National
Redistricting News
February -
July
2002
-
Stateline.org: "Primary Schedule Now Nearly Complete."
July 23, 2002
-
Milwaukee Journal
Sentinel
: "Despite redistricting, few House seats up for grabs."
July 14, 2002
-
New York Times:
"Justice Dept. Accused of Politics in Redistricting."
May 31, 2002
-
Reuters: "Redistricting Sparks Bitter Political Brawls."
May 17, 2002
-
New
York Times: "Time to Draw the Line." May 11, 2002
-
Associated Press: "Redistricting Challenges Heating Up."
May 5, 2002
-
The Economist: "How to Rig an
Election." April 25, 2002
-
Washington Post:
"House Democrats' Climb Gets Steeper." April 2, 2002
-
Richmond Times: "The
Brooding
Tensions in Redistricting Law." March 28, 2002
-
News and
Observer: "Races for Congress that signify nothing." March 24,
2002
-
Associated Press:
"Redistricting Creates Fierce Battles." March 22, 2002
-
Congressional Quarterly: "Remap Action Still Pending in Eight States." March
20, 2002
-
National Journal: "Off to the
Races: Partisan Equilibrium." March 19, 2002
-
Wall Street Journal: "It's time to draw the line on gerrymandering." March
13, 2002
-
New York Times:
"Redistricting 2002 Produces No Great Shakeups." March 13, 2002
-
USA Today: "Most incumbents safely
inside new districts." March 6, 2002
-
Associated Press: "Republicans trim predictions of House gains, Democrats
claim a draw." March 5, 2002
-
Roll Call: "Between
the Lines (excerpt)." March 4, 2002
-
Associated Press: "Race, History Informs
Redistricting." February 21, 2002
-
The Hill: "House
women face losses in 2002 election." February 20, 2002
-
New York Times: "In Real
Elections, There Is Competition." February 16, 2002
-
Roll Call: "Between the Lines
(excerpt)." February 18, 2002
-
Washington Post: "House Democrats Ahead in
Finances: GOP Trails in 14 of 22 Key Contests." February 6,
2002
-
-
-
Michael McDonald, an
assistant professor at the University of Illinois-Springfield has
compiled a redistricting scorecard with updated
information about the redistricting progress in each
state.
More
redistricting news
Stateline.org
Primary Schedule Now Nearly Complete By Greg McDonald
July 23, 2002
Courts have finally cleared the way for primary
elections to take place in Florida, Kansas, North Carolina and New
Hampshire, the last states where legislative redistricting disputes
threatened to derail this fall�s nominating process for the general
election. But it�s still unclear whether the New Hampshire primary
scheduled for Sept. 10 will include a full slate of candidates for
all statewide races. The state Supreme Court is still trying to
resolve a dispute over the 400 House districts and may not issue its
remap plan in time to place candidates on the ballot. As things
stand now, the New Hampshire primary will feature party showdowns in
the races for U.S. Congress, governor, the state Senate and a
handful of other statewide offices. Deputy Secretary of State David
Scanlan said there is still a slim chance the state House contests
could also be added to a separate ballot in time for voters to make
their choices on that day as well, but that depends on when the
court finishes redrawing the districts. If a final plan is issued
by week�s end (7/26) there may still be time for candidates to file
and to print up the ballots. If not, he said, the state will have to
hold a second primary later in September for voters to select their
nominees to the state legislature. �Each day that goes by makes it
that much more difficult�We�re really up against the wall,� Scanlan
said.. Other states are also facing rushed schedules because of
scuffles between Republicans and Democrats over district lines that
ended up in court and have recently been resolved. David Scanlan
North Carolina was the only state to actually have its primary
postponed because of redistricting disputes. Elections officials
were forced to put the planned May 7 primary on hold while lawmakers
feuded in state and federal courts over the shape of legislative
districts. The General Assembly finally approved a new primary date
of Sept 10 after the Justice Department signed off on a court-drawn
remap plan for state House and Senate seats earlier this month. At
the same time, lawmakers voted to scrap a runoff election that would
normally occur between the primary and general election in November.
�What we�re looking at is a shortened timeframe (for candidate
filing and pre-clearance of ballots through the Justice
Department),� said Johnnie McLean, deputy director of administration
for the North Carolina Board of Elections. McLean said she
worries that the lack of a runoff election, coupled with the
shortened schedule between the primary and general election on Nov.
5, could cause problems if disputes and court challenges arise over
recounts or administrative errors. Normally, a runoff is held
when the leading candidate fails to get more than 40 percent of the
vote in a race that has three contenders or more. This year,
however, the candidate who gets the most votes will be certified as
the winner. �I�ve been here 17 years and I�ve never see anything
like this. Can you imagine what�s its going to be like in a real
close race. �We�ve already begun to pray, �Dear Lord, please let
them all win big,�� she laughed. Kansas and Florida came close to
postponing their primaries. But now that state and federal courts
have resolved fights over their legislative and congressional
districts, the elections can move forward. Kansas will hold its
primary on Aug. 6, Florida on Sept 10. At least one other state
holding elections this fall � Maryland � is still awaiting the
outcome of a court challenge to redistricting. But the fight in
Maryland over congressional boundaries is not expected to interfere
with its Sept. 10 primary. Two other states meanwhile, chose to
take the safer route this year of avoiding any potential problems
that redistricting could cause for their elections. Maine and
Montana opted not redraw their legislative and congressional
boundaries until next year.
Milwaukee Journal
Sentinel Despite redistricting, few House seats up
for grabs By Craig Gilbert July 14, 2002
Like your local congressman? These days, you haven't
got much choice. None of Wisconsin's eight U.S. House races is
expected to be competitive this fall, based on the field of
challengers that met last Tuesday's filing deadline. That hasn't
happened since the '80s. Nationally, handicappers put the number of
"tossup" races at just a dozen or fewer - out of 435. The sheer
lopsidedness of House elections isn't new; across the country,
incumbents won 98% of their races in 1998 and 2000. But what's
galling some observers is that this year was supposed to be
different. It's the first campaign under the new congressional lines
drawn after the 10-year 2000 census. Redistricting typically creates
a surge in contested races as incumbents confront new boundaries and
constituencies. Experts say that this time, both major parties went
to special lengths to create safer partisan seats for their own
sitting House members. "In state after state, there were incumbent
sweetheart deals," says Michael Malbin, political scientist and
executive director of the Campaign Finance Institute, a non-partisan
research group here. The result: Despite an ultracompetitive
electorate in 2000 that produced a presidential standoff and a split
Senate, House elections are largely devoid of suspense and meaning.
Consider Wisconsin. The state's eight House members up for
re-election all enjoy the traditional personal advantages of
incumbency, from high visibility to campaign chests that averaged
$540,000 at the end of March. None faces a major party challenger
with significant money, name recognition or political experience.
Not even Madison Democrat Tammy Baldwin, who was barely re-elected
in 2000, attracted a top-tier opponent. The Republican who nearly
beat her, University of Wisconsin historian John Sharpless, declined
to run again. His reasons capture why it's so hard to beat a member
of Congress. In two elections, he says, he ran up $60,000 in
personal debt. He would have to take unpaid leave from his public
university job to be a candidate. He points to incumbents' perks
such as the ability to send mail free to constituents touting their
activities. "It's all these little things that add up," he says.
Then there's redistricting. Baldwin's already Democratic-leaning
2nd District was made slightly more so under the new map, which was
negotiated among Wisconsin House incumbents from both parties. The
partisan shift was statistically small, but Sharpless thought it was
significant given how close the 2000 race was and how difficult the
district is for the GOP. He felt his party should have fought harder
for a more balanced district. "I love politics, and I'd love to run
again," Sharpless says. But "boy, it was frustrating," he says of
the new district lines. "It will reduce competition. If they say
otherwise, they're lying to us." Signs of balance One sign of a
competitive, balanced district is when it votes one way for
president and the other way for Congress. That was true of two
Wisconsin seats in 2000: Janesville Republican Paul Ryan's 1st
District voted for Democrat Al Gore, and Milwaukee Democrat Jerry
Kleczka's 4th District voted for Republican George W. Bush. But
under the new lines, there are no districts that meet that test.
