reading between the lines congressional and state ... between the lines congressional and state...

Reading Between the Lines Congressional and State Legislative Redistricting

November 18, 2010 of 6

Reading Between the Lines Congress ional and State Legis lat ive Redistr ict ing

their Refor m in Iowa, Arizona and Cal i fornia and Ideas for Change in New Jersey

_______________ _______________

Prepared for the Eagleton Institute of Politics

by Benjamin Brickner

May 2010

Reading Between the Lines

Purposes of the Study

1.   DESCRIBE the redistricting process

2.   COMPARE three states that have attempted redistricting reform

3.   EXAMINE New Jersey’s redistricting process

4.   PROPOSE changes to address areas of concern in New Jersey

Reading Between the Lines

Summar y of Findings

1.   Redistricting by public and/or party officials is fraught with conflicts of interest

2.   Redistricting by other means has been successful in Iowa and Arizona

3.   New Jersey’s redistricting process is insular and opaque

4.   Partisan advantage is a primary motive of New Jersey’s redistricting commissions

5.   These areas of concern can be addressed with specific changes to New Jersey’s redistricting process that have been implemented successfully in other states

DESCRIBE the redistricting process

WHAT — the adjustment of electoral district boundaries •  Boundaries must be shifted as underlying populations change •  Applies to congressional, state legislative, local and most special purpose districts

WHEN — typically after each federal census •  U.S. Constitution: the “Enumeration shall be made [every] ten Years.” •  Notable exceptions: Texas in 2003; other states after judicial action

WHO — in most states, the state legislature and governor

HOW — in most states, via the normal legislative process •  Congressional districts: 44 of 50 states •  State legislative districts: 37 of 50 states




DISTRICTING CRITERIA

•  POPULATION EQUALITY •  Congressional districts: “as nearly as is practicable” •  State legislative districts: “substantially equal”

•  VOTING RIGHTS ACT — no voting qualifications or practices resulting in “denial or abridgement” of the right to vote on account of race, color or language minority

•  “TRADITIONAL” DISTRICTING PRINCIPLES •  Compactness •  Contiguity •  Preserving political subdivisions, cores of prior districts, and communities of interest


COMPACTNESS

Whether a district is geographically efficient

New Jersey 11th Congressional District

Illinois 4th Congressional District


CONTIGUITY

Whether a district is in one or more pieces

Maine 2nd Congressional District

Kentucky 1st Congressional District


CONTIGUITY

Whether a district is in one or more pieces

New Jersey 13th Congressional District




GERRYMANDERING

Manipulation of district boundaries to enhance the electoral prospects of a particular political interest

GERRYMANDERING

“Packing” “Cracking”


GERRYMANDERING

Neutral Districting


GERRYMANDERING

“Packing” “Cracking”

COMPARE three states that have attempted redistricting reform

IOWA — •  Reform by legislative action (1980) •  Non-partisan agency draws maps, subject to approval by legislature

ARIZONA — •  Reform by ballot initiative (2000) •  Independent, bipartisan commission (2D, 2R, 2I) draws and adopts maps

CALIFORNIA — •  Reform by ballot initiatives (2008 and 2010) •  Independent, bipartisan commission (5D, 5R, 4I) draws and adopts maps




IOWA — Reform by Legislative Action (1980) •  BEFORE: in 1970s, court struck down legislature’s plan and imposed its own •  AFTER: in 1980s, 1990s and 2000s plans adopted without incident

Congressional Districts (2002–2012) Congressional Districts

(2002–2012) State Legislative Districts

(2002–2012)


ARIZONA — Reform by Ballot Initiative (2000) •  BEFORE: in 1990s, legislative deadlock, multiple court cases and court-imposed congressional map •  AFTER: in 2000s, congressional plan adopted without incident; legislative plan challenged, resulting

in significant victory for redistricting commission


CALIFORNIA — Reform by Ballot Initiatives (2008 and 2010)

•  BEFORE: 1970s — gubernatorial veto and court-imposed districting plans 1980s — popular referendum overturned districting plans 1990s — legislative deadlock and court-imposed districting plans 2000s — plans adopted without incident

•  AFTER: to be determined

?"


RECURRING SUBJECTS OF REFORM

Process — •  Who draws the lines?

•  Who chooses who draws the lines?

•  What data must, may, or may not be considered?

•  What public process is required?

Substance — •  What districting principles must, may, or may not be accommodated?

•  What outcomes must be reached?



EXAMINE New Jersey’s redistricting process

DUAL COMMISSIONS

State Legislative Congressional “Appor t i onment Commiss i on” “Redi s t r i c t ing Commiss ion”

•  Established 1966 •  10 members (5D, 5R)

•  Plus 1I in event of deadlock •  Limited districting criteria required

•  Compactness •  Contiguity •  Respecting political subdivisions

•  No public process required

•  Established 1991 •  13 members (6D, 6R, 1I)

•  No districting criteria required

•  Limited public process required •  Four public hearings

EXAMINE New Jersey’s redistricting process

2000s

• Commission deadlock • Multiple legal challenges • Partisan gerrymander

⬇ •  Significant swing in seats • Overrepresentation

2000s

•  Incumbent gerrymander

⬇ • Low electoral competition • Low seat turnover

DUAL COMMISSIONS

State Legislative Congressional

PROPOSE changes to address areas of concern in New Jersey

FRAMEWORK FOR CHANGE

TYPE OF CHANGE — •  Process •  Substance

EXTENT OF CHANGE — •  Limited •  Extensive

DURATION OF CHANGE —. •  Temporary •  Permanent


AREAS OF CONCERN

Autonomy of Decision-Making Is the redistricting process independent

of inappropriate influence?

Representative Outcomes. Does redistricting result in elected representation that accurately reflects the underlying population?

Integrity of Decision-Making

Are map-makers considering appropriate data and ignoring inappropriate data?

Democratic Outcomes. Does redistricting result in elected representation that faithfully serves the underlying population?

Is the redistricting process open and transparent?




IDEAS FOR CHANGE

Autonomy of Decision-Making Limit the number of partisan commissioners by

requiring selection of political independents

Representative Outcomes. Encourage bipartisan cooperation by making deadlock a risky proposition for both parties

Integrity of Decision-Making

Establish criteria (e.g., the “traditional” districting principles) to guide decision-making

Democratic Outcomes. Require a full and open deliberative process (e.g., public display of draft maps, publication of all

data considered by the commissions)


OBSTACLES TO CHANGE

LEGAL — •  Federal law •  State law

POLITICAL — •  Absence of initiative and referendum in New Jersey •  Lack of political will to alter a process that has served incumbents well

CHRONOLOGICAL — •  Congressional redistricting begins in early 2011 •  State legislative redistricting begins momentarily

reading between the lines congressional and state ... between the lines congressional and state...

Documents