There’s a long, but very important article about House redistricting in this week’s New Yorker. Some quotations:
“The framers of the Constitution created the House of Representatives to be the branch of government most responsive to changes in the public mood, but gerrymandered districts mean that most of the four hundred and thirty-five members of Congress never face seriously contested general elections. In 2002, eighty-one incumbents ran unopposed by a major party candidate. “There are now about four hundred safe seats in Congress,” Richard Pildes, a professor of law at New York University, said. “The level of competitiveness has plummeted to the point where it is hard to describe the House as involving competitive elections at all these days.”
“There is a sense of embarrassment about what has happened in American politics,” Samuel Issacharoff, a professor at Columbia Law School, said. “The rules of decorum have fallen apart. Voters no longer choose members of the House; the people who draw the lines do. The court seems to think that something has to be done.”
Issacharoff is referring to the Supreme Court’s decision to hear a case about whether nakedly partisan redistricting violates the equal protection clause. It seems unlikely that the Court will act, and that’s probably the right answer as far as the constitutional law goes. But we need to do something about this, soon and on a national level.* The branch of government that’s supposed to be most democratic is in danger of becoming almost completely undemocratic.
Politicians have always played games with redistricting, Democrats and Republicans alike. But DeLay and friends are unusually brazen about it, and more importantly there’s now computer software that makes it very easy and reliable for legislatures to pick the voters instead of the other way around.
Obviously, the current situation helps the Republicans, and that’s probably an extra motivating factor for me–this came to my attention because I’ve been wondering why everyone regards Democratic control of the House as a lost cause, when we should do much better there than the Senate**. But if it helped the Democrats right now my conclusion would be the same. The partisan advantage is likely to balance out in the course of my lifetime; the lack of real elections will not.
* I like the Iowa model and I’d be willing to support it in my state–but if this is done state by state, it will hurt those who take the high road and reward those who don’t. Actually, this is a place where state constitutional amendment by referendum would make some sense.
**? Also, Mozilla eats the first few pages of your archives.
On a particularly huge ego trip at Tacitus one night, I was inspired to create a crackpot plan to take redistricting out of politicians’, actually, human, hands. Then I realized I’m too lazy to fight that battle, and it has collected dust since.
Maybe I should just turn it into a SciFi story or something.
I’ve noticed weirdness in general today re the site. Alas, tech support isn’t all that.
Getting back to the redistricting thing… I’m not thrilled with (read: ‘can’t stand’) the 95% incumbency rate we’ve gotten saddled with, either. But hasn’t amendment by referendum been tried on another issue – and ignored?
The footnote that got eaten (probably by my own incompetence):
**Here’s a question that’s been bugging me since last November: which party got more total House votes cast in 2002? I’ve been too lazy to add up the results from 435 races, but I’m hoping someone else has. It wouldn’t prove much conclusively, since uncompetitive and uncontested races distort the results–but it would be interesting to know.
Moe, which amendment by referendum are you talking about? Clean elections in Mass.? If so I think that was a regular law, not an amendment; and more importantly it required funding in a way that changing redistricting wouldn’t.
Katherine, I know that it is popular to kick DeLay, but since the current makeup of the Texas legislative districts don’t jibe with the statewide voting paterns you might want to find another poster boy for gerrymandering. The California statehouse would be a good place to start. Another would be the race to the courthouse that ensues anytime a redistricting plan comes about. Since more and more frequently we have district lines being drawn by the judicial branch because of hairbrained lawsuits, the alternative of ‘have the judges do it’ doesn’t seem like a workable plan. Not to take the shine off of the law too early in your career, but judges don’t check their ideologies at the door. The law is becoming too much like religion, you really can make it say pretty much anything you want.
1. You must admit that delayseahorsing is a better title than gerrymandering. I don’t know what the leader of the California legislature’s name is, nor do most people.
2. I’m not suggesting the courts; I’m suggesting what Iowa has–an independent, non-partisan (or bipartisan) commisssion.
3. Politicians always play partisan games with redistricting, but DeLay’s bright idea of perpetual redistricting is both new and destructive; he deserves what he gets and then some.
3. Politicians always play partisan games with redistricting, but DeLay’s bright idea of perpetual redistricting is both new and destructive; he deserves what he gets and then some.
Have I yet mentioned how much I despise DeLay? I have? Back to the puttering around, then.
von
Dare I ask which redistricting plan DeLay has put forth that calls for perpetual redistricting? If you are talking about the current Texas fiasco, I would only point out that the courts intervened and imposed a redistricting plan that over-represents the Democrats in Washington. Funny how that doesn’t seem to bother too many of the right kind of folks that work at the New Yorker.
