[EL] Common Cause data on voter choices in the 2016 election

Fri Oct 28 05:50:38 PDT 2016

This Common Cause report attempts to draw a conclusion about the effect of  
redistricting on competition in election districts without holding  
constant seven other key factors. As I understand it, in order to draw any  valid 
conclusions about whether one variable causes a certain effect, you have  to 
hold constant other relevant variables. 

(1) contribution limits.  Contribution limits restrict competition by  
making it harder for challengers to compete against incumbents. Which states  
with legislative vs. "citizen-led" redistricting also have contribution  
limits?

(2) public funding is promoted to increase competition, but this factor is  
not considered.  Which states with "citizen-led" redistricting also have  
public funding?

(3) the voting rights act.  Hasn't the requirement of majority  minority 
districts also resulted is less competition?  It seems logical but  I don't 
know if there has been any research on this. How much did this factor  effect 
states with legislative vs "citizen-led" redistricting?

(4) demographic distribution of the population. Some states have a larger  
concentration of certain populations than others.  This too can effect  
competition. Did the states with legislative redistricting also have larger  
concentrations of certain populations which effected competition there?

(5) Political complexion of the state.  Obviously, if a state were  100% 
Democratic, there would be little competition in general elections.   So is 
the political complexion of "citizen-led" redistricting states similar to  
those in state with legislative redistricting?

(6) The political party in charge of redistricting usually works to create  
a favorable environment for it in a majority of the districts, since the 
goal of  a political party is majoritanian.  However in some instances, it is 
just  to ensure that current incumbents stay in power, i.e. see California  
congressional redistricting in the past. Either goal could result in greater 
or  lesser competition depending on the situation in the state. Were the 
goals in  redistricting similar in the "citizen-led" states as in the 
legislative  redistricting states?

(7) Some of the "citizen-led" redistricting schemes explicitly require  
drawing competitive districts.  Obviously in those states there is likely  to 
be more competitive districts.  Were there more states with this  requirement 
in "citizen-led" states which could dramatically effect the  results?

The final fallacy of' "citizen-led" redistricting is that citizens can be  
just as partisan as politicians, but there is no accountability for their  
actions. So I have focused my attention in this area on the redistricting  
factors not who does it as the key.

I for one wish there were objective criteria that could be applied without  
subjective judgment about the political effect of the results.  This would  
take the human factor out of it and could improve redistricting.  I just  
have not been able to come up with a way to employ them that does not  
require subjective judgment  And when you allow subjective judgment you  will 
inevitably get redistricting with an eye toward the political effect. Jim  Bopp

In a message dated 10/26/2016 2:30:28 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
DVicuna at commoncause.org writes:

Today Common Cause released _Restoring Voter Choice: How  Citizen-Led 
Redistricting Can End the Manipulation of Our Elections_ 
(http://www.restoringvoterchoice.org/) . This  report details the extent to which gerrymandering 
denies voters choices this  year in states in which legislators drew districts 
following the last census.  We examine the percentage of districts in which 
campaigns were likely over  before the general election because candidates 
from only one major party filed  to run and a subset of those districts in 
which the campaigns were over even  before the primary because only one person 
from a major party filed to run.  Our research compares how states with 
different methods for drawing districts  performed. The major findings are 
below and the entire report is available at  _www.restoringvoterchoice.org_ 
(http://www.restoringvoterchoice.org/) .   
·          Legislators are almost four times more likely than  citizen 
redistricting commissions to produce congressional districts that deny  voters 
choices in a primary and more than twice as likely to produce districts  that 
deny voters choices in the general election.  
·          Only one major party entered candidates this year in 47 –  
almost one in five – of the 250 congressional districts drawn by state  
legislators. That means that districts that are home to approximately 33  million 
people will likely have only one major party choice in the  congressional 
election. 
·          Competition flourishes where congressional boundaries  were 
drawn by a citizen redistricting commission. Voters in all but eight  percent of 
the districts in states with commissions will have two or more  major party 
candidates on their congressional ballots next  month. 
·          Voter choices are even more limited in state legislative  
elections. Candidates from only one major party filed to run in 1,507 (43  
percent) of the 3,506 legislative districts in states where legislators  control 
redistricting. In citizen redistricting commission states, that number  is 29 
percent.  
·          In 1,114 (32 percent) of the districts in those states,  
competition has been so thoroughly strangled that just one person sought a  major 
party nomination this year, effectively ending the campaign even before  the 
primary. This total is 21 percent in citizen commission  states. 
·          In eight states, a majority in the next legislature has  
probably already been decided. Candidates from only one major party in those  
states filed to run in 60 percent or more of legislative districts drawn by  
politicians. 
·          In seven states, this year’s state legislative campaigns  
effectively ended even before the primary election because only one major  party 
candidate filed to run in more than half of the  districts. 
·          Several states stand out for the lack of choices they  provide 
to voters. The 2016 “People’s No Choice Awards” go to: 
o   Fewest  choices in congressional elections: Arkansas 
o   Fewest  choices in state legislative general elections: Georgia 
o   Fewest  choices in state legislative primary elections: Massachusetts 
Dan Vicuna 
National Redistricting Manager 
Common Cause 
Phone: (213) 623-1216 
Twitter: _ at DanVicuna_ (https://twitter.com/danvicuna)  
_www.commoncause.org/redistricting_ 
(http://www.commoncause.org/redistricting)  

_______________________________________________
Law-election  mailing  list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20161028/5e2e0bbd/attachment.html>