The Evolution of Substantive and Descriptive Representation, 1974-2004

David Epstein

Sharyn O’Halloran

Columbia University

Georgia’s Gerrymander

Range Baseline Proposed

0-25 31 26

25-40 11 17

40-50 2 0

50-60 2 8

60+ 10 5

Plan: Reallocate black voters to elect Democrats

Is This Retrogression?

The Perfect Storm DC denied preclearance, saying state didn’t

prove non-retrogression in three districts SC overruled in Georgia v. Ashcroft:

Retrogression should be assessed statewide, not district-by-district

States could pursue substantive rather than descriptive representation

Put much weight on testimony of black legislators

Consensus View A conventional wisdom is forming about the

meaning and importance of Ashcroft:1. It abandoned a previous, “relatively mechanical”

retrogression test based on electability;2. It did so in favor of an amorphous concept of

substantive representation that will be difficult to administer; and

3. The crux of the debate revolves around whether states should pursue substantive as opposed to descriptive representation.

This Paper We disagree with all three of these statements

The previous standard for retrogression was crumbling anyway, due to political changes The Court revised this, too, in the opinion, moving to

a statewide assessment of retrogression Substantive representation is not difficult to

measure and administer Real arguments aren’t over descriptive vs.

substantive representation, for the most part Rather, the question is on how best to achieve secure

levels of substantive representation

0.5

1P

roba

bilit

y of

Ele

ctin

g B

lack

Rep

.

0 50 57.5 100Percent Black Voting Age Population

Electability: High Polarization

% BVAP

0

P*

50 100

HighPolarization

Measuring Descriptive Representation

% BVAP

0

P*

50 100

No Minority Control

HighPolarization

Measuring Descriptive Representation

Minority Control

0.5

1P

roba

bilit

y of

Ele

ctin

g B

lack

Rep

.

0 40 50 100Percent Black Voting Age Population

Electability: Low Polarization

% BVAP

0

P*

50 100

No Minority Control

HighPolarization

Measuring Descriptive Representation

Minority Control

% BVAP

0

P*

50 100

LowPolarization

% BVAP

0

P*

50 100

No Minority Control

HighPolarization

Measuring Descriptive Representation

Minority Control

% BVAP

0

P*

50 100

Coali-tional

LowPolarization

% BVAP

0

P*

50 100

No Minority Control

HighPolarization

Measuring Descriptive Representation

Minority Control

% BVAP

0

P*

50 100

PS

Coali-tional

UnsafeControl

LowPolarization

% BVAP

0

P*

50 100

No Minority Control

HighPolarization

Measuring Descriptive Representation

Minority Control

% BVAP

0

P*

50 100

SafeControl

PS PP

Coali-tional

UnsafeControl

Packing

LowPolarization

% BVAP

0

P*

50 100

No Minority Control

HighPolarization

Measuring Descriptive Representation

Minority Control

% BVAP

0

P*

50 100

No Minority Control

SafeControl

PS PP

Coali-tional

UnsafeControl

Packing

LowPolarization

PI

Influence

% BVAP

0

P*

50 100

No Minority Control

HighPolarization

Measuring Descriptive Representation

Minority Control

% BVAP

0

P*

50 100

No Minority Control

SafeControl

PS PP

Coali-tional

UnsafeControl

Packing

LowPolarization

PI

Influence

How to make tradeoffs?

Retrogression in Electability Forget categories; just use the probability of

electing a minority candidate in each district Estimate this using “S-curves”

0.5

1P

roba

bilit

y of

Ele

ctin

g B

lack

Rep

.

0 40 50 100Percent Black Voting Age Population

Low Polarization

Retrogression in Electability Forget categories; just use the probability of

electing a minority candidate in each district Estimate this using “S-curves”

Then add up the probabilities to get the expected number of minorities elected Can consider the variance of this distribution, too

For Georgia, the proposed plan had slightly fewer expected minorities elected Problem with overpopulated districts

Substantive

DescriptiveParetoFrontier

Ashcroft & Substantive Representation

Substantive

Descriptive

SQ

ParetoFrontier

Ashcroft & Substantive Representation

Substantive

Descriptive

SQ

1

2 3

4

ParetoFrontier

Ashcroft & Substantive Representation

Substantive

Descriptive

SQ

1

2 3

4

ParetoFrontier

Ashcroft & Substantive Representation

Pre-Ashcroft

X X

Substantive

Descriptive

SQ

1

2 3

4

ParetoFrontier

Ashcroft & Substantive Representation

Post-Ashcroft

X

Substantive

Descriptive

SQ

1

2 3

4 P

ParetoFrontier

Ashcroft & Substantive Representation

X

A move to P is now non-retrogressive

Measuring Substantive Representation Great leaps have been made in the past two decades

in the analysis of voting behavior This is now commonly used as a measure of members’

policy preferences Not because voting is the only important act

But because it correlates with constituency service, committee work, etc.

