Partisan Gerrymandering as a Safeguard of Federalism

2006

The Forum, 2010

2021

This Master Thesis through the theoretical construction of depoliticization and public bureaucracy a discussion of US Congressional elections and the role of their redistricting authorities will lead the discussion of keeping the government “above politics”. Through a Qualitative Comparative Case Study of two separate redistricting authorities, coupled with a content analysis of legislative information on redistricting organization, legal cases and interviews with acting attorneys, the thesis will attempt to analyze the process links between redistricting authorities and election results from the 2012 US Congressional Elections. Finally, the thesis will contribute to the literature by shedding light on the nuts and bolts of gerrymandering in redistricting and providing one of the first empirical evaluations of whether delegation to independent commissions provides for more fair elections

Catholic University Law Review, 2017

Partisan gerrymandering is frequently condemned for distorting democracy and causing unfair representation, and many reformers have called upon federal courts to prohibit the practice. However, the judiciary has struggled to advance a coherent approach to partisan gerrymandering. Conservative justices have argued the practice raises a non-justiciable political question, and the remainder of the bench has failed to reach any agreement on the right test. This Article argues that courts have struggled with the law because the threat from partisan gerrymandering is illusory. Parties are responsive to external conditions, including the composition of legislative districts. Therefore, voters, candidates, and party leaders can adapt to compete for the constituencies of redrawn districts. When partisan gerrymandering appears harmful, the true culprit is the fracturing of the electorate into factions due to voters’ political preferences. The appropriate forum for resolving such substantive disputes among citizens is democratic contestation, not rights-based judicial intervention. Subsequently, reformers’ hope that eliminating partisan gerrymandering will fix American democracy is misplaced. This divergence between the real character of partisan gerrymandering and its treatment by the legal academy is responsible for the lack of clarity in the jurisprudence. To support this conclusion, this Article draws on social science analysis of political behavior to offer a unified perspective on party affiliation, voter preference, and constitutional rights.

2020

Social Science Quarterly, 2019

PSN: Disease & Illness (Topic), 2013

Delving into the complicated and often politically fraught process of redrawing electoral district boundaries after each decennial census, this chapter examines whether there is evidence that the purportedly gerrymandered maps played a role in the 2012 election. Using the 2012 U.S. House election, the authors reveal why partisan control of the process should be regarded with suspicion. For the first time since 1970, Illinois did not have divided government in the first session following a census and reapportionment, and thus Democrats were free to draw any maps they liked. • After Illinois lost a House seat due to reapportionment, the Democrat-drawn map ensured that Republican incumbents faced fewer familiar voters than Democrats. The new district map produced fewer competitive seats, most of which lean to the Democrats, providing Democratic U.S. House candidates in Illinois a clear advantage. • Nineteen states, including Illinois, gave complete control to one party or the other in ...

Political Geography, 2009

How can partisan mapmakers enact a partisan gerrymander in the presence of risk-averse co-partisan incumbents who wish to keep most of their constituencies intact? Until now the literature on redistricting has focused on how redistricting affects the geography of partisan support, that is, the underlying partisan balance of electoral districts. We posit that this emphasis on partisanship misses half of the story. Partisan mapmakers have another tool at their disposal: the fostering of population instability that may not affect a district's partisan balance. By examining all redistricting plans enacted in 2001–2002, as well as three case studies, we show that partisan mapmakers strategically foster population instability, which poses problems for incumbents in a way that may not be apparent when looking exclusively at the effects of redistricting on partisanship. Our results show how partisan mapmakers simultaneously achieve two goals: enacting an “optimal gerrymander,” which strengthens some opposition-party incumbents, while inducing instability and reducing the personal vote of those same incumbents. We also show that so-called “neutral” redistricting plans are successful in disregarding incumbency. Finally, our results suggest another mechanism that explains why the 2002 congressional elections in the U.S. produced little competition.

Fordham Law Review, 2020

Journal of Public Economic Theory, 2020

This paper analyzes the optimal partisan and bipartisan gerrymandering policies in a model with electoral competitions in policy positions and transfer promises. Party leaders have both office‐ and policy‐motivations. With complete freedom in redistricting, partisan gerrymandering policy generates the most one‐sidedly biased district profile, while bipartisan gerrymandering generates the most polarized district profile. In contrast, with limited freedom in gerrymandering, both partisan and bipartisan gerrymandering tend to prescribe the same policy.