Skip to main content
UploadLanguage (EN)Support
BusinessMobileSocial MediaMarketingTechnologyArt & PhotosCareerDesignEducationPresentations & Public SpeakingGovernment & NonprofitHealthcareInternetLawLeadership & ManagementAutomotiveEngineeringSoftwareRecruiting & HRRetailSalesServicesScienceSmall Business & EntrepreneurshipFoodEnvironmentEconomy & FinanceData & AnalyticsInvestor RelationsSportsSpiritualNews & PoliticsTravelSelf ImprovementReal EstateEntertainment & HumorHealth & MedicineDevices & HardwareLifestyle
PI
Uploaded byPaul Simon Public Policy Institute
PPTX, PDF1,596 views

THE 2012 REDISTRICTING IN FLORIDA: THE MORE THINGS CHANGE…

1) Florida voters passed amendments in 2010 to restrict partisan gerrymandering by requiring compact and equal population districts that don't favor incumbents or parties. 2) While districts appear similar visually, they still favor incumbents and parties. More Democrats gained seats in 2012 compared to 2002. 3) Minority representation increased in both parties after 2010. The amendments increased competition by weakening incumbents but did not establish complete neutrality.

News & Politics◦
Download to read offline
THE 2012 REDISTRICTING IN FLORIDA: THE MORE THINGS CHANGE… Seth C. McKee University of South Florida
Redistricting Reform in 2010 • In 2010, Florida voters passed Amendments 5 and 6 (≈ 63% voted in favor of each) • These amendments to the Florida Constitution provided a set of restrictions on line drawers • Amendment 5 applies to state legislative districts • Amendment 6 applies to U.S. House districts
Amendments 5 and 6 Language • …plans may not be drawn to favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party. Districts shall not be drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice. Districts must be contiguous. Unless otherwise required, districts must be compact, as equal in population as feasible, and where feasible must make use of existing city, county and geographical boundaries.
Brief History of Reform • As early as 2005 there were efforts to place redistricting initiatives before the voters • A simple oversight denied them a place on the ballot (exceeded 75-word limit) • Reform effort moved away from initiative for an independent commission and instead moved in favor of restricting line drawers’ options
Truly a Valence Issue • The passage of Amendments 5 and 6 is interesting because 1. Republican leaders controlling the legislature vehemently opposed reform, framing it as a Democratic scheme 2. Fair Districts Florida, the leading group pushing reform was primarily a Democratic group backed by Democratic allies 3. Nonetheless, the fight was successfully framed as a valence issue: “gerrymandering is BAD, let’s stop this.” 4. The Florida media presented the fight as a valence issue; REFORM IS GOOD. Print media showed bipartisan support. 5. Eagleton and Smith (2013) – Hardly any evidence of an identifiable opposition within the mass public
Adherence to 5 and 6 in 2012? • 1) To the naked eye it is difficult to determine if districts look any prettier than they did prior to passage of 5 and 6 • 2) It is easy to interpret 5 and 6 as instituting “Voting Rights Act” language covering the entire state for state legislative and U.S. House contests (5 counties are under the VRA) • 3) Clearly districts are still drawn to favor an incumbent or political party (neutrality hasn’t been established)
Minority Representation Office Category After 2010 After 2012 Democrat Republican Total Democrat Republican Total U.S. House Blacks 3 1 4 3 0 3 Hispanics 0 3 3 1 2 3 State Senate Blacks 6 0 6 6 0 6 Hispanics 0 3 3 1 3 4 State House Blacks 18 0 18 21 0 21 Hispanics 3 9 12 4 9 13 Total 30 16 46 36 14 50
Brief Review of Redistricting: Before and After Amendments 5 and 6 • U.S. House 2000/2002 and 2010/2012 Before • 2000: 8 D, 15 R • 2002: 7 D, 18 R (1 D incumbent defeated) After • 2010: 6 D, 19 R • 2012: 10 D, 17 R (2 R incumbents defeated)
Brief Review of Redistricting: Before and After Amendments 5 and 6 • State Senate 2000/2002 and 2010/2012 Before • 2000: 15 D, 25 R • 2002: 14 D, 26 R (1 D incumbent defeated) After • 2010: 12 D, 28 R • 2012: 14 D, 26 R (1 R incumbent defeated)
Brief Review of Redistricting: Before and After Amendments 5 and 6 • State House 2000/2002 and 2010/2012 Before • 2000: 43 D, 77 R • 2002: 39 D, 81 R (2 D incumbents defeated) After • 2010: 39 D, 81 R • 2012: 46 D, 74 R (4 R incumbents defeated)
U.S. House Redrawn Constituents 2002, 2012 Redrawn VAP Median Mean Std Dev Min Max 2002 Redistricting All Incumbents 33% 29 15 1 54 Democrats (7) 34% 31 15 11 53 Republicans (14) 31% 29 16 1 54 2012 Redistricting All Incumbents 30% 32 19 4 77 Democrats (6) 22% 24 7 15 35 Republicans (16) 37% 35 22 4 77
State Senate Redrawn Constituents 2002, 2012 Redrawn VAP Median Mean Std Dev Min Max 2002 Redistricting All Incumbents 24% 26 16 2 63 Democrats (9) 25% 26 15 2 44 Republicans (18) 19% 25 16 7 63 2012 Redistricting All Incumbents 34% 40 20 11 88 Democrats (8) 36% 36 13 19 54 Republicans (16) 34% 42 23 11 88
State House Redrawn Constituents 2002, 2012 Redrawn VAP Median Mean Std Dev Min Max 2002 Redistricting All Incumbents 31% 33 18 2 83 Democrats (35) 39% 41 18 12 83 Republicans (57) 25% 28 16 2 74 2012 Redistricting All Incumbents 42% 44 21 0 100 Democrats (20) 42% 45 20 14 85 Republicans (60) 42% 44 22 0 100
Redrawn VAP for Defeated Incumbents 2002, 2012 Incumbent and Party Office Redrawn VAP 2002 Redistricting Karen Thurman (D) U.S. House 53% Richard Mitchell (D) State Senate 42% Perry C. McGriff, Jr. (D) State House 60% Sara Romeo (D) State House 39% 2012 Redistricting David Rivera (R) U.S. House 33% Allen B. West (R) U.S. House 77% Ellyn Bogdanoff (R) State Senate 51% (Dueling Incumbent) Chris Dorworth (R) State House 61% Shawn Harrison (R) State House 38% Peter Nehr (R) State House 42%
Concluding Thoughts • Amendments 5 and 6 seem to have increased competition by weakening the incumbency advantage • Increasing the percent redrawn voting age population redounded to the benefit of Democrats • Legislators have moved in the direction of compliance but clearly still take incumbency and party into account when drawing lines • Demography is catching up with Republicans and this probably helps explain the Democratic gains in conjunction with Amendments 5 and 6 • Perhaps passing 5 and 6 helps explain why in July, 2011 Republicans enacted HB 1355 into law (a very restrictive voting bill)