DOCSLIB.ORG

Reading Between the Lines: Congressional and State

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Reading Between the Lines: Congressional and State ———————————————————————— Reading Between the Lines Congressional and State Legislative Redistricting their Reform in Iowa, Arizona and California and Ideas for Change in New Jersey ————————— ————————— A Policy Analysis Exercise and Major Writing Credit Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Concurrent Degree of Master in Public Policy and Juris Doctor Prepared for the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University by Benjamin Brickner May 2010 Harvard University Columbia University Kennedy School of Government School of Law Cambridge, Massachusetts New York, New York State legislative district boundaries Northeast New Jersey (2001–11) For Elbridge (and Katie) Reading Between the Lines — TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................................................vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................................................vii CONCURRENT DEGREE STATEMENT..........................................................................................................ix 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................ 1 PURPOSE OF STUDY........................................................................................................................................1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS.................................................................................................................................2 OUTLINE OF STUDY .......................................................................................................................................4 2. REDISTRICTING IN THE UNITED STATES ..................................................5 POPULATION EQUALITY................................................................................................................................6 “TRADITIONAL” DISTRICTING PRINCIPLES ..............................................................................................11 GERRYMANDERING......................................................................................................................................17 3. RECENT REDISTRICTING REFORMS......................................................... 21 REDISTRICTING BY COMMISSION ...............................................................................................................21 IOWA: REFORM BY LEGISLATIVE ACTION (1980).....................................................................................22 ARIZONA: REFORM BY BALLOT INITIATIVE (2000) .................................................................................25 CALIFORNIA: REFORM BY BALLOT INITIATIVE (2008) ............................................................................29 4. REDISTRICTING IN NEW JERSEY.............................................................. 34 PAST PRACTICE .............................................................................................................................................34 CONGRESSIONAL “REDISTRICTING COMMISSION” .................................................................................35 LEGISLATIVE “APPORTIONMENT COMMISSION”.....................................................................................38 5. EVALUATING REDISTRICTING: POINTS TO CONSIDER............................ 42 FRAMEWORK OF ANALYSIS .........................................................................................................................42 SUBSTANTIVE CONSIDERATIONS................................................................................................................43 PROCEDURAL CONSIDERATIONS................................................................................................................51 6. REDISTRICTING CHANGE: IDEAS TO CONSIDER...................................... 55 AREAS OF CONCERN ....................................................................................................................................55 FRAMEWORK FOR CHANGE.........................................................................................................................57 IDEAS FOR IMPROVEMENT ..........................................................................................................................60 7. OBSTACLES TO REDISTRICTING CHANGE................................................ 67 LEGAL ............................................................................................................................................................67 POLITICAL......................................................................................................................................................67 CHRONOLOGICAL.........................................................................................................................................68 8. CONCLUDING THOUGHTS........................................................................ 69 APPENDIX A. POPULATION EQUALITY OF DISTRICTS IN THE FIFTY STATES AFTER THE 2000 CENSUS.......................................... 70 APPENDIX B. DISTRICTING CRITERIA IN THE FIFTY STATES AFTER THE 2000 CENSUS................................................................... 73 APPENDIX C. REDISTRICTING AUTHORITIES IN THE FIFTY STATES ......... 76 APPENDIX D. COMPARISON OF REDISTRICTING CHARACTERISTICS IN IOWA, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA AND NEW JERSEY ............. 78 APPENDIX E. MODEL REFORM BILL AND MEMO: THE “NEW JERSEY INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING AMENDMENTS” ................ 