for redrawing voting maps in targeted states. What are your thoughts on this strategy? [This is a general question to begin the discussion.] Potential Follow-Up Questions • How was the REDMAP strategy different than how redistricting was previously ap- proached? • Why do you think the Democrats didn’t launch their own BLUEMAP strategy?

2. David Daley’s focus is on the GOP’s REDMAP strategy, but Democrats have also engaged in gerrymandering. Do you believe the author was balanced in his discussion of both Re- publican’s and Democrat’s roles in gerrymandering? Why or why not? [This question provides an opportunity to talk about gerrymandering in a less partisan manner.]

3. The author describes the REDMAP strategy as a relatively covert process in which voting maps were drawn behind closed doors. The League of Women Voters demands transparency in government processes and encourages allowing public input. When legislators draw new voting maps, what would a transparent process involve? [This question provides an opportunity to discuss a transparent process.]

4. The book describes how gerrymandering often creates “safe” districts for legislators in both parties. Do you believe this makes legislators more or less accountable or responsive to constituents? In what ways? [This question provides an opportunity to discuss legislators’ accountability to constituents.]

5. Voting maps are created using sets of guidelines. Of course, those guidelines have often explicitly permitted partisan gerrymandering. What guidelines or criteria do you believe would result in fair and impartial voting maps? [This question creates an opportunity to discuss principles and criteria for fair redistricting.]

7 Discussion Questions—continued

6. Gerrymandering has existed for over two hundred years. As the author points out, computer technology has enabled greater precision in drawing voting maps resulting in more extreme gerrymandering. Do you believe technology is the problem, the solution, or both? [This question provides an opportunity to discuss the role of technology and its limi- tations, e.g. “garbage in, garbage out.]

7. Some states use some form of an independent commission to create voting maps. Such a model has been proposed in North Carolina. Do you believe an independent commission could create fair maps? [This question provides an opportunity to explore alternatives to legislators drawing maps.] Potential Follow-Up Questions • Who would serve on such a commission? • Should the commission be given criteria for creating maps, or should members of such a commission have full decision-making power?

8. David Daley’s book, and even the nature of this discussion, assumes that gerrymandering negatively impacts voters. What are the actual harms of gerrymandering? [This question provides an opportunity to discuss the actual harms of partisan gerrymandering.] Potential Follow-Up Questions • How does gerrymandering promote more extreme positions on the part of politicians? • How does gerrymandering influence how candidates campaign for elections?

9. David Daley’s book discusses how African American legislators often cooperated with RED- MAP strategists. Did you understand why some African American legislators cooperated with this strategy? [This question addresses the concerns of African American voters and provides an opportunity to discuss the Voting Rights Act.] Potential Follow-Up Questions • Why did African American legislators cooperate with REDMAP? • Do you believe this was a wise decision on the part of those legislators? • Do you believe the requirements of the Voting Rights Act fully addresses African Amer- ican’s concerns?

8 Discussion Questions—continued

10. Some states have used ballot initiatives to pass laws that require using impartial criteria or independent commissions. North Carolina, however, does not offer the option of a statewide initiative or referendum. In fact, revisions of voting maps in North Carolina are usually the result of law suits. Aside from litigation, what can be done to persuade legislators to adopt redistricting criteria that prohibits partisan gerrymandering? [This is an action step question and should always be the last question of the discussion.]

Conclude the Discussion

1. Briefly state the major 3 or 4 takeaways from the discussion, e.g. “We all appear to agree that an impartial approach to drawing voting maps is the fair thing to do.” 2. Review the principles the League supports: • A transparent process allowing for public input • An impartial commission rather than legislators drawing the maps • Maps based substantially on population, i.e. “one person, one vote” • Prohibiting use of political data such as voters’ political affiliations, voting histories, and candidates’ and incumbents’ addresses • Compact and contiguous districts • Retaining county and municipal boundaries within districts where possible • Avoiding dividing communities of interest when possible • Complying with relevant provisions of the Voting Rights Act 3. Action Steps • Distribute handout to participants. • Distribute any current League fact sheets on redistricting. • Encourage them to actively support redistricting reform. 4. Promote the League • Encourage any nonmembers to join the League. • Announce upcoming League events. 5. Thank the group for their participation.