Ryan's district became more Republican, and Kleczka inherited a much
more Democratic home base. Does redistricting explain the lack of
competition in Wisconsin's House races this fall? That is disputed
by party leaders and incumbents. "Wisconsin has more competitive
districts than most states," argues Ryan. He and Baldwin both defend
the new map, saying the changes were logical given the state's loss
of a House seat and population shifts within Wisconsin. Mild shift in Wisconsin
Two points should be made. One is that there are
clearly other factors at work, including money, name recognition and
the status-quo political climate. One-sided races in the state are
an old story. While the '90s saw the defeat of three Wisconsin House
incumbents (Democratic veteran Bob Kastenmeier and first-termers Jay
Johnson and Peter Barca), there were no competitive races of any
kind throughout much of the '80s. "Incumbents are able to
strengthen their districts for themselves - you get to know
everybody," says Ryan, who dominated his old district even when it
leaned slightly Democratic. Recruiting challengers "is just not
easy," says state GOP chairman Rick Graber, who differs with
Sharpless over how significant the changes were to Baldwin's
district. The state's Democratic Party chair, Linda Honold,
contends it is less the new map than the long wait (until March) for
the new lines that made it hard for would-be challengers in both
parties. "It's very difficult to jump into a congressional race
that late in the game," Honold says. Point two: While the new lines
in Wisconsin are undeniably helpful to some current incumbents, it
would be a stretch to call them a dramatic shift toward unbalanced
seats. The new and old maps both feature a mix of non-competitive
and competitive districts, some of which plausibly could be won by
either party in an open-seat race. Nationwide effects The effects
of redistricting on competition are actually more stark in many
other states. The Cook Political Report ranks 46 House races
nationally this year as "competitive" (a broader category than
"tossup"). That's way down from the comparable election in 1992,
which also followed a redistricting. Back then, handicapper Charles
Cook rated 121 races as competitive. This time, some of the
nation's largest states are virtual contest-free zones. Cook rates
only one of California's 53 House races as competitive, one of
Texas' 32 and one of Illinois' 19. Iowa, which leaves its
redistricting to a non-partisan commission, has a higher number of
competitive races than those three much larger states combined. One
sign of the impact of redistricting on competition is that incumbent
U.S. senators, who have to run statewide and aren't affected by
changes in the political map, aren't nearly the lock for re-election
that most House members are. This year, there are 34 U.S. Senate
seats on the ballot, and anywhere from seven to 12 are in play. By
historical standards, competition isn't suffering in Senate
contests. Risk of polarized parties What's the consequence of
having more House districts dominated by a single party? Aside from
lack of voter choice, one legacy could be fewer centrists on Capitol
Hill, analysts say. That's because in an open-seat district
dominated by either Democrats or Republicans, the winner is going to
be decided in a primary, not the general election. Primaries tend to
be dominated by more ideological and motivated voters. "The impact
on our politics is disastrous because it forces a polarization of
our politics," says Curtis Gans, head of the non-partisan Committee
for the Study of the American Electorate. The narrow playing field
also reduces the chances for either party to gain a solid,
functional majority in the House. And it tends to lock in the
partisan status quo. It is going to make it very difficult for
Democrats to regain the majority even though they are only six seats
short. That's because they'd have to win a huge share of the small
number of available races. In the long run, the fallout will depend
on whether the dearth of meaningful races turns out to be a passing
blip or a more permanent feature of U.S. elections. There won't be
another redistricting until 2012. "I just think we're headed into a
period where in a typical year, instead of three or four dozen
competitive races, there may be one or two dozen, and that is a very
important national fact," Malbin says. Others disagree. Hope for future
"A lot of people want to rub their hands together and say,
'Woe is me, we'll never see competitive races again.' I don't think
so," says Amy Walter, who handicaps House races for the Cook
Political Report. She notes that other factors also have helped
incumbents, including positive approval ratings for Congress and the
fact that both redistricting and the Sept. 11 attacks kept would-be
challengers on the sidelines. Another question is whether the
current competitive drought (only nine House members lost in 2000
and seven in 1998) creates public pressure for reform. Congress just
concluded a long, fierce battle over campaign finance, but it
centered on the issues of corruption and big money, not on
competitiveness. In fact, scholars and lawmakers debate if the new
McCain-Feingold law helps level the playing field, makes things
worse, or is a wash. "It's a great conversation for reformers to
start having, that lack of competition is a problem," says Robert
Richie, executive director of the Maryland-based Center for Voting
and Democracy, a group that advocates "fairer elections." He notes
growing attention to the issue in the media. What are the remedies?
One step Richie and other reformers advocate is what Iowa and
several other states do - transfer the redistricting process from
state legislatures to less partisan commissions. Getting competitive
But the more personal advantages of incumbency may be
harder politically to address. Asked what he would do, Ryan
answered, "term limits," though the term limits movement has flagged
politically in recent years and faces massive obstacles at the
federal level. Baldwin says she favors public financing of elections
to level the field, a step most Republicans oppose and one that
campaign reformers have found to be a legislative non-starter. But
Baldwin also argues that "safe seats" that tilt sharply toward one
party aren't necessarily bad. "Is it better to have the vast
majority of a congressional district feeling well-represented and in
sync with their member of Congress and vice versa, or is it better
to have a competitive district where there's a very active dialogue
on issues, however with a sizable number of constituents feeling
unrepresented by whoever is successful in the election? I think
that's a real question." Sharpless takes a very different view.
"Redistricting has been the quiet issue across the country that
stifles competition," he says. "The rascals should not be drawing
their own map."
New York
Times Justice Dept. Accused of Politics in
Redistricting By David E. Rosenbaum May 31, 2002
Last winter, the Justice
Department took months to decide whether a redistricting plan for
Congressional seats in Mississippi that was supported by blacks and
Democrats met the requirements of the Voting Rights Act. The effect
of the delay was to block the Democratic plan and allow a plan drawn
by federal judges and favorable to Republicans to go into effect.
Now, the Justice Department is promising to rule quickly on a
Florida redistricting map that was drawn by Republicans. The effect
of the speedy decision will be to undermine a main element of a
Democratic court challenge to the Florida plan. Leading Democrats
accused the Bush administration today of misusing its authority
under the Voting Rights Act to make sure redistricting plans favor
Republicans. "They dragged their feet in Mississippi when it was to
their advantage," said Representative Martin Frost of Texas, the
chief Democratic spokesman on Congressional redistricting. "Now in
Florida, they're turning handsprings to act when that's to their
advantage." Several Democratic senators sent a letter today to
Attorney General John Ashcroft saying, "We trust that the Department
of Justice will take every precaution to ensure that it allows the
law � and not political considerations � to determine the outcome of
the reapportionment controversy in Florida." The Justice Department
said tonight that politics was not a factor in the redistricting
judgments. "The decisions are being made on the facts and the law by
career professionals in the Civil Rights Division," said Barbara
Comstock, a department spokeswoman. Under the Voting Rights Act,
one of the landmark civil rights laws of the 1960's, states like
Florida and Mississippi that have a history of racial discrimination
in voting must have certification from the Justice Department that
any changes in their election laws and procedures do not
discriminate against voters from minority groups. The certification
process is known as preclearance. Florida gained two Congressional
seats as a result of the 2000 census, and Mississippi lost one. The
redistricting plans for Congressional seats that follow every census
are always fraught with politics. But experts on the Voting Rights
Act from both parties said they could not recall another instance
when the Justice Department had blocked a plan like the one in
Mississippi that was clearly advantageous to blacks. In the Florida
case, the Justice Department said in papers filed in court last week
that it would rule next week on the redistricting plan, barely a
month after it received the new map from Tallahassee. The map was
drawn by the Republican legislature and Gov. Jeb Bush and gives a
considerable edge to Republican candidates. Democrats have
challenged the plan in federal court.
Reuters
Redistricting Sparks Bitter Political Brawls
By John Whitesides May 17, 2002
A bitter showdown next week between Pennsylvania
Democrats Frank Mascara and John Murtha kicks off a nationwide
series of heavyweight battles between House incumbents thrown
together by redistricting. As a result of the once-a-decade
redrawing of congressional boundaries required to even out
population changes, 16 incumbents face each other in high-stakes
races. Many others opted to retire or run in another district
instead. The match-ups ensure more House incumbents will be booted
out of office at the ballot box this year than in either 1998 and
2000. In each of those years, only six incumbents lost. Most of the
resulting campaigns promise to be highly personal slugfests as
incumbents turn their usual built-in advantages in organization,
name recognition and fund-raising on each other. ``When two
incumbents run, you've got two great machines colliding,'' Larry
Sabato of the University of Virginia said. ''There are no more
vicious battles than intraparty battles, because the candidates
usually agree on so many issues.'' That has been true in western
Pennsylvania, where the race between veterans Mascara, 72, and
Murtha, 69, has become an ugly blood feud. Mascara says Murtha never
liked him and schemed with Republicans to draw a map to oust him;
Murtha rejects the charges and says Mascara should tell the truth.
Murtha, who has served 15 terms and is the second-ranking Democrat
on the Appropriations Committee and ranking member of the defense
spending panel, touts his ability to create jobs and get things done
for his district. Mascara, a four-term veteran who reminds voters
he lives in a two-story frame house and parks his car in the street,
says Murtha has been seduced by special interests. ``It's corporate
America versus the working men and women of this district,'' said
Mascara, who also made an issue of Murtha's refusal to debate him.
Murtha's campaign staff says he could not work debates into his
schedule as he was busy in Washington working on the supplemental
spending bill and defense issues. ``Early on we were willing to
debate, but the schedules never worked out,'' Murtha spokesman Brad
Clemenson said. Mascara chose to take on Murtha in the new 12th
District -- where about 47 percent of the Democrats are from his old
district, 43 percent from Murtha's and 10 percent from elsewhere --
instead of running in an adjacent district that is potentially more
Republican. ``I'm tough, I don't like people pushing other people
around,'' Mascara said. ``At some point I'm going to leave this
Congress, but I'm going to leave on my own terms.'' MORE BATTLES
AHEAD More primary battles between incumbents loom in August in
Georgia, where Republicans Bob Barr and John Linder square off in an
increasingly heated race, and in Michigan, where Democrats John
Dingell and Lynn Rivers face each other. Dingell is a 24-term
veteran who is the most senior member of the House, while Rivers has
built a strong record of support for abortion rights, the
environment and gun safety. Barr is one of the most combative of
the House's conservatives. The more low-key Linder headed the House
Republican campaign committee in 1998. The year's first matchup
between incumbents occurred last week in Indiana, where Rep. Steve
Buyer, a five-term veteran, defeated freshman Rep. Brian Kerns, who
raised little money in a quiet Republican primary with few of the
usual fireworks. Four direct battles between incumbents from
different parties are set for November, with the Connecticut matchup
between Republican Nancy Johnson and Democrat James Maloney and the
Mississippi race between Democrat Ronnie Shows and Republican
Charles Pickering leading the way. In Pennsylvania, Republican
George Gekas and Democrat Tim Holden meet in November, while
Republican John Shimkus and Democrat David Phelps battle in
Illinois. Both parties claim an early edge. Republican House
campaign committee spokesman Carl Forti said each of the districts
leans Republican. ``In all four of the races we are probably favored
to win at this stage,'' he said. But Democratic Rep. Martin Frost
of Texas, who headed the party's redistricting effort, said the
party's candidates were more battle-hardened. Maloney and Shows,
whose district lost some of its African-American voting power under
the Mississippi map, have triumphed after difficult campaigns in the
past. ``Our candidates have all had tough races before and they're
all prepared,'' Frost said.
Reuters Redistricting Sparks Bitter Political
Brawls By John Whitesides May 17, 2002 A bitter showdown
next week between Pennsylvania Democrats Frank Mascara and John
Murtha kicks off a nationwide series of heavyweight battles between
House incumbents thrown together by redistricting. As a result of
the once-a-decade redrawing of congressional boundaries required to
even out population changes, 16 incumbents face each other in
high-stakes races. Many others opted to retire or run in another
district instead. The match-ups ensure more House incumbents will
be booted out of office at the ballot box this year than in either
1998 and 2000. In each of those years, only six incumbents lost.
