This document discusses redistricting and proposals to reduce the political influence on the process. It notes that most states currently have legislators draw districts, which can result in gerrymandering if one party controls the process. Some proposals to create independent or bipartisan commissions are described, like those used in Arizona and California. However, redistricting will always be a difficult process given the many competing criteria and interests to balance. The document provides advice on managing the political aspects of redistricting and improving public understanding of the challenges involved.

1. Taking the Politics out of
Redistricting
Presented to the
Wisconsin Land Information Association
October 21, 2010
Peter Cannon, Secretary
Wisconsin Democracy Campaign

2. Should we Take the Politics
Out of Redistricting?
 We know who is responsible and
they are answerable to the voters
 Every reform proposal – to some
extent – makes the process less
democratic
2

3. Should we Take the Politics
Out of Redistricting?
Continued
 Most states have chosen to have
legislators do it
 Reform proposals won’t work any
better
 Legislators know the districts
3

4. What’s the Problem?
 If there is stalemate – split
control between parties,
legislators draw maps that
favor incumbents
 If one party controls the
process, political
gerrymandering
4

5. What’s the Problem?
 Electoral Competitiveness
– Since 2000, only three U.S. House
races have been competitive
(margin of victory with 10 points)
– Since 2000, state legislative
incumbents have been reelected
95% of the time.
5

6. What’s the Problem?
Continued
Effects on civility & partisan
cooperation
 Politically lopsided districts make
elections less competitive and voters
less powerful
 Harder to get new blood and fresh
ideas into the legislature
6

7. What’s the Problem?
Continued
Effects on civility & partisan
cooperation
 They contribute to hyper-partisan,
polarized politics that make
compromise nearly impossible on
controversial issues.
 One-sided districts tend to produce
candidates who appeal to just one
side.
7

8. What’s the Problem?
Continued
Effects on civility & partisan
cooperation
 Squeezed out are candidates who
appeal to independents or voters of
both parties.
 The result is a legislature of fierce
partisans, with fewer members
willing to reach across the political
divide to get the public’s business
done. 8

9. What’s the Problem?
Continued
Cost
Depending on whose tally you believe, the total
amount spent on redistricting a decade ago was
somewhere between $2.6 million and $2.9
million for sophisticated map-drawing
technology, technical experts and political
consultants to help them draw new district lines
as well as attorneys to represent legislative
leaders in court.
9

10. Can we Take the Politics
out of Redistricting?
 How do we get legislators to
change a system that gives them
control?
 Why would legislators want to give
up that control?
10

11. Can we Take the Politics
out of Redistricting?
Continued
 It’s hard to persuade people that reform is
necessary
– Most citizens don’t think about redistricting
very often
– It’s hard to explain why it’s important –
particularly if you weren’t affected last time
11

12. How is it done?
• Legislatures (36 states)
• Nonpartisan legislative agency draws map
for legislature to adopt (Iowa)
• Advisory commissions to help
• Backup commissions if legislature fails
• Political commissions – members
appointed by politicians (7 states)
• Independent commissions (6 states)
12

13. How should it be done
Principles for effective
redistricting
 Meaningful independence
 Meaningful diversity
 Meaningful guidance
 Meaningful participation
13

14. Meaningful Independence
 Those who draw the lines should not be direct
beneficiaries
 Those who draw the lines should not be
controlled by direct beneficiaries
 One of the players shouldn’t also be the umpire
14

15. Meaningful Diversity
 Those who draw the lines should reflect
the state, county or municipality
 Need redistricting body of sufficient size
 Need rules/incentives to choose diverse
membership
15

16. Meaningful Guidance
 Criteria that reflect basic goals
 Enough flexibility to accommodate local
exceptions
 Communities of interest
 Voter majority is legislative majority
16

17. Meaningful Participation
 Process that encourages community input
before and after drafts
 Encouraging input from diverse voices in
the community
 Testimony regarding who are
communities of interest
17

18. Arizona
 5 members
– 2 R, 2D, 1 I
 Not more than 2 from a county
 Chosen by legislators from pool with
committee choosing the 5th
 No candidates, party officials or lobbyists
18

19. Arizona Criteria
 Equal population
 to the extend practicable
– Geographically compact and contiguous
– Respect community interests
– Visible geographic features, county and
municipal boundaries and census
boundaries
– Competitive districts should be favored
where to do so would create no significant
detriment to the other goals.
19

20. Arizona Criteria
Continued
 No initial use of party registration and
voting data
 No use of information on incumbent
residence
 Draft to be presented to the public and
comments on the draft to be considered
20

21. Arizona Criteria
Continued
Arizona, which is the only state to require
competitiveness as a redistricting
criterion, was in litigation over its 2001
maps for seven years. Opponents of the
maps drawn by Arizona’s independent
redistrict commission unsuccessfully
challenged that the maps were not
sufficiently competitive.
21

22. California – Prop 11
 Step One: Any of California’s
approximately 15 million registered voters
may apply
 Step Two: The independent State Auditor
selects a panel of three independent auditors
to screen applicants.
22

23. California – Prop 11
Continued
 Step Three: The panel of auditors chooses
three “sub-pools” of 20 persons each
– from the 60 most qualified persons who have
applied.
• 20 Democrats,
• 20 Republicans, and
• 20 others.
23

