Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:10:14.222Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reviving Legislative Avenues for Gerrymandering Reform with a Flexible, Automated Tool

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2020

James Saxon Open the ORCID record for James Saxon [Opens in a new window]
James Saxon*
Affiliation:
Harris School of Public Policy and Center for Spatial Data Science, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL60637, USA. Email: [email protected]
*
*Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

After seeking a “manageable standard” to apply to claims of partisan gerrymandering for over three decades, the Supreme Court has finally given up the chase, ruling that such claims are nonjusticiable. What is to be done? An extended history of successful congressional action suggests that the legislative pathway is more practical than often believed. Statutory requirements also make it possible to consider a broader suite of districting objectives. This paper presents a flexible new software and a framework for evaluating the practical implications of explicit objectives. I apply this approach to the conditions last required by Congress, generating equipopulous, contiguous, and compact districts. Among these conditions, the formal definition of compactness has proven contentious. Does it matter? I contrast the representation of the political parties and of racial and ethnic minorities under plans optimized according to 18 different definitions of compactness. On these grounds, the definitions are markedly consistent. These methods may be extended to alternative districting objectives and criteria.

Keywords

data analysis algorithmsspatial analysisspatial modelinggerrymanderingredistricting
Type
Articles
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 28 , Issue 3 , July 2020 , pp. 372 - 394
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Contributing Editor: Jeff Gill