“Moe, which amendment by referendum are you talking about?”
Late night babbling on my part: I was thinking of alternative methods of getting a Constitutional Amendment together – and went straight into incoherence from there. Never mind. 🙂
(pause)
And I’m too tired to care about the straight line, either.
Moe
Shorter Toobin: Now that Repubs do it, it is bad. Will not mention when Newt had his district rolled into another Repub district in Georgia when he was the House leader. Nor that the Repubs have, IIRC, every single statewide seat at the state level in Texas. Interferes with Dems as victims story line.
It’s always bad. It’s never been done twice per census cycle before. The article makes it pretty clear that what made the 2000 census different was that the Republicans controlled a lot more states, and the computer map drawing software has gotten a lot better–it’s not a question of Republican vice and Democratic virtue.
If the only way to change this is to delay the new redistricting system until 2020, when we have no idea who will control the state houses–so be it. It’s not as good as changing it for 2010, but it’s better than letting the House of Representatives become completely unaccountable because the status quo will always help one party or the other.
Based on a quick read through Article I of the Constitution, Congress could do this by statute. Could someone tell me if I’m wrong about that?
“On a particularly huge ego trip at Tacitus one night, I was inspired to create a crackpot plan to take redistricting out of politicians’, actually, human, hands. Then I realized I’m too lazy to fight that battle, and it has collected dust since.”
It should be easy to write a program which creates compact, contiguous districts without regard to the ethnic or other qualities of the citizens within them. That being said, it will never happen unless the voters as a whole insist on it, or the courts get into a meddlesome mood and simply impose such a solution. There’s too much power to be had in screwing around with district boundaries for the pols to surrender it without a grim struggle.
Redistricting for racial purposes has been the most controversial reason for gerrymandering up until recently, and the interesting thing about it is that the dominant positions of both parties (at least in public) is directly contrary to their interests. By concentrating black voters (to use the most common example) in a few districts to guarantee that the voters there can elect a black representative, the voting strength of the Democrats in that state is diluted–which benefits the Republicans and hurts the Democrats. Yet, the Democrats support such districting (which has the further disadvantage to them of giving safe seats to loons like Maxine Waters and–until recently–Cynthia McKinney), and Republicans oppose it. Very odd.
Katherine,
Don’t you mean “can Congress come up with a statute that would be upheld?”
As tiresome as history can be, a review of legislative attempts at reapportionment reform during the period of ’35 – ’90 might be instructive. Amazingly enough, solid majorities tend to enact legislation that maintain that majority.
Don’t fret though, the pendulum seems to swing every seventy years or so. With the current advances in medical care you may well live to see the Republicans defeated.
Scott,
I would disagree strongly that creation of “black” districts could possibly be inimical to Rep interests. A 92% Dem district is a great thing for Reps when its creation changes the district next door to 53/47 rather than 58/42. Reps can win a 53/47 district with less than half the effort (and money) requires for a 58/42 district.
When blacks wake up and realize that the Black caucus isn’t bringing home any bacon perhaps they will examine the vicissitudes of “political power” more attentively.
“I would disagree strongly that creation of “black” districts could possibly be inimical to Rep interests.”
Read what I wrote again, RDB–that was exactly the point I was making; namely, that the ideological position of each party on the subject was opposed to their actual political interests.
RDB, with the Republicans in charge, most of us won’t be able to afford that advanced medicine you’re threatening us with…
Scott,
Okay, I’m the second self pronounced idiot today.
Rilkefan,
Republicans will. What’s the problem?
“Republicans will. What’s the problem?”
You’ll have no one to blame your problems on? Oh, I forgot, the French.
Anyway, in that time frame the Singularity will occur, the computers will take over, and all of this will be moot.
rilkefan,
I wish you had the clearance that would allow me to tell you the real plan. Oh well, just take the pill, everything will be okay.
If you omit all third parties, Republicans received 52.4% of the total nationwide vote in races for U.S. House of Representatives in 2002, compared to 47.6% for Democrats.
(Republicans: 37,091,540; Democrats: 33,642,873; Total: 70,734,413)
Again omitting independents, Republicans hold 52.8% of seats in the resulting House, compared to 47.4% for Democrats.
(Republicans: 229; Democrats: 205; Total 434)
I’d think there could be devised a very simple set of rules under which gerrymanderingredistricting can occur.
Katherine, all you have to do is examine various oddly-shaped districts in Florida to see that redistricting nonsense is neither unique to Texas nor to Republicans. In Florida, there’s a district that covers parts of Jacksonville and Orlando. Both.
