Reading Between the Lines
Congressional and State Legislative Redistricting
Reading Between the Lines
Cong ressional and State Legislative Redistricting
their Refor m in Iowa, Arizona and Califor nia
and Ideas for Chang e in New Jersey
_______________ _______________ Reading Between the Lines
Pur poses of the Study
1.  DESCRIBE the redistricting process
2.  COMPARE three states that have attempted redistricting reform
Prepared for the
Eagleton Institute of Politics
3.  EXAMINE New Jersey’s redistricting process
by
Benjamin Brickner 4.  PROPOSE changes to address areas of concern in New Jersey
May 2010
Reading Between the Lines
Summar y of Findings
1.  Redistricting by public and/or party officials is fraught with conflicts of interest
2.  Redistricting by other means has been successful in Iowa and Arizona
3.  New Jersey’s redistricting process is insular and opaque
4.  Partisan advantage is a primary motive of New Jersey’s redistricting commissions
5.  These areas of concern can be addressed with specific changes to New Jersey’s
redistricting process that have been implemented successfully in other states
November 18, 2010
DESCRIBE the redistricting process
WHAT — the adjustment of electoral district boundaries
•  Boundaries must be shifted as underlying populations change
•  Applies to congressional, state legislative, local and most special purpose districts
WHEN — typically after each federal census
•  U.S. Constitution: the “Enumeration shall be made [every] ten Years.”
•  Notable exceptions: Texas in 2003; other states after judicial action
WHO — in most states, the state legislature and governor
HOW — in most states, via the normal legislative process
•  Congressional districts: 44 of 50 states
•  State legislative districts: 37 of 50 states
Page 1 of 6
Reading Between the Lines
Congressional and State Legislative Redistricting
DESCRIBE the redistricting process
DESCRIBE the redistricting process
DISTRICTING CRITERIA
COMPACTNESS
Whether a district is geographically efficient
•  POPULATION EQUALITY
•  Congressional districts: “as nearly as is practicable”
•  State legislative districts: “substantially equal”
New Jersey
Illinois
11th Congressional District
4th Congressional District
•  VOTING RIGHTS ACT — no voting qualifications or practices resulting in “denial or
abridgement” of the right to vote on account of race, color or language minority
•  “TRADITIONAL” DISTRICTING PRINCIPLES
•  Compactness
•  Contiguity
•  Preserving political subdivisions, cores of prior districts, and communities of interest
DESCRIBE the redistricting process
DESCRIBE the redistricting process
CONTIGUITY
CONTIGUITY
Whether a district is in one or more pieces
Whether a district is in one or more pieces
Maine
Kentucky
New Jersey
2nd Congressional District
1st Congressional District
13th Congressional District
November 18, 2010
Page 2 of 6
Reading Between the Lines
Congressional and State Legislative Redistricting
DESCRIBE the redistricting process
DESCRIBE the redistricting process
GERRYMANDERING
Manipulation of district boundaries to enhance
the electoral prospects of a particular political interest
DESCRIBE the redistricting process
“Packing” Neutral Districting“Cracking”
COMPARE three states that have attempted redistricting reform
GERRYMANDERING
“Packing”
GERRYMANDERING
“Cracking”
IOWA —
•  Reform by legislative action (1980)
•  Non-partisan agency draws maps, subject to approval by legislature
ARIZONA —
•  Reform by ballot initiative (2000)
•  Independent, bipartisan commission (2D, 2R, 2I) draws and adopts maps
CALIFORNIA —
•  Reform by ballot initiatives (2008 and 2010)
•  Independent, bipartisan commission (5D, 5R, 4I) draws and adopts maps
November 18, 2010
Page 3 of 6
Reading Between the Lines
Congressional and State Legislative Redistricting
COMPARE three states that have attempted redistricting reform
IOWA — Reform by Legislative Action (1980)
•  BEFORE: in 1970s, court struck down legislature’s plan and imposed its own
•  AFTER: in 1980s, 1990s and 2000s plans adopted without incident
Congressional Districts
(2002–2012)
COMPARE three states that have attempted redistricting reform
COMPARE three states that have attempted redistricting reform
ARIZONA — Reform by Ballot Initiative (2000)
•  BEFORE: in 1990s, legislative deadlock, multiple court cases and court-imposed congressional map
•  AFTER: in 2000s, congressional plan adopted without incident; legislative plan challenged, resulting
in significant victory for redistricting commission
Congressional Districts
State Legislative Districts
(2002–2012)
(2002–2012)
COMPARE three states that have attempted redistricting reform
CALIFORNIA — Reform by Ballot Initiatives (2008 and 2010)
•  BEFORE:
1970s — gubernatorial veto and court-imposed districting plans
1980s — popular referendum overturned districting plans
1990s — legislative deadlock and court-imposed districting plans
2000s — plans adopted without incident
•  AFTER: to be determined
Process —
•  Who draws the lines?
