United States Redistricting 101 Michael McDonald Associate Professor, George Mason University Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution Special.

United StatesRedistricting 101

Michael McDonald

Associate Professor, George Mason University

Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution

Special Thanks to Justin Levitt

Today’s conversation

• What?

• Who?

• Where?

• Why?

• How?


• What?

• Who?

• Where?

• Why?

• How?

What is “redistricting”?

Draw (and re-draw) lines that determine which voters are represented by each legislative seat

• Federal• State• Local

Why re-draw district lines?

• Population moves, creating lopsided districts where some votes are worth more than others

Constitutional mandate to redraw lines

Districts must have roughly equal population

Baker v. Carr, 1962

“One person, one vote”

2000 ―2001 ―

2010 ―2011 ―

2020 ―2021 ―

And so…Census DayRedistricting

Census DayRedistricting

Census DayRedistricting

Key redistricting dates

April 1, 2010 ―

December 31, 2010―

January 10, 2011 ―

April 1, 2011 ―

End of session 2011 ―

or early 2012

Census Day

Census count to President

Apportionment to U.S. House

Redistricting data to states

Most redistricting complete


• What?

• Who?

• Where?

• Why?

• How?

Who draws the lines

In most states, the legislature has primary control

• State legislative districts: 37 states

• Congressional districts: 38 states(and 7 states with 1 Congressional district)

Other redistricting institutions

AdvisoryPrimary control in the legislature

Primary control outside legislature

PoliticianBackup

State legislative districts

Congressional

districts

*

*

2000 cycle judicial action

State leg. Congress*

Courts asked to step in 32 21

Court drew lines itself 10 9

… and if that should fail

* 7 states had only one congressional district in the 2000 cycle


• What?

• Who?

• Where?

• Why?

• How?

“Where” starts with federal protections

• Equal population

• Race/ethnicity and the Voting Rights Act

Equal population

• Congress: as equal as possible

• State legislature: 10% spread, if there’s a good reason

Baker v. Carr, 1962

“One person, one vote”

“Where” starts with federal protections

• Equal population

• Race/ethnicity and the Voting Rights Act

Minority representation

Cracking

Packing

The Voting Rights Act• Do minorities

represent most of the voters in a concentrated area?

• Do white voters vote for different candidates than minorities?

Section 2

The Voting Rights ActSection 2 • Do minorities represent most

of the voters in a concentrated area?

• Do whites tend to vote for different candidates than minorities?

• Is the minority population otherwise protected given the “totality of the circumstances”?

Do Not Dilute

Complying with the Voting Rights Act

Latino/HispanicAfrican-American

Chicago suburbs

The Voting Rights Act

Section 5

• “Preclearance” for certain jurisdictions

• Is the new map intended to dilute minority votes?

• Does the new map leave minority voters worse off?

Race and ethnicity beyond the VRA

• Voting Rights Act protects minorities who are more than half of the voters in an area

• With smaller groups of minorities, it is OK to consider race and ethnicity, among other factors

• Race and ethnicity just can’t “predominate” without a really good reason

Warning signs when race or ethnicity “predominates,” outside of a VRA district

•Legislative testimony with sole focus on race

•Population data much more detailed for race

•Shape explained by race, but not by “traditional districting factors”

Race and ethnicity beyond the VRA

After federal law, add state limitations

• Contiguity

• Political boundaries

• Compactness

• Communities of interest

• Partisanship/competition

• Nesting

State leg.Congress

48 22

42 18

36 17

24 13

10 7

14 n/a


• Contiguity


• Compactness



• Nesting

State leg.Congress

48 22

42 18

36 17

24 13

10 7

14 n/a

Contiguity

• All parts of the district are adjacent to each other


• Contiguity


• Compactness



• Nesting

State leg.Congress

48 22

42 18

36 17

24 13

10 7

14 n/a

Political boundaries

• Follow county / city / town / ward lines

• But may split populations in strange ways


• Contiguity


• Compactness



• Nesting

State leg.Congress

48 22

42 18

36 17

24 13

10 7

14 n/a

Compactness

• Usually concerns the appearance of the district(or how close people live to each other)


• Contiguity


• Compactness



• Nesting

State leg.Congress

48 22

42 18

36 17

24 13

10 7

14 n/a

Communities of interest• Kansas -- “Social, cultural, racial, ethnic,

and economic interests common to the population of the area, which are probable subjects of legislation . . . should be considered. [S]ome communities of interest lend themselves more readily than others to being embodied in legislative districts. . .”Can and should be different in different parts of the state

Communities of interest• Social interests• Cultural interests• Racial / ethnic interests• Economic / trade interests • Geographic interests• Communication and

transportation networks• Media markets• Urban and rural interests• Occupations and lifestyles