My objection to redistricting is that there aren’t any common-sense rules applied to it. I think it’d be done a lot less frequently if there were rules to how fractally complex a district can be.
Y’all mind if I share a boring story ’bout Redistricting?
In 1989, in D.C., Navy Davy’s roommate works in Bush Justice Department –Voting Rights Section.
Roomate’s job is to “pre-clear” proposed maps to shape Congressional Districts, to ensure they pass constitutional muster.
Liberal black Dems want to create “minority-majority” districts to elect black congressmen. This involves drawing “snake-like” districts to capture as many black neighborhoods as possible.
Dem leadership don’t want to upset the black constituency — so they agree.
Career lawyers in Justice Department want to be seen as fuzzy, feel-good types — so they agree.
Question: What is the position of Republicans running the DOJ?
Although they believe racial gerrymandering is unconstitutional (see 14th Amend), they go along with the plan as well. Why? Because a bunch of GOP number crunchers analyzed the demographics and concluded that for every “racially-gerrymandered” district created, each of the surrounding districts, particularly rural districts in the South, become more moderate, likely more Republican.
This is common sense. Each district has about 500,000 people. If you concentrate Dems in one district, all surrounding districts have less Dems, and, relatively, more Reps (and vice versa).
So, in the spirit of bipartisanship, the GOP cynically decides to adopt the plan. Lo and behold, a big, new crop of black Congressman are elected, as envisioned.
But, also as envisioned, all surrounding districts,particularly in Georgia & Florida, become more moderate.
The stage becomes set for a much bigger, structural change in the House, insofar as the red, rural states, hopefully, would start electing Congressmen, who better fit their politics. All they needed was a political spark.
The rest was history: Sparked by anti-Clinton sentiments, in 1994, the House flips 53 seats and goes GOP. 10 years later it remains GOP.
Moral of the Story:
Dems complainin’ ’bout gerrymandering today, should be speakin’ up about the folly of gerrymandering black districts. Might take some heat, but its the right thang to do, and it’ll help the Dems.
Hmm….MMDs. I think it’s a shameful thing that we have what, zero black Senators right now? And there’s a proud tradition of gerrymandering to prevent blacks from getting elected, so I understand the impulse. But it’s part of the current mess that is redistricting, and the whole mess needs to go so that we have more than 10% of House elections be democratic and competitive.
If I remember correctly, the Supreme Court actually now prohibits drawing districts based on race, whether to decrease or increase black representation. But since you’re allowed to draw districts for a bunch of other less-than-laudable reasons, it’s not particularly easy to enforce.
I think it should be done by a bipartisan commission of census workers or demographers or whoever, trying to to follow town lines or zip codes & be geographically compact as much as possible, and erring on the side of more competitive elections.
Here’s a link that explains what Iowa does.
http://www.fairvote.org/redistricting/reports/remanual/ia.htm
Hmm….MMDs. I think it’s a shameful thing that we have what, zero black Senators right now?
Why is it shameful? It’s the natural consequence of Democratic politics in action — Black Dems rarely even try to expand their constituency to statewide, and are good at demonizing Black Reps who try. Hence, no black Senators.
Herman Cain for Senate in Georgia!
For those of you who missed the statistics I provided above–all this matters not one whit.
Let me capitalize that:
Not One Whit.
I appreciate the statistics, but you’ve got to be kidding if you don’t think gerrymandering and unopposed races affect turnout, and just because the numbers matched in one year doesn’t mean they always will. The Democrats should logically do better in the House than the Senate (since we tend to do badly in rural, low population states that are overrepresented in the Senate); and the House should logically change hands more often than the Senate. Anyway, for the last time: even if there is no effect on the partisan makeup up the House, it is undemocratic and harmful for Congressmen not to face competitive elections. If it won’t help the Democrats to change the system, that’s all the more reason for Republicans to support it.
I have to say, Katherine, that both sides are vying for advantage first, followed at a great distance by their political agendas (if they have any other than gaining advantage). I’m personally in favor of computer-generated districts that follow known, strict rules. That’d at least eliminate the elaborately-shaped districts, and the shaping of said district to gain advantage.
Probably simplistic of me, I know. But if the vying-for-power aspect of government annoys you, the best way to address that is to take away the toys. Even a VRWC Deathbeast such as myself is all in favor of crippling any mechanism in government that’s there purely (or even partially) for the purpose of partisan advantage. So that the people we elect to go there will buckle down and do their jobs, instead of fighting like cats.