0
Better Maps for IllinoisPeter S. WattsonRedistricting ConferencePaul Simon Public Policy InstituteSpringfield, IllinoisApr...
Introduction▪ The Facts of Life▪ The Need for Limits▪ Protecting Minorities▪ Partisan Gerrymandering
The Facts of LifeGerrymandering▪ Packing▪ Cracking▪ Creating a Gerrymander
The Need for Limits▪ People▸ Who draws the plans▪ Process▸ Data that may be used▸ Review by others▪ Principles▸ Districts ...
Who Draws the Plans▪ No legislators▪ No appointees of a legislator▪ No public officials▪ No politicians▪ Minority party re...
IllinoisWho Draws the Plans - Legislative▪ Primary Responsibility - Legislature▸ Until June 30, 2021▪ Secondary Responsibi...
Limits on Data▪ No party registration▸ Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Nebraska▪ No election results▸ Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Nebraska...
Review by Others▪ Public hearings▸ Commission states▸ Iowa▪ Preliminary plan▸ Commission states▸ Iowa▪ Judicial review▸ Co...
Limits on Districts that ResultDistricting Principles for 2010s Plans▪ Populations equal - 50 states▪ Territory contiguous...
Limits on Districts that ResultDistricting Principles for 2010s Plans▪ House districts nested in Senate - 17 states▪ Cores...
IllinoisConst. Art. IV, § 3▸“Legislative districts shall be compact,contiguous and substantially equal inpopulation.”
Protecting Racial andLanguage Minorities
Voting Rights Act § 2▪ Not deny or abridge the right to vote onaccount of:▸ Race or color▸ Membership in a language minori...
Voting Rights Act § 2▪ No Discriminatory Effect▪ Thornburg v. Gingles - Three Preconditions▸ Minority Population Sufficien...
Drawing Minority DistrictsAn Effective Voting Majority▪ A realistic opportunity to elect▸ More than a simple majority?– 65...
Voting Rights Act § 5▪ “Covered Jurisdictions”▪ Preclearance▸ U.S. Department of Justice▸ U.S. District Court for District...
14th AmendmentEqual Protection Clause▪ You May Consider Race in Drawing Districts▪ Avoid Drawing a Racial Gerrymander
Racial Gerrymanders▪ Don’t Draw Districts With Bizarre Shapes
North CarolinaCongressional District 12 - 1992ElectionDataServicesInc.
“Reapportionment is one area in whichappearances do matter.”O’Connor, J., Shaw v. Reno (1993)
Redistricting is one area in whichappearances do matter
Racial Gerrymanders▪ Draw Districts that are “Reasonably Compact”
TexasCongressional District 30 - 1992
TexasCongressional District 30 - 1996
TexasCongressional District 18 - 1992
TexasCongressional District 18 - 1996
TexasCongressional District 29 - 1992
TexasCongressional District 29 - 1996
LouisianaCongressional District 4 - 1992
LouisianaCongressional District 4 - 1996
FloridaCongressional District 3 - 1992ElectionDataServicesInc.
FloridaCongressional District 3 - 1996
North CarolinaCongressional District 12 - 2000 (1997)
Racial Gerrymanders▪ Don’t Let Race Be Your Dominant Motive
GeorgiaCongressional District 11 - 1992AtlantaAugustaSavannah
GeorgiaCongressional District 4 - 1996
Racial Gerrymanders▪ Don’t Use Race as a Proxy for PoliticalAffiliation
Traditional Districting Principles▪ Contiguous Territory▪ Compact▪ Preserve Political Subdivisions▪ Preserve Communities o...
Strict Scrutiny▪ A Compelling Governmental Interest▪ Narrowly Tailored to Achieve that Interest▸ Remedying Past Discrimina...
IllinoisCongressional District 4 - 1992
Partisan GerrymanderingCan It Be Proved?▪ Davis v. Bandemer (1986)▸ Intentional discrimination against an identifiablegrou...
Partisan GerrymanderingCan It Be Proved?▪ Vieth v. Jubelier (2004)▸ Stevens– Partisan purposes predominated over tradition...
Partisan GerrymanderingCan It Be Proved?▪ LULAC v. Perry (2006)▸ Plaintiffs– Mid-decade redistricting was invalid because ...
FloridaFair Districts Amendment (2010)▪ Tier-One Principles▸ Not favor or disfavor political party or incumbent▸ Not discr...
FloridaIn re: Senate Resolution of Legislative Apportionment 1176(2012)▪ Numbering scheme rejected▸ Favored incumbents▪ 8 ...
Better Maps for IllinoisPeter S. WattsonRedistricting ConferencePaul Simon Public Policy InstituteSpringfield, IllinoisApr...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Better Maps for Illinois

