American Politics Today - Essentials (3rd Ed)

(vip2019) #1

264 CHAPTER 9|CONGRESS


fastest gain seats, and those that are not growing as fast lose seats.) The one leg-
islature in America that is not redistricted is the U.S. Senate, which contains two
l egislators per state, thus giving voters in small states more infl uence than those
in large states.

CRITERIA FOR REDISTRICTING

In theory, redistricting proceeds from a set of principles that defi ne what districts
should look like. One criterion is that districts should be roughly equal in popula-
tion. They should also capture “communities of interest” by grouping like-minded
voters in the same district. There are also technical criteria, including compact-
ness (districts should not have extremely bizarre shapes) and contiguity (one part of
a district cannot be completely separated from the rest of the district). Mapmakers
also try to respect traditional natural boundaries, avoid splitting municipalities,
preserve existing districts, and avoid diluting the voting power of racial minorities.

PARTISAN REDISTRICTING

Although the principles listed above are important, they are not the driving force in
the redistricting process. In most states the state legislature draws district bound-
aries, and the majority party tries to draw districts that will give the greatest advan-
tage to candidates from their party. Suppose a Democrat holds a state assembly
seat from an urban district populated mainly by citizens with strong Democratic
Party ties. After a census the Republican-dominated state legislature develops a
new plan that extends the representative’s district into the suburbs, claiming that
the change counteracts population declines within the city by adding suburban vot-
ers. However, these suburban voters will likely be Republicans, thus increasing the
chance that the Democrat will face strong opposition in future elections and maybe
lose her seat. Such changes have an important impact on voters as well. Voters who
are “moved” to a new district by a change in boundaries may be unable to vote for
the incumbent they have supported for years, instead getting a representative who
doesn’t share their views.
In congressional redistricting, a reduction in the number of seats allocated to
a state can lead to districting plans that put two incumbents in the same district,
forcing them to run against each other. Incumbents from one party use these oppor-
tunities to defeat incumbents from the other party. Both parties use this technique
and other tools of creative cartography to gain partisan advantage. In the 2012
redistricting cycle Illinois drew the most egregious map in favor of Democrats,
including one district in Chicago that looks like a pair of earmuff s, while Pennsyl-
vania drew a “group of Rorschach-inkblot districts” that turned a state with a nor-
mally Democratic leaning into one where 12 of 18 districts lean Republican.^6
The most dramatic recent example of redistricting for partisan purposes was
in Texas. Deviating from the standard practice of redrawing district lines only
once every decade, Republicans decided to change the district boundaries that
had only been in eff ect for one election. Democratic legislators were outraged by
the partisan power grab and fl ed the state (they hid out in Oklahoma) to prevent
the special session of the legislature from convening. Eventually, Republicans
were able to implement their plan and gain fi ve House seats in the 2004 elec-
tions. The Supreme Court upheld the Texas plan, saying that even when partisan
advantage is the only motivation for redistricting, this does not make the result-
ing plan unconstitutional.^7
Free download pdf