[EL] Future of votring rights / New FairVote analysis debunks myth that non race-conscious districts would help
Rob Richie
rr at fairvote.org
Sun Jul 28 06:56:04 PDT 2013
I wanted to share this opening thought with the list, then a new blogpost
from our staff-intern team doing a comprehensive new report on
congressional elections and the breakdown of winner-take-all democracy in
the United States. (To jump to the post on South Carolina congressional
districts, click
here<http://www.fairvote.org/our-south-carolina-independent-redistricting-plan-exposes-the-problem-of-winner-take-all>
.)
The loss (for now) of Section Five across the South and the potential of
challenges to Section Two comes with a frequently-cited argument -- that
any reduction of black-majority districts might help Democrats, given that
the creation of black-majority districts inevitably leads to packed
Democratic districts that inefficiently uses Democratic voters.
But the reality of the situation is more complicated -- basically one that
can be summarized that for Democrats, this is classic "closing the barn
door after the horse has bolted" thinking. While it's true that there are
more heavily Democratic districts than heavily Republican districts
nationally and that majority-minority districts are a contributing factor,
it's not true that this dynamic is going to change much with nonpartisan
districts done based on traditional criteria of preserving county lines and
geographic compactness. Doing so CAN change it, as Michael McDonald will be
quick to point out, but it in general will maintain bias due to current
geographic dispersion of voters.
Looking backward, there's not doubt that creation of majority-minority
districts in the South clearly exposed more conservative white Democrats to
defeat-- and in strongly Republican election years in 1994 and 2010, such
Democrats had a horrible time surviving in their more Republican districts.
But the general partisan shift of white Southern voters to Republicans has
led to a new dynamic that unpacking black-majority districts doesn't change
much. With winner-take-all elections in place, such districts may in fact
be the best chance for Democrats to keep seats.
One can get a sense of this from the Georgia state legislative plan drawn
by courts (and Nate Persily) in the mid-2000's. It incorporated a lot of
elements of nonpartisan districting, yet resulted in a wipeout of Georgia
Democrats in state legislative races to the point that they (along with
South Carolina Democrats) didn't even contest half of state legislative
seats in 2012.
The removal of requirements to create opportunities for African American
voters to elect candidates of choice in the deep South would likely REDUCE
the number of Democrats. The white majority preference for Republicans is
now so strong that if Republican legislators could focus just on partisan
gerrymandering, they could do so to win an even more unfair share of seats
in the region than they do already.
As a window into this fact, see this post by a colleague below. He does a
"fair" redistricting plan based on traditional criteria -- and created it
completely blind to race and partisanship. In a state that is about 43%
Democratic in federal races, Democrats today win one of seven House seats.
In the "fair" plan, they might win two, but they might win zero -- and if
Republican legislators were able to tweak it to their purposes, they could
make all 7 seats distinctly Republican.
We'll be doing other southern states, but particularly in the Deep South
belt from South Carolina to Louisiana, we suspect this will be true in all
of them. Note hat Republicans hold EVERY single House seat in a string of
seats running from Arkansas to eastern Washington state - -just as
Democrats now hold EVERY seat in New England.
Contrast what it would mean to leave the horse-and-buggy democracy of the
18th century behind (one based on the mistaken belief that where you live
is always more important than what you think) and try fair representation
systems that naturally represent left, center and right, using models that
are candidate-based and consistent with American political culture.
As Robert shows, its impact would be rather breathtaking in states like
South Carolina. If you established such models across the South, from
North Carolina over to Louisiana, EVERY single African American voter would
have the power to elect a candidate of choice, along with every white
voter, every Republican voter and every Democratic voter. The region would
fairly reflect its spectrum of views.
No winner-take-all district system will come close to accomplishing that
objective. And the starry-eyed analysis of folks like the American Prospect
suggesting that a restoration of Democratic power is just round the
demographic-driven corner is questionable at best if thinking of change in
the next 20 or 30 years.
As we look to the future of voting rights and a means to sustain their
protection, I trust these realities draw more serious attention to
statutory opportunities to make the House of Representatives "the people's
House."