93

Published on

Peter S. Wattson

Published in: News & Politics
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
93
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Better Maps for Illinois"

  1. 1. Better Maps for IllinoisPeter S. WattsonRedistricting ConferencePaul Simon Public Policy InstituteSpringfield, IllinoisApril 30, 2013
  2. 2. Introduction▪ The Facts of Life▪ The Need for Limits▪ Protecting Minorities▪ Partisan Gerrymandering
  3. 3. The Facts of LifeGerrymandering▪ Packing▪ Cracking▪ Creating a Gerrymander
  4. 4. The Need for Limits▪ People▸ Who draws the plans▪ Process▸ Data that may be used▸ Review by others▪ Principles▸ Districts that result
  5. 5. Who Draws the Plans▪ No legislators▪ No appointees of a legislator▪ No public officials▪ No politicians▪ Minority party represented▪ Equal number from majority & minority▪ Neutral tie-breaker
  6. 6. IllinoisWho Draws the Plans - Legislative▪ Primary Responsibility - Legislature▸ Until June 30, 2021▪ Secondary Responsibility - Commission▸ If redistricting law not enacted▸ 8 members appointed by caucus leaders– 4 legislators– 4 non-legislators▸ If no plan filed by August 10▸ 9th member chosen by lot– Supreme Court submits two names– Secretary of State draws one name to chair
  7. 7. Limits on Data▪ No party registration▸ Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Nebraska▪ No election results▸ Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Nebraska▪ No socio-economic data▸ Idaho, Iowa, Nebraska▪ No incumbent residences▸ Arizona, California, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Wyoming
  8. 8. Review by Others▪ Public hearings▸ Commission states▸ Iowa▪ Preliminary plan▸ Commission states▸ Iowa▪ Judicial review▸ Colorado▸ Florida▸ Kansas
  9. 9. Limits on Districts that ResultDistricting Principles for 2010s Plans▪ Populations equal - 50 states▪ Territory contiguous - 50 states▪ Territory compact - 38 states▪ Political subdivisions preserved - 46 states▪ Communities of interest preserved - 22▪ Minorities fairly represented - 27 states
  10. 10. Limits on Districts that ResultDistricting Principles for 2010s Plans▪ House districts nested in Senate - 17 states▪ Cores of prior districts preserved - 12 states▪ Not favor party or incumbent - 12 states▪ Avoid contests between incumbents - 7▪ Politically competitive - 2 states
  11. 11. IllinoisConst. Art. IV, § 3▸“Legislative districts shall be compact,contiguous and substantially equal inpopulation.”
  12. 12. Protecting Racial andLanguage Minorities
  13. 13. Voting Rights Act § 2▪ Not deny or abridge the right to vote onaccount of:▸ Race or color▸ Membership in a language minority group– Spanish heritage– American Indian or Alaskan Native– Asian American
  14. 14. Voting Rights Act § 2▪ No Discriminatory Effect▪ Thornburg v. Gingles - Three Preconditions▸ Minority Population Sufficiently Large andGeographically Compact▸ Minority is Politically Cohesive▸ Bloc Voting by White Majority Usually DefeatsMinority’s Preferred Candidate▪ Totality of the Circumstances▪ Draw Districts the Minority has a Fair Chanceto Win
  15. 15. Drawing Minority DistrictsAn Effective Voting Majority▪ A realistic opportunity to elect▸ More than a simple majority?– 65%?– Packing?▸ Less than a simple majority?– Crossover districts– Coalition districts▪ Ten years of election history▸ Endogenous elections (same office)▸ Exogenous elections (other offices)▸ Biracial contests
  16. 16. Voting Rights Act § 5▪ “Covered Jurisdictions”▪ Preclearance▸ U.S. Department of Justice▸ U.S. District Court for District of Columbia▪ Do Not Retrogress▸ Ability to Elect a Candidate of Choice▪ Do Not Intend to Discriminate▪ You Need Not Maximize the Number ofMajority-Minority Districts