For substantive representation of black interests, define a legislator’s Black Support Score:

BSS= % of votes cast with the black majority

.2.4

.6.8

1P

erce

nt P

ro-M

inor

ity V

otes

0 20 40 60 80Black Voting Age Population

Rep.

Black Dem.White Dem.

South Carolina State House

Overall Expected Representation Can compare plans by calculating the expected

substantive representation Combines prob. of election and support scores For Georgia, this was:

Real argument is over the distribution of these scores, not over descriptive vs. substantive representation

Mean Median

Baseline 62.3% 50.2%

Proposed 65.9% 69.2%

Trends, 1974-2004 Show changes in

Election probabilities Substantive representation Maximizing plans

Results: Greater crossover in voting means point of equal

opportunity is under 50% BVAP Southern Democrats become more liberal A tradeoff emerges between substantive and

descriptive representation

0.2

.4.6

.8

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1Black Voting Age Population

94th Congress

0.2

.4.6

.8

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1Black Voting Age Population

98th Congress0

.2.4

.6.8

1

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1Black Voting Age Population

102nd Congress

0.2

.4.6

.81

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1Black Voting Age Population

106th Congress

Pro

ba

bili

ty

Pro

ba

bili

ty

Pro

ba

bili

ty

Pro

ba

bili

ty

Black Dems

Black Dems

Black Dems

Black Dems

Republicans

RepublicansRepublicans

RepublicansWhite Dems

White DemsWhite Dems

White Dems

.2.4

.6.8

1B

lack

Sup

port

Sco

re

0 .1 .2 .3 .4Black Voting Age Population

1975 to 1980

.2.4

.6.8

1B

lack

Sup

port

Sco

re

0 .2 .4 .6Black Voting Age Population

1981 to 1986.2

.4.6

.81

Bla

ck S

uppo

rt S

core

0 .2 .4 .6Black Voting Age Population

1987 to 1992

.2.4

.6.8

1B

lack

Sup

port

Sco

re

0 .2 .4 .6 .8Black Voting Age Population

1992 to 2000

Substantive Representation, 1974-2000

97

102

104

105 106

0.2

.4.6

.81

Su

bsta

ntiv

e R

epr

ese

nta

tion

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1Descriptive Representation

east south west

Levels of BVAP Maximizing Descriptive andSubstantive Black Representation in Congress

95

9697

9899

100

101

102

103

104

105

.35

.4.4

5.5

Pe

rcen

t of V

ote

s A

gre

ein

g w

ith B

lack

Maj

ority

.02 .04 .06 .08 .1 .12Percent Black Democrats Among Southern Representatives

The Emerging Pareto Frontier

0.2

.4.6

.8H

isp

anic

Vot

ing

Age

Po

pula

tion

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1Black Voting Age Population

White Black Hispanic

By District BVAP and HVAP, With 45 Degree LineRace of Representative Elected, 1975-2000

0.2

.4.6

.8H

isp

anic

Vot

ing

Age

Po

pula

tion

.35 .36 .37 .38 .39 .4Black Voting Age Population

1975-1980 1981-19861987-1992 1993-2000

BVAP & HVAP Combinations for PEO

.4.6

.81

Bla

ck S

uppo

rt S

core

0 .2 .4 .6 .8

Black Voting Age Population in District

Republicans White Dems Black Dems

Black Support Scores by Type of Member

Georgia State Senate, 1999-2002

0.5

1

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1bvap

1975 to 1980

0.5

1

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1bvap

1981 to 19860

.51

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1bvap

1987 to 1992

0.5

1

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1bvap

1993 to 2000

Descriptive Representation, 1974-2000

.2.4

.6.8

1P

erce

nt P

ro-M

inor

ity V

otes

0 20 40 60 80Black Voting Age Population

Rep.

Black Dem.

White Dem.