9 Topic Focus of Each Question

Question Topic(s)

1. What are your thoughts on this strategy? • REDMAP strategy

2. Do you believe the author was balanced in his • Balanced approach to both par- discussion of both Republican’s and Democrat’s ties’ role in gerrymandering roles in gerrymandering? Why or why not?

3. When legislators draw new voting maps, what • Transparent process would a transparent process involve?

4. Do you believe this makes legislators more or • Accountability of legislators less accountable or responsive to constituents? In what ways?

5. What guidelines or criteria do you believe would • Criteria or guidelines for fair maps result in fair and impartial voting maps?

6. Do you believe technology is the problem, the • Role of technology solution, or both?

7. Do you believe an independent commission • Alternative decision makers could create fair maps?

8. What are the actual harms of gerrymandering? • Extreme political positions • Wasted votes

9. Did you understand why some African American • Voting Rights Act legislators cooperated with this strategy?

10. Aside from litigation, what can be done to per- • Persuading legislators suade legislators to adopt redistricting criteria that prohibits partisan gerrymandering?

10 Ratf**ked Book Discussion Questions

1. The focus of David Daley’s book is on the GOP’s REDMAP strategy for redrawing voting maps in targeted states. What are your thoughts on this strategy? 2. David Daley’s focus is on the GOP’s REDMAP strategy, but Democrats have also engaged in gerrymandering. Do you believe the author was balanced in his discussion of both Republican’s and Democrat’s roles in gerrymandering? Why or why not? 3. The author describes the REDMAP strategy as a relatively covert process in which voting maps were drawn behind closed doors. The League of Women Voters demands transparency in government processes and encourages allowing public input. When legislators draw new voting maps, what would a transparent process involve? 4. The book describes how gerrymandering often creates “safe” districts for legislators in both parties. Do you believe this makes legislators more or less accountable or responsive to constituents? In what ways? 5. Voting maps are created using sets of guidelines. Of course, those guidelines have often explicitly permitted partisan gerrymandering. What guidelines or criteria do you believe would result in fair and impartial voting maps? 6. Gerrymandering has existed for over two hundred years. As the author points out, computer technology has enabled greater precision in drawing voting maps resulting in more extreme gerrymandering. Do you believe technology is the problem, the solution, or both? 7. Some states use some form of an independent commission to create voting maps. Such a model has been proposed in North Carolina. Do you believe an independent commission could create fair maps? 8. David Daley’s book, and even the nature of this discussion, assumes that gerrymandering negatively impacts voters. What are the actual harms of gerrymandering? 9. David Daley’s book discusses how African American legislators often cooperated with REDMAP strategists. Did you understand why some African American legislators cooperated with this strategy? 10. Some states have used ballot initiatives to pass laws that require using impartial criteria or independent commissions. North Carolina, however, does not offer the option of a state-wide initiative or referendum. In fact, revisions of voting maps in North Carolina are usually the result of law suits. Aside from litigation, what can be done to persuade legislators to adopt redistricting criteria that prohibits partisan gerrymandering?

Discussion guide developed by the League of Women Voters of Wake County, North Carolina. For more information go to www.lwvwake.org.

11 League of Women Voters of Wake County

Advocate to End Gerrymandering & Adopt Fair Voting Maps

Talk to Your Legislators • Contact your NC General Assembly legislators in both the House and the Senate. Let them know you care about redistricting reform and that you want fair and impartial voting maps.

• Use any proposed redistricting legislation as a reason to start a conversation with your legislators.

• When the legislature is not in session, set up a meeting with your legislators in their district offices.

• Go to your legislators’ town hall meetings. Demand their support for redistricting reform.

• Don’t get discouraged! Every conversation, phone call, email, and meeting are all valuable

Get Politically Active in Your Community • Attend candidate forums. Ask candidates about their positions on redistricting. Let candidates know that this is an important issue to you.

• Be politically active in your community. Most local jurisdictions redraw their voting maps every 5 to 10 years.