Most of the resulting campaigns promise to be highly personal
slugfests as incumbents turn their usual built-in advantages in
organization, name recognition and fund-raising on each other.
``When two incumbents run, you've got two great machines
colliding,'' Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia said.
''There are no more vicious battles than intraparty battles, because
the candidates usually agree on so many issues.'' That has been
true in western Pennsylvania, where the race between veterans
Mascara, 72, and Murtha, 69, has become an ugly blood feud. Mascara
says Murtha never liked him and schemed with Republicans to draw a
map to oust him; Murtha rejects the charges and says Mascara should
tell the truth. Murtha, who has served 15 terms and is the
second-ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee and ranking
member of the defense spending panel, touts his ability to create
jobs and get things done for his district. Mascara, a four-term
veteran who reminds voters he lives in a two-story frame house and
parks his car in the street, says Murtha has been seduced by special
interests. ``It's corporate America versus the working men and
women of this district,'' said Mascara, who also made an issue of
Murtha's refusal to debate him. Murtha's campaign staff says he
could not work debates into his schedule as he was busy in
Washington working on the supplemental spending bill and defense
issues. ``Early on we were willing to debate, but the schedules
never worked out,'' Murtha spokesman Brad Clemenson said. Mascara
chose to take on Murtha in the new 12th District -- where about 47
percent of the Democrats are from his old district, 43 percent from
Murtha's and 10 percent from elsewhere -- instead of running in an
adjacent district that is potentially more Republican. ``I'm tough,
I don't like people pushing other people around,'' Mascara said.
``At some point I'm going to leave this Congress, but I'm going to
leave on my own terms.'' More Battles Ahead More primary battles
between incumbents loom in August in Georgia, where Republicans Bob
Barr and John Linder square off in an increasingly heated race, and
in Michigan, where Democrats John Dingell and Lynn Rivers face each
other. Dingell is a 24-term veteran who is the most senior member
of the House, while Rivers has built a strong record of support for
abortion rights, the environment and gun safety. Barr is one of the
most combative of the House's conservatives. The more low-key Linder
headed the House Republican campaign committee in 1998. The year's
first matchup between incumbents occurred last week in Indiana,
where Rep. Steve Buyer, a five-term veteran, defeated freshman Rep.
Brian Kerns, who raised little money in a quiet Republican primary
with few of the usual fireworks. Four direct battles between
incumbents from different parties are set for November, with the
Connecticut matchup between Republican Nancy Johnson and Democrat
James Maloney and the Mississippi race between Democrat Ronnie Shows
and Republican Charles Pickering leading the way. In Pennsylvania,
Republican George Gekas and Democrat Tim Holden meet in November,
while Republican John Shimkus and Democrat David Phelps battle in
Illinois. Both parties claim an early edge. Republican House
campaign committee spokesman Carl Forti said each of the districts
leans Republican. ``In all four of the races we are probably favored
to win at this stage,'' he said. But Democratic Rep. Martin Frost
of Texas, who headed the party's redistricting effort, said the
party's candidates were more battle-hardened. Maloney and Shows,
whose district lost some of its African-American voting power under
the Mississippi map, have triumphed after difficult campaigns in the
past. ``Our candidates have all had tough races before and they're
all prepared,'' Frost said.
New
York Times Time to Draw the Line May 11,
2002 Every decade, as America's state legislatures take on the
constitutional task of redrawing their political maps, New York's
Legislature does its best to protect its beloved status quo. There
are feints and dodges, with public maps brandished by the state's
political leaders while the real cartography goes on behind closed
doors. The self-protection and sneaky gamesmanship are beyond
tiresome. Other state legislatures, fed up with the same
shenanigans, have found better, fairer methods for drawing political
districts than leaving it to the politicians. In Iowa, for example,
a nonpartisan advisory group draws the lines without referring to
voter registration or even to where the state's politicians live.
The legislature votes it up or down, no amendments. At least a dozen
other states allow independent commissions or panels to draft maps
that don't come out looking so much like a collection of coffee
stains as New York's does. At this point in the redistricting
process, New York's Legislature has spent most of its time working
on the thing it cares about most � protecting its own districts. If
there is ever any question why this State Legislature never improves
� why almost nobody ever gets defeated, why political power
stagnates year after year � here is the answer. The Senate leader,
Joseph Bruno, a Republican, and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, a
Democrat, have done the job in the manner of their predecessors. The
goal is to maintain the current division of party control for the
next decade, and to give as many legislators as possible seats so
safe that nothing short of a murder indictment could pry them out of
power. The endgame is more complicated when it comes to Congress.
Because of a decrease in population upstate, New York loses two
Congressional seats this year. Gov. George Pataki, a Republican, has
suggested that two Democrats bite the dust. Mr. Bruno, another
Republican, apparently likes that idea as well. The Democratic
Assembly's plan would get rid of two Republicans, to no one's
surprise. The only current hope for fairness and sanity lies in the
courts. A decade ago, when Gov. Mario Cuomo oversaw the previous
exercise in redistricting, there was speculation that he would veto
the Legislature's work and force some reform. That hope fizzled
under the weight of political pressure from the Legislature.
Governor Pataki now has the same opportunity, and he should
demonstrate more spine. Mr. Pataki should refuse to approve any plan
until the Legislature sets up an independent redistricting
commission � if not for this time, then for 2012.
Associated Press Redistricting Challenges Heating
Up May 5, 2002 The once-a-decade fight over the nation's
political lines -- redistricting -- is moving from the capitols to
the courts with arguments about race and gerrymandering coming up in
state after state as both parties seek an elusive edge for future
elections. All but five states have finished the task of redrawing
political districts for Congress and their legislatures, and more
than a dozen of those maps have been challenged. So far, analysts
see little in the way of sweeping change as both parties wrestle for
control of the U.S. House. Most states produced status quo maps,
with at most a slight overall increase in Republican-leaning House
districts. The narrow margin in the House, with the GOP holding an
11-seat edge, adds intensity to the fight for each seat, and now the
battle for both congressional and legislative seats has turned to
litigation over the newly drawn lines. Issues vary in each state,
but minority rights and divided communities are common sticking
points. In California, Texas and Massachusetts, maps were
challenged -- so far, unsuccessfully -- by Hispanics who say the
states' political leaders drew incumbent-protecting maps that
shortchange the Latino population. In Virginia, where a new
GOP-authored map was used for state legislative elections in 2001, a
state judge ruled it was racially gerrymandered and ordered new
elections for the entire state House. The ruling is on appeal.
Court decisions can have a major impact on elections. In
Pennsylvania, three federal judges ruled the state's congressional
map was defective because districts weren't equal in population.
Nonetheless, the panel last month said the Republican-drawn map
could stand for the 2002 elections, though it promised a review that
could bring changes in 2004. North Carolina's primaries, which had
been scheduled for Tuesday, were delayed indefinitely because
Republicans claimed counties were illegally split in ways that
unfairly divided towns and cities. There are also legal battles in
Florida, Arizona, Michigan, Maryland and elsewhere. Which, if any,
of these legal challenges might change redistricting law remains to
be seen. But if the last decade is any guide, courts can
dramatically rewrite the legal foundation for political maps. ``The
cases that survive beyond (the next few months) will be these more
important constitutional issues,'' said Michael McDonald, a
political science professor at the University of Illinois,
Springfield, who helps states with the redistricting process.
Redistricting is required every 10 years after the census to
account for population changes. The electoral maps must be redrawn
so districts are equal in population. Some analysts say the effects
of the maps drawn after the 1990 census weren't fully seen until
1994, when Republicans took control of the U.S. House and Senate.
Maps with more Republican-leaning voters helped drive that year's
upset, analysts said, along with growing conservatism in the South
and a backlash to President Clinton's first term. This time, the
new maps are even more likely than usual to protect incumbents, as
in California, Texas and Massachusetts. Bigger partisan swings are
expected in Pennsylvania and Georgia. The bottom line: If neither
party can gain a wide edge in Congress, they at least don't want to
lose what they've got now. Advocates for minorities, however, say
protecting incumbents leaves their interests slighted. In addition
to Hispanic lawsuits, Indians have sued in South Dakota and Montana,
and blacks have sued in South Carolina, Georgia and Mississippi.
``Race is a critical factor. You have Democrats and Republicans
both using blacks to try to maximize their partisan advantages,''
said Laughlin McDonald, director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project
in Atlanta. ``The level of hypocrisy and disingenuousness is fairly
steep.'' The last round of redistricting focused on boosting
minority representation. But court rulings during the 1990s said
race should be just one factor among many when districts are
created. This time, Democrats have often sought to spread the
influence of minorities between districts, arguing that it helps
reduce racially polarized voting. Analysts point out that since
minorities have a track record of favoring Democrats over the GOP,
that strategy also gives Democrats a better chance to win in more
places. Democratic strategists say the Virginia state court
decision and a 2001 ruling in New Jersey upholding its legislative
maps back up their strategy. Republicans have often sought to
create districts with big majorities of minority voters, arguing it
best protects minority rights. While that makes it more certain a
district will have a minority representative, analysts say, it also
concentrates Democratic voters, leaving adjoining districts more
likely to vote GOP. When all is said and done, some analysts expect
redistricting will leave the parties about where they started,
pushing back and forth to get the narrowest of advantages over each
other. ``If there's any lessons to be drawn from the 2000 maps,''
said Ben Ginsberg, former counsel of the Republican National
Committee, ``it is that it's a pretty evenly divided country.''
States where redistricting still faces substantial legal
challenges: North Carolina : State Supreme Court indefinitely
delayed May 7 primaries for state and federal seats. Court agreed
with GOP claim that legislative map violated state constitution by
splitting counties among districts. Virginia: State judge threw out
legislative redistricting map that served for the 2001 elections,
ruling some districts in the Republican-drawn plan were racially
gerrymandered. Judge ordered new state House elections. Decision on
appeal. Arizona: Legislative and congressional maps in court, where
Hispanics and Democrats say maps violate state constitution by
creating uncompetitive districts. Testimony showed maps partly based
on incorrect data. Florida: Congressional and legislative maps face
federal and state court challenges. Democrats allege racial and
political gerrymandering by GOP-controlled legislature.