Rob Richie, FairVote
#############
http://www.fairvote.org/our-south-carolina-independent-redistricting-plan-exposes-the-problem-of-winner-take-all<http://www.fairvote.org/our-south-carolina-independent-redistricting-plan-exposes-the-problem-of-winner-take-all#.UfUajtJwfzg>
Our South Carolina Independent Redistricting Plan Exposes the Problem of
Winner-Take-All
by Robert Fekete <http://www.fairvote.org/list/author/Robert_Fekete> //
Published July 26, 2013
*The Bottom Line: Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama earned an
average of 44% of the vote in South Carolina in 2008 and 2012, but
Democrats won only one of its seven House seats. Drawing a map with maximum
compactness without regard to race or partisanship might seem likely to
generate a fairer outcome. Instead, Republicans would have a big edge in
five districts, a clear edge in one and an even chance of winning the
remaining seat. Only a fair representation voting method would guarantee
fair outcomes - and at the same time uphold the Voting Rights Act better
than single-member district plans.*
Our representative democracy is undercut by partisan gerrymandering, with
elected officials blatantly helping their friends and hurting their enemies
rather than acting as umpires serving the public interest. Independent
redistricting systems have been proposed as a solution to the problem of
gerrymandering, but the fact is that even "fair" redistricting is still
unfair to many voters. Alone, it will not deliver the vibrant
representative democracy our nation needs. South Carolina provides a great
example of the limitations of independent redistricting, but also
illustrates its great value when combined with the adoption of fair
representation voting
methods<http://www.fairvote.org/fair-voting-proportional-representation>
.
After the 2011 redistricting process and 2012 elections, South Carolina
Democrats are significantly underrepresented in their congressional
delegation. FairVote's statewide partisanship data shows that in a
nationally even election, 43% of the voters prefer Democrats to
Republicans, with Barack Obama earning an average of 44% of the vote in
2008 and 2012. If the outcome of congressional elections were proportional,
Democrats would regularly earn three of the state's seven congressional
seats.
But that's not what happened in 2012. Only one seat was won by a Democrat,
with every other district won by a Republican by at least ten percentage
points in districts carried easily by Mitt Romney. The sixth district is
the only Democratic-leaning district - and it is heavily so, a majority
African-American district that regularly delivers large margins of victory
to longtime incumbent Jim Clyburn.
South Carolina Republicans controlled redistricting and produced a map that
strongly favors their party. One might assume that an independent
redistricting commission would provide fairer outcomes. But it's not so
simple, given the constraints of where people live and the expectation that
a fair plan would be geographically compact.
To illustrate the challenges of creating a fair map using single-member
districts, we drew a sample nonpartisan redistricting plan for South
Carolina. The following criteria were used:
- Contiguity (no district lines intersect)
- Equal population (a federal requirement)
- Maximal compactness
Racial and partisanship data were not considered when drawing the
districts, to demonstrate what a nonpartisan map might look like without
the Voting Rights Act. The map was analyzed in terms of partisanship and
race after the lines were drawn, however.
The map was created using census tracts as building blocks, giving a high
degree of accuracy in determining the population of the districts while
allowing further analysis of the population makeup later in the process.
The optimal target population was between 660,766 and 660,770 people per
district. Within that target population range we accepted no more than
0.11% deviation from the target population.
The chart below details the racial and partisan makeup of each district in
this nonpartisan map. Race is measured by the overall population provided
in the 2010 census. Partisanship is defined using FairVote's partisanship
index that is based on the vote relative to the national average in the
2008 presidential election in each district.
*District*
*Pop.*
*Total Dev.*
*Total pop Dev. %*
*White*
*White %*
*Black*
*Black %*
*Indian and Alaskan %*
*Asian %*
*Other %*
*% Democrat*
*D1*
660,057
-713
-0.11
507,130
76.83
121,083
18.34
0.25
0.78
2.27
32.80%
*D2*
660,950
180
0.03
486,116
73.55
123,114
18.63
0.29
2.14
3.56
34.10%
*D3*
661,422
652
0.1
440,493
66.6
184,780
27.94
0.49
1.33
1.81
42.53%
*D4*
660,805
35
0.01
420,560
63.64
197,795
29.93
0.4
1.45
2.57
44.66%
*D5*
660,068
-702
-0.11
394,114
59.71
221,929
33.62
0.46
1.24
2.9
47.26%
*D6*
661,184
414
0.06
382,363
57.83
244,098
36.92
0.36
1.19
2.06
50.19%
*D7*
660,878
108
0.02
429,224
64.95
197,885
29.94
0.69
0.81
1.99
42.20%
*Outcomes*
- *Partisan imbalance nearly the same - and potentially worse:* Democrats
would have a real chance of losing every seat. Republicans would have a
strong edge in five districts, a clear edge in one district and a 50-50
chance in the 7th district. Democrats would have a slightly greater
chance to earn a second seat, but in most nationally even elections
Democrats would be unlikely to see any better result with this map than
they experienced in 2012.
