American Government and Organization PS1301 Tuesday, 16 September.
American Government and Organization PS1301 Friday, 20 February.
-
Upload
dwight-floyd -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of American Government and Organization PS1301 Friday, 20 February.
American Government American Government and Organizationand Organization
PS1301PS1301
Friday, 20 FebruaryFriday, 20 February
ReviewReview
Descriptive vs. Policy (or Political) Descriptive vs. Policy (or Political) RepresentationRepresentation
Redistricting and GerrymanderingRedistricting and Gerrymandering
GerrymanderingGerrymandering
Equal populationsEqual populations
PartisanPartisan
IncumbencyIncumbency
RacialRacial
Supreme Court DecisionsSupreme Court Decisions
Baker vs. Carr (1962)Baker vs. Carr (1962) launched the launched the “reapportionment revolution”. The suit was “reapportionment revolution”. The suit was brought by urban plaintiffs in Tennessee who brought by urban plaintiffs in Tennessee who challenged their state legislature’s failure to challenged their state legislature’s failure to reapportion despite widespread population shiftsreapportion despite widespread population shiftsMalapportionmentMalapportionment refers to inequalities in district refers to inequalities in district populations. Court ruled that it violates the 14populations. Court ruled that it violates the 14 thth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws. “One person one vote”.the laws. “One person one vote”.Wesberry v. Sanders (1964) Wesberry v. Sanders (1964) Decision was Decision was extended to U.S. House of Representativesextended to U.S. House of Representatives
ConsequencesConsequences
Massive RedistrictingMassive Redistricting
Further LitigationFurther Litigation
Democratic advantage (control of state Democratic advantage (control of state legislatures and the courts)legislatures and the courts)
Incumbency advantageIncumbency advantage
Racial GerrymanderingRacial Gerrymandering
Voting Rights Act of 1965 restrained states from Voting Rights Act of 1965 restrained states from diluting (cracking) minority votes.diluting (cracking) minority votes.
Prior to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Prior to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Mississippi had a majority district (66%) Mississippi had a majority district (66%) continued to elect white congressman because continued to elect white congressman because blacks were denied the right to vote. blacks were denied the right to vote.
1982 Amendment to the Voting Rights Act of 1982 Amendment to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 fostered the creation of 1965 fostered the creation of majority-minority majority-minority districts. districts.
Majority Minority DistrictsMajority Minority Districts
Thornburg v Gingles (1986)Thornburg v Gingles (1986) The decision by the The decision by the Supreme Court enunciated tests to determine Supreme Court enunciated tests to determine whether a minority’s representation had been whether a minority’s representation had been compromisedcompromised Is the group large enough and located in a compact Is the group large enough and located in a compact
enough area to elect a representative if grouped into enough area to elect a representative if grouped into a single district?a single district?
Is the group politically cohesive?Is the group politically cohesive? Is there evidence of racially polarized voting by the Is there evidence of racially polarized voting by the
majority against candidates of that group?majority against candidates of that group?
Majority Minority DistrictsMajority Minority Districts
In 1990--creation of 15 new African In 1990--creation of 15 new African American districts (total of 32)American districts (total of 32)Creation of 9 new Latino districts (total of Creation of 9 new Latino districts (total of 20).20).All but one of these districts elected a All but one of these districts elected a minorityminorityNorth Carolina’s 12th linked black North Carolina’s 12th linked black neighborhoods along 160 miles of I85 from neighborhoods along 160 miles of I85 from Durham to Charlotte.Durham to Charlotte.
Racial GerrmanderingRacial Gerrmandering
Supreme Court IntervenesSupreme Court Intervenes
Shaw v. Reno (1993)Shaw v. Reno (1993) Under a 5-4 ruling, two North Carolina districts Under a 5-4 ruling, two North Carolina districts
were declared--the 1st and the 12th in were declared--the 1st and the 12th in violation of the equal protection under the law violation of the equal protection under the law by diluting white votes the districts were by diluting white votes the districts were criticized for being too irregular--looked like criticized for being too irregular--looked like segregation by race.segregation by race.
