Journal articles on the topic 'Gerrymandering – United States'

Japan is regularly criticized for the malapportionment of its election districts. In contrast, the United States has problems with gerrymandered election districts, even though district boundaries are crafted with meticulous attention paid to population equality among its districts. Japanese redistricting practices prevent gerrymandering of district boundaries, but at a cost of tolerating higher levels of malapportionment than would be allowed in the United States. I analyze the effects of Japan's redistricting rules and find that they have effectively prevented any malapportionment or gerrymandering that benefits a specific political party. I also show that in terms of actual votes cast, the Japanese system produces greater equality between districts than the results obtained in the United States, suggesting that US redistricting practices could be improved by modeling them after the Japanese example.

Background: When the U.S. Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) overruled a five-decade old precedent and gave states the unfettered power to regulate or ban abortion, it did so while proclaiming the decision would return power over the issue to the people, and that women specifically were not without political influence to shape policies. Nowhere amid such language about the power of the people does the Court decision acknowledge the capacity for biased legislative district maps (i.e., gerrymandering) to influence resulting policies. Methods: Here I consider the state-level relationship between gerrymandering and abortion policy using logistic regression that controls for several variables including statewide public opinion, religion, and the number of women legislators. Data on abortion rules are derived from the Guttmacher Institute’s database as of January 1, 2023. Data on gerrymandering scores for each legislative map are derived from the Campaign Legal Center. Results: I find that states with a pro-Republican gerrymander were considerably more likely to impose a pre-viability abortion ban in 2023. Across the 50 states, the logistic regression results suggest an increase in the odds of an abortion ban by more than 40 times as a result of a pro-Republican legislative map gerrymander. Notably, a pre-viability abortion ban is in place in nine of the 10 states where public opinion favors abortion rights but where the legislative map is biased toward Republicans. Conclusions: The influence of mapmakers over the resulting policy clouds the Court’s sanguine assertions of the public’s influence and women’s political agency over this issue.

This essay speaks to the context of domination and subordination in particular as it pertains to White Supremacy/White Privilege as manifested in the history of slavery and “Jim Crow” in the United States. It is within this historical context one can discern the present status of race relations in the United States that continues to foster race discrimination through the policies of the ethnic majority (white) power structure, e.g.-institutional racism, voter suppression laws, gerrymandering of voter districts and banking policies to name a few areas. The research of books, papers, television interviews and personal experiences provides a testament to present government policies that endeavor to maintain a social construct of dominance and subordination by the white power structure in the United States.

Every 10 years, the United States conducts population census. Beyond serving various socio-economic needs, gathered data also has consequnces for the political system – the states’ population determines the number of state seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. To ensure fair representation, consisent with ‘one person, one vote’ rule, the states modify the boundaries of congressional districts after each census. The article discusses federal and state rules that bodies responsible for redistricting – mainly state legislatures and special commissions – need to consider, emphasizing the nature and scope of legal changes, introduced between 2011 and 2020. The Author claims that defederalization of the redistricting regulations and Supreme Court opinion that issues related to gerrymandering constitute political questions, thus being beyond the scope of federal judiciary are two most important redistricting-related rules developments in the analyzed decade.

Gerrymandering—the intentional manipulation of legislative boundaries for political advantage—is a venerable practice. Why, then, some might wonder, should we pay greater attention to it at this time? In particular, should judicial inquiry into constitutional issues of fair representation, intense for some two decades, now turn to what may well seem to comprise the heart of the “political thicket”? Throughout this period of reapportionment litigation, federal courts have alluded to the problem, with increasing concern shown by members of the Supreme Court of the United States, about its importance (e.g.,Karcher v. Daggett, 103 S. Ct. 2653: 1983). Is the time ripe for a direct judicial examination of the gerrymander on constitutional grounds? And, if so, does California comprise an appropriate test case?Prerequisite to answering such questions are: (1) an understanding of how and why gerrymandering, in magnitude, extent, and impact, has become an essentially new kind of issue rather than a mere extension of a traditional practice; and (2) a need to develop judicially manageable standards of identifying gerrymanders.Prior to the reapportionment revolution of the 1960s, there existed a variety of constraints that conditioned boundary manipulation. For one thing, a large number of states simply failed to redistrict for several decades, the situation that triggeredBaker v. Can(369 U.S. 186: 1962),Wesberry v. Sanders(376 U.S. 1: 1964),et al.This resulted in great disparities in population among districts, a form of “silent” or “status quo” gerrymander that in practice minimized periodic boundary manipulation. For example, district lines for Congress were typically redrawn only in states—usually a minority—that lost or gained seats.