24. California – Prop 11
Continued
 Step Four: The four legislative leaders
(Assembly Speaker and Minority Leader,
and Senate President pro Tem and Minority
Leader) may each strike two people from
each 20 person “sub-pool.”
24

25. California – Prop 11
Continued
 Step Five: The three auditors randomly
select eight commissioners:
• 3 Democrats,
• 3 Republicans, and
• 2 others.
25

26. California – Prop 11
Continued
 Step Six: The eight commissioners select
six more members from sub-pools
– The final Citizens Redistricting Commission
has 14 members:
• 5 Democrats,
• 5 Republicans, and
• 4 others
26

27. California – Prop 11
Continued
The independent commission must approve its
redistricting maps by a supermajority vote
of 9 out of 14 members. Moreover, the
majority must consist of at least 3 of the 5
Democrats, 3 of the 5 Republicans and 3 of
the 4 “Decline to States” or representatives
of other parties.
27

28. California – Prop 11
Redistricting Criteria
 Geographic contiguity – Respect for geographic integrity
of neighborhoods, city and county boundaries, and
communities of interest, without violating the requirements
of the previous criteria.
 Geographic compactness to the extent practicable and
where it does not conflict with the criteria above.
 No consideration of the place of residence of any
incumbent or political candidate in the creation of a map.
 Don’t favor or discriminate against an incumbent, political
candidate or political party.
28

29. California – Prop 11
Continued
 The following redistricting criteria (in order of
priority) must be followed
 in drawing legislative district lines. Districts must:
– have reasonably equal population
– comply with the federal Voting Rights Act
– be geographically contiguous (connected)
– respect counties, cities, communities of interest and
neighborhoods ·
29

30. California – Prop 11
Continued
– · to the extent there is no conflict with the criteria
above, districts should be
• geographically compact, and nested
• not be drawn to favor or discriminate against
incumbents, candidates or parties.
• Incumbent addresses may not be considered.
30

31. Iowa
 A nonpartisan legislative staff agency draws
a map
 The legislature accepts or rejects it
 After the legislature has rejected two sets of
plans can it draw districts as it pleases.
(this hasn’t happened yet)
31

32. Why is Redistricting so Hard?
Or,
Maybe the Legislators should be
happy to have someone else do it!
 Local and Regional Interests
– Urban/suburban/rural splits
 Minority Interests
– Can Latinos elect an alder?
32

33. Why is it so Hard?
Continued
 Party Interests
– How will balance of power in the
legislature change?
 Individual legislators
– How will my district change?
 Citizen Interests
– New legislator?
– New polling place?
– More or less competition?
33

34. What can you do?
 TEACH
 There’s no perfect map, rather an endless
number each with its own imperfection
 One problem is the criteria aren’t fixed in a rank
order. It would be a lot easier if you could apply
a, then apply b, then apply c.
 But even then, the map is going to look different
if you start at the northwest corner of the county
rather than the southeast corner, because every
decision drives the next one.
34

35. Important Lessons
The Mapping Project – George Mason
University
http://elections.gmu.edu/Redistricting.ht
ml
35

36. Important Lessons
 Equal population districts must be of
unequal geographic size; urban districts
must be smaller than rural districts
 Nicely-shaped districts are difficult to
draw using census blocks; and may
conflict with respecting existing political
boundaries
36

37. Important Lessons
 Redistricting criteria can have predictable
partisan and racial effects
 If goals like partisan fairness or
competition are desired, they should be
codified into law, just as we do with
minority representation goals described in
the Voting Rights Act
37

38. What can you do?
 Try to keep decision makers from
making mistakes – if you can.
 Remind them of things they can’t
do.
 Point out potential problems.
38

39. Things that help
 Aim for the ideal
 Be flexible
 Have standards and apply them
uniformly
39

40. Things that help
 Know who has authority!
 Understand the timeline
 Say you can’t meet it immediately
– What do you need to meet the timeline?
– Staff? Equipment?
40

41. Things that help
 Legislators get REALLY nervous at redistricting
time. After all, it’s their districts on the line.
 Don’t take things personally.
 Most members assume the plan should originate
from their own district.
 Expect some irrational choices.
 Don’t play on the freeway. Stay out of fights
between members – unless it’s your job to resolve
them.
From Thomas B. Hofeller, Redistricting Coordinator, Republican National
Committee 41

42. Things that help
 Remember that “bad news, unlike fine
wine, does not age well.” Let people know
about problems as they develop.
 If bad news has to be given to a member,
let the attorneys or outside experts deliver
it – if possible. That’s what they’re paid to
do.
From Thomas B. Hofeller, Redistricting Coordinator, Republican
National Committee
42

43. Things that help
 Understand the local rules
– Who can make suggestions.
– Who shouldn’t see the plan.
 Find out what everybody knows, but didn’t tell
you!
– You never split the village of X
– Y is an important boundary
43

44. YOU CAN’T MAKE
EVERYBODY
HAPPY!
44

45. Things that help
 Exercise reduces stress
45

46. http://www.wisdc.org/
Peter Cannon
apcannon@gmail.com
(608) 251-1276
46