81 BIBLIOGRAPHY...............................................................................................103 END NOTES ...................................................................................................110 VITA................................................................................................................121 iv — — Congressional and State Legislative Redistricting LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES AND EQUATIONS Equation 2A Ideal District Population .......................................................................................... 6 Equation 2B Absolute Population Deviation............................................................................... 6 Equation 2C Relative Population Deviation................................................................................. 7 Equation 2D Absolute Mean Population Deviation.................................................................... 7 Equation 2E Relative Mean Population Deviation...................................................................... 7 Equation 2F Total Range of Absolute Population Deviation ................................................... 7 Equation 2G Total Range of Relative Population Deviation..................................................... 8 Table 2A Population Equality Metrics in the Illustrative State of Brunswick................... 8 Table 2B Legal Standards of Population Equality............................................................... 11 Figure 2A Illustration of Compactness................................................................................... 12 Figure 2B Reock Measure of Compactness........................................................................... 13 Figure 2C Polsby-Popper Measure of Compactness............................................................ 13 Figure 2D Compact but Irregular Districts ............................................................................ 14 Figure 2E Illustration of Non-Contiguity .............................................................................. 15 Figure 2F Non-Contiguity in New Jersey .............................................................................. 15 Figure 2G Illustration of “Packing”......................................................................................... 18 Figure 2H Illustration of “Cracking”....................................................................................... 19 Figure 3A Iowa and Illinois Congressional Districts Compared ........................................ 24 Figure 3B Arizona 2nd Congressional District ..................................................................... 25 Figure 3C Arizona 2000s Initial Grid District Maps ............................................................ 27 Figure 3D Arizona 2000s Final District Maps ....................................................................... 29 Table 3A California Redistricting Requirements Before and After Proposition 11....... 33 Table 4A Appointing Authorities for the New Jersey Redistricting Commission ......... 35 Table 4B Members of the 2001–02 New Jersey Redistricting Commission ................... 36 Figure 4A New Jersey Congressional Redistricting Timeline (2011–12)........................... 37 Figure 4B New Jersey Congressional Districts (2002–12)................................................... 37 Table 4C Appointing Authorities for the New Jersey Apportionment Commission.... 38 Table 4D Members of the 2000–01 New Jersey Apportionment Commission.............. 38 Figure 4C New Jersey Legislative Redistricting Timeline (2010–11)................................. 39 Figure 4D New Jersey Legislative Districts (2001–11)......................................................... 41 Table 5A Partisan Shift and Competition in New Jersey Congressional Seats After the 1992 and 2002 Redistricting...........................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • This Constitution: a Bicentennial Chronicle, Nos. 14-18
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 300 290 SO 019 380 AUTHOR Mann, Shelia, Ed. TITLE This Constitution: A Bicentennial Chronicle, Nos. 14-18. INSTITUTION American Historical Association, Washington, D.C.; American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C.; Project '87, Washington, DC. SPONS AGENCY National Endowment for the Humanities (NFAH), Washington, D.C. PUB DATE 87 NOTE 321p.; For related document, see ED 282 814. Some photographs may not reproduce clearly. AVAILABLE FROMProject '87, 1527 New Hampshire Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20036 nos. 13-17 $4.00 each, no. 18 $6.00). PUB TYPE Collected Works - Serials (022) -- Historical Materials (060) -- Guides - Classroom Use - Guides (For Teachers) (052) JOURNAL CIT This Constitution; n14-17 Spr Sum Win Fall 1987 n18 Spr-Sum 1988 EDRS PRICE MFO1 Plus Postage. PC Not Available from EDRS. DESCRIPTORS Class Activities; *Constitutional History; *Constitutional Law; History Instruction; Instructioral Materials; Lesson Plans; Primary Sources; Resource Materials; Secondary Education; Social Studies; United States Government (Course); *United States History IDENTIFIERS *Bicentennial; *United States Constitution ABSTRACT Each issue in this bicentennial series features articles on selected U.S. Constitution topics, along with a section on primary documents and lesson plans or class activities. Issue 14 features: (1) "The Political Economy of tne Constitution" (K. Dolbeare; L. Medcalf); (2) "ANew Historical Whooper': Creating the Art of the Constitutional Sesquicentennial" (K. Marling); (3) "The Founding Fathers and the Right to Bear Arms: To Keep the People Duly Armed" (R. Shalhope); and (4)"The Founding Fathers and the Right to Bear Arms: A Well-Regulated Militia" (L. Cress). Selected articles from issue 15 include: (1) "The Origins of the Constitution" (G.
