[EL] ELB News and Commentary 10/29/11

[Justin Levitt]

I don't doubt Rick's projection: some will see the redistricting facts 
below, and draw the conclusion Rick that suggests may be drawn.  But 
that'd be a pretty shabby reason to draw that conclusion.

This is a version of the correlation-causation problem that I've 
discussed 
<http://www.senate.gov/fplayers/jw57/urlMP4Player.cfm?fn=judiciary090811p&st=4914&dur=2700> 
in the ID context.  Once again, the data comes from a really small 
sample of states: "Dems made gains" in California, might possibly make 
gains in Arizona, probably won't in Washington, and didn't in Idaho.  In 
2 out of 4 states with independent commissions for congressional lines, 
Dems seem to have done better in this cycle; in the other 2, they seem 
to have done about the same.  If four people play a single hand of 
blackjack, and 2 out of 4 win one hand and the other two push, that 
doesn't really tell you much about their chances of continuing to win 
against the house.  I'll happily take the other side of that bet.

In addition to the exceedingly small number of data points, the 
causation argument also doesn't account for all of the other factors at 
play, other than the fact that commissions were involved.  In the last 
cycle, for example, California's notorious plan aimed to preserve as 
many incumbent seats as possible, including some significant 
Republican-leaning gerrymanders.  Perhaps the change in this cycle is 
simply regression to the mean.  Perhaps not.  My point is that there's 
just not enough information to know whether it's the fact of a 
commission doing this work, or some other factor (or dozens of other 
factors).  And I'm not the only one on this list to have made that 
point: see, e.g., here 
<http://department-lists.uci.edu/pipermail/law-election/2011-October/001412.html> 
and here 
<http://department-lists.uci.edu/pipermail/law-election/2011-October/001415.html>.

As I've written <http://ssrn.com/abstract=1710191>, even when a 
commission is well-designed, there may be good reasons to prefer 
commissions, and good reasons not to prefer commissions.  (And not every 
commission is well-designed: there are Aston Martins of the commission 
world, and there are Pintos of the commission world.  Details are 
important.)  But the political results so far from the 2011 cycle don't 
add up to a reason one way or another: the fact that California's 
commission in the 2011 cycle may have resulted in a net gain of a few 
seats favoring Democrats doesn't really tell you much about a different 
variation of the form in a different state in a different year.

Justin

On 10/28/2011 8:30 PM, Rick Hasen wrote:
>
>
>     "2012 redistricting update: Republicans and Democrats fighting to
>     a draw in battle for new seats" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24737>
>
> Posted on October 28, 2011 2:50 pm 
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24737> by Rick Hasen 
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> According to The Fix 
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/2012-redistricting-update-republicans-and-democrats-fighting-to-a-draw-in-battle-for-new-seats/2011/10/28/gIQAoM9uPM_blog.html>, 
> Republicans made gains with partisan redistricting but Dems made gains 
> in states with redistricting commissions.
>
> If this pans out, it is likely to increase Republican opposition to 
> commission-based districting.
>
> Share 
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D24737&title=%E2%80%9C2012%20redistricting%20update%3A%20Republicans%20and%20Democrats%20fighting%20to%20a%20draw%20in%20battle%20for%20new%20seats%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in citizen commissions <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=7>, 
> redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6> | Comments Off
>

-- 
Justin Levitt
Associate Professor of Law
Loyola Law School | Los Angeles
919 Albany St.
Los Angeles, CA  90015
213-736-7417
justin.levitt at lls.edu
ssrn.com/author=698321

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111029/8ea2c2b9/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111029/8ea2c2b9/attachment.png>