|
NOTE: This resource has been developed by APSA to provide media with information from notable political scientists on issues in American politics, including introductory essays, contact information for dozens of scholars around the country, and citations for recent research. For more information, contact Bahram Rajaee (brajaee@apsanet.org) |
Bruce E. Cain, University of California- Berkeley
| Experts |
|
Scott Adler Richard Engstrom David Epstein Henry Flores Bernie Grofman Jonathon Katz David Lublin Michael McDonald Pippa Norris Andrew Rudalevige Lester Spence |
The resolution of the first era was that districts at all levels, but especially Congress, need to achieve mathematical equality. Population deviations that have no good explanation, or worse, seemingly mischievous origins, invite court censure. The vote dilution issue has not finished its complete unfolding, but the status quo so far is: 1. partisan gerrymandering is theoretically justiciable, but as a practical matter, there is nothing much for line-dawers to worry about; 2. race can be a positive consideration in drawing district boundaries as long as it does not subordinate traditional redistricting criteria (especially compactness); and 3. section 5 review under the Voting Rights Act (i.e. heightened legal scrutiny of electoral changes in suspect areas) does not imply section 2 standards (i.e. the goal is to prevent retrogression from the status quo, not fix under-representation).
Presently, nonfederal issues-especially competitiveness and partisan polarization--capture most of the headlines. Some believe that redistricting has reduced the number of competitive seats in Congress. Conventional wisdom maintains that there will be fewer than 40 competitive seats in the November 2004 election. Professor Michael MacDonald estimates that even if there were no incumbents running, the number of races in the 48-52% range would be about 81. One theory, as yet unproven, is that the proliferation of split state governments has resulted in more bipartisan plans, which make both parties' seats safer.
Related to this is the notion that safer seats lead to more ideological representatives, and ultimately more polarized politics. As districts get more safe, the need to attract independent and centrist cross-over votes lessens. This allows a shift to the extremes of the ideological continuum. As more members represent the extremes, Congressional politics becomes more polarized and uncivil.
But even if true (and these claims are speculation), it is not obvious what states can do and whether the courts will give their efforts priority. It is no simple matter to define a competitive seat in advance of an election, and even harder to keep it that way throughout a decade. Morever, given the priority of federal criteria like population equality and contiguity, it is unclear whether state attempts to mandate competitiveness will be protected by the courts.
The upcoming November election is a reminder of redistricting's connection to many contemporary political concerns. New boundaries in Texas and Colorado, and the Supreme Court's unwillingness to reverse the reputed bias of the Pennsylvania districts have added to the long odds against Democrats recapturing the house, contrary to Nancy Pelosi's brave predictions.
Bruce Cain is Robson Professor of Political Science and Director of the Institute of Governmental Studies at the University of California-Berkeley. He can be reached at bruce@cain.berkeley.edu and 510-642-1474.
Recent Publications on Redistricting and Voting Rights 
Grofman, Bernie. Forthcoming. "Race and redistricting in the 21st century." Diversity in Democracy: Minority Representation in the United States. Gary M. Segura and Shaun Bowler, eds. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press.
Hetherington, Marc J., Bruce A. Larson, and Suzanne Globetti. 2003. "The Redistricting Cycle and Strategic Candidate Decisions in U.S. House Races." Journal of Politics 65:4 (November).
Cox, Gary and Jonathon Katz. 2002. Elbridge Gerry's Salamander: The Electoral Consequences of the Reapportionment Revolution Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lublin, David, Bernard Grofman, and Lisa Handley. 2001. "Drawing Effective Minority Districts: A Conceptual Framework and Some Empirical Evidence." North Carolina Law Review 79 (June): 1383-1430.
Engstrom, Richard. 2000. "Electoral District Compactness and Voters," American Review of Politics 21:383-96.
Epstein, David, and Sharyn O'Halloran. 2000. "The Impact of Majority-Minority Districts on Congressional Elections." Congressional Elections in the 1990s. David Brady, John Cogan, and John Ferejohn, eds. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Grofman, Bernie. 2000. Legacies of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press.
Lublin, David and D. Steven Voss. 2000. "Racial Redistricting and Realignment in Southern State Legislatures." American Journal of Political Science 44:4 (October): 792-810.
Canon, David. 1999. Race, Redistricting and Representation: The Unintended Consequences of Black Majority Districts. Chicago:Univeristy of Chicago Press.
Canon, David. 1999. "Electoral Systems and the Representation of Minority Interests in Legislatures." Legislative Studies Quarterly 24:3 (August): 331-85.
Grofman, Bernie, ed. 1998. Race and Redistricting in the 1990s. New York: Agathon Press.
Lublin, David. 1997. The Paradox of Representation: Racial Gerrymandering and Minority Interests in Congress. Princeton: Princton University Press.
Cameron, Charles, David Epstein and Sharyn O'Halloran. 1996. "Do Majority-Minority Districts Maximize Substantive Black Representation in Congress?" American Political Science Review 90:4 (December):794-812.