References

Altman, M., and McDonald, M.. 2011. “BARD: Better Automated Redistricting.” Journal of Statistical Software 42(1):1–28. doi:10.18637/jss.v042.i04.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
An Act for the Apportionment of Representatives to Congress among the several States according to the ninth Census, 42d Congress, 2d session; 17 Stat. 28 (1872).Google Scholar
An Act Making an apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the several States under the Twelfth Census, 56th Congress, 2d session; 31 Stat. 733 (1901).Google Scholar
An Act For the apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the several States under the Thirteenth Census, 62d Congress, 1st session; 37 Stat. 13 (1911).Google Scholar
Angel, S., Parent, J., and Civco, D. L.. 2010. “Ten Compactness Properties of Circles: Measuring Shape in Geography.” Canadian Geographer 54(4):441–461. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0064.2009.00304.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, S., Palmer, M., and Lee, A.. 2015. “Precinct-Level Election Data.” https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/YN4TLR, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:5:5C9UfGjdLy2ONVPtgr45qA== [fileUNF].Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, S., and Rodden, J.. 2011a. “Florida Data Files.” https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/BKWGVO, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:5:4UlVSNNWWtboES03i623sA== [fileUNF].Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, S., and Rodden, J.. 2011b. “Illinois Data Files.” https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/USCMPG, Harvard Dataverse, V2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, C., Epstein, D., and O’Halloran, S.. 1996. “Do Majority-Minority Districts Maximize Substantive Black Representation in Congress? The American Political Science Review 90(4):794–812. doi:10.2307/2945843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, C. P., and Miller, A. D.. 2010. “A Measure of Bizarreness.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 5(1):27–44. doi:10.1561/100.00009022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, J., and Cottrell, D.. 2016. “Evaluating Partisan Gains from Congressional Gerrymandering: Using Computer Simulations to Estimate the Effect of Gerrymandering in the U.S. House.” Electoral Studies 44:329–340. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2016.06.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, J., and Rodden, J.. 2013. “Unintentional Gerrymandering: Political Geography and Electoral Bias in Legislatures.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 8(3):239–269. doi:10.1561/100.00012033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, J., and Rodden, J.. 2015. “Cutting Through the Thicket: Redistricting Simulations and the Detection of Partisan Gerrymanders.” Election Law Journal 14(4):331–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cho, W. K. T., and Liu, Y. Y.. 2016. “Toward a Talismanic Redistricting Tool: A Computational Method for Identifying Extreme Redistricting Plans.” Election Law Journal 15(4):351–366. doi:10.1089/elj.2016.0384.Google Scholar
Chou, C., Kimbrough, S., Sullivan-Fedock, J., Woodard, C. J., and Murphy, F. H.. 2012. “Using Interactive Evolutionary Computation (IEC) with Validated Surrogate Fitness Functions for Redistricting.” In 14th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, 1071–1078. doi:10.1145/2330163.2330312.Google Scholar
Chou, C., Kimbrough, S. O., Murphy, F. H., Sullivan-Fedock, J., and Woodard, C. J.. 2014. “On Empirical Validation of Compactness Measures for Electoral Redistricting and Its Significance for Application of Models in the Social Sciences.” Social Science Computer Review 32(4):534–543. doi:10.1177/0894439313484262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chowdhry, A.2015. “Record Number of Visible Minority MPs Elected to Commons.” The Globe and Mail, October 20. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/record-number-of-visible-minority-mps-elected-to-commons/article26892245/.Google Scholar
Cong. Globe, 27th Cong., 2d sess. vol. 11, pp. 407 and 788–790 (agreement on the principle), 449–451 and 786–788 (doom), 790 (state strategies). (May 2, 1842); June 4 and 10, 1842.Google Scholar
Cong. Rec., 70th Cong., 2d sess. vol. 70, pp. 1496, 1499, 1584, 1602, 1604. (January 10–11, 1929 The statute as enacted is 46 Stat. 26.Google Scholar
Cong. Quarterly. 1968. Congress Fails to Adopt House District Standards, 550–557. Washington DC: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
Donovan, B. 2007. “Minority Representation in Germany.” German Politics 16(4):455–480. doi:10.1080/09644000701652482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DuPage County GIS, “Election Precincts.” Updated December 14, 2016. Accessed May 1, 2017. Website points to current precincts.Google Scholar
Ehrenburg, K. 1892. “Studien zur Messung der horizontalen Gliederung von Erdräumen. Mit 2 Tafeln.” Verhandlungen der Physikalisch-medicinishen Gesellschaft zu Würzburg 25:29–72.Google Scholar
Epstein, D., and O’Halloran, S.. 1999. “A Social Science Approach to Race, Redistricting, and Representation.” The American Political Science Review 93(1):187–191. doi:10.2307/2585770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferruzzi, A.“Historical - ccgisdata - Election Precinct Data - 2015 to 2016.” Cook County Government, Open Data. Updated March 1, 2016. Accessed May 1, 2017.Google Scholar