  17. 17. 14th AmendmentEqual Protection Clause▪ You May Consider Race in Drawing Districts▪ Avoid Drawing a Racial Gerrymander
  18. 18. Racial Gerrymanders▪ Don’t Draw Districts With Bizarre Shapes
  19. 19. North CarolinaCongressional District 12 - 1992ElectionDataServicesInc.
  20. 20. “Reapportionment is one area in whichappearances do matter.”O’Connor, J., Shaw v. Reno (1993)
  21. 21. Redistricting is one area in whichappearances do matter
  22. 22. Racial Gerrymanders▪ Draw Districts that are “Reasonably Compact”
  23. 23. TexasCongressional District 30 - 1992
  24. 24. TexasCongressional District 30 - 1996
  25. 25. TexasCongressional District 18 - 1992
  26. 26. TexasCongressional District 18 - 1996
  27. 27. TexasCongressional District 29 - 1992
  28. 28. TexasCongressional District 29 - 1996
  29. 29. LouisianaCongressional District 4 - 1992
  30. 30. LouisianaCongressional District 4 - 1996
  31. 31. FloridaCongressional District 3 - 1992ElectionDataServicesInc.
  32. 32. FloridaCongressional District 3 - 1996
  33. 33. North CarolinaCongressional District 12 - 2000 (1997)
  34. 34. Racial Gerrymanders▪ Don’t Let Race Be Your Dominant Motive
  35. 35. GeorgiaCongressional District 11 - 1992AtlantaAugustaSavannah
  36. 36. GeorgiaCongressional District 4 - 1996
  37. 37. Racial Gerrymanders▪ Don’t Use Race as a Proxy for PoliticalAffiliation
  38. 38. Traditional Districting Principles▪ Contiguous Territory▪ Compact▪ Preserve Political Subdivisions▪ Preserve Communities of Interest▪ Protect Incumbents▸ Preserve Cores of Prior Districts▸ Avoid Contests Between Incumbents
  39. 39. Strict Scrutiny▪ A Compelling Governmental Interest▪ Narrowly Tailored to Achieve that Interest▸ Remedying Past Discrimination▸ Avoiding Retrogression Under VRA § 5▸ Avoiding a Violation of VRA § 2
  40. 40. IllinoisCongressional District 4 - 1992
  41. 41. Partisan GerrymanderingCan It Be Proved?▪ Davis v. Bandemer (1986)▸ Intentional discrimination against an identifiablegroup▸ Discriminatory effect– “electoral system . . . will consistently degrade . . . a groupof voters’ influence on the political process as a whole”
  42. 42. Partisan GerrymanderingCan It Be Proved?▪ Vieth v. Jubelier (2004)▸ Stevens– Partisan purposes predominated over traditional districtingprinciples▸ Souter– Paid no heed to traditional districting principles wheredrawing boundaries around party’s voters▸ Breyer– Traditional districting principles not followed– Party with minority of votes statewide wins a majority ofseats
  43. 43. Partisan GerrymanderingCan It Be Proved?▪ LULAC v. Perry (2006)▸ Plaintiffs– Mid-decade redistricting was invalid because its soleobjective was partisan gain
  44. 44. FloridaFair Districts Amendment (2010)▪ Tier-One Principles▸ Not favor or disfavor political party or incumbent▸ Not discriminate against racial or languageminorities▸ Contiguous territory▪ Tier-Two Principles▸ Equal population▸ Compact territory▸ Use existing political and geographic boundaries
  45. 45. FloridaIn re: Senate Resolution of Legislative Apportionment 1176(2012)▪ Numbering scheme rejected▸ Favored incumbents▪ 8 Senate districts rejected▸ Violation of tier-two principles– Not compact– Did not use existing political or geographic boundaries▸ Was evidence of intent to violate tier-one principles– 8 of 8 to favor incumbent– 4 of 8 to favor a political party
  46. 46. Better Maps for IllinoisPeter S. WattsonRedistricting ConferencePaul Simon Public Policy InstituteSpringfield, IllinoisApril 30, 2013How to Draw Redistricting Plans That Will Stand Up in Courthttp://paulsimoninstitute.org/
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×