[EL] Flaws in Politico and NY Times articles about gerrymandering

[Larry Levine]

Granted regarding the strong Dem years in ’71 and ’12. But there were other strong Dem years in elections in legislatively produced districts that did not lead to Democratic super majorities. Perhaps part of the answer to 2012 is the shrinkage of Republican registration and the increasing propensity of the growing independent registrants to vote Democratic. The 2014 swing back from the 2012 results did not take the legislature back to where it was before the redistricting. By your “strong Dem years” thesis, the Dems should be expected to increase their majorities in the legislature in 2016 based on increased turnout for a Presidential election with no incumbent on the ballot.

Larry

 

From: Douglas Johnson [mailto:djohnson at ndcresearch.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2015 11:13 AM
To: larrylevine at earthlink.net; 'Kogan, Vladimir'; 'Rick Hasen'; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: RE: [EL] Flaws in Politico and NY Times articles about gerrymandering

 

Better answer: (Part 1) I suspect you’re referring to 1973 and 2011, but ignoring 1991. (Part 2) The Court-drawn / Commission maps shift to reflect voter preferences better than legislatively-drawn plans, so (a) 1974’s ‘Watergate’ election the Democratic candidates swept the table in CA (those same districts swung back strongly Republican in the ‘Reagan Revolution of 1980).;  (b) the 2012 Obama re-elect was another strong year for Democratic candidates in California, and when 2014 was a strong Republican year many of those seats swung back to the Republicans (and the Democrats no longer have 2/3 in either house in CA).

 

The ‘give and take of the legislative process’ in California usually (1982, 2001, but not 1981) means incumbents of both parties draw safe seats, protecting themselves from those annoying shifts in voter preferences.

 

From: Larry Levine [mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net] 
Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2015 10:57 AM
To: 'Kogan, Vladimir'; djohnson at ndcresearch.com <mailto:djohnson at ndcresearch.com> ; 'Rick Hasen'; law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu> 
Subject: RE: [EL] Flaws in Politico and NY Times articles about gerrymandering

 

Interesting observation? Twice in my experience the redistricting maps for the California legislature were done by entities other than the legislature – once by a court of master and once by the newly created commission. In each case the first elections conducted in the new districts produced the largest Democratic majorities in my 50+ years of involvement in CA government and politics. Both elections produced super majorities for the Democrats. Could it be that the give and take of the partisan atmosphere in the legislative arena had some moderating impact on the process? Anyone got a better answer?

Larry

 

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>  [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Kogan, Vladimir
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2015 10:14 AM
To: djohnson at ndcresearch.com <mailto:djohnson at ndcresearch.com> ; 'Rick Hasen'; law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu> 
Subject: Re: [EL] Flaws in Politico and NY Times articles about gerrymandering

 

The NYT analysis is also somewhat deceiving because it focuses only  on the congressional maps. As Eric McGhee and I showed <http://u.osu.edu/kogan.18/files/2014/08/govca-25eiqbe.pdf>  a few years ago, California’s commission-produced maps produced a substantive increase in competitive districts for the congressional plan, but not for either of the two state legislative plans.

 



 


Vladimir Kogan, Assistant Professor
Department of Political Science

2004 Derby Hall | 154 N. Oval Mall, Columbus, OH 43210-1373
510/415-4074 Mobile 

614/292-9498 Office

614/292-1146 Fax

http://u.osu.edu/kogan.18/
 <mailto:kogan.18 at osu.edu> kogan.18 at osu.edu

 

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150702/4d13c023/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 15124 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150702/4d13c023/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 3605 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150702/4d13c023/attachment.png>