- The plan would violate Section Two of the Voting Rights Act because
the African-American population would be no more than 36.9% in any
district. Before South Carolina created a black-majority congressional
district in 1991, no African American had been elected to the state since
Reconstruction. Creating a map with a majority-black district leads to
lines that look a lot more like the state's current plan. Because of the
population distribution of African Americans in South Carolina, the map
must break up places of common interest, such as the cities of Charleston
and Columbia.
It is worth noting that this map is just one of countless possible
single-member district maps that would fulfill the criteria used here, some
of which could theoretically be more favorable to Democrats. However,
unless the map is being specifically drawn with the intention of creating
more Democratic seats (which would violate the criteria of most independent
redistricting processes), a map similar to the one presented here is the
most likely outcome.
*The Fair Representation Voting Comparison*
Creating a simulated independent redistricting map for South Carolina using
single-member districts did little to alleviate the problems with the
state's congressional elections. Using independent redistricting to create
a map of multi-member districts elected under fair representation voting
systems, however, produces much better results.
We used the single-member districts from the previous section as building
blocks for a fair representation voting plan based on multimember
districts. The first multimember district is situated in the western part
of the state along the Piedmont region, and is formed from the combination
of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4thcongressional districts. The second
multimember district is situated in the eastern part of the state along the
coast, and combines the 5th, 6th, and 7th congressional districts.
*District*
*Total pop*
*White*
*White %*
*Black*
*Black %*
*% Democrat*
*# Seats*
*% to win seat*
*1*
2,643,234
1,854,299
70.15%
1,854,299
23.71%
38.64%
4
20%
*2*
1,982,130
1,205,701
60.82%
663,912
33.49%
46.76%
3
25%
As the map and chart above show, the new fair voting plan would be a far
more representative reflection of the people of South Carolina. In the
1st super
district, Republicans would be sure to win two seats, Democrats would be
sure to win one seat and the final seat would be a swing seat. That swing
seat would most likely be won by a moderate member of either party, as
their election would depend on winning the support of the 20% of voters in
the district who are most moderate. African American voters in the
1stmultimember
district would also have the voting power to elect a preferred candidate,
as the black population is over the threshold needed to win a seat.
The second super district would elect one member of each party and the
third seat would be a potentially competitive seat with a lean toward
Republicans. Again, the winner of that third seat would have an electoral
incentive to represent the middle third of voters in the district. This
super district would also be nearly certain to elect a representative
preferred by black voters because their voting percentage is well over the
threshold needed to win a seat.
Under this fair representation voting plan, Republicans would reliably win
at least three seats, Democrats two seats, and two seats would be regularly
in play. Two candidates backed by African American voters would win, more
fairly reflecting their share of the electorate. All parts of the state
would have representatives of both major parties.
This plan would be a far more meaningful improvement over South Carolina's
current congressional map than a single-member independent redistricting
plan. It would lead to a congressional delegation that better represents
the state in the House of Representatives, with Members who are more
responsive to their constituencies back home and more willing to work with
their colleagues of the other party.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Respect for Every Vote and Every Voice"
Rob Richie
Executive Director
FairVote
6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610
Takoma Park, MD 20912
www.fairvote.org <http://www.fairvote.org> rr at fairvote.org
(301) 270-4616
Please support FairVote through action and tax-deductible donations -- see
http://fairvote.org/donate. For federal employees, please consider a gift
to us through the Combined Federal Campaign (FairVote's CFC number is
10132.) Thank you!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130728/9ef96683/attachment.html>
View list directory