•  Who chooses who draws the lines?
•  What data must, may, or may not be considered?
?"
November 18, 2010
RECURRING SUBJECTS OF REFORM
•  What public process is required?
Substance —
•  What districting principles must, may, or may not be accommodated?
•  What outcomes must be reached?
Page 4 of 6
Reading Between the Lines
Congressional and State Legislative Redistricting
EXAMINE New Jersey’s redistricting process
EXAMINE New Jersey’s redistricting process
DUAL COMMISSIONS
DUAL COMMISSIONS
State Legislative
Congressional
“A ppor tionment Commission”
“Redistricting Commission”
•  Established 1966
•  10 members (5D, 5R)
•  Established 1991
•  13 members (6D, 6R, 1I)
•  Plus 1I in event of deadlock
•  Limited districting criteria required
•  No districting criteria required
•  Compactness
•  Contiguity
•  Respecting political subdivisions
•  No public process required
•  Limited public process required
State Legislative
Congressional
2000s
•  Commission deadlock
•  Multiple legal challenges
•  Partisan gerrymander
➡
•  Significant swing in seats
•  Overrepresentation
2000s
•  Incumbent gerrymander
➡
•  Low electoral competition
•  Low seat turnover
•  Four public hearings
PROPOSE changes to address areas of concern in New Jersey
FRAMEWORK FOR CHANGE
TYPE OF CHANGE —
•  Process
•  Substance
PROPOSE changes to address areas of concern in New Jersey
AREAS OF CONCERN
Autonomy of Decision-Making
Integrity of Decision-Making
Is the redistricting process independent
of inappropriate influence?
Are map-makers considering appropriate
data and ignoring inappropriate data?
EXTENT OF CHANGE —
•  Limited
•  Extensive
DURATION OF CHANGE —.
•  Temporary
•  Permanent
November 18, 2010
Representative Outcomes.
Democratic Outcomes.
Does redistricting result in elected representation
that accurately reflects the underlying population?
Does redistricting result in elected representation
that faithfully serves the underlying population?
Is the redistricting process open and transparent?
Page 5 of 6
Reading Between the Lines
Congressional and State Legislative Redistricting
PROPOSE changes to address areas of concern in New Jersey
PROPOSE changes to address areas of concern in New Jersey
IDEAS FOR CHANGE
Autonomy of Decision-Making
Integrity of Decision-Making
Limit the number of partisan commissioners by
requiring selection of political independents
Establish criteria (e.g., the “traditional”
districting principles) to guide decision-making
Representative Outcomes.
Democratic Outcomes.
Encourage bipartisan cooperation by making
deadlock a risky proposition for both parties
Require a full and open deliberative process (e.g.,
public display of draft maps, publication of all
data considered by the commissions)
OBSTACLES TO CHANGE
LEGAL —
•  Federal law
•  State law
POLITICAL —
November 18, 2010
•  Absence of initiative and referendum in New Jersey
•  Lack of political will to alter a process that has served incumbents well
CHRONOLOGICAL —
•  Congressional redistricting begins in early 2011
•  State legislative redistricting begins momentarily
Page 6 of 6