Recomendados
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Mais procurados
Mais procurados (20)
Semelhante a Better Maps for Illinois
Semelhante a Better Maps for Illinois (20)
Último
Último (20)
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.”
- 12. Protecting Racial and Language Minorities
- 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
- 17. 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause ▪ You May Consider Race in Drawing Districts ▪ Avoid Drawing a Racial Gerrymander
- 18. Racial Gerrymanders ▪ Don’t Draw Districts With Bizarre Shapes
- 19. North Carolina Congressional District 12 - 1992 Election Data Services Inc.
- 20. “Reapportionment is one area in which appearances do matter.” O’Connor, J., Shaw v. Reno (1993)
- 21. Redistricting is one area in which appearances do matter
- 22. Racial Gerrymanders ▪ Draw Districts that are “Reasonably Compact”
- 23. Texas Congressional District 30 - 1992
- 24. Texas Congressional District 30 - 1996
- 25. Texas Congressional District 18 - 1992
- 26. Texas Congressional District 18 - 1996
- 27. Texas Congressional District 29 - 1992
- 28. Texas Congressional District 29 - 1996
- 29. Louisiana Congressional District 4 - 1992
- 30. Louisiana Congressional District 4 - 1996
- 31. Florida Congressional District 3 - 1992 Election Data Services Inc.
- 32. Florida Congressional District 3 - 1996
- 33. North Carolina Congressional District 12 - 2000 (1997)
- 34. Racial Gerrymanders ▪ Don’t Let Race Be Your Dominant Motive
- 35. Georgia Congressional District 11 - 1992 Atlanta Augusta Savannah
- 36. Georgia Congressional District 4 - 1996
- 37. Racial Gerrymanders ▪ Don’t Use Race as a Proxy for Political Affiliation
- 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
- 40. Illinois Congressional District 4 - 1992
- 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/