Subject: Re: non-contiguous districts [2]
From: Tom Round
Date: 9/25/2002, 3:55 PM
To: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu

Perhaps we should distinguish two reasons for drawing electoral districts whose boundary isn't an unbroken line across land ... (1) "necessity" and (2) ":convenience".

I.      The first ground, "necessity", arises when some enclave of the state's [= nation-state's/ federation member state's] territory is separated from the rest by (a) water or (b) foreign territory -- Alaska/ Tasmania and (former) East Berlin, respectively -- or, I suppose, in future, (c) by the void of space, if colonies are established on the Moon, Mars, space stations etc. (Hey, don't laugh -- did Madison or Congressmen Bingham imagine their constitutional drafting would one day be applied to voting machines?  (-;) Of course it wouldn't apply if the enclave warrants enough seats to form a separate electoral district in its own right -- either because its population is large enough (Tasmanian, Northern Ireland in the House of Commons), and/or because it is constitutionally guaranteed a minimum number of seats (Alaska, Tasmania).

I suppose this isn't "absolute necessity" since, in the extreme, one could always merge such an enclave with the nearest electorate in the "metropolitan" heartland of the state. The representative(s) elected would simply have to have their suitcases packed and/or passports ready, to service constituents. Eg, Australia's smaller island territories are merged into House of Reps electoral districts for the nearest State -- Lord Howe Island (and possibly Norfolk Island, though I'm not sure about it) with New South Wales and Cocos/ Keeling and Christmas Island with Western Australia respectively. But they're tiny in population.

In this case you could still maintain the legal fiction that every electoral district is "contiguous" -- its boundary is still a single unbroken line, even though that boundary also encompasses sea and/or foreign soil. Every part of the state's own territory that lies within that defined area is part of the same district.

II.     The New Brunswick proposal that Colin Feasby mentioned -- consolidating all the aboriginal reserves in the province into one district -- is a case of genuine legal non-contiguity, and would therefore need to be justified as "convenient" rather than "necessary". Without being so impertinent as to tell the Canadians what to do with their own elections, I will comment that this seems an imaginative and workable proposal for ensuring minority representation without either (a) classifying individual voters/ candidates by race/ caste (as in  India, Lebanon, Bosnia, New Zealand, etc), or (b) drawing contiguous but extremely non-compact districts to achieve "minority majorities", even at the cost of (eg) having districts run down a single highway.

Whatever the arguments for and against affirmative action/ special measures for other ethnic groups, particularly immigrants, the case of Indigenous "First Nations" is distinguishable. The criterion for distinct voting Indigenous rights here is more like citizenship/ nationality (albeit in a "domestic dependent" nation) than it is like race/ ethnicity in the "drop of blood" sense. I can't vote in an irish Dail election because I'm not a citizen of the Republic of Ireland -- even though my great-great-grandfather was born there (and even though present-day Irish citizenship correlates closely with past Irish ancestry). The "Lockean" moral case for preserving a kind of quasi-federal, quasi-protectorate status for Indigenous communities is heightened when they have been incorporated into the colonial state without them or their ancestors ever giving consent.

But that goes raises issues beyond the scope of electoral law. My basic point is, some "de facto" non-contiguity may unavoidable (even if masked as "de jure" contiguity) as long as "equal voters/ population per representative" and the size of the legislature are non-negotiable. Other, "de jure" non-contiguous districting is discretionary, but that isn't to say it couldn't be justified.

At 12:04 25-09-2002 -0400, Mark Rush wrote:

have a look at the cases on the VA division of legislative services
link--especially WEST v. GILMORE.  They deal with the necessity of
drawing noncontiguous districts across the chesapeake bay

http://dlsgis.state.va.us/ref/redistcases.htm

cheers

Mark E. Rush
Professor of Politics
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, VA  24450
http://home.wlu.edu/~rushm
(540) 463-8904
(540) 463-8639 (fax)

>>> Jennifer Steen <jennifer.steen@bc.edu> 09/25/02 10:24AM >>>
Greetings all --

Does anyone know of any articles (or books or web sites or whatever)
that discuss the idea of *non*-contiguous electoral districts?

Thanks,
Jennifer Steen
--
Jennifer A. Steen
Assistant Professor
Political Science Department
Boston College

e-mail: jennifer.steen@bc.edu
web: www2.bc.edu/~steenje