    [Show full text]
  • Initiative and Referendum— Direct Democracy for State Residents
    Initiative and Referendum— Direct Democracy for State Residents August 2009 Initiative and Referendum— Direct Democracy for State Residents A Publication of the Research Division of NACo’s County Services Department Written by Christopher Markwood Research Intern August 2009 National Association of Counties 1 About the National Association of Counties The National Association of Counties (NACo) is the only national organization that represents county governments in the United States. Founded in 1935, NACo provides essential services to the nation’s 3,068 counties. NACo advances issues with a unified voice before the federal govern- ment, improves the public’s understanding of county government, assists counties in finding and sharing innovative solutions through education and research, and provides value-added services to save counties and taxpayers money. For more information about NACo, visit www.naco.org. For more information about this publication or the programs included, please contact: National Association of Counties Research Division a Phone: 202.393-6226 � Web site: www.naco.org 2 Initiative and Referendum—Direct Democracy for State Residents • August 2009 Introduction Reflecting upon his visit to America, French historian and philosopher Alexis de Toc- Overview queville observed, “To take a hand in the Initiative and Referendum (I&R) powers give regulation of society and to discuss it is his state residents the ability to have a direct biggest concern and, so to speak, the only voice in the governing rules of their state’s pleasure an American knows.”1 constitution. These processes can also be an influential tool for local officials of coun- In comparing Americans to citizens of other ties and municipalities.
    [Show full text]
  • Briefing Paper Non-Commission
    Briefing Paper: Accepting Publicly Submitted Redistricting Plans for the Districting and Apportionment Commission by Rachel Weiss, Research Analyst May 2011 Introduction It is likely that individuals and interested groups will develop redistricting maps for the Districting and Apportionment Commission's consideration. It is also likely that the commission will want to review some of these plans more seriously than others. Given these realities, having policies established that specify when and in what manner an individual or interest group may submit a plan will allow the commission to manage its most limited resource: time. This paper is designed to help commissioners to develop an understanding of the issue, to provide background on how other states with similarly structured commissions handle redistricting plans submitted by the public, and to offer questions the commissioners should consider before adopting a policy to guide public submissions. At a minimum, the commission should accept maps -- computer generated or not, partial or statewide -- from interested individuals and organizations and enter those received into the permanent record, as with any other type of public comment. However, commissioners might also want to use a public submission -- or part of one -- as one of several plans on which it solicits public comment in a series of statewide public hearings or as the one it ultimately submits to the Legislature. In that case, the commission should consider adopting policies to guide submission of the plans from individuals and interested groups. In addition to helping staff and commissioners budget time, well-considered policies will help the public understand when and how to submit maps, including the requested formats.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3, the Legislatures
    Chapter Three THE LEGISLATURES From citizen-lawmakers to full-time legislators, the legislatures run the gamut — includes information on legislative organization, operation and action, session lengths, legislative procedure, compensation, bill introductions and enactments from 1994-95, committee appointments, and a review of administrative regulations. LEGISLATURES Table 3.1 NAMES OF STATE LEGISLATIVE BODIES AND CONVENING PLACES State or other jurisdiction Both bodies Upper house Lower house Convening place Alabama .............................. Legislature Senate House of Representatives State House Alaska .................................. Legislature Senate House of Representatives State Capitol Arizona ................................ Legislature Senate House of Representatives State Capitol Arkansas ............................. General Assembly Senate House of Representatives State Capitol California ............................ Legislature Senate Assembly State Capitol Colorado ............................. General Assembly Senate House of Representatives State Capitol Connecticut ......................... General Assembly Senate House of Representatives State Capitol Delaware ............................. General Assembly Senate House of Representatives Legislative Hall Florida ................................. Legislature Senate House of Representatives The Capitol Georgia ................................ General Assembly Senate House of Representatives State Capitol Hawaii ................................. Legislature Senate
    [Show full text]
  • The Return of Immigration Quotas Could Severely Challenge Switzerland's
    The return of immigration quotas could severely challenge Switzerland’s relationship with the European Union blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2014/02/04/the-return-of-immigration-quotas-could-severely-challenge- switzerlands-relationship-with-the-european-union/ 04/02/2014 On Sunday, Switzerland will hold a referendum on creating immigration quotas for all foreign nationals, including those from the European Union. Alexandre Afonso assesses the politics behind the proposal, which has been driven largely by the Swiss People’s Party. He writes that if the ‘yes’ campaign is successful, implementing immigration quotas would present a serious problem for Switzerland’s relationship with the EU. On 9 February, Swiss citizens will vote on a popular initiative “ against mass immigration” spearheaded by the right-wing Swiss People’s Party. The initiative put to the vote proposes to introduce global immigration quotas applying to all foreign nationals entering Switzerland: asylum seekers, labour migrants and family members of established migrants included. At the moment, Switzerland does not limit immigration from EU countries by virtue of a bilateral agreement on free movement with the European Union. Switzerland is also a member of the Schengen area, and has adhered to the Dublin convention on asylum. By contrast, non- EU migration is severely limited. In this context, a “yes” vote on Sunday is believed to pose a number of serious problems for its economy and relationship with the European Union: immigrants represent about a quarter of the Swiss workforce, and the invalidation of the agreement on free movement could potentially make all the other agreements between Switzerland and the EU (notably on the taxation of savings) void.