Pennsylvania: Federal judges allow 2002 elections to go ahead
despite GOP-drawn congressional map with too wide a variation in
population among districts. Judges will review new map May 8, could
order changes for 2004. Michigan: Candidate-filing deadlines
delayed as federal court prepares to hold trial on dispute over
congressional map. Democrats allege a GOP gerrymander.
The
Economist How to Rig an Election
: April 25, 2002
In a normal democracy, voters choose their
representatives. In America, it is rapidly becoming the other way
around
Imagine a state with five congressional seats and only
25 voters in each. That makes 125 voters. Sixty-five are
Republicans, 60 are Democrats. You might think a fair election in
such a state would produce, say, three Republican representatives
and two Democrats.
Now imagine you can draw the district boundaries any
way you like. The only condition is that you must keep 25 voters in
each one. If you were a Republican, you could carve up the state so
there were 13 Republicans and 12 Democrats per district. Your party
would win every seat narrowly. Republicans, five-nil.
Now imagine you were a Democrat. If you put 15
Republicans in one district, you could then divide the rest of the
state so that each district had 13 Democrats and 12 Republicans.
Democrats, four-one. Same state, same number of districts, same
party affiliation: completely different results. All you need is the
power to draw district lines. And that is what America provides: a
process, called redistricting, which, through back-room negotiations
too boring for most voters to think about, can distort the
democratic system itself.
All countries, in the interests of equal
representation, adjust their electoral boundaries to reflect
population changes. Most democracies hand over this job to
independent commissions, which content themselves with tinkering
with existing boundaries. In America, in all but a few states, that
idea sounds elitist and undemocratic. So every ten years, after the
census, politicians in state legislatures meet to draw new voting
maps which are approved by the state governor. Since America's
population is both faster-growing and more mobile than that of other
old democracies, and since the Voting Rights Act actually requires
minorities to have special �majority-minority districts� in order to
get an equal chance to elect candidates of their choice (ie, their
race), redistricters end up doing a lot more than tinker.
The results are as bizarre as you would expect.
Florida's 22nd District is 90 miles long and never more than 3 miles
wide. It consists of every beach house lining Route A1A along
Florida's Gold Coast from West Palm Beach to Miami Beach. You could
say about this district, as used to be said of the old Texas 6th
(which was a road from Houston to Dallas), that you could kill most
of the constituents by driving down the road with the car doors
open. Other districts look like donuts, embryos or Rorschach tests.
But the champion gerrymandering comes from Illinois.
Chicago has two Hispanic areas. They are in different parts of the
city, but that has not discouraged the good politicians of Illinois
from creating a constituency consisting of these two areas only.
They lie on either side of a black part of the city like the bread
of a sandwich. Worst of all is the state's extraordinary 17th
District, which is a crab (see chart). Though most of it lies in the
western part of the state, two claws stretch out towards the eastern
part to grab Democratic cities in order to make the surrounding 18th
and 19th districts more reliably Republican.
Weirdly shaped districts like these are signs that a
crime has been committed. Again, start with Florida. This year, the
Republican-controlled legislature has proposed a map with 18
Republican-leaning seats and seven Democratic ones. But as the 2000
presidential vote showed, Florida's electorate is split perfectly
down the middle. The map has been rigged outrageously to favour the
Republicans.
Florida is gaining population and seats. But it is
just as easy to rig elections if your population is falling.
Michigan, for example, will lose a seat this time. There, the
Republican-dominated state assembly has managed to arrange matters
so that six Democratic incumbent congressmen will have to slug it
out among themselves for only three Democratic-leaning districts.
Democrats will probably lose three seats in a state that Al Gore
won.
Michigan also provides an extreme example of what
clever redistricting can do for an individual. Mike Rogers
represents the 8th District around the state capital, Lansing. He
squeezed into office by a mere 160 votes in 2000, and had to wait
even longer than George Bush for confirmation of his victory. The
new redistricting plan tacks on a lot of Republican suburbs to his
seat. So, after only two years, the man who won by the narrowest of
margins in 2000 finds himself in such a safe Republican seat that no
Democrat is bothering to challenge him in 2002.
Needless to say, Democrats are equally partisan. In
Georgia they have drawn a map which means they will probably pick
up�mirabile dictu�both of the state's new districts. And in North
Carolina, long notorious for outrageous reapportionment, the
chairman of the state redistricting committee is running for a new
congressional seat that he himself mapped out.
And now technology makes it worse
Such things have long been staples of American
political life. It would be too much to claim that redistricting has
fundamentally altered any nationwide election result. But this year
is slightly different, and in some ways worse, for two reasons.
First, new software has made it easier to draw more �reliable�
electoral maps�ie, to be more exact in your partisanship. Until the
1990s, legislators had to draw districts using coloured pens on
acetate sheets spread out on big maps on the floor. Computers
appeared in the 1990s, but only big, sophisticated ones could handle
the demographic data, putting the cost beyond all but a few states.
Now the Census Bureau puts out digitised maps, called
TIGER/Line files. New geographic information systems for mapping and
analysing demographic data cost only a few thousand dollars, work on
ordinary Windows operating systems, and can draw up partisan maps
automatically. This has turned gerrymandering�sorry,
redistricting�from an art into a science.
Second, the 50-50 split in the 2000 election has
changed what the parties want from redistricting. Under the old
plans, you maximised your seats by drawing up districts which you
would win narrowly. That was risky, because it gave your opponents a
chance. Now the parties have adopted a policy of safety first.
Because the House of Representatives is so closely balanced,
legislatures try to maximise the number of safe seats for each side,
drawing competitive districts only if they cannot avoid it.
In California, the Democrats in the legislature passed
up a chance of grabbing risky seats from Republicans, and approved a
map with only one competitive district out of 53 seats in Congress.
That district is the disgraced Gary Condit's. �If the average
Californian doesn't like his congressman,� says a Republican
adviser, Dan Schnur, �the only option is to call the moving vans.�
It is a similar story in the other big states that have issued their
maps so far.
All in all, reckons Charlie Cook, a political analyst,
with four-fifths of the states having issued their new district
plans, there will be fewer than 50 competitive races this time
(meaning races in which the candidates are only a few points apart)
compared with 121 ten years ago. Of those 50, only half will really
be toss-ups. This is worsening existing trends. In 1998 and 2000,
nine out of ten winning candidates in the House of Representatives
won with 55% of the vote or more. That was the lowest percentage of
close races of any election year since 1946, save one. In other
words, redistricting is becoming a glorified incumbent-protection
racket. And that is having all sorts of odd effects.
For one thing, it means the Democrats probably cannot
take over the House this year unless a miracle occurs. The House
will be decided by the toss-up seats. Roughly half of them are
Democratic, half Republican. To overcome their current six-seat
deficit, therefore, Democrats will have to take three-quarters of
the closest seats�something they cannot do unless there is a
dramatic change in the national mood.
The 2002 redistricting plans are making an already
change-resistant Congress even more immutable. Only six sitting
congressmen were defeated in the general election in 2000, a
re-election rate of 98%. Such a result, which would hardly shame
North Korea, is becoming the norm: the re-election rate has averaged
more than 90% since 1952. Not surprisingly, congressmen are
reluctant to leave their warm nests. Only 28 have announced their
retirements so far, compared with 64 in 1992.
The combination of larger numbers of safe seats and
increasingly expensive election campaigns is undermining the quality
of American politics. There are now two categories of House races:
the overwhelming majority, where the incumbent is a shoo-in and
which national parties ignore, and a tiny number of competitive
races into which the parties pour all their money and energy. Of
course �all politics is local�. But in the current political
arrangement, the local concerns of a handful of seats are inflated
by a vast amount of national attention and end up deciding the
balance of Congress.
Redistricting is also reinforcing a self-perpetuating
quality in American politics. Incumbents anyway find it easier to
raise money than challengers (House incumbents outspend challengers
by five to one.) If they can make their seats safer by redrawing
boundaries, they discourage challengers even more. And that in turn
must depress voter turnout. The connection is not direct, since
turnout usually depends on the races at the top of the ticket�for
president or governor. But it is hard to believe there is no link
between America's astoundingly high re-election rates and its
astoundingly low voter turnout.
Putting it into cleaner hands
So what, if anything, can be done? Some states already
use alternative systems that could be copied. Iowa lets civil
servants draw new lines without reference to incumbents or regional
voting patterns (rather as in Europe). Five other states hand
redistricting authority over to bipartisan commissions, sometimes
with a neutral tie-breaker approved by both parties.
Neither system works perfectly. But either would be
better than the existing one. Both would limit partisan
gerrymandering by removing debates about redistricting from
legislatures, leaving them free to get on undistracted with their
proper business, such as crafting budgets. Best of all, they do seem
to work quite well. Washington and Iowa�which use alternative
systems�saw more competitive House races in the 1990s, in proportion
to their population, than other states.
Extending such practices would not be easy:
politicians would naturally be reluctant to cede power. But even
this barrier is not insuperable, at least in states which allow
people to sponsor referendums. Citizens in Arizona, for instance,
demanded a referendum to approve a redistricting commission in 2000,
and, to the surprise of most experts, the measure passed. As the
campaign-finance battle has shown, it is possible to reform
America's electoral system, even if it takes years. And there are
still years to go before the 2010 round of redistricting arrives.
Washington Post House
Democrats' Climb Gets Steeper By Juliet Eilperin April 2,
2002 Less than two years ago, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) squeaked
into office by 111 votes, having had to wait weeks for confirmation
that he had been elected. Despite his razor-thin victory, Rogers is
a prohibitive favorite for reelection, with a local union's
endorsement and a safer district because the state's redistricting
process added thousands of Republican voters from a neighboring
area. Even Rogers said he is "a little bit surprised" that no
prominent Democrat has come forward to challenge him in November.