Gerrymandering—the intentional manipulation of legislative boundaries for political advantage—is a venerable practice. Why, then, some might wonder, should we pay greater attention to it at this time? In particular, should judicial inquiry into constitutional issues of fair representation, intense for some two decades, now turn to what may well seem to comprise the heart of the “political thicket”? Throughout this period of reapportionment litigation, federal courts have alluded to the problem, with increasing concern shown by members of the Supreme Court of the United States, about its importance (e.g., Karcher v. Daggett, 103 S. Ct. 2653: 1983). Is the time ripe for a direct judicial examination of the gerrymander on constitutional grounds? And, if so, does California comprise an appropriate test case?Prerequisite to answering such questions are: (1) an understanding of how and why gerrymandering, in magnitude, extent, and impact, has become an essentially new kind of issue rather than a mere extension of a traditional practice; and (2) a need to develop judicially manageable standards of identifying gerrymanders.Prior to the reapportionment revolution of the 1960s, there existed a variety of constraints that conditioned boundary manipulation. For one thing, a large number of states simply failed to redistrict for several decades, the situation that triggered Baker v. Can (369 U.S. 186: 1962), Wesberry v. Sanders (376 U.S. 1: 1964), et al. This resulted in great disparities in population among districts, a form of “silent” or “status quo” gerrymander that in practice minimized periodic boundary manipulation. For example, district lines for Congress were typically redrawn only in states—usually a minority—that lost or gained seats.

AbstractWhile prisoners cannot vote, they are counted as residents of the often rural legislative districts where they are incarcerated rather than their home districts. We examine the extent to which incarceration shifts the balance of a representative democracy by considering its impact on legislative apportionment. Drawing on data from the Census, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, and Pennsylvania Redistricting Commission, we develop a counterfactual framework to examine whether removing and returning prisoners to their home districts affects equal representation. Because prisoners are disproportionately African American, we also employ this counterfactual to assess racial differences in the impact of prison gerrymandering. Findings indicate that incarceration shifts political power from urban districts to suburban and rural districts through legislative apportionment. Moreover, non-White communities suffer the most. We conclude by considering how our findings fit a growing literature on the role of mass incarceration in [re]producing racial inequalities in the contemporary United States.

With so many dominant narratives about the South being “the embarrassing part of the country” because of its seemingly conservative politics, it’s easy to think of this region of the United States as a place beyond redemption. In this piece, I describe the current state of Southern politics (e.g., voter suppression, gerrymandering, and other Right-wing attacks), and how these policies have led to a misleading narrative of the South that ignores the political work of Black queer Southerners. After an analysis of Southern political discourse, I craft a story about a Black queer community organizer tasked with amplifying the voices of marginalized Southerners during a presidential election for a campaign that wants to write off the South for its conservative policies. My counterstory not only rejects the majoritarian narrative that erases the progressive work of Black queer activism, but also provides a heuristic for exposing racist power structures and politically investing in marginalized communities.