• Vote in local elections! Candidates for local office often later become candidates for legis-

Be an Opinion Leader • Tell your family, friends, and neighbors why we must end gerrymandering. Help build the wave for change!

• Write letters to the editor and post to online media forums explaining your support for redistricting reform.

Redistricting reform will happen in North Carolina when voters demand that their elected officials support creating voting districts that reflect the needs of the voters, not the politicians!

For resources and more information about redistricting go to www.lwvwake.org

12 Chapter Summaries

Chapter 1 The Mastermind: “It Will Take Years to Recover”

After the 2008 elections, Chris Jankowski, a Republican strategist in the Republican State Lead- ership Committee (RSLC), became the driving force behind the Redistricting Majority Project, otherwise known as Operation REDMAP. Its mission: “to take or retain control of state legislatures in states where politicians were charged with drawing new [redistricting] lines.” The primary targets were states where state legislatures were in charge of redistricting and where one or more of these conditions existed: (a) the state was losing or gaining a congressional district, which meant throwing away old maps and drawing new ones; (b) the state legislature was closely divided between Republicans and Democrats, so that a change of a few seats would make a huge difference; and (c) Republicans might end up controlling the gover- norship as well as the legislature, which would minimize the chance of a governor vetoing the new maps. They believed that this approach “presented the opportunity to solidify conservative policy- making agenda at the state level and maintain a Republican stronghold in the U.S. House of Representatives for the next decade.”

Chapter Takeaways

• Project REDMAP was pitched to big donors and to vulnerable state houses that were ripe for a Republican takeover.

• The goal: obliterate viable opposition to conservative policies at the state and federal levels of government by gerrymandering of key districts.

• In 2010, over 18 million dollars was raised to flip state houses in Ohio, North Carolina, Wis- consin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Indiana, and other states.

• In the 2010 election, Republicans took over 63 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and 680 seats in state legislatures.

13 Chapter Summaries

Chapter 2 Pennsylvania: “So This Wasn’t a Personal Attack”

In 2010, with the help of Project REDMAP and relentless ads and mail campaigns, the Pennsyl- vania GOP gained a majority in the state House of Representatives. They set about redrawing congressional district maps in their favor. Their goal was for “Democrats to win a small number of seats with a high percentage of the votes, and Republicans to win more seats with safe but not excessive majorities.” The 11th Congressional District, near Scranton, is an example of the long-term effects of the Republican gerrymandering. Paul Kanjorski, the 13-term Democrat who held the seat, was top- pled during the 2010 GOP wave by Lou Barletta. During congressional redistricting, one goal was to make the 11th District even safer for Republicans. Heavily Democratic areas of the district were shifted to a neighboring district that was already Democratic. They were replaced with rural Republican areas from neighboring counties. In 2014, Barletta was elected to a third term with 66% of the vote. Before the 2010 election, Democrats held a 12–7 majority in the U.S. House of Representa- tives. In 2010, with the GOP wave, Republicans managed to reverse the 12–7 majority in their favor. The congressional redistricting in 2011 was so favorable to Republicans that in 2012, their majority grew to 13–5.

Chapter Takeaways

• The timing of messaging played a large role in wins for the GOP and losses for the Democrats. • Once the GOP gained the majority in the legislature, they gerrymandered a number of districts, shifting urban areas into more rural districts. • The resulting maps contained the most bizarre-looking districts in the histo- ry of the state.

14 Chapter Summaries

Chapter 3 North Carolina: “Truly Space-Age Software”

Redistricting has played a large part in changes to North Carolina’s congressional delegation, which went from an 8–3 split (Democrats–Republicans) in the early 1990s to a 10–3 split (Republicans–Democrats) in 2012. After the 1990 census, an alliance of Republicans and Afri- can-American Democrats, with help from the Voting Rights Act, “worked together to shape [redistricting plans], carving seats that ultimately benefited both sides.” During the 2010 election, REDMAP funneled a lot of money to North Carolina for ads challeng- ing Democratic state legislators. The subsequent redistricting process drew three majority- minority congressional districts. The redistricting maps were created by Tom Hofeller, the RNC’s “master mapmaker,” and paid for by the State of North Carolina and by the State Gov- ernment Leadership Foundation (a nonprofit arm of the RSLC). Court challenges to the 2010 maps exposed some of the tactics that had been used in the redistricting. Federal court later found districts 1 and 12 to be racially gerrymandered. “When districts are competitive, [David] Price readily admits, members of Congress pay more attention to the middle, to independents and even to the other side.” Ignoring those groups might cause the district to flip. With the use of big money and software like Maptitude, Repub- licans appear to have secured majorities in North Carolina for the foreseeable future.

