congress: electoral reform

• What problem?What problem?– Low public approval (15% today)Low public approval (15% today)

• public thinks Congress works for public thinks Congress works for special special interestsinterests

– Low participation in elections (35% avg.)Low participation in elections (35% avg.)– Little turnover resulting from electionsLittle turnover resulting from elections– Vote-to-seats “swing” effect limitedVote-to-seats “swing” effect limited

• Can new election rules “fix” theseCan new election rules “fix” these

Congress: Electoral Reform

• ReformsReforms– Term limitsTerm limits

– RedistrictingRedistricting

– Proportional representationProportional representation

– Increase size of HouseIncrease size of House

– Public financing of campaignsPublic financing of campaigns


• Term limitsTerm limits– Prevent professional politicians from Prevent professional politicians from

running the legislatures?running the legislatures?• 21 states adopted between 1990 and 200021 states adopted between 1990 and 2000

– Many applied TL to Congressional electionsMany applied TL to Congressional elections

• 4 state courts rejected; leg changed in 34 state courts rejected; leg changed in 3• Limit number of terms (2 or 3)Limit number of terms (2 or 3)• May or may not apply to lifetimeMay or may not apply to lifetime


• Term limitsTerm limits– USSC ruled unconstitutionalUSSC ruled unconstitutional

– States can’t change rules about how US States can’t change rules about how US Congress is electedCongress is elected• ‘‘Congress shall regulate time, place, Congress shall regulate time, place,

manner of election’manner of election’

– Would require Const. AmendmentWould require Const. Amendment


• Term limitsTerm limits– Arguments forArguments for

• More open seatsMore open seats, new mix of candidates, new mix of candidates• More “citizen” legislatorsMore “citizen” legislators• Idealized by Anti-federalistsIdealized by Anti-federalists• Increase voter interest, turnoutIncrease voter interest, turnout

– more electoral competitionmore electoral competition



• More diversityMore diversity, new mix of candidates, new mix of candidates• More opportunities for members of groups More opportunities for members of groups

under-represented in current crop of under-represented in current crop of incumbentsincumbents

– WomenWomen– Racial, ethnic minoritiesRacial, ethnic minorities



• Less special interest influenceLess special interest influence• ““Termed out” legislators not as worried Termed out” legislators not as worried

about re-electionabout re-election– vote in “public interest”vote in “public interest”



• Restore faith in CongressRestore faith in Congress– Cynicism about Congress due to special Cynicism about Congress due to special

interests, gridlockinterests, gridlock

– vote in “public interest”vote in “public interest”


• Several attempts in WASeveral attempts in WA– Initiative 552, 1991 (Failed)Initiative 552, 1991 (Failed)– Initiative 573, 1992 (Passed) Initiative 573, 1992 (Passed)

• (Leg, Lt Gov and Gov. (Leg, Lt Gov and Gov. and UC Congressand UC Congress))• 1993 USDC rejects 1993 USDC rejects partpart of I-573 of I-573

– Initiative 670, 1996 (ballot notice)Initiative 670, 1996 (ballot notice)– 1998; WA Sup Court, 6-2 “statute may 1998; WA Sup Court, 6-2 “statute may

not change the state constitution”not change the state constitution”• Overturns remains of I-573Overturns remains of I-573

Term Limits

• In effect in many statesIn effect in many states– 1996 first legislator term limited out in 1996 first legislator term limited out in

ME & CA (26 house members in ME, 22 ME & CA (26 house members in ME, 22 in CA)in CA)

– 1998 204 in CA, CO, ME, MO, MI, OR1998 204 in CA, CO, ME, MO, MI, OR– 2000 380 legislators termed out2000 380 legislators termed out– 2006 268 termed out2006 268 termed out

• 26 leaders, 122 committee chairs26 leaders, 122 committee chairs

Term Limits

• Terms limits may remove entrenched Terms limits may remove entrenched politicianspoliticians

• Increased Increased legislative turnoverlegislative turnover• Takes time to learn the ropesTakes time to learn the ropes• Less focus on districts?Less focus on districts?• Reduced power of legislature relative Reduced power of legislature relative

to the governorto the governor• Are we better off w/ term limits?Are we better off w/ term limits?

Term Limits

• What effects?What effects?– Relations with other branchesRelations with other branches

• Might strengthen had of exec (and staff)Might strengthen had of exec (and staff)• Stronger role for lobbyists?Stronger role for lobbyists?

– TurnoutTurnout• no changeno change

– Institutional memoryInstitutional memory• Leg leaders lostLeg leaders lost

Term Limits

• What effects?What effects?– Increased competition?Increased competition?

