I wrote this earlier but it did not get through to the list. So it does not take into account the more recent postings.
Best,
Daniel Lowenstein
UCLA Law School
405 Hilgard
Los Angeles, California 90095-1476
310-825-5148
________________________________
From: Lowenstein, Daniel
Sent: Wed 3/1/2006 8:49 PM
To: Smith, Brad
Subject: RE: prediction on congressional redistricting
In common with the rest of my species, I'm not good at making predictions. But it seems to me that Michael McDonald at least sets forth a very plausible possibility that the Texas example could encourage one or more Democratic states to go tit for Texas' tat, resulting in the practice becoming much more common than it has been within anyone's memory.
Michael also argues that Wesberry and Reynolds brought on the present regime of once-a-decade, highly politicized redistricting. That's not as obvious as it may seem, though at a minimum those cases probably accelerated the process. My guess is that as state politics have become increasingly professional and competitive, aggressive use of redistricting for a variety of political purposes was bound to come, even without Supreme Court intervention. One person, one vote had considerable ideological appeal, and most state constitutions called for at least one chamber to contain equally populated districts. So once a decade redistricting could easily have been rationalized. And pace Brad Smith, I do not think that routine districting usually has adverse electoral consequences for those who engage in it. I recognize that Michael did not say Wesberry and Reynolds were mistakes and he certainly did not say they should be overruled, but I think that he and the rest of !
you who are exercised about political redistricting should continue to celebrate them (as I do). The leeway for use of districting for political purposes would be considerably greater without the one person, one vote rule. Indeed, theoretically, it would be utterly unlimited.
Even if mid-decade districting becomes routine and occurs almost every time political control of a state changes hands, I do not think it would be catastrophic or nearly the problem that would exist in the absence of the one person, one vote rule. But I join in what is probably a near-consensus here that it would be a bad thing. I do not believe there is any persuasive argument that mid-decade redistricting is unconstitutional, but I believe states should prohibit it in their constitutions and that probably it would be good for Congress to prohibit it in the case of congressional districts.
Best,
Daniel Lowenstein
UCLA Law School
405 Hilgard
Los Angeles, California 90095-1476
310-825-5148
________________________________
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu on behalf of Smith, Brad
Sent: Wed 3/1/2006 7:56 PM
To: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: RE: prediction on congressional redistricting
Cool, good to know. And without any parade of horrors, and not common for a century.
________________________________
From: David Epstein [mailto:david.l.epstein@gmail.com]
Sent: Wed 3/1/2006 10:54 PM
To: Smith, Brad
Cc: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: Re: prediction on congressional redistricting
Actually, this was a rather common practice in the late 19th century. Many states redistricted after changes in party power.
On 3/1/06, Smith, Brad < BSmith@law.capital.edu> wrote:
I just think this is not true at all. It never (or at least never to my knowledge, and I'm comfortable enough with my knowledge to therefore at least conclude "very rarely") happened before, and even now most states have shown restraint. I think it unlikely that Richard's horror scenario will occur, and frankly, if the votes last November in California and Ohio mean anything, they mean that voters would revolt. It's even one of the factors hurting Tom DeLay in polls.
Brad Smith
________________________________
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu on behalf of ban@richardwinger.com
Sent: Wed 3/1/2006 9:06 PM
To: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: prediction on congressional redistricting
If the U.S. Supreme Court rules that Texas did not
violate the Constitution when it redrew the boundaries
of congressional districts in 2003 for partisan
reasons, then every time a state transfers power from
one major party to the other in the state executive
and legislative branches, we will see mid-decade
partisan re-redistricting.
For example, I can imagine the North Carolina
legislature redrawing that state's congressional
districts in 2007 (assuming Democrats are in the
majority in 2007; the governorship is not up in 2006
and a Democrat is now governor). In 2004 Democrats
only won 6 of the state's 13 US House seats. Creative
redrawing should be able to get that up to 9 or 10.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--
**************************************
David Epstein
Professor of Political Science
Columbia University
New York, NY 10027
212-854-7566
http://www.columbia.edu/~de11
**************************************