Transcript
Page 1: American Government and Organization PS1301 Friday, 20 February

American Government American Government and Organizationand Organization

PS1301PS1301

Friday, 20 FebruaryFriday, 20 February

Page 2: American Government and Organization PS1301 Friday, 20 February

ReviewReview

Descriptive vs. Policy (or Political) Descriptive vs. Policy (or Political) RepresentationRepresentation

Redistricting and GerrymanderingRedistricting and Gerrymandering

Page 3: American Government and Organization PS1301 Friday, 20 February

GerrymanderingGerrymandering

Equal populationsEqual populations

PartisanPartisan

IncumbencyIncumbency

RacialRacial

Page 4: American Government and Organization PS1301 Friday, 20 February

Supreme Court DecisionsSupreme Court Decisions

Baker vs. Carr (1962)Baker vs. Carr (1962) launched the launched the “reapportionment revolution”. The suit was “reapportionment revolution”. The suit was brought by urban plaintiffs in Tennessee who brought by urban plaintiffs in Tennessee who challenged their state legislature’s failure to challenged their state legislature’s failure to reapportion despite widespread population shiftsreapportion despite widespread population shiftsMalapportionmentMalapportionment refers to inequalities in district refers to inequalities in district populations. Court ruled that it violates the 14populations. Court ruled that it violates the 14 thth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws. “One person one vote”.the laws. “One person one vote”.Wesberry v. Sanders (1964) Wesberry v. Sanders (1964) Decision was Decision was extended to U.S. House of Representativesextended to U.S. House of Representatives

Page 5: American Government and Organization PS1301 Friday, 20 February

ConsequencesConsequences

Massive RedistrictingMassive Redistricting

Further LitigationFurther Litigation

Democratic advantage (control of state Democratic advantage (control of state legislatures and the courts)legislatures and the courts)

Incumbency advantageIncumbency advantage

Page 6: American Government and Organization PS1301 Friday, 20 February

Racial GerrymanderingRacial Gerrymandering

Voting Rights Act of 1965 restrained states from Voting Rights Act of 1965 restrained states from diluting (cracking) minority votes.diluting (cracking) minority votes.

Prior to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Prior to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Mississippi had a majority district (66%) Mississippi had a majority district (66%) continued to elect white congressman because continued to elect white congressman because blacks were denied the right to vote. blacks were denied the right to vote.

1982 Amendment to the Voting Rights Act of 1982 Amendment to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 fostered the creation of 1965 fostered the creation of majority-minority majority-minority districts. districts.

Page 7: American Government and Organization PS1301 Friday, 20 February

Majority Minority DistrictsMajority Minority Districts

Thornburg v Gingles (1986)Thornburg v Gingles (1986) The decision by the The decision by the Supreme Court enunciated tests to determine Supreme Court enunciated tests to determine whether a minority’s representation had been whether a minority’s representation had been compromisedcompromised Is the group large enough and located in a compact Is the group large enough and located in a compact

enough area to elect a representative if grouped into enough area to elect a representative if grouped into a single district?a single district?

Is the group politically cohesive?Is the group politically cohesive? Is there evidence of racially polarized voting by the Is there evidence of racially polarized voting by the

majority against candidates of that group?majority against candidates of that group?

Page 8: American Government and Organization PS1301 Friday, 20 February

Majority Minority DistrictsMajority Minority Districts

In 1990--creation of 15 new African In 1990--creation of 15 new African American districts (total of 32)American districts (total of 32)Creation of 9 new Latino districts (total of Creation of 9 new Latino districts (total of 20).20).All but one of these districts elected a All but one of these districts elected a minorityminorityNorth Carolina’s 12th linked black North Carolina’s 12th linked black neighborhoods along 160 miles of I85 from neighborhoods along 160 miles of I85 from Durham to Charlotte.Durham to Charlotte.

Page 9: American Government and Organization PS1301 Friday, 20 February

Racial GerrmanderingRacial Gerrmandering

Page 10: American Government and Organization PS1301 Friday, 20 February

Supreme Court IntervenesSupreme Court Intervenes

Shaw v. Reno (1993)Shaw v. Reno (1993) Under a 5-4 ruling, two North Carolina districts Under a 5-4 ruling, two North Carolina districts

were declared--the 1st and the 12th in were declared--the 1st and the 12th in violation of the equal protection under the law violation of the equal protection under the law by diluting white votes the districts were by diluting white votes the districts were criticized for being too irregular--looked like criticized for being too irregular--looked like segregation by race.segregation by race.