Forrest, E. 1964. “Apportionment by Computer.” American Behavioral Scientist 8(4):23. doi:10.1177/000276426400800407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frolov, Y. S. 1975. “Measuring the Shape of Geographical Phenomena: A History of the Issue.” Soviet Geography 16(10):676–687. doi:10.1080/00385417.1975.10640104. Frolov cites K. Ehrenburg’s Studies on the measurement of the horizontal shapes of areas, in the Verhandlungen der Physikalisch-medincinischen gesellschaft zu Würzburg (1892).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fryer, R. G. Jr., and Holden, R.. 2011. “Measuring the Compactness of Political Districting Plans.” The Journal of Law and Economics 54(3):493–535. doi:10.1086/661511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glover, F. 1989. “Tabu Search Part I.” ORSA Journal on Computing 1(3):190–206. doi:10.1287/ijoc.1.3.190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963).Google Scholar
Grofman, B. 1985. “Criteria for Districting: A Social Science Perspective.” UCLA Law Review 33:77–184.Google Scholar
Grofman, B. 1991. “Lessons from the American Experience: What Happens After One Person-One Vote? Implications of the United States Experience for Canada.” In Drawing Boundaries: Legislatures, Courts, and Electoral Values, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan: Fifth House Publishers.Google Scholar
Grofman, B., Handley, L., and Lublin, D.. 2001. “Drawing Effective Miority Districts: A Conceptual Framework and Some Empirical Evidence.” North Carolina Law Review 79:1383–1430.Google Scholar
Grofman, B., and King, G.. 2007. “The Future of Partisan Symmetry as a Judicial Test for Partisan Gerrymandering after LULAC v. Perry.” Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy 6(1):2–35. doi:10.1089/elj.2006.6002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofeller, T., and Grofman, B.. 1990. “Comparing the Compactness of California Congressional Districts under Three Different Plans: 1980, 1982, and 1984.” In Effective Representation, edited by Grofman, B., 281–288. New York: Agathon.Google Scholar
Illinois State Board of Elections, “Election Vote Totals Results.” Accessed May 7, 2017.Google Scholar
Kaufman, A., King, G., and Komisarchik, M.. 2017. How to Measure Legislative District Compactness If You Only Know it When You See It. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
Kurland, P., and Lerner, R.. 2000. The Founders’ Constitution, vol. 2, Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1, University of Chicago Press. For arguments on the use of Article 1, Section 4 for maintaining fair districts, see in particular Madison at the Federal Convention and back home at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, or Appendix G.1.Google Scholar
Lake County, Illinois, “Voting Precincts.” 2016. Website points to current precincts.Google Scholar
Levy, J.“Precincts (current).” In Chicago Data Portal. Updated August 23, 2016. Accessed May 1, 2017.Google Scholar
Louisiana House of Representatives, “2012 Louisiana Precinct Shapefile.” Updated February 14, 2013. Accessed May 16, 2017.Google Scholar
Louisiana House of Representatives, “2016 Louisiana Precinct Shapefile.” Updated September 9, 2016. Accessed May 16, 2017.Google Scholar
Louisiana Secretary of State, “Election Results by Parish: Official Results for Election Date 11/06/2012 (Presidential Electors).” Accessed May 17, 2017. Parish-level returns can be downloaded systematically, as shown in the replication repoistories.Google Scholar
Louisiana Secretary of State, “Election Results by Parish: Official Results for Election Date 11/08/2016 (Presidential Electors).” Accessed May 17, 2017. Parish-level returns can be downloaded systematically, as shown in the replication repoistories.Google Scholar
Lublin, D. 1999. “Racial Redistricting and African-American Representation: A Critique of ‘Do Majority-Minority Districts Maximize Substantive Black Representation in Congress?’” The American Political Science Review 93(1):183–186. doi:10.2307/2585769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lublin, D., Brunell, T. L., Grofman, B., and Handley, L.. 2009. “Has the Voting Rights Act Outlived Its Usefulness? In a Word, ‘No’.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 34(4:):525–553. doi:10.2307/20680256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minnesota Geographic Information Services, “Election Results.” Minnesota Legislature. Updated February 12, 2009. Accessed November 17, 2017. ftp://ftp.commissions.leg.state.mn.us/pub/gis/shape/elec08.zip.Google Scholar
Minnesota Geographic Information Services, “Election Results.” Minnesota Legislature. Updated November 9, 2016. Accessed November 17, 2017. ftp://ftp.commissions.leg.state.mn.us/pub/gis/shape/elec2016.zip.Google Scholar
Minnesota Geographic Information Services, “Election Results.” Minnesota Legislature. Updated January 24, 2013. Accessed November 17, 2017. ftp://ftp.commissions.leg.state.mn.us/pub/gis/shape/elec2012.zip.Google Scholar
Niemi, R. G., Grofman, B., Carlucci, C., and Hofeller, T.. 1990. “Measuring Compactness and the Role of a Compactness Standard in a Test for Partisan and Racial Gerrymandering.” The Journal of Politics 52(4):1155–1181. doi:10.2307/2131686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
North Carolina State Board of Elections, “SBE Precincts 09012012.” Updated August 31, 2012. Accessed May 7, 2017.Google Scholar