Rogers is not alone. Nearly half a dozen freshman Republican
lawmakers, who might have expected vigorous Democratic challengers,
appear poised to cruise to reelection now that redistricting is
nearly complete following the 2000 Census. The lack of strong
challengers in these races highlights one of the main obstacles for
Democrats as they try to pick up the six seats they need to take
control of the House this fall: Incumbents are stronger almost
everywhere, and as a result, a surprisingly small number of the 435
House contests are truly competitive. A decade ago, there were
roughly 100 competitive races following redistricting; this year
there will be 30 to 40, perhaps even fewer, which means Democrats
would have to win a dauntingly high percentage to achieve their
goal. "It's like a Mount Everest for the Democrats," said Amy
Walter, who monitors congressional races for the Washington-based
Cook Political Report. "The arithmetic suggests there are just not
enough seats out there" for Democrats. At the moment, House
Republicans have the narrowest majority since 1953, having steadily
lost seats since the watershed election of 1994 that ushered in
former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and the Republican
revolution. Democrats nearly won the House back in 2000, falling
short when a handful of GOP candidates managed to eke out victories.
Midterm elections traditionally benefit the party shut out of the
White House, as voters tend to blame the president's party for the
chief executive's mistakes and punish candidates who rode his
coattails into office. And a slew of GOP incumbents are facing their
toughest races in years, including Henry Bonilla (Tex.) and, more
locally, Constance A. Morella (Md.). Yet while it is certainly
possible that Democrats will regain control of the House in
November, many close observers of congressional politics consider it
a long shot. A main reason is that redistricting did not
significantly alter the political landscape in a way that would
benefit Democrats -- though it could have been much worse for them.
Republican predictions of an 8- to 10-seat gain evaporated when a
court decision in Texas blocked a GOP redistricting plan that would
have seriously injured Democrats. But Democrats also passed up
opportunities to put more Republican seats at risk. In California,
for instance, Democratic state legislators chose to protect all but
one GOP incumbent and created only one new Democratic seat rather
than push for bold gains and risk a legal fight. In West Virginia,
the two Democratic House incumbents' unwillingness to shed loyal
voters actually improved the reelection chances of freshman GOP Rep.
Shelley Moore Capito. Reapportionment has thrown some pairs of
incumbents -- one Republican and one Democrat -- into the same
district in Connecticut, Illinois, Mississippi and elsewhere. But
Democrats cannot count on victories in all of these races because
neither party has a clear advantage. Another problem for the
Democrats, analysts say, is the lack of a compelling national issue
to galvanize voters. With high percentages of the public and
Congress supporting President Bush's anti-terrorism efforts,
Democrats have struggled to find an issue that cuts their way.
They have attacked the GOP on
aviation security, the collapse of Enron Corp. and Bush's tax cut
plan, among other things. But polls show Republicans running ahead
or even with Democrats on key issues, including the economy and
education.
Recently, House Democrats have
hammered at Republican plans to dip into Social Security reserves,
an issue they say resonates strongly with voters. But Republicans
counter that the combination of war and recession gives them little
choice but to return to deficit spending temporarily.
Meanwhile, the economic recession
is proving to be shorter and more shallow than many had expected,
giving Democrats little opportunity to exploit it politically
against Bush and his Republican allies.
"While there are good issues out
there, there doesn't seem to be a central rallying cry for Democrats
yet," said Democratic pollster Alan Secrest.
Matthew Dowd, a senior adviser to
the Republican National Committee, says Democrats will need such a
cause if they are to reclaim the House majority. "Can they do it?"
he said. "Of course they can do it. They would have to have a wave
behind them, and right now there's no wave."
The loss of the White House bully
pulpit, which President Bill Clinton often used effectively, has
complicated the Democrats' task of communicating to voters. AFL-CIO
political director Steve Rosenthal said the party is working on
crafting a unified message. In the meantime, he said, he has been
telling audiences, "I'll buy dinner for anybody who can say what the
Democrats stand for. So far nobody's taken me up on it."
Jenny Backus, spokeswoman for the
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said the party will be
able to portray House Republicans as captive to special interests
because they have voted for corporate tax breaks that would have
benefited companies such as the now-bankrupt Enron Corp. "With a
Republican president, it's a lot harder for moderate Republicans to
look as moderate," she said. "The White House has let the
Republicans in the House become the bad cop."
Without a galvanizing issue,
Democratic activists say, it is all the more important that they
field top-drawer candidates in competitive districts. They can point
to several prize recruits, such as pediatrician Julie Thomas, who is
challenging 26-year veteran Jim Leach (R-Iowa).
Still, several potentially
vulnerable Republicans may escape without a fight. Democrats failed
to entice two promising candidates to run against Indiana Republican
John N. Hostettler, leaving only one viable opponent, who had less
than $16,000 cash on hand at the end of last year. Similarly, two
Pennsylvania Democrats have declined to challenge freshman GOP Rep.
Melissa Hart, including the legislator who used to hold her seat.
Some of the incumbents whom
Democrats hope to unseat, moreover, have already amassed sizable
campaign funds to fend off challengers. Bonilla had nearly $800,000
in the bank by Jan. 1, while Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) had close to
$1.5 million.
Backus, who noted that the GOP
failed to enlist its top choices against freshman Democrats Steve
Israel (N.Y.) and Jim Matheson (Utah) and is still seeking
Republican challengers for several Texas seats, argued that her
party has already put plenty of Republican incumbents on the
defensive. "Ask Tom Latham, Robin Hayes, Anne Northup and Connie
Morella what they think of Democratic recruiting this cycle," she
said. "We are proud of our Democratic candidates who are running,
and confident they will be part of our winning effort to build a new
House in 2002."
Finally, history may fail
Democrats in their bid to retake the House. With few exceptions over
the past century, the party out of the White House has gained
congressional seats in midterm elections. One reason is that
presidents sometimes provide a lift to marginal candidates in a
presidential election year. But two years later, with the president
absent from the ballot, those freshmen sometimes have trouble
winning a second term.
That scenario holds little
promise for Democrats this year because Bush had few, if any,
coattails in 2000, and the Sept. 11 attacks and the subsequent war
on terrorism have upset traditional political calculations. And
while midterm elections often serve as a way for voters to express
their dissatisfaction with a sitting president, Bush's popularity
could counter that trend.
Several Democratic strategists
said they remain optimistic they can win back the House, partly by
taking advantage of several newly created districts as well as open
seats left by retiring Republicans. They point to contests in
Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, Maryland, New Mexico, South Dakota and
Tennessee as some of their best prospects.
These Democrats also note that
the political environment can shift suddenly, leaving Republicans in
much worse shape in a matter of months.
"This thing is a tossup," said
Steve Elmendorf, chief of staff to House Minority Leader Richard A.
Gephardt (D-Mo.). "Nobody can predict what's going to happen between
now and November."
Richmond Times The Brooding
Tensions in Redistricting Law By Mark Rush March 28,
2002
Judge Pattisall's decision to
declare the Virginia legislative and senate districts
unconstitutional exposes the brooding tensions-if not
contradictions-within voting rights law. Redistricting and voting
rights law have become such a thicket of regulations and constraints
that virtually no districting scheme is likely to avoid legal
challenge. States must abide by the Voting Rights Act requirements
that districts be drawn to create reasonable opportunities for
minority representation. They must not be too zealous in seeking to
create such opportunities, however, because doing so will run afoul
of the 14th Amendment. While there are no federal constitutional
requirements concerning compactness and contiguity, there are
state-level ones that allow districting plans to be challenged in
state courts. The current controversy in Virginia is based on a
strange admixture of concerns about minority representation and the
preservation of communities of interest. Until now, it was often
necessary to create districts that were comprised of close to 60%
minority voters to ensure that they would have a real chance of
electing a representative of their choice. Now, it is argued, it is
unnecessary to pack that many minority voters into a district
because our minority legislators claim that they can draw support
across racial lines. At first this sounds wonderful. It suggests
that the Voting Rights Act actually has broken down some of the
racial barriers it was designed to remove. On the other hand, it
might mean nothing more than that our minority incumbents are able
to draw support across racial lines because of their strong records
of constituency service and legislative initiatives. This raises a
disturbing question: While Henry Marsh or Bobby Scott or Louise
Lucas might be able to win in a district that is comprised of only,
say, 48% or 50% black voters, would a rookie minority candidate be
able to do so should any of our incumbent legislators retire?
Confident minority rights advocates might argue that this is a risk
we must take to advance the long run interests of minority voters.
But, in the short run, it risks leaving minority voters without a
voice should any of our minority incumbents retire. Would the Voting
Rights Act conscience such a risk? With regard to district shape
and community of interest, it is pretty obvious several of the house
and senate districts in the Tidewater area seem to have been drawn
with the interests of boaters as well as voters in mind. But, one
wonders why the current challenge to the district lines focused only
on the eastern part of the state. Creigh Deeds' 25th senate district
starts north of Charlottesville and follows I-64 to the West
Virginia border. It splits Rockbridge County in half and neatly
wraps around Lexington. Anyone familiar with Afton Mountain will
tell you that this district is "contiguous" only if one has 24/7
access to fog lights and a snow plow. The challenge to the
districting plan made no mention of this one. Thus, there is a
bitter irony to the development of redistricting law and the
prevailing interpretation of the 14th Amendment. The importance of
district shape depends on who benefits from the district. We can
draw bizarre districts that cross mountains, but crossing water is a
problem. We can draw districts to preserve Irish or Italian or
Polish communities of interest. We can draw them to preserve urban
or rural communities of interest. But if we draw them to accommodate
black or Hispanic voters, controversy erupts. Obviously, there is
something wrong with the prevailing interpretation of the 14th
Amendment if it allows a bizarre district to be drawn to protect the
Irish when a similar one that is one drawn to protect black voters
is constitutionally suspect One way to resolve (or, at least,
defuse) the decennial redistricting controversy would be to employ
multimember districts once again. Virginia used them just a couple
of decades ago and states such as Georgia and North Carolina
continue to use them for their state legislative elections. Like
any other political arrangement, multimember districts have their
fair share of shortcomings and are criticized mainly by folks who
have a vested interest in the status quo. But, the status quo
currently entails bizarre districts, racially charged political
wrangling and expensive litigation. If we were to draw fewer
legislative districts that were represented by 3 or 4 delegates or 2
or 3 senators, there would be correspondingly fewer district borders
to fight about. If other states can do this, why can't Virginia? If
it makes politics less partisan, more peaceful and makes the
districting process less controversial, why not give it a try?