How the Electoral System Can How the Electoral System Can Reduce CompetitionReduce Competition
Redistricting creates “safe” districts Redistricting creates “safe” districts Senate races are more competitive in part Senate races are more competitive in part
because states are more diverse, more because states are more diverse, more balanced party competitionbalanced party competition
Donovan/Bowler – Reforming the Republic Table 3.1 p49 Donovan/Bowler – Reforming the Republic Table 3.1 p49 Congressional ElectionsCongressional Elections
Example of votes to seats bias from First past the post elections
Texas 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
Democrats - %Votes/%Seats 50/70 42/63 44/57 44/57 47/57
Republicans - %Votes/%Seats 48/30 56/37 54/43 53/43 49/43
Other - %Votes/%Seats 2/0 2/0 2/0 4/0 4/0
Texas DistrictsTexas DistrictsThe Debate: Democrats have a The Debate: Democrats have a 17-15 majority17-15 majority in the in the current Texas congressional delegation. current Texas congressional delegation. State lawmakers failed to redraw the congressional State lawmakers failed to redraw the congressional district in 2001. Proposals were submitted to state and district in 2001. Proposals were submitted to state and federal courts and a decision was made in November federal courts and a decision was made in November 2001 to adopt the 2001 to adopt the districts for the 2002 electiondistricts for the 2002 election..The GOP is pushing plans that would give them as many The GOP is pushing plans that would give them as many as 21 seats. Link to as 21 seats. Link to Save Texas RepsSave Texas RepsCurrent and proposed districtsCurrent and proposed districts: On September 24 both : On September 24 both houses of the Texas Legislature voted to adopt the plan.houses of the Texas Legislature voted to adopt the plan.ConsequencesConsequences
Texas Redistricting (2000-2004)Texas Redistricting (2000-2004)
Link to interactive map
The 17The 17thth District District
Charlie Stenholm Charlie Stenholm (Democrat) representing the district west of Dallas (Democrat) representing the district west of Dallas since 1979 (and a graduate of Texas Tech).since 1979 (and a graduate of Texas Tech).Votes reflect conservative values of the cattle, cotton, and oil Votes reflect conservative values of the cattle, cotton, and oil industry. He opposes abortion, fights for balanced budgets, and industry. He opposes abortion, fights for balanced budgets, and voted for the impeachment of Bill Clinton.voted for the impeachment of Bill Clinton.““They did everything they could to bust my political base. They drew They did everything they could to bust my political base. They drew my farm and where I grew up in the Amarillo district, and they drew my farm and where I grew up in the Amarillo district, and they drew Abilene, where I live now, into the Lubbock district”…When we Abilene, where I live now, into the Lubbock district”…When we Democrats controlled the legislature, sure we protected Democrats. Democrats controlled the legislature, sure we protected Democrats. But we didn’t do harm to the Republicans who were in office. This But we didn’t do harm to the Republicans who were in office. This thing today is a whole different order of magnitude.” (Toobin, “thing today is a whole different order of magnitude.” (Toobin, “The Great Election GrabThe Great Election Grab” New Yorker Magazine, Dec. 8, 2003).” New Yorker Magazine, Dec. 8, 2003).
Incumbency AdvantageIncumbency Advantage
Decline in CompetitionDecline in Competition
Incumbent Victory MarginsIncumbent Victory Margins
Explanations for Incumbency Explanations for Incumbency AdvantageAdvantage
Electoral Rules (which we have discussed)Electoral Rules (which we have discussed)Name RecognitionName RecognitionGreater resources for staff, travel, local offices, Greater resources for staff, travel, local offices, and communicationand communication In 2001, these allowances ranged from $980,699 to In 2001, these allowances ranged from $980,699 to
$1,469,930 per legislator in the House; $1,926,296 to $1,469,930 per legislator in the House; $1,926,296 to $3,301,071 in the Senate $3,301,071 in the Senate
CaseworkCaseworkCampaign contributionsCampaign contributionsHard workHard work