better maps for illinois

Better Maps for Illinois

Peter S. Wattson

Redistricting Conference

Paul Simon Public Policy Institute

Springfield, Illinois

April 30, 2013

Introduction

▪ The Facts of Life

▪ The Need for Limits

▪ Protecting Minorities

▪ Partisan Gerrymandering

The Facts of Life

Gerrymandering

▪ 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 that result

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

Illinois

Who 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

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

Review by Others

▪ Public hearings

▸Commission states

▸ Iowa

▪ Preliminary plan

▸Commission states

▸ Iowa

▪ Judicial review

▸Colorado

▸Florida

▸Kansas

Limits on Districts that 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

Limits on Districts that 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

Illinois

Const. Art. IV, § 3

▸ “Legislative districts shall be compact,

contiguous and substantially equal in

population.”

Protecting Racial and

Language Minorities

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


▪ 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

Drawing Minority Districts

An 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


▪ “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

14th Amendment

Equal Protection Clause

▪ You May Consider Race in Drawing Districts

▪ Avoid Drawing a Racial Gerrymander

Racial Gerrymanders

▪ Don’t Draw Districts With Bizarre Shapes

North Carolina

Congressional District 12 - 1992

Election

Data

Services

Inc.

“Reapportionment is one area in which

appearances do matter.”

O’Connor, J., Shaw v. Reno (1993)

Redistricting is one area in which

appearances do matter

Racial Gerrymanders

▪ Draw Districts that are “Reasonably Compact”

Texas


Louisiana


Florida


Election

Data

Services

Inc.

Florida


North Carolina

Congressional District 12 - 2000 (1997)

Racial Gerrymanders

▪ Don’t Let Race Be Your Dominant Motive

Georgia


Atlanta

Augusta

Savannah

Georgia


Racial Gerrymanders

▪ Don’t Use Race as a Proxy for Political

Affiliation

Traditional Districting Principles

▪ Contiguous Territory

▪ Compact

▪ Preserve Political Subdivisions

▪ Preserve Communities of Interest

▪ Protect Incumbents

▸ Preserve Cores of Prior Districts

▸ Avoid Contests Between Incumbents

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

Illinois


Partisan Gerrymandering

Can It Be 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”


Can It Be 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


Can It Be Proved?

▪ LULAC v. Perry (2006)

▸Plaintiffs

– Mid-decade redistricting was invalid because its sole

objective was partisan gain

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

Florida

In 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

Better Maps for Illinois

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/

better maps for illinois

News & Politics

circumstancesdraw districts

legislative districts

number of majority

simple majority

s planshouse districts

white majority

statescores of prior

states limits