Richmond Times The Brooding
Tensions in Redistricting Law By
Mark Rush March 28, 2002
Judge Pattisall's decision to
declare the Virginia legislative and senate districts
unconstitutional exposes the brooding tensions-if not
contradictions-within voting rights law.
Redistricting and voting rights
law have become such a thicket of regulations and constraints that
virtually no districting scheme is likely to avoid legal challenge.
States must abide by the Voting Rights Act requirements that
districts be drawn to create reasonable opportunities for minority
representation. They must not be too zealous in seeking to create
such opportunities, however, because doing so will run afoul of the
14th Amendment. While there are no federal constitutional
requirements concerning compactness and contiguity, there are
state-level ones that allow districting plans to be challenged in
state courts.
The current controversy in
Virginia is based on a strange admixture of concerns about minority
representation and the preservation of communities of interest.
Until now, it was often necessary to create districts that were
comprised of close to 60% minority voters to ensure that they would
have a real chance of electing a representative of their choice.
Now, it is argued, it is unnecessary to pack that many minority
voters into a district because our minority legislators claim that
they can draw support across racial lines.
At first this sounds wonderful. It
suggests that the Voting Rights Act actually has broken down some of
the racial barriers it was designed to remove. On the other hand, it
might mean nothing more than that our minority incumbents are able
to draw support across racial lines because of their strong records
of constituency service and legislative initiatives.
This raises a disturbing question:
While Henry Marsh or Bobby Scott or Louise Lucas might be able to
win in a district that is comprised of only, say, 48% or 50% black
voters, would a rookie minority candidate be able to do so should
any of our incumbent legislators retire?
Confident minority rights
advocates might argue that this is a risk we must take to advance
the long run interests of minority voters. But, in the short run, it
risks leaving minority voters without a voice should any of our
minority incumbents retire. Would the Voting Rights Act conscience
such a risk?
With regard to district shape and
community of interest, it is pretty obvious several of the house and
senate districts in the Tidewater area seem to have been drawn with
the interests of boaters as well as voters in mind. But, one wonders
why the current challenge to the district lines focused only on the
eastern part of the state. Creigh Deeds' 25th senate district starts
north of Charlottesville and follows I-64 to the West Virginia
border. It splits Rockbridge County in half and neatly wraps around
Lexington. Anyone familiar with Afton Mountain will tell you that
this district is "contiguous" only if one has 24/7 access to fog
lights and a snow plow. The challenge to the districting plan made
no mention of this one.
Thus, there is a bitter irony to
the development of redistricting law and the prevailing
interpretation of the 14th Amendment. The importance of district
shape depends on who benefits from the district. We can draw bizarre
districts that cross mountains, but crossing water is a problem. We
can draw districts to preserve Irish or Italian or Polish
communities of interest. We can draw them to preserve urban or rural
communities of interest. But if we draw them to accommodate black or
Hispanic voters, controversy erupts. Obviously, there is something
wrong with the prevailing interpretation of the 14th Amendment if it
allows a bizarre district to be drawn to protect the Irish when a
similar one that is one drawn to protect black voters is
constitutionally suspect
One way to resolve (or, at least,
defuse) the decennial redistricting controversy would be to employ
multimember districts once again. Virginia used them just a couple
of decades ago and states such as Georgia and North Carolina
continue to use them for their state legislative elections.
Like any other political
arrangement, multimember districts have their fair share of
shortcomings and are criticized mainly by folks who have a vested
interest in the status quo. But, the status quo currently entails
bizarre districts, racially charged political wrangling and
expensive litigation. If we were to draw fewer legislative districts
that were represented by 3 or 4 delegates or 2 or 3 senators, there
would be correspondingly fewer district borders to fight about. If
other states can do this, why can't Virginia? If it makes politics
less partisan, more peaceful and makes the districting process less
controversial, why not give it a try?
News and Observer Races for Congress
that signify nothing By Ross K.
Baker March 24, 2002
There was once a region of the
country known as the "Solid South," a vast quadrant that stretched
roughly from the Potomac to the Rio Grande, in which Republican
members of Congress were as scarce as polar bears.
The legacy of the Civil War and
the residual loathing of Republicans who were the party of the
victorious North produced elections in which the real contests took
place in the primaries, and Democratic incumbents were re-elected
with monotonous regularity. So reliably safe were Democratic seats
in Congress that the party's Southern incumbents amassed the years
of seniority that conferred on them the powerful committee
chairmanships.
Now incumbency has become so
entrenched in the two major parties and in all quarters of the
country that many voters lack any real say in who represents them.
Democratic and Republican House incumbents alike share a
semi-perpetual easement on their seats that more nearly resembles
hereditary entitlement than the competitive politics we associate
with a democracy.
How did this happen? Blame
redistricting, the process by which politicians carve up territory
in response to the rise, fall or redistribution of their population
as reported by the census.
And don't expect any changes with
the current redistricting, which is almost complete. By some
estimates, fewer than 10 percent of the 435 House seats will end up
fostering competitive elections.
In each of the 50 states, elected
politicians can be trusted to put themselves first. In census after
census, roughly 90 percent of all House seats end up so strongly
Democratic or Republican that any challenge from the opposing party
is largely futile.
For example, this year in
California, a state with 53 House seats, only one -- the seat
occupied by Rep. Gary Condit, who lost the Democratic primary -- is
deemed competitive. The influential Cook Political Report, which
tracks congressional races, estimates that nationally only 55 House
seats are in play, a number the report says will almost certainly
decrease by election day.
This anemic level of party
competition does not stop incumbent House members from furiously
raking in campaign contributions. The combination of favorable
redistricting for those currently holding seats in the House and
their nonstop fund-raising contributes to what has come to be known
as "the incumbent advantage."
That is quite some understatement.
I have nothing against incumbents.
Among them are some of the ablest and most admirable individuals in
public life.
But deprived of occasional
challenge and competition, even those who walk in the footsteps of
Henry Clay and Daniel Webster can come to view their jobs as an
inalienable birthright.
The hyper-empowerment of
incumbents renders the candidates who challenge them among the most
pitiable figures in American politics, unless they are possessed of
unlimited personal wealth or incredible luck.
Even those attributes may be
insufficient to dislodge well-entrenched incumbents whose party
claims the lion's share of a district's voters.
Western
Front scenario
This year, because both parties
are so evenly divided -- Republicans in the House outnumber
Democrats by only 11 -- the fall elections promise to produce a
stalemate.
Both political parties will pour
vast sums of money into the tiny minority of House races in which
there is a real contest, and the 2002 congressional elections will
come to resemble the bloody battle on the Western Front in World War
I, where hundreds of thousands of troops slugged it out in the
trenches with a net gain of territory measured in yards.
Yet the squandering of treasure on
these few competitive seats is the least of the unfortunate results
of the redistricting. The severest toll is taken by the political
system itself. In a district where the incumbent is endowed with a
hefty partisan majority, a substantial number of voters of the other
party are effectively disenfranchised. The rotation in office that
Andrew Jackson defined as a central element in a democracy should
come about through elections.
That so many of those elections
have become mere formalities does us little credit and promotes a
passive and apathetic citizenry.
Ross K.
Baker is a professor of political science at Rutgers
University.
Associated Press Redistricting
Creates Fierce Battles March 22,
2002
The redrawing of congressional
boundaries each decade often creates desperate and divisive fights
for political survival between incumbents that can test party
loyalties and fray longtime relationships.
It's particularly difficult when
members of the same party face each other in a primary. Some members
opt to run for other offices or retire to avoid facing a
congressional colleague.
``It invariably ratchets up the
personal nature of the contest,'' political analyst Stuart
Rothenberg said of battles between incumbents. ``You're members of
the same club. The personal overrides any other differences or
issues that the candidates may have.''
The primary race in Georgia
between conservative GOP Reps. Bob Barr and John Linder is the
incumbent battle that has drawn much of the early attention.
``It's pretty intense, it's pretty
even and there's likely to be a good deal of collateral damage for
all involved,'' Republican pollster Whit Ayres said of the contest
over a newly redrawn district in suburban Atlanta.
Political scientist Merle Black at
Emory University in Atlanta agreed: ``The race in Georgia has gotten
really hot and rather nasty.''
Barr describes the contest as a
choice between an insider like Linder who stays in the background
and votes conservative and someone who, like himself, who helps
define the issues. Linder says people tell him the contest is like
``choosing between a statesman and a politician.'' Georgia
Republicans resent having to choose between two popular members of
Congress.
The most closely watched race for
Democrats is in a southeast Michigan district that stretches from
Ann Arbor to the Detroit suburbs.
Democratic Rep. John Dingell, the
senior member of the House after serving almost five decades, has
the backing of much of the party establishment, while Rep. Lynn
Rivers, who entered Congress in 1994, has the support of several
national women's groups.
``This is about who has done and
will continue to do the best job representing the people of
southeast Michigan,'' said Lon Johnson, campaign manager for
Dingell, who was elected to the House in 1955. Dingell, ranking
member and former chairman of the influential House Energy and
Commerce Committee, has support of much of the Democratic
establishment and the AFL-CIO.
The Rivers campaign claims to have
a stronger record in areas like the environment, gun safety
legislation and abortion rights, said Martha McKenna, a spokeswoman
for Rivers, who's gotten endorsements and is likely to get financial
backing from several women's groups that support abortion rights.
Dingell aides say he supports
abortion rights and has a solid record on guns and the environment.
Republican and Democratic
incumbents are set to face each other in four districts on Nov. 5:
--Democrat Jim Maloney and
Republican Nancy Johnson in Connecticut.
--Democrat David Phelps and
Republican John Shimkus in Illinois.
--Democrat Ronnie Shows and
Republican Chip Pickering in Mississippi.
--Democrat Tim Holden and
Republican George Gekas in Pennsylvania.
In another district, freshman
Republican Rep. Mark Kennedy of Minnesota has postponed a decision
on whether he will face veteran Democrat Bill Luther or move to
another district.