• No, safe seats are still safeNo, safe seats are still safe

– Fewer career politicians?Fewer career politicians?• In CA, pols shuffle to new officesIn CA, pols shuffle to new offices

– DiversityDiversity• mixed resultsmixed results

Term Limits

• Congressional Elections as “filters”Congressional Elections as “filters”– Even w/ little threat of defeat, “bad” Even w/ little threat of defeat, “bad”

candidates losecandidates lose– Association w/ scandal = defeatAssociation w/ scandal = defeat– Study of “quality” incumbents shows Study of “quality” incumbents shows

worst most likely to loseworst most likely to lose

Term Limits

• Reapportionment and re-districtingReapportionment and re-districting– Change how the process of districting is doneChange how the process of districting is done– Congressional districts drawn by state Congressional districts drawn by state

legislatureslegislatures

• Non-partisan commissions?Non-partisan commissions?– Make districts more competitiveMake districts more competitive– Dont use GIS info, party-reg infoDont use GIS info, party-reg info

• Courts?Courts?


• Before the 1960s, states rarely redrew Before the 1960s, states rarely redrew district boundariesdistrict boundaries

• Populations shifted howeverPopulations shifted however

• MalapportionmentMalapportionment—unequal —unequal representationrepresentation

• In 1962, the Supreme Court In 1962, the Supreme Court established “one person, one vote”established “one person, one vote”

Redistricting

• Baker v CarrBaker v Carr; ; Reynolds v Sims; VRA Reynolds v Sims; VRA 19651965

• Re-apportionment revolutionRe-apportionment revolution– no longer a “political question” but no longer a “political question” but

justicablejusticable– State plans now subject to litigationState plans now subject to litigation– rural areas no longer over-representedrural areas no longer over-represented– major effect on major effect on state legislaturesstate legislatures

Redistricting

• Old DisparitiesOld Disparities• CTCT 191 people vs 81,000191 people vs 81,000• NHNH 3 people vs 3,2003 people vs 3,200• TNTN 10:110:1• ALAL 41:141:1• IDID 951 people vs 93,000951 people vs 93,000

Redistricting

• What criteria?What criteria?– Now justicable, but on what grounds?Now justicable, but on what grounds?

• Same size population....Same size population....– contiguouscontiguous– compactcompact– communities of interestcommunities of interest– protect incumbentsprotect incumbents– protect two party systemprotect two party system– minority representationminority representation

Redistricting

• Incumbent-protection districtsIncumbent-protection districts—many —many districts are drawn to protect districts are drawn to protect incumbentsincumbents

• CrackingCracking and and packing packing are often used are often used when one party controls the processwhen one party controls the process

• GerrymanderingGerrymandering—drawing districts for —drawing districts for political purposespolitical purposes

Redistricting

• What criteria?What criteria?• ““Partisan Gerrymanders”Partisan Gerrymanders”

– can gross “packing” and “cracking” be can gross “packing” and “cracking” be litigated litigated

Redistricting

• How often?How often?– States may redraw districts as often as they like States may redraw districts as often as they like

following following League of United Latin American League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry Citizens v. Perry (2006)(2006)

– Challenge to TX plan...Challenge to TX plan...

• At least once every decadeAt least once every decade

Redistricting

• Who should draw districts?Who should draw districts?

• LegislatureLegislature– majority party controls processmajority party controls process

– require Governors signaturerequire Governors signature

• ““Independent Commission”Independent Commission”– WA, CA, IA...who appoints it?WA, CA, IA...who appoints it?

• CourtsCourts

Redistricting

• Redistricting reform for Congress can Redistricting reform for Congress can be done at state levelbe done at state level– No constitutional amendmentNo constitutional amendment

– Not likely all / most states would do thisNot likely all / most states would do this

Redistricting

• Increase size of HouseIncrease size of House

• Arguments for:Arguments for:– hard to represent 700Khard to represent 700K

– Costs of campaigns too highCosts of campaigns too high

– Large districts very heterogeneousLarge districts very heterogeneous• Small groups never a geographic majoritySmall groups never a geographic majority


• Again, what problem?Again, what problem?– Low public approval (15% today)Low public approval (15% today)

• public thinks Congress works for public thinks Congress works for special special interestsinterests

– Low participation in elections (35% avg.)Low participation in elections (35% avg.)– Little turnover resulting from electionsLittle turnover resulting from elections– Vote-to-seats “swing” effect limitedVote-to-seats “swing” effect limited

• Can new election rules “fix” theseCan new election rules “fix” these


congress: electoral reform

Documents