    [Show full text]
  • Revolutionary Period (1763-1789) Part 3: Constitutional Convention
    Revolutionary Period (1763-1789) Part 3: Constitutional Convention The Constitutional Convention was held in 1787 in Philadelphia. Fifty-five delegates met to revise, or improve, the nation’s first constitution, the Articles of Confederation. The Articles were so weak, the framers decided to a write a new constitution. The U.S. Constitution created a strong national government, but with limits against the abuse of power. After the convention ended, the states ratified the new constitution. Problems under the Delegates meet at States ratify the new Articles of Confederation Constitutional constitution. Examples: no president Convention in 1787 and States have too write a new constitution. much power The most important conflict at the Convention was over Another conflict was over the counting of slaves when representation in the legislative branch (Congress). determining the number of representatives each state received in the House of Representatives. Virginia Plan New Jersey Plan Northern States Southern States -large state plan -small state plan -did not want to count -wanted to count -2-house legislature -1-house legislature slaves as part of the slaves as part of the -proportional -equal representation population population representation (population) Great Compromise 3/5 Compromise -2-house legislature -three-fifths of all -House of Representatives (proportional slaves would be representation) counted as part of the -Senate – equal representation (2 per population for state) representation Ratification Terms to Know Federalists – supported ratification of the Constitution Delegate - representative Federalist Papers – written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Framer - someone who and John Jay is support of ratification helped write the Constitution Anti-Federalists – opposed ratification of the Constitution, mainly Ratify - to approve or because it did not have a bill of rights accept .
    [Show full text]
  • The Initiative and Referendum Process
    7KH,QLWLDWLYHDQG5HIHUHQGXP3URFHVVLQ:DVKLQJWRQ States with Initiative and/or Referendum Process Map courtesy of the Initiative and Referendum Institute %\ 7KH/HDJXHRI:RPHQ9RWHUVRI:DVKLQJWRQ (GXFDWLRQ)XQG Initiative & Referendum Committee Janet Anderson Tanya Baumgart Cheryl Bleakney Lael Braymer Patricia Campbell Cherie Davidson Elizabeth Davis Phyllis Erickson Rosemary Hostetler Marilyn Knight, Secretary Lee Marchisio Jocelyn Marchisio, Chair Jo Morgan Peggy Saari Ruth Schroeder Editor: Marilyn Knight Typographer: Jane Shafer Reading Committee Elizabeth Davis Steve Lundin Sue Mozer Liz Pierini Alice Schroeder Published by The League of Women Voters of Washington Education Fund October 2002 League of Women Voters of Washington 4710 University Way NE, #214 Seattle, WA 98105-4428 206-622-8961 LWV/WA Initiative and Referendum Study - ii Fall 2002 The League of Women Voters of Washington Education Fund 'LUHFW'HPRFUDF\ 7KH,QLWLDWLYHDQG5HIHUHQGXP3URFHVVLQ:DVKLQJWRQ 7DEOHRI&RQWHQWV Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1 The Initiative and Referendum in the United States .............................................................................1 Creating Initiatives and Referenda in Washington ...............................................................................4 Initiatives The Referendum Fiscal Impact Statement At the Local Level The Role of Money ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Department of Military and Veterans' Affairs
