Independent Redistricting Commissions: Hopes and Lessons Learned by Douglas Mark Johnson Claremont Graduate University 2015 Copyright Douglas Mark Johnson, 2015 All rights reserved. APPROVAL OF THE REVIEW COMMITTEE This dissertation has been duly read, reviewed, and critiqued by the Committee listed below, which hereby approves the manuscript of Douglas Mark Johnson as fulfilling the scope and quality requirements for meriting the degree of Doctorate of Philosophy. Michael Uhlmann, Chair Claremont Graduate University Clinical Professor of Politics and Policy Ken Miller Claremont McKenna College Associate Professor of Government Ralph Rossum Claremont McKenna College Salvatori Professor of American Constitutionalism Abstract Independent Redistricting Commissions: Hopes and Lessons Learned by Douglas Mark Johnson Claremont Graduate University, 2015 Gerrymandering, defined as the abuse of the redistricting power for partisan or personal gain, is widely denounced in current American political analysis. Through first-person experiences, review of existing studies, and case study research, this dissertation will analyze the hopes for, and limitations of, independent redistricting commissions as a solution for that problem. This dissertation will review the situations and decisions that resulted in the rare successes in forming redistricting commissions; the strengths and weaknesses of the various decisions regarding rules and structure that must be made by those proposing such commissions; and how the existing independent redistricting commissions in Arizona, California, and various local jurisdictions within California have succeeded or failed at achieving the goal of ending gerrymandering. Preface The relationship of this author with the material covered in this dissertation is unusual. As Senior Analyst and, later, President of National Demographics Corporation, and as a Fellow at the Rose Institute of State and Local Government at Claremont McKenna College, this author was a direct participant in many of the redistricting projects described herein. As the bibliography and extensive footnotes indicate, considerable additional research was undertaken to turn those experiences into this dissertation, but many of the conversations, decisions, and results described were personally witnessed by this author. As Senior Analyst at National Demographics, this author was the lead technical consultant to Arizona’s 2001 Independent Redistricting Commission. As described in the chapter devoted to Arizona, this body was the first state-level independent redistricting commission in the country. This author drew well over 100 redistricting plans for the commission; presented maps and analysis to the Commission and to the public at scores of public hearings; provided analysis and opinions on the many issues faced by that body, covering both issues specific to Arizona’s geography and communities, and issues related to questions of competitiveness, voting rights, and other concerns of every redistricting effort nationwide. During the court challenge to the Commission’s plans, this author also served as the testifying “person most knowledgeable” about the Commission’s proceedings as defined by Federal Rules for Civil Procedures Rule 30(b)(6). At the Rose Institute of State and Local Government at Claremont McKenna College, first as Student Manager in 1991 and later as a Fellow from 2001 through the present day, this author provided research, analysis, and commentary on California’s 1991, 2001 and 2011 redistricting efforts. This author was an organizer and presenter at numerous Rose Institute conferences related to state and local redistricting, and an author of numerous Rose Institute reports on the topic. This author also iv was an advisor to Kathay Feng and the coalition she organized as they drafted what became California’s Proposition 11 in 2007 and 2008, and the author advised Governor Schwarzenegger and his team as they promoted the unsuccessful 2005 Proposition 77 redistricting reform effort. This author also was the project lead for the Institute’s (unsuccessful) bid to serve as technical consultant to California’s 2011 Citizens’ Independent Redistricting Commission. This author continued to be involved in California’s 2011 effort as a technical consultant to a number of local community groups who needed help drawing maps to present to the Commission, and as an analyst often quoted by numerous news outlets throughout the process. As Senior Analyst before 2006 and, after 2006, as President of National Demographics Corporation, this author has served as redistricting and voting rights consultant to hundreds of cities, counties, school districts and other local jurisdictions across California, Arizona and Nevada. Among the jurisdictions covered in this dissertation, this author’s work includes serving as consultant to Modesto’s 2008 and 2011 independent redistricting commissions; serving as consultant to San Diego’s 2011 independent redistricting commission; and consulting with the City (though not the independent redistricting commission) of Escondido. In addition, this author has been a featured speaker or panelist at numerous national redistricting conferences hosted by the National Conference of State Legislatures, the League of Women Voters, and other organizations. As detailed in this dissertation, every redistricting authority grapples with numerous complicated issues. Some issues are specific to a given jurisdiction, while others are challenges facing every redistricting authority (at least in the United States). Much of the research, insights and conclusions contained in this dissertation is informed by this author’s hands-on experience wrestling with these challenges while personally assisting these jurisdictions with their redistricting work. v Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1. Independent Commissions and “The Encroaching Spirit of Power” ......... 20 Chapter 2. California ............................................................................................................... 42 Chapter 3. Arizona’s Independent Redistricting Commission ......................................... 93 Chapter 4. Municipal Independent Commissions ........................................................... 135 San Diego ........................................................................................................................... 135 Modesto ............................................................................................................................. 144 Escondido .......................................................................................................................... 151 Chula Vista......................................................................................................................... 154 Chapter 5 Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 157 Bibliography .......................................................................................................................... 179 vi Introduction Abuse of redistricting predates the first Congress of the United States, but the practice only acquired the label “gerrymandering” after the 1812 redistricting of the Massachusetts state legislature. In that redistricting, Governor Elbridge Gerry’s Republican Party, which controlled the state’s redistricting at the time, drew an oddly shaped district designed to minimize the number of opposition Federalists in the legislature. Governor Gerry, whose most significant legacy to the nation is as a signer of the Declaration of Independence, unfortunately is best known as the namesake of oddly-drawn, politically motivated, districts1. But for most of American history redistricting remained an obscure, little-understood aspect of American political life. Politicians knew its hidden power, but it rarely made an appearance in American court rooms. Scholars paid the issue little attention, it was not on reformers’ agendas, and the public largely ignored the process. Demographic change first brought redistricting to significant public notice. The first half of the Twentieth century saw very rapid urbanization. States failed to reflect this demographic shift in their districts, leaving their legislatures under the control of rural interests, to the disadvantage of the rapidly growing cities. At first, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to require reapportionment to reflect the new urban populations2. The Court asserted that such issues of representation were “political questions,” reserved for the political branches of government, and Justice Frankfurter wrote his famous dismissal of redistricting legal challenges as a “political thicket” that he felt the judicial branch should avoid. 1 “Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry,” National Governors Association, http://bit.ly/ZlLK1O, viewed on April 12, 2013. Also, “Elbridge Gerry, 1744-1813,” Colonial Hall, http://colonialhall.com/gerry/gerry.php, viewed April 12, 2013. 2 Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S.549, 1946 1 Only a few years after Colegrove, however, the Supreme Court retreated from its “political question” doctrine to begin what is often referred to as the “One Person, One Vote” series of rulings. In 1962, in Baker v. Carr, the Court concluded that “the complaint’s allegations of a denial of equal protection present a justiciable constitutional