Enjoy Night ≽ 8448380779 ≼ Call Girls In Palam Vihar (Gurgaon)
Better Maps for Illinois
1. Better Maps for Illinois
Peter S. Wattson
Redistricting Conference
Paul Simon Public Policy Institute
Springfield, Illinois
April 30, 2013
2. Introduction
▪ The Facts of Life
▪ The Need for Limits
▪ Protecting Minorities
▪ Partisan Gerrymandering
3. The Facts of Life
Gerrymandering
▪ Packing
▪ Cracking
▪ Creating a Gerrymander
4. The Need for Limits
▪ People
▸ Who draws the plans
▪ Process
▸ Data that may be used
▸ Review by others
▪ Principles
▸ Districts that result
5. Who Draws the Plans
▪ No legislators
▪ No appointees of a legislator
▪ No public officials
▪ No politicians
▪ Minority party represented
▪ Equal number from majority & minority
▪ Neutral tie-breaker
6. Illinois
Who Draws the Plans - Legislative
▪ Primary Responsibility - Legislature
▸ Until June 30, 2021
▪ Secondary Responsibility - Commission
▸ If redistricting law not enacted
▸ 8 members appointed by caucus leaders
– 4 legislators
– 4 non-legislators
▸ If no plan filed by August 10
▸ 9th member chosen by lot
– Supreme Court submits two names
– Secretary of State draws one name to chair
7. Limits on Data
▪ No party registration
▸ Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Nebraska
▪ No election results
▸ Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Nebraska
▪ No socio-economic data
▸ Idaho, Iowa, Nebraska
▪ No incumbent residences
▸ Arizona, California, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Wyoming
8. Review by Others
▪ Public hearings
▸ Commission states
▸ Iowa
▪ Preliminary plan
▸ Commission states
▸ Iowa
▪ Judicial review
▸ Colorado
▸ Florida
▸ Kansas
9. Limits on Districts that Result
Districting Principles for 2010s Plans
▪ Populations equal - 50 states
▪ Territory contiguous - 50 states
▪ Territory compact - 38 states
▪ Political subdivisions preserved - 46 states
▪ Communities of interest preserved - 22
▪ Minorities fairly represented - 27 states
10. Limits on Districts that Result
Districting Principles for 2010s Plans
▪ House districts nested in Senate - 17 states
▪ Cores of prior districts preserved - 12 states
▪ Not favor party or incumbent - 12 states
▪ Avoid contests between incumbents - 7
▪ Politically competitive - 2 states
11. Illinois
Const. Art. IV, § 3
▸“Legislative districts shall be compact,
contiguous and substantially equal in
population.”
13. Voting Rights Act § 2
▪ Not deny or abridge the right to vote on
account of:
▸ Race or color
▸ Membership in a language minority group
– Spanish heritage
– American Indian or Alaskan Native
– Asian American
14. Voting Rights Act § 2
▪ No Discriminatory Effect
▪ Thornburg v. Gingles - Three Preconditions
▸ Minority Population Sufficiently Large and
Geographically Compact
▸ Minority is Politically Cohesive
▸ Bloc Voting by White Majority Usually Defeats
Minority’s Preferred Candidate
▪ Totality of the Circumstances
▪ Draw Districts the Minority has a Fair Chance
to Win
15. Drawing Minority Districts
An Effective Voting Majority
▪ A realistic opportunity to elect
▸ More than a simple majority?
– 65%?
– Packing?
▸ Less than a simple majority?
– Crossover districts
– Coalition districts
▪ Ten years of election history
▸ Endogenous elections (same office)
▸ Exogenous elections (other offices)
▸ Biracial contests
16. Voting Rights Act § 5
▪ “Covered Jurisdictions”
▪ Preclearance
▸ U.S. Department of Justice
▸ U.S. District Court for District of Columbia
▪ Do Not Retrogress
▸ Ability to Elect a Candidate of Choice
▪ Do Not Intend to Discriminate
▪ You Need Not Maximize the Number of
Majority-Minority Districts
38. Traditional Districting Principles
▪ Contiguous Territory
▪ Compact
▪ Preserve Political Subdivisions
▪ Preserve Communities of Interest
▪ Protect Incumbents
▸ Preserve Cores of Prior Districts
▸ Avoid Contests Between Incumbents
39. Strict Scrutiny
▪ A Compelling Governmental Interest
▪ Narrowly Tailored to Achieve that Interest
▸ Remedying Past Discrimination
▸ Avoiding Retrogression Under VRA § 5
▸ Avoiding a Violation of VRA § 2
41. Partisan Gerrymandering
Can It Be Proved?
▪ Davis v. Bandemer (1986)
▸ Intentional discrimination against an identifiable
group
▸ Discriminatory effect
– “electoral system . . . will consistently degrade . . . a group
of voters’ influence on the political process as a whole”
42. Partisan Gerrymandering
Can It Be Proved?
▪ Vieth v. Jubelier (2004)
▸ Stevens
– Partisan purposes predominated over traditional districting
principles
▸ Souter
– Paid no heed to traditional districting principles where
drawing boundaries around party’s voters
▸ Breyer
– Traditional districting principles not followed
– Party with minority of votes statewide wins a majority of
seats
43. Partisan Gerrymandering
Can It Be Proved?
▪ LULAC v. Perry (2006)
▸ Plaintiffs
– Mid-decade redistricting was invalid because its sole
objective was partisan gain
44. Florida
Fair Districts Amendment (2010)
▪ Tier-One Principles
▸ Not favor or disfavor political party or incumbent
▸ Not discriminate against racial or language
minorities
▸ Contiguous territory
▪ Tier-Two Principles
▸ Equal population
▸ Compact territory
▸ Use existing political and geographic boundaries
45. Florida
In re: Senate Resolution of Legislative Apportionment 1176
(2012)
▪ Numbering scheme rejected
▸ Favored incumbents
▪ 8 Senate districts rejected
▸ Violation of tier-two principles
– Not compact
– Did not use existing political or geographic boundaries
▸ Was evidence of intent to violate tier-one principles
– 8 of 8 to favor incumbent
– 4 of 8 to favor a political party
46. Better Maps for Illinois
Peter S. Wattson
Redistricting Conference
Paul Simon Public Policy Institute
Springfield, Illinois
April 30, 2013
How to Draw Redistricting Plans That Will Stand Up in Court
http://paulsimoninstitute.org/
