The effects of partisan redistricting on competition and polarization are small, considerably more nuanced than reformers would suggest, and overwhelmed by other aspects of the political environment.We also find that, to the extent that redistricting does affect electoral competition, it seems to have a similar effect no matter who does it, whether it's a partisan legislature or a nonpartisan panel of citizens or judges.
Showing posts with label redistricting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label redistricting. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Redistricting: It just doesn't matter
Jerry Wright, Jon Winburn, and I have a new piece in PS looking at the impact of redistricting on electoral competition and partisan polarization in state legislatures. Our main finding? Not much of an effect. As we argue,
Monday, December 5, 2011
Fairness and power in redistricting
The Colorado Supreme Court has ruled in favor of state Democrats' plan for Colorado's new congressional districts. It's been interesting to listen to the rhetorical arguments on both sides during this drawn-out process. Republicans have been arguing in favor of keeping districts as similar to the previous map as possible, citing the inviolability of county lines (Douglas County is split into two districts in the new map). Of course, hewing close to the current districts aids Republicans, who currently control 4 of the 7 CDs.
Democrats, for their part, have been arguing in favor of greater competitiveness. Here's what attorney Scott Martinez had to say:
The Supreme Court supported the needs of Colorado families over election-day politics today by creating more modern, competitive districts.... Instead of contributing to the hyper-partisanship in Washington D.C, the court supported Colorado's opportunity to elect moderate candidates who see the needs of our state over the needs of one party or another. In these districts, problem-solvers will win while partisan politicians will struggle, and we are all better off for that.District competitiveness is an odd goal for a party, as it can mean that more districts swing away from your party in a bad election year. So were the Democrats being foolish in their approach?
In the below graph, I compare the voter registration in the current districts (as measured by the Democratic share of major party active voters) with the figures in the new districts. The green diagonal line charts where the district would be if there were no change; if a district is above the line, its Democratic share of registered voters has just increased.
So, yeah, you could see this as goo-goos moving the state toward greater competitiveness. But you could also see this as a pretty aggressive move by Democrats to break Republican hegemony on one of seven districts.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Colorado redistricting: Were they even serious?
As today is the final day of the 2011 session of the Colorado state legislature, it looks like there will not be a democratically-produced redistricting plan for the state's congressional districts. This means that a panel of judges will once again draw the state's districts. There's plenty of blame to go around, but I think it's fair to ask whether either party was very serious about this from the outset.
Recall that just a month ago, the state's redistricting committee produced nine redistricting maps. There are only ten people on the committee. Under the principles of collective action, the act of appointing a committee is a form of delegation, by which we empower a small group of people to make decisions on behalf of the whole, since it's far easier for a small group to reach an agreement than a large one. This committee did not do that job. Indeed, one gets the impression that everyone figured this would end up in the courts anyway. After all, a committee with even numbers of Republicans and Democrats would be unlikely to reach a consensus, as would a legislature with Republicans controlling one chamber and Democrats controlling the other.
One thing the committee might have done, if they wanted to keep redistricting power in the legislature's hands, would be the common bipartisan approach of making every incumbent's district safer. That's not necessarily great if you value competitive elections, but it would at least have had a strong chance of passage. Instead, they just punted to the judicial branch. They're certainly welcome to do that, but none of us should be thrilled to watch the most democratic branch of government abrogate one of its major powers.
Recall that just a month ago, the state's redistricting committee produced nine redistricting maps. There are only ten people on the committee. Under the principles of collective action, the act of appointing a committee is a form of delegation, by which we empower a small group of people to make decisions on behalf of the whole, since it's far easier for a small group to reach an agreement than a large one. This committee did not do that job. Indeed, one gets the impression that everyone figured this would end up in the courts anyway. After all, a committee with even numbers of Republicans and Democrats would be unlikely to reach a consensus, as would a legislature with Republicans controlling one chamber and Democrats controlling the other.
One thing the committee might have done, if they wanted to keep redistricting power in the legislature's hands, would be the common bipartisan approach of making every incumbent's district safer. That's not necessarily great if you value competitive elections, but it would at least have had a strong chance of passage. Instead, they just punted to the judicial branch. They're certainly welcome to do that, but none of us should be thrilled to watch the most democratic branch of government abrogate one of its major powers.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Drawing lines over the drawing of lines
The Colorado legislature began its arguments yesterday over the new congressional redistricting plans drawn up by its redistricting committee. I found the arguments over the plans fascinating. Yes, they fell along party lines, but not for precisely the same reasons.
The Democrats are accusing the Republicans of engaging in a pretty typical form of partisan gerrymander: packing all the Democrats into as few districts as possible while making the rest safer for Republicans. And indeed, most of the Republican plans (you can see the maps here) draw a district for Denver and a district for Boulder and a few relatively-liberal nearby ski counties. These would give Jared Polis and Diana DeGette very safe districts but make it harder for Democrats to win the other five districts.