As for the intraparty battles,
Democrats have the Michigan primary battle Aug. 6 and a primary
contest May 21 in Pennsylvania between Reps. Frank Mascara and John
Murtha. Two more Michigan Democrats, Dale Kildee and Jim Barcia,
currently are in the same district, but haven't announced their
plans pending final resolution of the Michigan redistricting plan in
the courts.
At this point, Republicans have
two primary battles of incumbents -- the Georgia race Aug. 20 and
another in Indiana on May 7 between Reps. Stephen Buyer and Brian
Kerns. Final redistricting decisions may create more incumbent
matchups in other states.
The incumbent matchups within the
same party are races usually take place when the opposing party
controls a state's redistricting process.
In Michigan, the entire Democratic
delegation fought the redistricting that pairs Dingell and Rivers.
Dingell campaign manager Johnson said: ``The fact that these two
Democrats have to run against each other is a shame.''
-----
Incumbent Vs. Incumbent Races
Campaigns between House incumbents
that have developed as a result of the redrawing of district
boundaries required each 10 years because of population shifts.
Others may develop depending on the final outcome of redistricting
or campaign decisions by other incumbents.
Democrats
vs. Republicans
CONNECTICUT: Democrat Jim Maloney
against Republican Nancy Johnson. This is the most closely matched
of the districts pairing incumbents from both parties.
ILLINOIS: Democrat David Phelps
and Republican John Shimkus. The new district in south-central
Illinois went for President Bush in the 2000 election. Democrats
looking for conservative-leaning candidate to be competitive.
MISSISSIPPI: Democrat Ronnie Shows
and Republican Chip Pickering. New central Mississippi district
leans Republican and Democrats acknowledge it will take a skillful
campaign by their candidate to make it a race.
PENNSYLVANIA: Democrat Tim Holden
and Republican George Gekas. New central Pennsylvania district leans
Republican. Democrats hoping an energetic campaign by the younger
Holden could cut the advantage.
Democrats
vs. Democrats
MICHIGAN: John Dingell and Lynn
Rivers. Dingell, senior member of the House, has the backing of
Democratic establishment in this southeast Michigan district against
a determined challenge by Rivers, who will get financial backing
from national women's groups.
PENNSYLVANIA: Frank Mascara and
John Murtha. The winner of the primary in this western Pennsylvania
district will be heavily favored in November.
Republicans
vs. Republicans
GEORGIA: Bob Barr and John Linder.
A closely matched race in heavily Republican district in suburban
Atlanta between two conservative congressman who are popular within
their party.
INDIANA: Stephen Buyer and Brian
Kerns. The two join a crowded field, including a state senator, to
run in this heavily GOP district.
Congressional Quarterly Remap Action Still
Pending in Eight States By Jonathan
Allen, Mary Clare Jalonick and Gregory L. Giroux March 20, 2002
Completion of redistricting in
Minnesota on Tuesday means that only eight states must still
complete redistricting for this year's elections.
Overall, 42 states with multiple
congressional districts are required to redraw their lines this year
based on population figures from the 2000 census. Maine, which has
two districts, will do its remap in 2003; the seven other states
have only one congressional district each.
Florida: The state is picking up
two seats as a result of congressional reapportionment, and the
Republicans' control of both the state House and Senate suggest that
a map strongly favoring the GOP will be produced. The legislature's
chambers, however, have been at odds over how to carve up the
districts, slowing the process. A plan passed by the state House
would create two Republican-leaning open seats and weaken the bases
of Democratic incumbents Karen L. Thurman and Allen Boyd. The Senate
was considering its own plan Tuesday night. Republican Gov. Jeb Bush
would be expected to sign a plan that cleared both chambers. The
state's filing deadline is May 17 for the Sept. 10 primary.
Kansas: With both legislative
chambers controlled by Republicans, the state Senate is debating a
plan that passed the state House on March 18. The plan would weaken
the political base of the state's one Democratic congressman, Dennis
Moore, by splitting the city of Lawrence between the 2nd and 3rd
districts. All of Lawrence, home of the University of Kansas, is now
in Moore's 3rd District. While the Senate is expected to pass a
version of the House-passed plan, some members prefer to keep
Lawrence in one district - though not necessarily the 3rd.
Republican Gov. Bill Graves is likely to sign the bill that passes
the Senate. The filing deadline is June 24 for the Aug. 6 primary.
Maryland: Democratic Gov. Parris
N. Glendening has forwarded a plan - which would weaken the bases of
Republican Reps. Constance A. Morella and Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. - to
the state legislature, and both chambers are controlled by
Democrats. Though the final legislation is expected to follow
Glendening's guidelines, no action has yet been taken. The filing
deadline is July 1 for the Sept. 10 primary.
New Hampshire: Minimal changes are
expected when New Hampshire's two districts are adjusted.
Republicans control the legislature, where the Senate has passed a
plan but the House has not yet acted. Democratic Gov. Jeanne Shaheen
has veto power, so GOP lawmakers are unlikely to attempt any
partisan mischief. The filing deadline is June 14 for the Sept. 10
primary.
New York: New York is losing two
districts to reapportionment, but there is little indication as to
which incumbents will be most affected by the remap. The
legislature, divided between a Republican-controlled state Senate
and a Democratic-controlled state House, has been preoccupied with
other matters - including a furious battle over new state
legislative district lines - and has not even issued proposals on
congressional redistricting. The governor, George E. Pataki, is a
Republican. The filing deadline is July 11 for the Sept. 10 primary.
Oklahoma: Oklahoma is losing one
of its six seats to reapportionment. Yet Democrats, who control the
legislature but only one seat in the current congressional
delegation, favor a plan that would give them a second seat while
eliminating two Republican incumbents, including the retired Wes
Watkins. A May 13 court date has been set in the event that no
action occurs, though courts could step in sooner if the legislature
passes a plan and Republican Gov. Frank Keating vetoes it. The
filing deadline is July 10 for the Aug. 27 primary.
South Carolina: Action appears
imminent in South Carolina, where a three-judge panel is expected to
release a plan Wednesday. However, that will delay the scheduled
March 30 filing deadline for the June 11 primary; the deadline will
be reset for 17 days after the court panel releases its plan. The
remap is expected to make no dramatic changes to the districts
currently held by the state's four Republican and two Democratic
House members.
Wisconsin: All that remains in
Wisconsin is for Republican Gov. Scott McCallum to sign the
redistricting bill cleared by the legislature last week. With the
state losing one of its nine seats to reapportionment, the
Democratic-controlled state Senate and Republican-controlled House
agreed to carve up the Milwaukee-based 5th District represented by
Democrat Thomas M. Barrett, who is running for governor. The filing
deadline is July 9 for the Sept. 10 primary.
National Journal Off to the
Races: Partisan Equilibrium By
Charlie Cook March 19, 2002
An enormous contradiction is
developing in the 2002 midterm election -- one that may indeed end
up becoming a political trend in this decade. On the one hand, the
country is as evenly divided as it has been in modern history. Just
look at the last election: A presidential race was settled by 537
votes in Florida, and the 2000 election resulted in a Senate split
50-50 and the House divided 51 percent Republican to 49 percent
Democratic. Of the 99 state legislative chambers, 48 are in
Democratic hands, 47 in Republican hands. Each party controls both
state legislative chambers in 17 states; the rest have split
control.
In the latest two waves of the
Cook Political Report/Ipsos-Reid national survey, comprising 1,612
interviews with registered voters this month, 46 percent called
themselves Democratic, 44 percent Republican. While Republicans
still have a big lead in governorships today, the numbers are likely
to be more evenly divided after this election. In short, the country
is in a state of partisan equilibrium, suggesting a period of
unusually high competition between the two parties.
On the other hand, the level of
competition in the House is lowering significantly. At this point in
spring 1992, the Cook Political Report rated 121 House races as
competitive, toss-up, lean Democratic or lean Republican. Today,
only 55 are in this category. That number is expected to decrease,
as the remaining quarter of districts get their new redistricting
maps finalized, filing deadlines pass, and some seats that should be
competitive drop from the list. In the end, the number of seats that
stand a very real chance of going over to the other party might well
end up around four dozen.
It is true that the number of
competitive districts in 1992 was artificially high. A combination
of congressional scandals -- including the House bank and post
office scandals -- inflated the numbers, on top of the increased
level of competition that usually comes with the first election
after the decennial census and remapping.
A record number of 65 legislators
retired that year, while this year only 31 have done so. Still, the
number of competitive races this year could have been between 80 to
100 instead of the 55 districts today that look likely to see
competitive races.
One reason for the lack of
competitive districts is that state legislatures, responsible for
drawing the new lines in most states, opted to maximize their
states' seniority and clout in Washington by drawing incumbent
protection plans, rather than drawing lines that probably would
result in more competitive races.
Take the first three states --
California, Illinois and Texas, with approximately 24 percent of the
House's 435 congressional districts among them -- whose
congressional filing deadlines passed in December and early January.
At this point, only two
congressional seats among them are competitive, with another
district that may become more competitive.
In California's 18th District,
where Democratic state Assemblyman Dennis Cardoza defeated
Democratic Rep. Gary Condit in the March 5 primary, Republicans are
planning on strongly contesting this now-open seat with their
nominee, state Sen. Dick Monteith.
In Illinois, which lost a seat in
reapportionment, two incumbents -- Democratic Rep. David Phelps and
Republican Rep. John Shimkus -- now face each other in the 19th
District downstate.
Democrats are favored in
California, while Republicans are ahead in Illinois.
In Texas, Democrats hope to make
inroads with their nominee, former Secretary of State Henry Cuellar,
against five-term GOP incumbent Rep. Henry Bonilla in the heavily
Hispanic 23rd District. Having never faced a serious re-election
fight, Bonilla starts off with a hefty bank account.
Perhaps most alarming about this
decline in competition is that, typically, greater competition and
turnover characterize the first couple of congressional elections
after redistricting. Then legislators settle into their new
districts and the level of competition goes down until new maps are
drawn. If the competition is this low in the first election after a
redistricting, imagine what it will be like by 2008 and 2010.
