Quality. Independence. Impact.

Home | Contact Us | Media Resources

Sunday July 6, 2008

Welcome   |   Register   |   Log in

Past Event

A Governance Studies and Red and Blue Nation Event

Redistricting Reform After the Ohio and California Initiatives

U.S. Politics, Elections, Politics, Congressional Redistricting

Event Summary

On Tuesday, November 8, voters in California and Ohio rejected state constitutional amendments that would reform the process for redrawing congressional and legislative districts. Opponents of the measures cheered the prevention of a "partisan power grab," while supporters lamented their failure to de-politicize the redistricting process.

Event Information

When

Tuesday, November 15, 2005
9:30 AM to 11:00 AM

Where

Falk Auditorium
The Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC
Directions

Contact: Office of Communications

E-mail: communications@brookings.edu

Phone: 202.797.6105

Though the results from the Ohio and California initiatives are settled, the issue of redistricting remains alive and controversial. As political polarization increases and electoral competition decreases, the question of how legislative district boundaries are drawn will only grow more pressing.

Three of the country's leading experts on redistricting will discuss the initiatives and their impact on the future of redistricting reform. Brookings Senior Fellow Thomas Mann will moderate the discussion with Bruce E. Cain, the Robson Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley, and director of its Institute of Governmental Studies, and Michael P. McDonald, assistant professor of government and politics at George Mason University and a Brookings visiting fellow. Mann, Cain, and McDonald are also contributors to Party Lines: Competition, Partisanship, and Congressional Redistricting (Brookings 2005)

Speakers will take questions after their remarks.

Transcript

THOMAS MANN: In 2002, there were a grand total of four incumbents defeated by challengers—best as we can tell, tying the lowest number in American history; followed by the 2004 elections in which seven incumbents lost, but two of those were running against other incumbents. So actually, five lost to challengers, and two of those were in Texas. Only three outside Texas had any such experience.

But along with that, the small number of incumbent defeats, was a continued decline in the number of seats that were genuinely contested, competitive races. Measure it before the election by political handicappers, after the election by the margin of victory, and you will see a steady decline over the 20th century, sort of reaching a point now in the early 21st century of about two dozen seats that seem to be competitive out of 435.

Now, I think there's a widespread belief that changing conditions have elevated redistricting as a weapon of choice for party leaders and incumbents to advance their political interests. What are those conditions?

Stronger partisanship in the electorate, making it a little easier to forecast how citizens might vote in congressional races; there's more party-line voting.

Certainly higher stakes with the ideological polarization of the parties and the near parity between the parties, meaning that there's every incentive for parties to do whatever they can to try to hold their majorities, increase their majorities, or overcome their minority status. There is no question but that the level of involvement of the national parties in state legislative politics and redistricting has increased measurably.

Third, new computer technology is alleged to have made it easier to accomplish gerrymanders. That's a subject of attention in the book, "Party Lines." And also a belief that various court decisions and non-decisions—from one person, one vote to various applications of the Voting Rights Act—have created opportunities rather than constraints for those who would gerrymander district lines to serve their interest.

The book reviews the law and politics of redistricting over the last several decades, assesses the accuracy of the claims that I've just made that are so widespread, and evaluates the various routes to reform.

Read the full transcript (PDF—113kb)

Participants

Introduction

Thomas E. Mann

Senior Fellow, Governance Studies

Panelists

Bruce E. Cain

Robson Professor of Political Science, University of California, Berkeley; Director, Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California, Berkeley

Michael P. McDonald

Nonresident Senior Fellow, Governance Studies

My Portfolio

My New Content

View suggested content based on items you have saved to your Portfolio.
Log in or register now