<p><strong>Abstract.</strong> Gerrymandering is the practice of deliberately drawing electoral districts in a way that provides unfair advantage to one group over another, typically with respect to political parties or particular social or ethnic groups (Bunge 1966; Horn 1999). The term itself was coined in 1812, after a Massachusetts Governor, Elbridge Gerry, signed into law a political reapportionment bill with long, sinuous districts that one political cartoonist aptly compared to a winged salamander (Morrill 1973). While this practice was by no means new, the particularly grievous instance had given it a name; because, of the profound impact that voting district boundaries can have on the outcome of single-candidate elections, the practice lives on some two centuries later. Since then, several important legislative and judicial standards have emerged at the level of US Federal Government that were intended to stymie this practice. These include the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which stipulated that US Congressional districts be comprised of contiguous territory in “as compact form as practicable” (Bunge 1966). And yet despite these laws and legal standards, the US Supreme Court has been “reluctant to overturn even fairly blatant partisan gerrymandering,“ (Horn 1999), in part due to the inherent complexity of ascribing arbitrary boundaries on complex social and geographic landscapes, but also due to the onerous (and sometimes conflicting) legal standards that have been established. As Bill Bunge (1966) put it, “the problem sounds geographically simple—merely construct regions of ‘compact form’! But the grouping of locations into an antigerrymandered state touches on some of the deepest and most fundamental problems in regional geography.”</p><p>In the United States, the upcoming 2020 Census, and the resulting redistricting process, has brought gerrymandering back into focus. Specifically, algorithmically conducted geospatial analysis and the resulting cartographic visualizations produced have emerged as a central battleground on which various practices of redistricting are discussed. However, most spatial analysis and cartographic visualization of gerrymandering to date has relied almost exclusively on Euclidean, absolute representations of space (O’Sullivan et al . 2018). In this paper, we demonstrate how strictly Euclidean perspectives may fail to account for the quotidian experiences of space. Further, we argue towards a relational understanding of space that takes into account how individuals move through space in their day-to-day lives. To do so, we first return to a set of complex mathematical approaches first espoused during the quantitative revolution of the 1970s (Forer 1978; Morrill 1976; Morrill 1973; Tobler 1961; and others). Using new and improved computational tools, we improve upon these efforts, providing a process for generating new visualizations that explore relational spaces within congressional districts. Specifically, we use Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) within a graph network to bend and fold congressional districts in accordance with the travel-time it takes to move through them. We conclude by discussing the limitations of this approach and areas for further research.</p><p>Though quantitative methods in the field of geography seem presently dominated by narrow views of absolute, Euclidean spaces, early efforts at defining quantitative geographic approaches were focused largely on finding new ways to define and visualize space (Janelle 2015; Kitchin 2006; O’Sullivan et al. 2018). Tobler (1961) proposed that much distortion of space by transportation can be understood through the transformation of coordinates. Bunge’s transformation of the “real” travel time for commuters is one of the more famous visualization of this type of isochronic transformation (O’Sullivan et al. 2018). Forer (1978) expands upon this idea with a discussion of an all-points-to-all-points reorganization, rather than the bending of adjacent points of interest based on a singular, central anchor point. Such an approach is necessarily computationally intensive as points must be moved over many iterations as the relative location of adjacent points is also in flux, and there exists the possibility of complex inversions in cases where the interior of the geographic space is not navigable (O’Sullivan et al. 2018). Simply put, this type of computationally intensive visualization was extremely difficult in the 1970s and, additionally, newer techniques such as MDS and bidimensional regression not developed or relatively unknown at that time (Ahmed and Miller 2017).</p><p>While the practical and mathematical execution of these approached failed to overcome the technical barriers of their time, deeper philosophical currents present in such were were carried on through discourse in both feminist and human geography. Much of this work has engaged with Marx’s concept of the “annihilation of space by time” particularly as articulated through Harvey’s (1990) explication of “time-space compression.” Despite academic interest in the relational experiences of space in daily life and a recognition that distance alone is an insufficient means of characterizing the spaces and places in which human interaction takes place, there has been little engagement with these ideas with respect to the creation of representational voting districts where an emphasis on purportedly “neutral” algorithms and their resulting visualizations has dominated the public discourse.</p><p>We present an approach for the visualization of congressional districts within the United States that is based upon the estimated travel time between points according to Bing Maps API. Such an approach is informed by the relational, lived experiences of individuals as they attempt to traverse space, but also requires significant computational complexity. The approach follows Forer’s (1978) conceptual model of continuous spatial transformations between all points. To create a visualization that maintains some similarity to the types seen by traditional maps, points will be assigned as an evenly spaced grid at sufficient density to roughly approximate the full shape of traditional congressional district polygons. In our test case, we demonstrate significant distortion of districts when travel-time is taken into account that reveals otherwise cartographically hidden experiences of lived space. We select three districts in Washington state for this demonstration, although the open-source code can be readily applied to any district for which the user has information.</p><p>In brief, the process involves the transformation of a congressional district to a set of coordinate points (Figure 1). A distance matrix of travel times between all-points-to-all-points is then constructed. MDS, a process for arranging points based on their dissimilarity (Bouts et al. 2016; Shimizu &amp; Inoue 2009; VanderPlas 2016), allows for the rearranging of these points within a graph network such that the average travel time between all points in the graph is minimized. This follows Morrill’s (1973; 1976) approach to the construction of congressional districts.</p>