North Carolina State Board of Elections, “Precinct Election Results: 11/06/2012.” Updated Jan 22 2013. Accessed May 6, 2017.Google Scholar
North Carolina State Board of Elections, “Precinct Election Results: 11/08/2016.” Updated December 16, 2016a. Accessed May 6, 2017.Google Scholar
North Carolina State Board of Elections, “SBE Precincts 20161004.” Updated October 4, 2016b. Accessed May 7, 2017.Google Scholar
Polsby, D. D., and Popper, R. D.. 1991. “The Third Criterion: Compactness as a Procedural Safeguard Against Partisan Gerrymandering.” Yale Law & Policy Review 9:301–353.Google Scholar
Reock, E. C. 1961. “A Note: Measuring Compactness as a Requirement of Legislative Apportionment.” Midwest Journal of Political Science 5(1):70–74. doi:10.2307/2109043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. (2019).Google Scholar
Saxon, J. 2019. “Replication Data for: Reviving Legislative Avenues for Gerrymandering Reform with a Flexible, Automated Tool.” Harvard Dataverse. doi:10.7910/DVN/NIPYJ8.Google Scholar
Schwartzberg, J. E. 1966. “Reapportionment, Gerrymanders, and the Notion of Compactness.” Minnesota Law Review 50:443–452.Google Scholar
Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993).Google Scholar
Spann, A., Kane, D., and Gulotta, D.. 2007. “Electoral Redistricting with Moment of Inertia and Diminishing Halves Models.” UMAP Journal 28(3):281–299.Google Scholar
Stephanopoulos, N. 2013. “Our Electoral Exceptionalism.” University of Chicago Law Review 80:769–858.Google Scholar
Stephanopoulos, N., and McGhee, E.. 2015. “Partisan Gerrymandering and the Efficiency Gap.” University of Chicago Law Review 82:831–900.Google Scholar
Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury, “Map Selection.” Accessed August 14, 2017. County files may be downloaded individually, as demonstrated in replication files. Modification dates by county range between June 7, 2012 and August 14, 2017 (in response to a correction, requested by the author).Google Scholar
Tennessee Secretary of State, “2016 Election: United States President, Results by Precinct.” Updated December 13, 2016. Accessed August 14, 2017.Google Scholar
Texas Legislative Council, “2008 General Election Returns.” Accessed May 3, 2017. ftp://ftpgis1.tlc.state.tx.us/elections/2008_General_Election_Returns.csv.Google Scholar
Texas Legislative Council, “2014 General Election Returns.” Accessed March 19, 2019. ftp://ftpgis1.tlc.state.tx.us/elections/2014_General_Election_Returns.csv.Google Scholar
Texas Legislative Council, “2016 General Election Returns.” Accessed May 3, 2017. ftp://ftpgis1.tlc.state.tx.us/elections/2008_General_Election_Returns.csv.Google Scholar
Texas Legislative Council, “Voting Tabulation Districts.” Updated February 7, 2017. Accessed May 3, 2017. ftp://ftpgis1.tlc.state.tx.us/2011_Redistricting_Data/VTDs/Geography/VTDs.zip.Google Scholar
Texas Legislative Council, “2018 General Election Returns.” Accessed March 19, 2019. ftp://ftpgis1.tlc.state.tx.us/elections/2018_General_Election_Returns.csv.Google Scholar
U.S. House of Representatives, Office of the Historian, “Black-American Representatives and Senators by Congress, 1870–Present.” Accessed August 4, 2017a.Google Scholar
U.S. House of Representatives, Office of the Historian, “Hispanic-American Representatives and Senators by Congress, 1822–Present.” Accessed August 4, 2017b.Google Scholar
U.S. House of Representatives, Press Gallery, “Demographics.” Accessed June 17, 2017.Google Scholar
US Cenus Bureau, “Congressional District TIGER Shapefiles, 111th Congress.” Updated March 1, 2012. Accessed February 1, 2018. ftp://ftp2.census.gov/geo/tiger/GENZ2010/. The Congressional District files are of the form gz_2010_[USPS]_500_11_500k.Google Scholar
US Cenus Bureau, “Congressional District TIGER Shapefiles, 107th Congress.” Updated June 20, 2013. Accessed February 1, 2018.Google Scholar
US Cenus Bureau, “2015 TIGER/Line Shapefiles: Congressional Districts (114).” Updated August 13, 2015. Accessed February 1, 2018.Google Scholar
US Cenus Bureau, “Cartographic Boundary Files - Shapefile.” Updated April 4, 2016. Accessed August 30, 2016. ftp://ftp2.census.gov/geo/tiger/GENZ2015/shp/.Google Scholar
US Cenus Bureau, “American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2009–2017).” 2018. Data series has been updated since data were retrieved.Google Scholar
Weaver, J. B., and Hess, S. W.. 1963. “A Procedure for Nonpartisan Districting: Development of Computer Techniques.” The Yale Law Journal 73(2):288–308. doi:10.2307/794769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wisconsin Legislative Technology Services Bureau, “2002–2010 WI Election Data with 2011 Wards.” Updated October 3, 2017. Accessed May 15, 2017. Note: dataset has been updated and moved since data were retrieved.Google Scholar
Wisconsin Legislative Technology Services Bureau, “2012–2020 WI Election Data with 2017 Wards.” Updated October 19, 2018. Accessed May 15, 2017. Note: dataset has been updated and moved since data were retrieved.Google Scholar
Young, H. P. 1988. “Measuring the Compactness of Legislative Districts.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 13(1):105–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Saxon Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/NIPYJ8
Link
Supplementary material: File

Saxon supplementary material

Saxon supplementary material

Download Saxon supplementary material(File)
File 1.1 MB