Chapter Takeaways

• A coalition of Republicans and African-Americans for redistricting was possible because white Southern Democrats had caused African-Americans to be underrepresented ever since the Civil War. • Districts were packed to elect minority and Republican candidates, based on amendments to the Voting Rights Act. • A combination of gerrymandering and a lot of cash leads to an abuse of power and dirty tricks campaigning. • During redistricting, a majority in voter registration is not a good way to pre- dict the way a district will actually vote.

15 Chapter Summaries

Chapter 4 Maptitude: “Donald Duck Kicking Goofy”

With U.S. Census data, public records including election results, and direct marketer’s data- bases, combined with fast computing power and sophisticated software like Maptitude, drawing redistricting maps is no longer a pen-and-paper exercise. Districts can be drawn to lock in party “ownership” for years. One mapmaker suggests the possibility of using predictive software to design a map that appears nonpartisan at the time, but becomes partisan in the future. All it takes is the right firm and lots of money.

Chapter Takeaways

• The past can be used to direct the future. • Software isn’t partisan—only the people using the software. • Software like Maptitude can be used to slice and dice voter data, and the results used to generate district maps. • With the amount and precision of available data, maps can be drawn down to the street level and out to the future.

16 Chapter Summaries

Chapter 5 Michigan: A Garbage Dump is the Cherry on Top

In the first part of the chapter, Daley drives along the borders of Michigan’s 14th District, which has been packed with Democratic voters. This concentration of Democrats allowed Re- publicans to sweep the surrounding districts. The drive is a compilation of contrasts between Michigan’s past and present, and Daley presents examples of ways gerrymandering has divided rich and poor. He suggests ways of redrawing the lines to reflect the citizenry more accu- rately. Then Daley interviews Jeff Timmer, the “man who drew the lines,” who says that he was con- strained by the Voting Rights Act, by county geography, and by municipal boundaries. By Mich- igan statute, his primary goal was to keep counties together, not partisan politics. The “man who drew the lines” is a Republican state official. The remainder of the chapter reviews the Republican redistricting strategy, before and after REDMAP. Daley gives examples of the effects of breaking up neighborhoods that have com- mon concerns.

Chapter Takeaways

• Separation of communities hampers improvements. • Rich vs poor, white vs black enforces the idea of “The Other.” • People drawing the redistricting lines can believe they are basing the work on criteria that they have no control over. • The strategy in Michigan has worked for decades. • Strategy plus money generates results.

17 Chapter Summaries

Chapter 6 Ohio: “A Small Carve Out Down 77 in Canton”

The chapter discusses the Republican strategy to control this state that is evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats. In 2011, redistricting was done in a hotel room by a team led by two Republicans. The process consisted of private meetings, secret locations, and the use of personal email to keep the maps away from the Ohio legislature. Their goal was to create the maximum number of safe Republican districts, while packing Democratic districts, so that Republicans would win even in the most Democratic years. In 2012, Republicans won a majority of seats in the state House of Representatives, although statewide they had only a narrow margin of votes over Democrats. The GOP credited project REDMAP. For the U.S. House of Representatives, Republicans had only 59% of the votes statewide but won 75% of the seats. John Boehner lost his position as Speaker of the House because of the number of conserva- tives who do not see the need for compromise. In 2015, Ohio approved an amendment that made reforms to the redistricting system for the state legislature. Congressional districts were not affected.