Subsequent to the filing ofBadham v. Eu, the 1984 California elections provided classic examples that pervasive gerrymandering has become the newest form of voting dilution. On a statewide basis, Republican congressional candidates in California captured a clear majority of the two-party vote, yet won only 18 of the 45 seats (or 40 percent). Congressional district lines were drawn by incumbent Democrats in Congress and ratified by the heavily Democratic California legislature.It is probably little exaggeration to term the California legislature a self-perpetuating oligarchy, accountable primarily to itself by the act of carefully fencing voters in and out of districts calculated to preserve the status quo, regardless of all but monumental shifts in voter sentiment or population mobility. In other states (e.g., Indiana) the legislative oligarchies are Republican.Does this type of voter debasement call for another bold move—as in 1964—by the United States Supreme Court? To many, this understandably seems to be the thorniest part of the “political thicket” that the late Justice Frankfurter had cautioned his colleagues to avoid. But, having entered it in 1964 and after, can the judiciary now ignore this new dimension of malapportionment? It is tempting to leave the problem to the “give-and-take” of the political process. But the process itself is closer to one of monopoly than of free competition. A quarter century ago the problem of malapportionment (geographically defined) was virtually immune from political remedies for much the same reasons.

Subsequent to the filing of Badham v. Eu, the 1984 California elections provided classic examples that pervasive gerrymandering has become the newest form of voting dilution. On a statewide basis, Republican congressional candidates in California captured a clear majority of the two-party vote, yet won only 18 of the 45 seats (or 40 percent). Congressional district lines were drawn by incumbent Democrats in Congress and ratified by the heavily Democratic California legislature.It is probably little exaggeration to term the California legislature a self-perpetuating oligarchy, accountable primarily to itself by the act of carefully fencing voters in and out of districts calculated to preserve the status quo, regardless of all but monumental shifts in voter sentiment or population mobility. In other states (e.g., Indiana) the legislative oligarchies are Republican.Does this type of voter debasement call for another bold move—as in 1964—by the United States Supreme Court? To many, this understandably seems to be the thorniest part of the “political thicket” that the late Justice Frankfurter had cautioned his colleagues to avoid. But, having entered it in 1964 and after, can the judiciary now ignore this new dimension of malapportionment? It is tempting to leave the problem to the “give-and-take” of the political process. But the process itself is closer to one of monopoly than of free competition. A quarter century ago the problem of malapportionment (geographically defined) was virtually immune from political remedies for much the same reasons.

AbstractIn the contemporary American political landscape, gerrymandering and the passage of anti‐abortion legislation are intimately connected in what I call reproductive gerrymandering. I develop this concept as an analytic tool to understand the disjuncture between the passage of laws restricting reproductive healthcare access and the will of the majority of voters. In this ethnographic project, Ohio serves as an important case study where efforts to elect a supermajority of extremist anti‐abortion Republican officials has allowed for the passage of unpopular legislation restricting abortion. I argue that the mundane bureaucratic processes involved in electoral redistricting and state budget procedures are forms of bureaucratic violence that result in structural harm experienced by pregnant people, especially those who are most marginalized. Reproductive gerrymandering provides a means for theorizing the connections across domains involving partisan redistricting, reproductive governance in the form of anti‐abortion legislation, and the structural violence experienced by pregnant people seeking abortion.

