[EL] Master class in gerrymandering - comparing California and New York State / Jamie Raskin and interstate compacts

Fri Feb 4 11:11:40 PST 2022

Rob references a recent Washington Post <https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/interactive/2022/gerrymandering-examples-north-carolina-illinois-alabama-texas-how-to-fix/>  editorial, which contains this gem (the bold is the subhead following a recitation of several alleged gerrymanders):

A better solution to redistricting: Independent commissions

Virginia’s new map shows there is a better way.

This seems curious given that the independent commission crashed and burned and the Virginia Supreme Court appointed two outside experts to draw new lines. Perhaps the solution is less about who is drawing the lines, and more about the criteria that is laid out in advance to draw the lines? Here, for example, are the two memos prepared by the experts who drew Virginia’s new maps: Initial memo <https://www.vacourts.gov/courts/scv/districting/memorandum_re_va_redistricting_2021.pdf>  and Final memo <https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwj4ipuR3ub1AhXukOAKHTj7AHgQFnoECAsQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.vacourts.gov%2Fcourts%2Fscv%2Fdistricting%2F2021_virginia_redistricting_memo.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0ah-wJ5j6hufO8v_DDYCFA> . Both memos describe the criteria they selected – including the quite-deliberate decision to ignore where incumbents lived – that may form the basis for a better approach to gerrymandering than independent commissions, which seems to have some issues of their own.

Sean Parnell

From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> On Behalf Of Rob Richie
Sent: Friday, February 4, 2022 9:32 AM
To: Election Law <Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] Master class in gerrymandering - comparing California and New York State / Jamie Raskin and interstate compacts

As a tag to my post last night, I wanted to add a clarification based on a couple notes making sure I am not suggesting New York state wasn't a partisan gerrymandering.

To clarify, it absolutely is. I also am not suggesting the California redistricting commission drew congressional iines with an intent to boost Democrats and don't think that the sea of safe safe seats in California is as egregious as the even more profoundly problematic share of  "landslide seats" in Texas. The California process is better than what we see in Texas and California, and would be an improvement if established across the country for all congressional elections. Improvements are a good thing, and I'm not for having the perfect be the enemy of the good.

At the same time, I do think we should aspire to something so much better that it is easily available as a national remedy when a national remedy is what is ultimately called for. The fact that the intended effect of the New York partisan gerrymander is comparable to the unintended effect of the California redistricting process and the fact that the intended cushioning of Texas incumbents is comparable to the unintended effect of California redistricting is instructive to me. I wanted to lift up that point as we learn from the current cycle and not just "settle" the way the Washington Post does in its new editorial on gerrymandering. <https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/interactive/2022/gerrymandering-examples-north-carolina-illinois-alabama-texas-how-to-fix/> 

People sometimes think that the Fair Representation Act would create a politics that is utterly different from today - talking about a multi-party system that looks like many European democracies, for example I politely, but firmly disagree. See <https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/fairvote/pages/3063/attachments/original/1449959851/12_Rob_Richie_Illinois_Fair_Representation_Voting_Reform.pdf?1449959851>  this paper of mine that introduces observations about the politics enabled by cumulative voting in state legislative elections in three-seat districts in illinois from 1870 to 1980 -- with cumulative voting not nearly as good a system as proportional ranked choice voting ("single transferable vote") for enabling voter choice and  the valuable dynamics  coming with incentives to earn 2nd choice support from backers of others candidates, but instructive for its representational impacts and opening up the entire state to shared representation  within a system where the two major parties still win almost all seats.

Thanks,

Rob

On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 7:42 PM Rob Richie <rr at fairvote.org <mailto:rr at fairvote.org> > wrote:

Hi, Folks,

The thoughtful posts on the election law blog come quickly these days - thank you to the team of professors making that possible.

I wanted to pick up on two recent posts on gerrymandering: Rick Pildes' post <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=127360>  on the likely New York State redistricting map and Ned Foley's post <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=127338>  calling out law professor Congressman Jamie Raskin for rationalizing such partisan gerrymanders.

First, I'm regularly impressed by the Brennan Center's analytical and advocacy prowess in general and Michael Li's work on redistricting in particular. That said, I wanted to flag Michael's quote in the New York Times today cited by Rick Pildes today on New York's gerrymandering: "“It’s a master class in how to draw an effective gerrymander. Sometimes you do need fancy metrics to tell, but a map that gives Democrats 85 percent of the seats in a state that is not 85 percent Democratic — this is not a particularly hard case."

It is indeed true that Democrats would be favored in 85% of New York congressional races in a state where Biden won 61% of the vote, a  partisan distortion toward Democrats of 24%. At the same time, we can also look over to California's now finished congressional map <https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-2022-maps/california/>  drawn by its citizen commission. There, according to FiveThirtyEight.com, Democrats are favored in 43 of 52 seats in a state where Biden won 63% of the vote. That's 83% of seats. If Democrats picked up the 2 swing seats, that would mean they would carry 87% of seats - meaning a partisan distortion of between 20% and 24% for the Democrats.  And, relating to the understandable critique of Texas' congressional map that it creates so many safer seats, it's notable to me that not a single California seat is inside a partisanship range of 54% to 46%, with only 6 districts inside 58% to 42%

This is not a critique of the California commission per se, as it was juggling a lot of factors, including being attentive to communities of interest and opportunities for racial minorities to win seats. But it is a critique of the underlying winner-take-all electoral rules that so often govern what's possible to achieve within a single member district regime. It makes me all the more committed to finding a way forward to winning the final version of Congressman Don Beyer's Fair Representation Act  <http://www.fairrepresentation.com> where all voters in every election would have the power to define their own representation with a meaningful vote.

Second, as to Ned's chiding of Jamie Raskin, I'll note that the Congressman has consistently urged solutions that are fair to everyone. He is an original and ongoing cosponsor of the Fair Representation Act, for example. When in the Maryland state senate, he proposed a creative bill to allow Maryland to enter into <https://www.fairvote.org/interstate_compacts_for_fair_representation>  interstate compacts with other states to come up with a negotiated fair representation plan. Jamie for years has extended a hand for a deal to establish a system that is fair to everyone. Let's hope more show readiness to take him up on it!

Rob

-- 

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

Thank you for considering a donation <http://www.fairvote.org/donate> . Enjoy our video on ranked choice voting <https://youtu.be/CIz_nzP-W_c> !

-- 

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

Thank you for considering a donation <http://www.fairvote.org/donate> . Enjoy our video on ranked choice voting <https://youtu.be/CIz_nzP-W_c> !

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20220204/a98c0016/attachment.html>