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
 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Whither the Republican Party?

Jonathan Rauch and Benjamin Wittes write in The Atlantic magazine: So we arrive at a syllogism: (1) The GOP has become the party of Trumpism. (2) Trumpism is a threat to democratic values and the rule of law. (3) The Republican Party is a threat to democratic values and the rule of law. A syllogism is, according to dictionary.com: 1. Logic. an argument the conclusion of which is supported by two premises, of which one (major premise) contains the term (major term) that is the predicate of the conclusion, and the other (minor premise) contains the term (minor term) that is the subject of the conclusion; common to both premises is a term (middle term) that is excluded from the conclusion. A typical form is “All A is C; all B is A; therefore, all B is C.”. 2. deductive reasoning. 3. an extremely subtle, sophisticated, or deceptive argument. Which definition applies here?   First, has the GOP become the party of Trump? Has he taken control of the party appa...
Read more

Choices for the Final Four (ICRC Commissions, that is)

Image
With four commission positions remaining to be filled, whom should the commissioners select? The commissioners should choose an African American male from TCCC precinct 1. Since the greatest concentrations of African Americans are located in TCCC precinct 1 (see this map ), choosing an African American from this geographic area would provide the greatest voice to the area with the highest concentration of African Americans in the city and the area that would most likely be included in a council district that would possess a plurality of African Americans. The choice should Nathaniel Bradford because of his connections to the community. An Anglo male and an Anglo female should be chosen from TCCC precinct 2. One, if not both, should be chosen from those voter precincts slightly east and west of MOPAC that featured high voter turnout in the 2012 mayoral election (see this map ). The male and female from those voting precincts who the ARP considered the most qualified are He...
Read more

In Defense of a Theory

I’m a big fan of political scientist Seth Masket, but what he wrote in defense of the theory of presidential nominations expounded in The Party Decides intrigues me. First, he notes that his initial defense caused some blowback: Last week at Mischiefs of Faction , I wrote about the book The Party Decides and the extent to which the 2016 is causing trouble for it. I argued that the Republican race isn't providing a very clean test of the theory, while the Democratic race is. This invited substantial pushback from Jonathan Chait , Justin Grimmer , and others, suggesting that I was either protecting the theory from actual testing, or that the theory itself was untestable. So I'd like to clarify a bit and suggest just what evidence we've gathered this year. Then, he goes on to explain more fully: Now, in my recent post, I focused on what I see as the central claim of the book: The party generally gets what it wants. That is, when party elites have selected a...
Read more