Interestingly, the Republicans aren't accusing the Democrats of doing the converse. Rather, their accusations are more geographic in nature. As Western slope Republican Rep. Don Coram said, "I'm looking at a map that more than likely would have seven congressmen living within a mile of DIA." Looking at the maps, he's not nuts:
Again, the argument isn't that the districts would give an unfair advantage to Democrats or would be too competitive. It's just that it's theoretically possible for every district to be represented by someone from the Denver metro area. I'm not sure whether that would actually happen, but it seems likely that pretty much every primary in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th districts would be a fight over urban vs. rural values.
I should probably add here that I don't have strong views on which is the "right" kind of map. Granted, the 3rd district in the above map looks kind of ridiculous, encompassing Western Slope cities like Cortez and Durango as well as Pueblo on the Front Range and Lamar near the Kansas border. Hell, the district borders five other states. But try drawing up seven "normal" looking districts that respect "natural" communities and still contain the requisite 700,000 or so residents. It ain't easy.
Besides, efforts to draw districts to form permanent majorities rarely have much staying power. People move. Districts change. And candidates and parties adapt. Back in 2002, very few people expected that Colorado's 4th CD would be remotely competitive. Bush beat Kerry by 17 points there in 2004. But four years later, Betsy Markey took it. Still, these sort of efforts can make a difference in the short term, but the outcomes are not always obvious.
Mostly, I'm just enjoying the show.
The Democrats are accusing the Republicans of engaging in a pretty typical form of partisan gerrymander: packing all the Democrats into as few districts as possible while making the rest safer for Republicans. And indeed, most of the Republican plans (you can see the maps here) draw a district for Denver and a district for Boulder and a few relatively-liberal nearby ski counties. These would give Jared Polis and Diana DeGette very safe districts but make it harder for Democrats to win the other five districts.
Interestingly, the Republicans aren't accusing the Democrats of doing the converse. Rather, their accusations are more geographic in nature. As Western slope Republican Rep. Don Coram said, "I'm looking at a map that more than likely would have seven congressmen living within a mile of DIA." Looking at the maps, he's not nuts:
Again, the argument isn't that the districts would give an unfair advantage to Democrats or would be too competitive. It's just that it's theoretically possible for every district to be represented by someone from the Denver metro area. I'm not sure whether that would actually happen, but it seems likely that pretty much every primary in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th districts would be a fight over urban vs. rural values.
I should probably add here that I don't have strong views on which is the "right" kind of map. Granted, the 3rd district in the above map looks kind of ridiculous, encompassing Western Slope cities like Cortez and Durango as well as Pueblo on the Front Range and Lamar near the Kansas border. Hell, the district borders five other states. But try drawing up seven "normal" looking districts that respect "natural" communities and still contain the requisite 700,000 or so residents. It ain't easy.
Besides, efforts to draw districts to form permanent majorities rarely have much staying power. People move. Districts change. And candidates and parties adapt. Back in 2002, very few people expected that Colorado's 4th CD would be remotely competitive. Bush beat Kerry by 17 points there in 2004. But four years later, Betsy Markey took it. Still, these sort of efforts can make a difference in the short term, but the outcomes are not always obvious.
Mostly, I'm just enjoying the show.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Governors
Over at RCP, Sean Trende points to some recent polling data suggesting that Republicans are liable to pick up a substantial number of governors' seats in November, leaving Democrats with their smallest percentage of governors since Reconstruction. I'm not sure this will happen (Trende is also quite confident that the GOP will take over the House, which is far from certain. Also, as Trende notes, the latest polling doesn't account for some recent meltdowns like Scott McInnis' here in Colorado), but this strikes me as an important topic that doesn't get enough attention in election coverage.
What would it mean for the GOP to occupy three quarters of the governors' mansions? Well, as Trende points out, the big impact in the near term would be in the area of redistricting. In states where the legislature gets to draw up the new maps, those legislatures would suddenly need to accommodate the views of a Republican governor. That could mean an entirely different approach to redistricting: A Democratic-run legislature might seek an incumbent-protection approach, protecting everyone's districts, rather than trying to gain new seats for Democrats. A Republican-run legislature might do the opposite, claiming more House seats for their party.
It gets more complicated in other states where commissions determine the shape of the new legislative maps. The governor may have an impact on those commissions, but it's far less direct.
Has anyone seen projections for the number of state legislative seats Republicans are poised to pick up or lose? That would be an extremely useful statistic, although I don't know of any website dedicated to this.
(h/t Kyle)
What would it mean for the GOP to occupy three quarters of the governors' mansions? Well, as Trende points out, the big impact in the near term would be in the area of redistricting. In states where the legislature gets to draw up the new maps, those legislatures would suddenly need to accommodate the views of a Republican governor. That could mean an entirely different approach to redistricting: A Democratic-run legislature might seek an incumbent-protection approach, protecting everyone's districts, rather than trying to gain new seats for Democrats. A Republican-run legislature might do the opposite, claiming more House seats for their party.
It gets more complicated in other states where commissions determine the shape of the new legislative maps. The governor may have an impact on those commissions, but it's far less direct.
Has anyone seen projections for the number of state legislative seats Republicans are poised to pick up or lose? That would be an extremely useful statistic, although I don't know of any website dedicated to this.
(h/t Kyle)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)