Chapter Takeaways

• Behind closed doors, manipulation of state maps took place at the direction of national players. • Creating safe districts allowed the Republicans to funnel money to contest- ed state and federal races. • Kathleen Clyde’s story about the process makes me think of the recent events around the US Senate Health Care bill. Maps were shared with a se- lect few and only distributed close to voting. • A system that has less of a discrepancy between seats won and percentage of the total vote provides representational fairness. • The success of the redrawn districts has led to the election of more conservative Republicans, which has led to the downfall of many Republican leaders.

18 Chapter Summaries

Chapter 7 Democrats: “They Just Whistled Past the Graveyard”

After Barack Obama’s stunning 2008 election, confident Democrats believed the changing de- mographics of America would lead to continued electoral victories. But by 2014, Democratic officeholders outside the White House, from Congress to the state houses, suffered tremen- dous losses. The GOP strategy won elections in state after state despite higher Democratic registration numbers, and despite Obama’s 2012 reelection. “How could a party with a genuine demographic edge get out-organized, out-strategized and out-energized in election after election?” Daley looks for answers, speaking to Steve Israel, former head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and two senior Democratic leaders in the fight for redistricting: Martin Frost, former Texas congressman, and John Tanner of Tennessee. They tell what went wrong, how the Democrats missed opportunities and lacked strategies, and speculate on the possibility of turning the tide in upcoming elections.

Chapter Takeaways

• Only 36.6% of registered voters went to the polls in 2014, the lowest turnout since WWII. Low turnout in non-presidential years handicaps Demo- crats. • Democrats thought the momentum of the “Obama coalition” and demographic changes would give them a lasting majority. They didn’t think ahead to 2010 redistricting. The GOP planned ahead and gained the advantage. • Democrats’ best hope to turn the tide is 2020, but the party may not be able to muster the money or the strategy to compete with Republicans at the gerrymandering game. • The one certain thing that can reverse partisan polarization at the state and congressional levels is nonpartisan redistricting. • “Hardline partisan warriors” on either side don’t really want reform – or to risk their power. Yet, a 2014 Pew Research poll shows a majority of Ameri- cans are not hardline partisans and favor compromise.

19 Chapter Summaries

Chapter 8 Florida: “Tampa is Far from Perfect”

Florida is a unique place, a crazy collection of wildlife, characters and oddities. Nevertheless, in November 2010, voters in Florida did something “smart, revolutionary and unlike almost any state: they took control of redistricting” by approving two constitutional amendments, one for state legislative districts and one for congressional districts. In addition to being fair, contiguous and compact, districts must not be drawn to “favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party.” Moreover, they must allow minorities equal opportunity in electing candidates of their choice. These amendments were known as the Fair Districts amendments. Daley tells the story of the secret strategy by Republican operatives to undermine Fair Districts and get their own maps approved, all the while appearing to abide by the amendments. The new maps went through several court challenges before they were ruled unconstitutional, and transcripts from these hearings tell the amazing tale.

Chapter Takeaways

• The fact that 63% of Florida voters approved the Fair Districts amendments, despite a Republican wave election in 2010, demonstrates the desire of voters for nonpartisan redistricting. • Republicans who held a grip on the state political establishment since 2000 were not willing to give up power. • Power brokers convened to find a way around the amendment, con- structing two parallel processes: one ostensibly public, the other behind the scenes. • Public hearings can be deceptive – in Florida, family, friends and staff attended public hearings and submitted the power brokers’ maps favoring the GOP, with talking points to present the maps as impartial. • It took persistent efforts by the League and others, as well as court challenges, to find the Florida redistricting maps unconstitutional.

20 Chapter Summaries

Chapter 9 Wisconsin: “They Put My District in a Woodchipper”

After the 2010 census, with the help of Tom Hofeller, paid consultants, and a team of lawyers, Wisconsin became one of the most gerrymandered states in the nation. In an elaborate scheme of secrecy during their gerrymandering process, only Republican legislators were briefed, and only about their own districts. Each legislator signed a confidentiality agreement. In addition, they were carefully scripted as to what to say to the public about the maps. In 2015, Wisconsin Republicans got rid of the nonpartisan accountability board and pushed for strict voter ID laws. At the same time, a lawsuit contended that the gerrymandering violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. Part of the argument was based on the efficiency gap, which defines gerrymandering as “the art of wasting votes for the other side.” The efficiency gap is calculated as “the difference between the parties’ wasted votes divided by the total votes cast.” As emails surfaced that outlined the precision and politically motivated intent, the three-judge panel wrote that the situation was “almost laughable”; but they couldn’t do anything more than use very strong language to say that it was lawful but very undemocratic.