    ANALYSIS OF THE NEW JERSEY BUDGET DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AND VETERANS’ AFFAIRS FISCAL YEAR 2017-2018 PREPARED BY OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES NEW JERSEY LEGISLATURE • MAY 2017 NEW JERSEY STATE LEGISLATURE SENATE BUDGET AND APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE Paul A. Sarlo (D), 36th District (Parts of Bergen and Passaic), Chair Brian P. Stack (D), 33rd District (Part of Hudson), Vice-Chair Jennifer Beck (R), 11th District (Part of Monmouth) Anthony R. Bucco (R), 25th District (Parts of Morris and Somerset) Nilsa Cruz-Perez (D), 5th District (Parts of Camden and Gloucester) Sandra B. Cunningham (D), 31st District (Part of Hudson) Patrick J. Diegnan Jr. (D), 18th District (Part of Middlesex) Linda R. Greenstein (D), 14th District (Parts of Mercer and Middlesex) Steven V. Oroho (R), 24th District (All of Sussex, and parts of Morris and Warren) Kevin J. O'Toole (R), 40th District (Parts of Bergen, Essex, Morris and Passaic) M. Teresa Ruiz (D), 29th District (Part of Essex) Samuel D. Thompson (R), 12th District (Parts of Burlington, Middlesex, Monmouth and Ocean) Jeff Van Drew (D), 1st District (All of Cape May, and parts of Atlantic and Cumberland) GENERAL ASSEMBLY BUDGET COMMITTEE Gary S. Schaer (D), 36th District (Parts of Bergen and Passaic), Chair John J. Burzichelli (D), 3rd District (All of Salem, parts of Cumberland and Gloucester), Vice-Chair Anthony M. Bucco (R), 25th District (Parts of Morris and Somerset) John DiMaio (R), 23rd District (Parts of Hunterdon, Somerset and Warren) Gordon M. Johnson (D), 37th District (Part of Bergen) John F. McKeon (D), 27th District (Parts of Essex and Morris) Raj Mukherji (D), 33rd District (Part of Hudson) Elizabeth Maher Muoio (D), 15th District (Parts of Hunterdon and Mercer) Declan J.
    [Show full text]
  • The Three-Fifths Compromise 2.7
    The Three-Fifths Compromise 2.7 The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise reached between delegates from southern states and those from northern states during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention. The debate was over if, and if so, how, slaves would be counted when determining a state's total population for legislative representation and taxing purposes. The issue was important, as this population number would then be used to determine the number of seats that the state would have in the United States House of Representatives for the next ten years, and to determine what percentage of the nation's direct tax burden the state would have to bear. The compromise was proposed by delegates James Wilson and Roger Sherman. The Convention had unanimously accepted the principle that representation in the House of Representatives would be in proportion to the relative state populations. However, since slaves could not vote, non-slaves in slave states would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College. Delegates opposed to slavery proposed that only free inhabitants of each state be counted for apportionment purposes, while delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, opposed the proposal, wanting slaves to count in their actual numbers. A compromise which was finally agreed upon—of counting "all other persons" as only three-fifths of their actual numbers—reduced the representation of the slave states relative to the original proposals, but improved it over the Northern position.[1] An inducement for slave states to accept the Compromise was its tie to taxation in the same ratio, so that the burden of taxation on the slave states was also reduced.
