[EL] A potentially illegal gerrymander because imbalance in competition?

Tue Nov 10 11:59:57 PST 2015

As someone who believes that it's time to flee the sinking ship of
single-winner districts for Congress as our method of election for the U.S.
House in favor of multi-winner districts with ranked choice voting
<http://www.RCVAct.com>, Ross Ramsey's column on Texas congressional
districts (below,  from Rick's update) is an interesting one.

Ramsey is suggesting that it's particularly devious to create only one
competitive district in Texas because that's the only district where
incumbents may not build seniority due losing a general election. To
underscore the truth of his assumption, note that Texas has 24 U.S. House
districts where Barack Obama won less than 42% in 2012 and 11 districts
where he won more than 57%. Those districts' representatives of course
match with the majority party. Then there's the 23rd, where Obama won
48.1%. That actually makes it one  of the very few districts in the nation
held by Democrats where Obama won no more  than that percentage of the
vote, but of course is much closer to being in partisan balance.

Ramsey is suggesting the unfairness is the difference in incumbent chances
to lose and build seniority, As he writes, "If turnover like that was
normal in other congressional districts, the politics would probably
balance out. But other members of Congress don’t have to worry as hard
about their next elections, and they can also count on sticking around long
enough to get some plum assignments. And their voters benefit, presumably,
from having friends in high places. Voters in the 23rd Congressional
district of Texas can only wonder what that’s like."

If Ramsey's suggestion is valid - that is, that it's an equal protection
problem if some incumbents are safe and others aren't -- then of course
every state today except New Hampshire (where its two districts are
competitive) has a problem. Take California, where there was an admirable
independent redistricting process in 2011. As Devin McCarthy explained in
2013,
<http://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/did-the-california-citizens-redistricting-commission-really-create-more-competitive-districts/>
California
has 53 districts. Of these, 32 are ones where the underlying partisan skew
is at least 60% to 40% for one major party. The number of districts in the
competitive band of 47% to 53% is only five, meaning fewer than one out of
ten (and the same number as existed in 2010.) Although all California
incumbents in fact won in 2014, any turnover  going forward is far  more
likely in those five potentially competitive districts than others absent
an intra-party race due to the  Top two primary.

I assume there's a  not a legal argument here. If there were, of course,
I'd be rather interested, as it would point to the one remedy that actually
puts everyone  in a roughly comparable district for competitiveness, the
RCV Act <http://www.RCVAct.com> we anticipate being introduced in Congress
next year.

Rob Richie

“Analysis: A Peculiar Way to Disenfranchise Voters”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77413>
Posted on November 9, 2015 8:37 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77413> by Rick
Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Fascinating Ross Ramsey column
<http://www.texastribune.org/2015/11/09/analysis-peculiar-way-disenfranchise-voters/>
:

There are many sneaky ways to disenfranchise voters — to rig the electoral
system so that one group’s voices are not quite as loud as others’ —but the
23rd Congressional District of Texas might be one of the most devious of
all.

Texas lawmakers have designed a congressional district that is so slippery
that neither political party can hang onto it, and where it is impossible
for anyone to stay in office long enough to build up enough clout to get
much of anything done for the folks at home.

You will get an argument about that from the people who have held the
seat. Will
Hurd <http://www.texastribune.org/directory/will-hurd/>,Pete Gallego
<http://www.texastribune.org/directory/pete-gallego/>, Francisco “Quico”
Canseco <http://www.texastribune.org/directory/francisco-quico-canseco/>, Ciro
Rodriguez <http://www.texastribune.org/directory/ciro-rodriguez/> and Henry
Bonilla <http://www.texastribune.org/directory/henry-bonilla/> will all
say, in one way or another, that they have been effective representatives
for the people who sent them to Washington, D.C.

Bonilla, a Republican, was there for 14 years. Rodriguez, a Democrat, was
there for four, but served in Congress for eight more years representing
another district — another redistricting tale for another day.

Rodriguez lost in 2010 to Canseco, a Republican. Canseco lost to Gallego, a
Democrat, in 2012. Gallego lost to Hurd, a Republican, in 2014.

[image: Share]
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77413&title=%26%238220%3BAnalysis%3A%20A%20Peculiar%20Way%20to%20Disenfranchise%20Voters%26%238221%3B&description=>

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rob Richie
Executive Director, FairVote
6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 240
Takoma Park, MD 20912
rr at fairvote.org  (301) 270-4616  http://www.fairvote.org
*FairVote Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/FairVoteReform>*   *FairVote
Twitter <https://twitter.com/fairvote>*   My Twitter
<https://twitter.com/rob_richie>

Thank you for considering a *donation <http://www.fairvote.org/donate>*
<http://www.fairvote.org/donate>to support our reform vision
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U50uJohIw4c>.
(Note: Our Combined Federal Campaign number is 10132.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20151110/011f1be2/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20151110/011f1be2/attachment.png>