Page 11: American Government and Organization PS1301 Friday, 20 February

How the Electoral System Can How the Electoral System Can Reduce CompetitionReduce Competition

Redistricting creates “safe” districts Redistricting creates “safe” districts Senate races are more competitive in part Senate races are more competitive in part

because states are more diverse, more because states are more diverse, more balanced party competitionbalanced party competition

Page 12: American Government and Organization PS1301 Friday, 20 February

Donovan/Bowler – Reforming the Republic Table 3.1 p49 Donovan/Bowler – Reforming the Republic Table 3.1 p49 Congressional ElectionsCongressional Elections

Example of votes to seats bias from First past the post elections

Texas 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

Democrats - %Votes/%Seats 50/70 42/63 44/57 44/57 47/57

Republicans - %Votes/%Seats 48/30 56/37 54/43 53/43 49/43

Other - %Votes/%Seats 2/0 2/0 2/0 4/0 4/0

Page 13: American Government and Organization PS1301 Friday, 20 February

Texas DistrictsTexas DistrictsThe Debate: Democrats have a The Debate: Democrats have a 17-15 majority17-15 majority in the in the current Texas congressional delegation. current Texas congressional delegation. State lawmakers failed to redraw the congressional State lawmakers failed to redraw the congressional district in 2001. Proposals were submitted to state and district in 2001. Proposals were submitted to state and federal courts and a decision was made in November federal courts and a decision was made in November 2001 to adopt the 2001 to adopt the districts for the 2002 electiondistricts for the 2002 election..The GOP is pushing plans that would give them as many The GOP is pushing plans that would give them as many as 21 seats. Link to as 21 seats. Link to Save Texas RepsSave Texas RepsCurrent and proposed districtsCurrent and proposed districts: On September 24 both : On September 24 both houses of the Texas Legislature voted to adopt the plan.houses of the Texas Legislature voted to adopt the plan.ConsequencesConsequences

Page 14: American Government and Organization PS1301 Friday, 20 February

Texas Redistricting (2000-2004)Texas Redistricting (2000-2004)

Link to interactive map

Page 15: American Government and Organization PS1301 Friday, 20 February

The 17The 17thth District District

Charlie Stenholm Charlie Stenholm (Democrat) representing the district west of Dallas (Democrat) representing the district west of Dallas since 1979 (and a graduate of Texas Tech).since 1979 (and a graduate of Texas Tech).Votes reflect conservative values of the cattle, cotton, and oil Votes reflect conservative values of the cattle, cotton, and oil industry. He opposes abortion, fights for balanced budgets, and industry. He opposes abortion, fights for balanced budgets, and voted for the impeachment of Bill Clinton.voted for the impeachment of Bill Clinton.““They did everything they could to bust my political base. They drew They did everything they could to bust my political base. They drew my farm and where I grew up in the Amarillo district, and they drew my farm and where I grew up in the Amarillo district, and they drew Abilene, where I live now, into the Lubbock district”…When we Abilene, where I live now, into the Lubbock district”…When we Democrats controlled the legislature, sure we protected Democrats. Democrats controlled the legislature, sure we protected Democrats. But we didn’t do harm to the Republicans who were in office. This But we didn’t do harm to the Republicans who were in office. This thing today is a whole different order of magnitude.” (Toobin, “thing today is a whole different order of magnitude.” (Toobin, “The Great Election GrabThe Great Election Grab” New Yorker Magazine, Dec. 8, 2003).” New Yorker Magazine, Dec. 8, 2003).

Page 16: American Government and Organization PS1301 Friday, 20 February

Incumbency AdvantageIncumbency Advantage

Page 17: American Government and Organization PS1301 Friday, 20 February

Decline in CompetitionDecline in Competition

Page 18: American Government and Organization PS1301 Friday, 20 February

Incumbent Victory MarginsIncumbent Victory Margins

Page 19: American Government and Organization PS1301 Friday, 20 February

Explanations for Incumbency Explanations for Incumbency AdvantageAdvantage

Electoral Rules (which we have discussed)Electoral Rules (which we have discussed)Name RecognitionName RecognitionGreater resources for staff, travel, local offices, Greater resources for staff, travel, local offices, and communicationand communication In 2001, these allowances ranged from $980,699 to In 2001, these allowances ranged from $980,699 to

$1,469,930 per legislator in the House; $1,926,296 to $1,469,930 per legislator in the House; $1,926,296 to $3,301,071 in the Senate $3,301,071 in the Senate

CaseworkCaseworkCampaign contributionsCampaign contributionsHard workHard work


Top Related