Gerrymandering and Independent Redistricting Commissions

Last night, Peck Young, Director of ACC's Center for Public Policy and Political Studies, Harriett Harrow, member of Austin's Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission, and I participated in a game night at Capital Factory in the downtown Omni Hotel. Peck spoke about the creation of the commission; Harriett provided a personal interest perspective on the commission, and I spoke about the commission's criteria for redistricting. My thanks to the League of Women Voters of the Austin Area and Glasshouse Policy for the event. My prepared remarks follow:

Gerrymandering is political. Politics is the authoritative allocation of values for a society, according to David Easton. The Gerrymandering Project at fivethirtyeight.com demonstrates how district boundaries can be manipulated to accomplish a particular objective: (1) favor Republicans, (2) favor Democrats, (3) match partisanship and seats, (4) promote competition, (5) maximize majority-minority districts, (6) compactness (algorithmic), and (7) compactness following county borders. The results:

Although it’s political, it doesn’t have to be unfair, ineffective, and opaque. That’s where independent citizen redistricting commissions can be very helpful. However, the fairness, effectiveness, and openness of the redistricting process are dependent on a number of variables.

Most importantly, after the selection of the commission members, are the criteria established for redistricting in the Constitution, Charter, or an ordinance. The criteria must be clear, and the priorities of the criteria must be established. The Austin City Charter establishes seven criteria, listed in order of importance: (1) equal population, (2) Voting Rights Act, (3) contiguity, (4) geographic integrity of communities of interest, (5) geographical compactness, (6) use electoral precincts, and (7) geographically identifiable boundaries.

Equal population means that the variation between the most populous district and the least populous district must not exceed ten percent. But what measure of population should be used? Should it be total population or voting age population or citizen voting age population? What is permitted under “one person, one vote” interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment? According to the U.S. Supreme Court in Evenwel et al. v. Abbott, Governor of Texas (2016), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that using the total population, which is most commonly used, is permitted.

The Voting Rights Act (VRA) is even more complex. There is no doubt that using race as the predominant factor is unconstitutional. However, race can be one consideration among several. In addition, minority voting strength cannot be diluted in redistricting. What constitutes a dilution of minority voting strength? The Gingles test, created by the case of Thornburg v. Gingles (1986) requires three components: (1) The minority must be large enough and compact enough geographically to constitute a single district; (2) the minority must be “politically cohesive;” and (3) the majority must vote as a block to deny the election of the minority’s preferred candidate. The provision of the VRA that determined the states or districts that must have electoral changes precleared was stricken in 2013. Consequently, only a court decision of intentional discrimination under the Section 2 of the VRA can be used to place a state or district under preclearance.

Contiguity means that the district must not be split into several disconnected pieces.

Communities of interest is difficult. The Austin Charter defines a community of interest, which is helpful. It also specifies what cannot be considered a community of interest for redistricting purposes.

Compactness is also difficult, especially given the prior criterion.

Electoral precincts must not be split unnecessarily. The Austin map has several split precincts.

Geographically identifiable boundaries include rivers, roads, railroad tracks, etc.

After noting the complexities, I don’t want to discourage anyone from applying for the Austin ICRC in 2020 when the selection process for the new ICRC begins. I enjoy being a member of the commission, have made friends with many Commission members, and take pride in the Commission’s service to the community.

Sources:

The Gerrymandering Project: http://fivethirtyeight.com/tag/the-gerrymandering-project/

         Cook Political Report and FiveThirtyEight

California Local Redistricting Project: http://www.localredistricting.org/ 

         California Common Cause and the University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law

Princeton Gerrymandering Project: http://gerrymander.princeton.edu/ 

         Princeton University