The greatest threat of democratic breakdown stems from the federal structure of the US Constitution and from false claims of election fraud with the potential for state- or congressional- level reversals of popular vote outcomes. The potential for such a breakdown was revealed by the events of January 6, 2021, with tens of millions of voters still believing in the big lie and the repetition of that lie by legislators and government officials. It is exacerbated by hyperpolarization, minoritarian control caused by partisan gerrymandering for state legislative districts and in the US House, malapportionment in the US Senate, and the highest likelihood of Electoral College reversals of popular vote outcomes in more than a century. Democratic breakdown is also made more likely by recent legislation that makes it easier for legislators in some gerrymandered states to reverse the outcomes of the popular vote in their states.

The attempt by former President Donald Trump to manipulate the United States’ 2020 presidential elections is a salient example of how electoral manipulation has changed to adapt to the new political and societal context that marks present-day elections. This highlights the need for a novel approach to help us better understand electoral manipulation, which is becoming increasingly common all over the world. This article addresses this need by presenting a novel framework for examining electoral manipulation in the United States in the 2020s. A novel feature of the framework is a focus on the interplay between different manipulation tactics. It identifies nine electoral manipulation tactics that interact with and reinforce each other: breaking democratic norms, disinformation, gerrymandering, voter suppression, hacking and leaking, collusion with foreign states, intraparty pressure, intimidation and violence, and corrupting state and government institutions.

Political scientists have expressed concern about the current state of democracy in the United States, which is widely regarded as a pioneer in the modern democratic world. This study focuses on three institutional practices and systems—gerrymandering, the Electoral College, and Misinformation/hate speech—that are deemed detrimental to democracy/undemocratic and in need of reform. While Gen Zers (born between 1997-2012) are projected to become a significant voting bloc in future elections, there is limited research on their political opinions. To gauge the attitudes and preferences of Gen Zers regarding American democracy and potential institutional/practice reforms, a survey of 215 participants was conducted. The findings indicate that the majority of Gen Zers express concern about the state of democracy and are open to the idea of reform, although they do not strongly support any specific reform. Respondents displayed significant support for reforming gerrymandering, while opinions on reforming the Electoral College and addressing Misinformation/hate speech were divided along partisan lines. A subsequent focus group highlighted the participants' emphasis on the importance of civic engagement and media literacy education in high schools, as well as the need for more comprehensive local and federal curricular mandates.

We provide the first evidence that firms, not just voters, are gerrymandered. We compare allocations of firms in enacted redistricting plans to counterfactual distributions constructed using simulation methods. We find that firms are over-allocated to districts held by the mapmakers’ party when partisans control the redistricting process; maps drawn by courts and independent commissions allocate firms more proportionately. Our results hold when we account for the gerrymandering of seats: fixing the number of seats the mapmakers’ party wins, they obtain more firms than expected in their districts. Our research reveals that partisan mapmakers target more than just voters, shedding new light on the link between corporate and political power in the United States and opening new pathways for studying how mapmakers actually draw district boundaries.

The idea that a government’s legitimacy depends upon the consent of those governed is a central feature of most democracies. In a representative democracy, the people exercise power indirectly, through voting in elections. Consequently, elections may be regarded as the central institution of a representative democracy. In theory, elections strive to capture the will of the people and translate it into proportional political representation. Yet in practice, they often fail to do so. This paper will examine the main flaws with elections in the United States. First it will discuss issues related to disenfranchisement, which result in large segments of the population being excluded from vote and, thereby, from the democratic process. Then it will examine issues related to electoral systems themselves, such as gerrymandering and design flaws in the electoral college and first-past-the-post elections, which prevent the votes that get made from being translated into proportional influence in the government. Throughout the discussion, this paper will also identify and evaluate potential paths for reform that could resolve or mitigate these problems, improving the health of American democracy.