• Contiguity


• Compactness



• Nesting

State leg.Congress

48 22

42 18

36 17

24 13

10 7

14 n/a

Partisanship and competition

Two primary models:

• Prohibition on undue favoritism

• Affirmatively encourage competition


• Contiguity


• Compactness



• Nesting

State leg.Congress

48 22

42 18

36 17

24 13

10 7

14 n/a

NestingSenateAssembly

Not nested

Nested

State legislature Congress (or local)

•Who? Legislature or commission (+ courts)

•Where? Equal population Equal populationVoting Rights Act Voting Rights

ActContiguityPolitical boundariesCompactnessCommunities of interestPartisanshipNesting

A quick review


• What?

• Who?

• Where?

• Why?

• How?

Why does redistricting matter?

If you care about

representation,

and you care about

political power,

then you care about

redistricting

should

• ~ 27 % of Congressional districts

were drawn to be competitive

• ~ 9 % of Congressional races

were competitive

• ~ 19 % of Congressional races

had no major party opponent

• ~ 25 % of state House raceswere competitive*

• ~ 40 % of state House races had no major party

opponent*

Blunt measure #1: voter choice

* 37 states measuredSource: Gary C. Jacobson, Competition in U.S.

Congressional ElectionsDavid Lublin & Michael McDonald, Is It Time to Draw the Line?

Campaign Finance

Term Limits

Redistricting

Source: Michael McDonald & John Samples, The Marketplace of Democracy 14

But redistricting is only part of the process

Blunt measure #2: shape

Is this a good district?

You can’t know if a district is “good,” unless you know what it’s trying to achieve

Is she a good singer?

And pretty shapes are not neutral

Source: Michael McDonald,

Midwest Mapping Project


• Politicians choosing their voters• Eliminating incumbents or

challengers

Conflating public, partisan, personal interests

BarackObama’

shouse

• Barack Obama: strong challenge for Congress in 2000

2002 district


Lorraine

Koppell ’s

house

• Lorraine Koppell: strong challenge for state Senate in 2000

2002 district


Hakeem

Jeffries’s

house

• Hakeem Jeffries: strong challenge for state Assembly in 2000

2002 district


• Politicians choosing their voters• Eliminating incumbents or

challengers

• Diluting minority votes• Splitting up communities


• What?

• Who?

• Where?

• Why?

• How?

How to make sure districts

are drawn in the public interest?

Principles for effective redistricting

1. Meaningful

transparency

2. Meaningful

independence

3. Meaningful

diversity

4. Meaningful

guidance


1. Meaningful

transparency

2. Meaningful

independence

3. Meaningful

diversity

4. Meaningful

guidance

Meaningful transparency

• Multiple opportunities for meaningful public input

- Before drafts

- After drafts

• Data and tools to facilitate response

• Some explanation from redistricting body


1. Meaningful

transparency

2. Meaningful

independence

3. Meaningful

diversity

4. Meaningful

guidance

Meaningful independence

• One of the players shouldn’t also be the umpire

• This is not the same as taking politics out of redistricting

• Legislature can still have a role

- Select those who draw the lines

- Review lines afterward


1. Meaningful

transparency

2. Meaningful

independence

3. Meaningful

diversity

4. Meaningful

guidance

Meaningful diversity

• Those who draw the lines should reflect the state

• Need redistricting body of sufficient size

• Need rules/incentives to choose diverse membership


1. Meaningful

transparency

2. Meaningful

independence

3. Meaningful

diversity

4. Meaningful

guidance

Meaningful guidance

• Criteria that reflect basic goals

• Enough flexibility to accommodate local exceptions


• Statewide majority is legislative majority

Public Participation• This round of redistricting will be

different than the past. The public will have new tools that will enable them to be more active participants in the redistricting process.

• These tools may be used for local redistricting.

Public Mapping Project

Michael McDonaldGeorge Mason UniversityBrookings Institution

Michael McDonaldGeorge Mason UniversityBrookings Institution

Micah AltmanHarvard UniversityBrookings Institution

Micah AltmanHarvard UniversityBrookings Institution

Robert CheethamAzaveaRobert CheethamAzavea

Supported byThe Sloan FoundationJoyce FoundationAmazon CorporationJudy Ford Wason Center at Christopher

Newport Univ.

Supported byThe Sloan FoundationJoyce FoundationAmazon CorporationJudy Ford Wason Center at Christopher

Newport Univ.

United States Redistricting 101 Michael McDonald Associate Professor, George Mason University Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution Special.

Documents

minority voters

minority population

white voters

vravoting rights act

redraw lines

statescongressional

lopsided districts

minority votes