Download to read offline
Better Maps for Illinois
- 1. Better Maps forIllinois Peter S. Wattson Redistricting Conference Paul Simon Public Policy Institute Springfield, Illinois April 30, 2013
- 2. Introduction ▪ The Factsof Life ▪ The Need for Limits ▪ Protecting Minorities ▪ Partisan Gerrymandering
- 3. The Facts ofLife Gerrymandering ▪ Packing ▪ Cracking ▪ Creating a Gerrymander
- 4. The Need forLimits ▪ People ▸ Who draws the plans ▪ Process ▸ Data that may be used ▸ Review by others ▪ Principles ▸ Districts that result
- 5. Who Draws thePlans ▪ No legislators ▪ No appointees of a legislator ▪ No public officials ▪ No politicians ▪ Minority party represented ▪ Equal number from majority & minority ▪ Neutral tie-breaker
- 6. Illinois Who Draws thePlans - 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. 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. Review by Others ▪Public hearings ▸ Commission states ▸ Iowa ▪ Preliminary plan ▸ Commission states ▸ Iowa ▪ Judicial review ▸ Colorado ▸ Florida ▸ Kansas
- 9. Limits on Districtsthat Result Districting 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. Limits on Districtsthat Result Districting 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. Illinois Const. Art. IV,§ 3 ▸“Legislative districts shall be compact, contiguous and substantially equal in population.”
- 12. Protecting Racial and LanguageMinorities
- 13. Voting Rights Act§ 2 ▪ Not deny or abridge the right to vote on account of: ▸ Race or color ▸ Membership in a language minority group – Spanish heritage – American Indian or Alaskan Native – Asian American
- 14. Voting Rights Act§ 2 ▪ No Discriminatory Effect ▪ Thornburg v. Gingles - Three Preconditions ▸ Minority Population Sufficiently Large and Geographically Compact ▸ Minority is Politically Cohesive ▸ Bloc Voting by White Majority Usually Defeats Minority’s Preferred Candidate ▪ Totality of the Circumstances ▪ Draw Districts the Minority has a Fair Chance to Win
- 15. Drawing Minority Districts AnEffective 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. 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 of Majority-Minority Districts
- 17. 14th Amendment Equal ProtectionClause ▪ You May Consider Race in Drawing Districts ▪ Avoid Drawing a Racial Gerrymander
- 18. Racial Gerrymanders ▪ Don’tDraw Districts With Bizarre Shapes
- 19. North Carolina Congressional District12 - 1992 Election Data Services Inc.
- 20. “Reapportionment is onearea in which appearances do matter.” O’Connor, J., Shaw v. Reno (1993)
- 21. Redistricting is onearea in which appearances do matter
- 22. Racial Gerrymanders ▪ DrawDistricts that are “Reasonably Compact”
- 23.
- 24.
- 25.
- 26.
- 27.
- 28.
- 29.
- 30.
- 31. Florida Congressional District 3- 1992 Election Data Services Inc.
- 32.
- 33. North Carolina Congressional District12 - 2000 (1997)
- 34. Racial Gerrymanders ▪ Don’tLet Race Be Your Dominant Motive
- 35. Georgia Congressional District 11- 1992 Atlanta Augusta Savannah
- 36.
- 37. Racial Gerrymanders ▪ Don’tUse Race as a Proxy for Political Affiliation
- 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. Strict Scrutiny ▪ ACompelling Governmental Interest ▪ Narrowly Tailored to Achieve that Interest ▸ Remedying Past Discrimination ▸ Avoiding Retrogression Under VRA § 5 ▸ Avoiding a Violation of VRA § 2
- 40.
- 41. Partisan Gerrymandering Can ItBe Proved? ▪ Davis v. Bandemer (1986) ▸ Intentional discrimination against an identifiable group ▸ Discriminatory effect – “electoral system . . . will consistently degrade . . . a group of voters’ influence on the political process as a whole”
- 42. Partisan Gerrymandering Can ItBe Proved? ▪ Vieth v. Jubelier (2004) ▸ Stevens – Partisan purposes predominated over traditional districting principles ▸ Souter – Paid no heed to traditional districting principles where drawing boundaries around party’s voters ▸ Breyer – Traditional districting principles not followed – Party with minority of votes statewide wins a majority of seats
- 43. Partisan Gerrymandering Can ItBe Proved? ▪ LULAC v. Perry (2006) ▸ Plaintiffs – Mid-decade redistricting was invalid because its sole objective was partisan gain
- 44. Florida Fair Districts Amendment(2010) ▪ Tier-One Principles ▸ Not favor or disfavor political party or incumbent ▸ Not discriminate against racial or language minorities ▸ Contiguous territory ▪ Tier-Two Principles ▸ Equal population ▸ Compact territory ▸ Use existing political and geographic boundaries
- 45. Florida In re: SenateResolution 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. Better Maps forIllinois Peter S. Wattson Redistricting Conference Paul Simon Public Policy Institute Springfield, Illinois April 30, 2013 How to Draw Redistricting Plans That Will Stand Up in Court http://paulsimoninstitute.org/