Chapter Takeaways

• Many changes happened behind closed doors. • It is possible to be very exact when planning a district that favors one side. • Once a side has strong majorities, it is easy to go forward with other changes that are very one-sided. • The party in power has a scripted response to defend the unfair maps.

21 Chapter Summaries

Chapter 10 Iowa: The Redistricting Unicorn

Iowa is the star of nonpartisan redistricting. Since 2000, they have had “more competitive congressional races than Texas, California and Florida combined despite having a fraction of the number of seats.” In 1972, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that lines drawn by Republicans were not drawn according to the one person/one vote guideline. Eventually the court redrew the lines. In 1980, Republicans, afraid that they would lose their majority just when it was time to redraw maps, passed comprehensive reform. The very strict guidelines include a ban on using political data. Although the Legislature has final say and can reject the lines if they have real concern, the Legislative Service Agency, the group now responsible for drawing the maps, creates the least controversial atmosphere of any state. It is helpful that the state has a “neat rectangular grid.” Because its population is 91% white, the Voting Rights Act can’t be used as a pretense for gerrymandering Democrats. Most important, there is institutional trust. Iowans are proud of their nonpartisan redistricting process, and the Legislative Service Agency treats the process as “sacrosanct.”

Chapter Takeaways

• A state can feel proud of being fair. • Institutional trust makes a huge difference when it comes to making political decisions. • Funny how a party in power can legislate to create a fair environment when they think that they might be thrown out of power.

22 Chapter Summaries

Chapter 11 Arizona: “You Can’t Get Anymore Partisan Than This”

Arizona voters are “just over a third Republican, a third independent, and a smidgen less Dem- ocratic.” In 2000, a voter-initiated constitutional amendment created the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, a five-member commission. Four members are appointed by legislators (two from each party); those commissioners choose their chairperson. The 2001 citizen commission successfully drew congressional district maps that shifted sides in swing years. However, while citizen commissions might appear to increase transparency, the mapmaking process in Arizona takes place behind closed doors and could be influenced by partisan politics. In 2011, commission chair Colleen Mathis was impeached for “gross miscon- duct” and “substantial neglect of duty,” removed from office, and reinstated, all within three hours, as legislators tried to regain their former power to draw the lines. In 2012, the Arizona legislature filed a complaint alleging that according to the Constitution, congressional redistricting must be done by the state legislature. In June 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that “legislative authority” includes “initiatives adopted by the people themselves” and that a citizens’ commission was well within the framework of the Constitution.

Chapter Takeaways

• In 2000, Proposition 106, creating an independent commission, passed with 56.1% of the vote. Members are appointed by the speaker of the house, the house minority leader, the president of the senate, and the senate minority leader. • The legislature challenged the legality of a citizens’ commission, claiming that they alone were the voters’ representatives. In June 2015, the Supreme Court affirmed the right of voters to choose an independent commission.

23 Chapter Summaries

Chapter 12 A Theorem to Detect Ratf**king

In 1986, in Davis v. Bandemer, the Supreme Court found that a partisan gerrymander was judi- ciable, but said that they had no standard by which to strike it down. In response, Sam Wang, Princeton University neuroscientist, is working on statistical approaches to detecting partisan asymmetry. He begins with the idea that “[winning] more than half the votes ought to win at least half the seats.” “If Democrats win 51 percent of the vote and they only get 30 percent of the representation, as per Pennsylvania, that’s a problem. I have to come up with the statistical criterion for how far away from the [national standard] is a foul.” Wang’s type of computer modeling could provide a forensic standard to identify a gerrymander, but developing a reme- dy would be a political process. Another view is represented by Lawrence Lessig, Harvard Law Professor, who sought the Dem- ocratic nomination for President in 2016. He campaigned to end partisan gerrymandering by following FairVote’s prescription of instant runoffs (allowing people to rank their top choices) and multi-member districts. He also pledged to institute automatic voter registration and over- haul campaign finance laws.

