If I recall rightly from the Martis Atlas of Congressional Elections books,
around the 1880s, Ohio had a new congressional map for 5 of 6 elections.
But while such re-re-redistricting did occur, more prevalent was leaving
things alone, which led to the sometimes 60-year lapse in redistricting
prior to the 1960s.
My point is that requiring states to redraw districts opened the eyes of
many as to the benefits that could be extracted from redistricting. There
are several factors at play here that probably weren't at play in earlier
times, among them:
1. Awareness that redistricting can be used for political gain because
states are forced to do it and thus have the resources to do it, too.
2. A highly partisan electorate which makes drawing districts for a
political goal easier because it is easy to identify which neighborhoods
partisans live in.
3. The closely divided House which amplifies the effect of redistricting.
Perhaps Ohio in the 1880s is a good example after all, as the state in that
period is often characterized by intense partisan competition, the House was
closely divided, and political machines could reliably turn out their base
and knew where they lived. Sure, we survived it; in the big picture, we can
survive anything short of Armageddon. The pressures for re-redistricting
eventually diminished only to return now. But is this really how we want to
run elections? To the victor go all the spoils and damn the minority. If
so, let's pass laws that say we'll only count the votes of the people voting
for whoever controls the state government (and I'm thinking about
super-majority Democratic legislatures, too, like Massachusetts).
Within the current system, a legal map will ALWAYS be in place by 2**2 (or
2**4 for ME and MT), so the ONLY reason to do a mid-decade redistricting is
for political gain. If Justice Kennedy is truly troubled by the excesses of
gerrymandering, then blocking this avenue makes sense.
------------
Dr. Michael P. McDonald
Assistant Professor, George Mason University
Visiting Fellow, Brookings Institution
Mailing address:
(o) 703-993-4191 George Mason University
(f) 703-993-1399 Dept. of Public and International Affairs
mmcdon@gmu.edu 4400 University Drive - 3F4
http://elections.gmu.edu Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu [mailto:owner-election-
law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Smith, Brad
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 11:48 PM
To: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: RE: prediction on congressional redistricting
I think David's got it backwards - in our impassioned hearts, we fear the
worst; in our cooler heads, we know that is unlikely to happen.
Brad
________________________________
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu on behalf of David J. Becker
Sent: Wed 3/1/2006 11:11 PM
To: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: RE: prediction on congressional redistricting
I think Brad's hopeful argument here is hardly persuasive. The reason
this
hasn't happened that often before is because it was rare for legislatures
to
switch parties, particularly in the South, where the Democrats were so
entrenched. And contrary to his assertion, we're already seeing it happen
-- Georgia has just passed (and the governor just signed) its latest
(among
several) mid-decade redistrictings pushed through by the new GOP majority
--
this one splitting Clark County (where the University of Georgia is
located,
and which has always elected a Democrat) solely for the purpose of
electing
another Republican. This after a voluntary mid-decade redistricting of
Congress. We're seeing an era where we will likely see a switch to one
party control in several states -- to the GOP in states like Alabama
(where
the Democrats still control the legislature), and to the Democrats in
states
like California (if Schwarzenegger loses) and Pennsylvania (where
Democrats
are gaining in the legislature). Indeed, in PA, Democrats win only 37% of
Congressional seats, despite having a Democratic governor, and voting for
the Democratic candidate in the last 4 presidential elections, and if the
Democrats can win control of the legislature (and the Democrats look very
strong this election year there), they could gain at least 3, and maybe as
many as 6 (using the same measure of proportionality used by the TX GOP)
Congressional seats. If the Supreme Court puts its imprimatur upon such
cynical political power grabs, where one party grabs a disproportionate
number of seats while shutting out all dissent and argument from the
minority party and minority (racial) voters and legislators (and one can
hardly conceive of a more blatant display of raw political hubris as
occurred in Texas, particularly when considering the financial
improprieties), as I agree it likely will, I believe Richard is quite
right
that we will routinely see mid-decade power grabs of this sort, on both
sides, and the decennial redistrictings will simply be used to set up the
eventual mid-decade power grabs. That's exactly what happened in Texas,
where the GOP, knowing it couldn't redraw the lines as it would like in
2001, ground the redistricting process to a halt, and the legislature had
to
abdicate its responsibility to draw a Congressional plan, leading to a
court-drawn plan, which then was used later in the decade as a
justification
for the legislature to "correct" the court-drawn plan. In only the last
2-3
years, we've seen it in Georgia, we've seen it in Texas, and this is all
BEFORE the Supreme Court puts its stamp of approval on it. I think we all
hope in our hearts that Brad is right, but I think we all know in our
heads
that he's not.
David J. Becker
Election Consultant and Voting Rights Attorney
(202) 550-3470
(202) 521-4040 fax
david.j.becker@electionconsulting.com
www.electionconsulting.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu
[mailto:owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Smith, Brad
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 10:23 PM
To: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: RE: prediction on congressional redistricting
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