    [Show full text]
  • A Look at the California Redistricting Commission
    ELECTION LAW JOURNAL Volume 11, Number 4, 2012 # Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. DOI: 10.1089/elj.2012.1148 Adventures in Redistricting: A Look at the California Redistricting Commission Karin Mac Donald ABSTRACT California’s Voters FIRST Act created the Citizens Redistricting Commission and with it provided a unique opportunity to observe the implementation of one of the most challenging political processes: the creation of electoral districts by a body of non-elected voters. Despite many predictions and accusations to the con- trary, this first-time experiment in participatory democracy experienced remarkably few glitches while achieving a successful outcome. This article provides an overview of the many factors and actors that played significant roles in this reform effort, and provides participant-observations illuminating some strengths and weaknesses of the process. he successful process of redistricting for its transparency3 and openness to public input,4 T California via the independent Citizen Redis- despite multiple lawsuits that unsuccessfully chal- tricting Commission (CRC)1 has prompted other lenged its districts,5 and an unsuccessful referendum jurisdictions to consider whether a move away in November 2012 to overturn the state senate plan.6 from drawing lines by its legislative bodies might There has already been some scholarship about be advisable.2 The CRC’s work has been praised the 2011 California Redistricting,7 most of it Karin Mac Donald is the director of the California Statewide Data- process-that-puts-voters-first > (remarks by California For- base and Election Administration Research Center at the Univer- ward, one of the sponsors of the Voters FIRST Act, on the sity of California, Berkeley Law, Berkeley, CA, and the owner and CRC’s successful implementation and transparent process).
    [Show full text]
  • The Great Compromise in Response to the Virginia Plan, New Jersey Delegate William Paterson Presented an Alternative on June 15
    212-217US8P R U2C08S2 11/26/02 12:23 PM Page 212 TERMS & NAMES 2 Creating the Constitutional Creating the Convention James Madison ConstitutionConstitution Virginia Plan New Jersey Plan Great Compromise MAIN IDEA WHY IT MATTERS NOW Three-Fifths Compromise The states sent delegates to a The Constitutional Convention convention to solve the problems of formed the plan of government that the Articles of Confederation. the United States still has today. ONE AMERICAN’S STORY On the afternoon of May 15, 1787, Edmund Randolph, the young governor of Virginia, arrived in Philadelphia for the Constitutional Convention. The young nation faced violence and lawlessness, as Shays’s Rebellion had shown. And now delegates from throughout the states were coming to Philadelphia to discuss reforming the government. Randolph knew the serious task he and the other delegates were about to undertake. Early in the convention, Randolph rose to speak. He looked squarely at the delegates and reminded them of their grave responsibility. A VOICE FROM THE PAST Edmund Let us not be afraid to view with a steady eye the [dangers] Randolph (left) with which we are surrounded. Are we not on the eve and the other of [a civil] war, which is only to be prevented by the hopes delegates from this convention? gathered in the Edmund Randolph, quoted in Edmund Randolph: A Biography Pennsylvania State House (above) to discuss Over the next four months, the delegates debated how best to creating a new keep the United States from falling apart. In this section, you will read government for about the Convention of 1787 and the creation of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • California's Hybrid Democracy
    Working Paper No. 39 California’s Hybrid Democracy By Elizabeth Garrett USC Law School And California Institute of Technology California’s Hybrid Democracy Elizabeth Garrett* Legal scholars are beginning to engage in sustained study of direct democracy: initiatives, referendums and recalls. More than merely assessing constitutional issues implicated by the initiative process, we are studying the legal structure that shapes direct democracy. Our analysis remains incomplete for two reasons, however. First, we tend to think of direct democracy as exceptional – an exotic way to make laws and a process affecting only California and a few other Western states outside the mainstream of America. This vision is inaccurate. Although far fewer laws are enacted by the people than by state legislatures or city councils,1 direct democracy is part of government that affects the majority of Americans. Seventy-one percent of Americans live in a state or city or both that allow the popular initiative.2 Although California has a relatively high number of initiatives at the state level, Oregon has had the largest number of initiatives proposed and adopted, and California’s passage rate of 35% is substantially less than Florida’s passage rate of nearly 70%.3 Initiatives are not a purely Western phenomenon, although they are prevalent in Western states because of their popularity at the time these states entered the Union. Massachusetts, Maine, and Florida have relatively robust systems of direct democracy, as do New York City, Houston, and Columbus. Substantial sums of money are spent in issue * Professor of Law and Political Science, University of Southern California; Director, USC- Caltech Center for the Study of Law and Politics.
    [Show full text]