Chapter Takeaways

• Courts have written that partisan gerrymandering can be litigated, but they have no standard by which to strike one down or to use in applying a reme- dy. • A mathematical formula such as that postulated by Sam Wang might provide information to examine the results of an election as a measure of pro- portionality. • Lawrence Lessig entered the 2016 Democratic Presidential primary race with a promise to develop legislation on both campaign finance and electoral reform in an effort to make elections fair.

24 Chapter Summaries

Coda

The Coda summarizes the effects of gerrymandering on the ability of the federal government to govern. It makes the case that what is at stake is the nature of democracy. Daley gives examples of issues, such as climate change, immigration, reproductive rights, guns and minimum wage, for which progress was difficult or impossible during the Obama admin- istration, due to the ascendance of an extreme wing of the Republican party. The same extreme wing was the catalyst for forcing John Boehner to step down as Speaker of the House. Elected officials with safe seats pay no price when opposing their speaker. According to Daley, the combination of Citizens United and gerrymandering has made working across the aisle impossible. At the end of the book, Daley describes a 7-step plan to push back against the Republican strategy, including step 6: “voters need to get angry, and voters need to turn out,” and step 7: “Democrats need to vote in midterm elections and not just in presidential years.”

Chapter Takeaways

• Daley talks about the consequences of gerrymandering to our democracy. • He offers a -7 step plan to counter the threat.

25 Chapter Summaries

Epilogue

In the Epilogue, Daley reviews the expectations for the 2016 election and the election’s actual results. He gives examples of how REDMAP, gerrymandering and voting restrictions affected the election and how they will affect future elections. Daley notes that the strategy to gerrymander legislative seats is being extended to the Electoral College. There is good news: Virginia’s and Florida’s districts have been redrawn as a result of court orders. In South Dakota, a ballot referendum created the state’s first independent ethics commission, cut lobbyist access and introduced campaign-finance limits and other pro- transparency efforts. (This package was repealed by Republicans.) Maine adopted ranked- choice voting for almost all elections: if no candidate wins a majority, the candidate with the least votes is eliminated and a voter’s second choice is automatically applied in the next round. The courts have ordered a lower court to take another look at Virginia’s state legislative lines. The Supreme Court will hear the Wisconsin case that challenges partisan gerrymandering. Four liberal justices remain on the Supreme Court. Justice Kennedy has indicated that he is open to declaring political gerrymandering as unconstitutional. The efficiency gap is keyto convincing the Court. While the Wisconsin case is pending, the Court has instructed Wisconsin to redraw their legislative maps by Nov 2017. President Obama is leading the Democrats’ challenge to REDMAP. but the problem is not being articulated in a way that directly addresses the cause and the severity of the problem. This is because the Democrat leadership doesn’t believe it’s a top-tier issue for voters. In some states, the best hope lies in winning the governor’s seat after the 2020 census. If progress can’t be made then, the next chance will be in 2031. The National Democratic Redistricting Committee (RDRC) is developing a strategy to take back seats but is hindered by a lack of money. Whatever strategy is used, it needs to include how, and by whom, district lines are drawn. The strategy will need to use tactics that fit the state, such as court cases or winning chambers, governors’ races or down-ballot races. A Republican strategist is seeing signs that elected Republicans may be giving the Republican party an image problem. The “right” Republicans need to run for office. And Republicans will continue with the strategy to take over more seats. The Democrats’ best short-term strategy is to focus on courts (redistricting and voter rights) and five governors’ faces. For the long term, they need to build turnout, field candidates and promote redistricting reform. A district-by-district, state-by-state strategy is needed.

26 Chapter Summaries

Epilogue (continued)

Chapter Takeaways

• Gerrymandering affects candidate participation as well as election results, for seats in state legislatures and in Congress. • The redistricting strategy is a long-term effort with tactics that can be used to address short-term goals. • The issue of gerrymandering is getting attention from political activist or- ganizations but needs more coverage by political reporters and major news outlets.