[EL] Milhiser article on partisan gerrymandering

Fri Dec 5 15:58:20 PST 2014

I'm a little late in responding, but I agree wholeheartedly with Doug's view that this topic needs good solid analysis and not just because it gives me an opportunity to once again shamelessly promote the Common Cause Democracy Prize "Gerrymander Standard" writing competition. Details can be found at www.commoncause.org/gerrymanderstandard<http://www.commoncause.org/gerrymanderstandard>. Info you can forward to colleagues and students can be found below.

Dan Vicuna
National Redistricting Coordinator
Common Cause
Cell: (571) 218-6135
Twitter: @DanVicuna<https://twitter.com/danvicuna>
www.commoncause.org/redistricting<http://www.commoncause.org/redistricting>

[image004]

"Gerrymander Standard" Writing Competition
The Supreme Court has long suggested there is a limit for what is acceptable partisan gerrymandering, but like obscenity, so far the line is undefined and left to courts to know it when they see it. The Court has said that it is willing to hear constitutional challenges to partisan gerrymandering, but existing legal theories have been insufficient to empower citizens with the tools they need to overturn partisan gerrymanders in court. This is your chance to change that.
We are inviting legal and social science practitioners, scholars, and students to submit papers proposing a new definition of partisan gerrymandering or further developing an existing standard. Winning papers will be selected by a distinguished panel of former State Supreme Court Justices, litigators, and election scholars.
Prizes will be as follows:
1st place - $5,000
2nd place - $3,000
3rd place - $2,000

[gerrymander-map]The top entries will also be published in Election Law Journal, the leading academic publication in the elections field. Common Cause will cover expenses for winners to travel to Washington, DC in the fall of 2015 to present their papers.
 How to Submit a Paper
For general information, please check out: www.commoncause.org/GerrymanderStandard<http://www.commoncause.org/GerrymanderStandard>.  Please review the 2015 "Gerrymander Standard" Writing Competition Submission Requirements <http://www.commoncause.org/issues/voting-and-elections/redistricting/contest-submission-details.pdf> before submitting your entry. Submissions must be sent to contest at commoncause.org<mailto:contest at commoncause.org> by Friday, February 27. Do not include any information identifying yourself in the paper. Include your name, phone number, and address only in the body of the cover email. Feel free to email us at contest at commoncause.org<mailto:contest at commoncause.org> with any questions.
Special thanks to our partner Election Law Journal.

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas Johnson
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 10:29 PM
To: 'Rick Hasen'; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Milhiser article on partisan gerrymandering

Such studies have been done for decades. In fact the difference between the party getting more votes and the party getting more seats was fairly central to many of the arguments (though not to the ruling) in the Tom Delay Texas re-redistricting case. There is no "genius" to such analysis, despite Millhiser's use of that term.

The more simplistic versions of such studies (including this Mattingly and Vaughn study) completely ignore the requirements of the Voting Rights Act. In fact, the phrase "voting rights act" never even appears in the Mattingly and Vaughn paper. The only remote reference to it is "The two districts with largest African American representation had on average around 36% and 32% African American population, which compares favorably to the state wide percentage of 22%, but not to the current districts." That sounds to me either like a total failure to understand the VRA, or a knowing attempt to distract reporters from recognizing that they're deliberately ignoring the VRA despite the VRA's significant impact on the redistricting plan in question.

Millhiser specifically condemns redistricting plans that "are almost certainly the product of a legislature that carefully designed the maps to produce a desired result." But that is exactly what the VRA requires - on a racial/ethnic and language front. The difficulty is not in proving that redistricting plans are not random (or at least that they're not the most-compact plan possible). The difficulty is in proving the plans are drawn for partisan purpose, as opposed to drawn ensure compliance with the VRA or to follow city, county, or other community of interest boundaries. The filings in Vieth  provide a look at a variety of potential tools for such analysis. Millhiser and Vaughn do not.

This is a topic in desperate need of good solid analysis and study. I often describe Vieth as the Supreme Court's version of a "Call for Papers." Unfortunately neither the article nor the study qualify as such.

-          Doug

Douglas Johnson, Fellow
Rose Institute of State and Local Government
at Claremont McKenna College
douglas.johnson at cmc.edu<mailto:douglas.johnson at cmc.edu>
310-200-2058

"If The Supreme Court Reads This Study, It Could End Partisan Gerrymandering Forever"<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68747>
Posted on December 2, 2014 8:10 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68747> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Ian Millhiser writes.<http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/12/01/3597643/this-study-could-end-the-worst-kinds-of-gerrymandering-if-the-supreme-court-took-the-time-to-read-it/>

I was surprised to see no mention of Voting Rights Act requirements in drawing these districts.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141205/0eda5a27/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 110160 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141205/0eda5a27/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 12335 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141205/0eda5a27/attachment.jpg>