The flip side of the coin is that
the House might be locked into a heightened level of competition
between the two parties for this decade. This could make it harder
for either party to build a working majority in the House, because
each has so many safe or relatively safe seats.
Wall
Street Journal It's time to draw the line on
gerrymandering By John Fund March 13, 2002
Every census sets off a new round
of political mischief called gerrymandering. For the past few
months, state legislatures have been redrawing their own districts
along with those for their state's congressional
delegations--ostensibly to make sure each district has the same
number of people. When one party controls the entire process (as is
the case in 20 states this year) it routinely engages in blatant
gerrymandering. When control over redistricting is split, both
parties usually conspire in crafting pro-incumbent gerrymanders. We
are now in danger of creating a system that allows elected officials
to choose their voters, rather than the other way around.
Elbridge Gerry (whose name was
pronounced "Gary") gave gerrymandering its name in 1812 when, as
governor of Massachusetts, he drew a district that his opponents
said resembled a salamander. But Gov. Gerry's handiwork is child's
play compared with what the latest computers can do. New software
allows politicians to draw districts so partisan that the only way
for an incumbent to lose is by alienating his party. In Michigan, a
GOP-controlled legislature has created a congressional gerrymander
that stuffs six Democratic incumbents into three seats. In Georgia,
Democrats controlled the mapping pens and drew a congressional plan
that pushed four GOP incumbents into two districts.
This kind of partisanship has long
been tolerated by voters who view it as just politics or so much
inside baseball. It's time they woke up. The new, computer-driven
gerrymandering is now dramatically reducing political competition to
the point that most voters will have no effective choice at all at
the polls. In 2000, more than 20% of House members had no major
party challenger. George W. Bush won Florida by only 537 votes, but
10 of the 21 Florida House incumbents ran unopposed. Political
analysts in both parties agree that there will is significantly less
competition under new district lines in 2002. Only some 30 of the
435 House seats will competitive this November.
In North Carolina gerrymandering
is clearly predetermining political competitions. Last year, the
Democrats rammed through a redistricting plan that effectively locks
in their legislative control for the next 10 years. Nonpartisan
analysts say that in the 120-member state House the number of safe
Democratic seats has increased to 87 from 58. The number of "swing"
or competitive districts was reduced to 20 from 46. In other words,
less than one in five districts is winnable by either party barring
extraordinary circumstances.
Would-be candidates pondering a
run for state Legislature bailed out in droves once they got a look
at gerrymandered districts. When filing closed earlier this month, a
record 49 seats had only one candidate on the ballot. In the state
Senate, 24 of the 60 seats will offer voters no choice this fall. So
a stunning 43% of the North Carolina Legislature has, in effect,
already been elected. Two years ago, only 19% of legislative
elections in the House and Senate were uncontested.
Elections in many semifree Third
World nations routinely offer more choices than many North Carolina
residents will have. In the county that includes Charlotte, the
state's largest city, only three of the 13 state legislative
incumbents will face an opponent in the fall. In Greensboro, a
freshman House Democrat named Katie Dorsett is running for a vacant
state Senate seat and will be unopposed in both the primary and
general election.
Courts have traditionally avoided
becoming involved in challenges to gerrymanders, usually ruling that
the process is inherently political. But last month, a North
Carolina state judge, Knox Jenkins, ruled that the gerrymander was
unconstitutional because it unnecessarily divides counties in
violation of the state constitution. Lawyers for the Legislature
argue that the need for the state to comply with the federal Voting
Rights Act trumps the state constitution. But many other states have
been able to square their state constitutions with the Voting Rights
Act without having to draw absurd gerrymanders.
On Thursday North Carolina's
Supreme Court unanimously enjoined the state from conducting its May
7 state legislative primaries pending a full hearing on Judge Knox's
ruling next month. Yesterday the state's Board of Elections
postponed all voting on that day, including the U.S. Senate primary.
Judge Knox will consider a request
by several Republicans to have the gerrymandered districts redrawn.
Throwing out the plan under which candidates have already filed
would be unusual. Since the alternative Republican-drawn plans have
their own clearly partisan tilt, the court would have to go through
the arduous process of drawing its own maps.
But it's possible the court will
find that this time the gerrymanderers in North Carolina have simply
gone too far. Back in 1787, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled
unconstitutional an attempt by the state Legislature to take away
the right of trial by jury. The court noted that if the Legislature
could do that, "they might with equal authority . . . render
themselves legislator of the State for life, without any further
election of the people."
Two hundred fifteen years later,
incumbents are using high-powered computers to create lifetime
sinecures for themselves. That kind of privilege and protection is
certainly not what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they
overthrew a monarchy to form a republic.
New York Times Redistricting 2002
Produces No Great Shakeups By
Alison Mitchell March 13, 2002
With Congressional redistricting
almost complete, the once-a-decade redrawing of the nation's
political map is turning out to favor incumbents to an unusual
degree, making many of the House's swing seats into safer territory
for one party or the other.
Political analysts say the
cautious tilt toward the status quo has been driven by the
excruciatingly close balance of power in the country; a shift of
just six seats in the House of Representatives could swing it from
Republican control to Democratic.
"Because the House is so close,
the legislatures approached redistricting with this rule of thumb:
Do no harm, win our own seats," said Stuart Rothenberg, editor and
publisher of The Rothenberg Political Report, a nonpartisan election
newsletter.
Some states broke the mold, with
Michigan and Pennsylvania drawing maps that sharply favor
Republicans and Georgia returning the favor on behalf of the
Democrats.
In Iowa, where a nonpartisan
bureau proposes the lines, four House seats were made quite
competitive.
But a number of states, and
courts, chose to keep the districts of legions of incumbents intact
or even to shore them up with more like-minded voters. Party control
of the nation's state legislatures is also sharply divided, giving
neither Republicans nor Democrats a significant edge in the overall
process.
As a result, many political
analysts and strategists say that the fierce, multimillion-dollar
struggle for control of the House this year will probably come down
to 35 to 55 competitive races, with only two dozen of them true
tossups.
Ten years ago, Charles E. Cook
Jr., editor of The Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan chronicle of
elections, says, he tracked 121 competitive House races. This year,
he has rated only 55 races competitive and expects the number to
drop. Thus, for all the intense competition between Republicans and
Democrats in Washington, many voters will not see a robust battle of
ideas this fall.
"There's no real opportunity for
them to participate in the process because they are in lopsided
districts where there's hardly a challenger who is noticed," Thomas
E. Mann, a senior fellow of the Brookings Institution, said of most
voters.
While the trend toward fewer
competitive House races has been building for decades, political
analysts generally rely on the reconfiguration of House lines every
10 years to provide an initial period of ferment and more political
opportunity.
With lines being redrawn to
reflect population changes, openings are made for challengers. New
seats are created without incumbents, and some lawmakers must run
against each other. The flux can even cause some House members to
retire.
But with about three-quarters of
the states' redistricting plans complete, the process is producing
less than the expected upheaval and only a small set of races that
could be highly competitive.
One indicator is that so far, only
28 House members are retiring, 18 Republicans and 10 Democrats. In
1992, 64 House members retired, though along with redistricting, the
House banking scandal played a role.
Judging which races are
competitive this early in an election year is as much art as
science, depending on the partisan makeup of districts, the number
of open seats, the quality of candidates. New political currents can
develop late and substantially change the dynamics of an election.
Right now, though, experts call the lack of competitive races
significant.
"One of the patterns you normally
see is that at the front end of the decade there's more turnover,
more competition and it goes down during a decade," Mr. Cook said.
"The scary thing is if you start off the decade with a low number."
The situation carries
disappointments for both parties, which are locked in furious
battle, because power is so closely divided. The House now has 222
Republicans, 211 Democrats and two independents.
The Republicans had predicted that
population changes and the shift of 12
Congressional seats to the Sun
Belt would let them cement their majority, gaining 8 to 10 new seats
through redistricting. Texas, Florida, Arizona and Georgia each
gained two seats. California, North Carolina, Colorado and Nevada
picked up one new seat apiece.
Republican leaders still say their
forecasts will bear out. But most independent analysts say
Republicans will pick up only a few seats through redistricting
alone. Democrats say they fought the Republicans largely to a draw
on remapping.
"The point is, when this is over,
this will be dead even or close to even," said Representative Martin
Frost, Democrat of Texas.
The Democrats face difficulties of
their own. Strategists say that the comparatively few competitive
races mean that the Democrats will have fewer opportunities and
little room for error in their quest for control of the House.
"It gives them an uphill climb,"
said Representative Thomas M. Davis III of Virginia, who heads the
National Republican Congressional Committee.
Undaunted, some House Democrats
insist that as many as 60 House seats are competitive, giving them a
field large enough to win control.
A stark example of the year's
trend can be found in California. Democrats have picked up eight
seats there since 1996 and were hoping that with a Democratic
governor and majorities in the State Legislature they would surely
win more.
But to the dismay of some national
party strategists, state officials took a conservative approach.
While the state's redistricting plan gave Democrats one new seat and
eliminated the seat of a Republican � Representative Steve Horn, who
has announced he will retire � the plan largely shored up the
existing House districts. As a result, of 53 House races in
California, only one is considered competitive, the district where
Representative Gary A. Condit was recently defeated in a Democratic
primary.
"If the average Californian
doesn't like his congressman, the only option is to call the moving
vans," said Dan Schnur, a Republican strategist.
In fact, Representative Ellen O.
Tauscher, a Democrat, has no Republican opponent at all, even though
Ms. Tauscher first eked out victory by only 4,000 votes in 1996.
After California's redistricting plan shifted a substantial number
of new Democratic rural constituents into her district, Republicans
basically conceded the race. Ms. Tauscher had a token primary
challenge and faces only a Libertarian candidate in November.
"My staff and I were standing in
my kitchen and afraid to open a bottle of Champagne because we were
afraid someone made a mistake," Ms. Tauscher said of the day the
candidates' filing deadline passed. Asked how she felt, she said, "I
think the term is stunned."
Similarly, West Virginia, New
Jersey, Ohio, Tennessee and New Mexico largely protected incumbents
through maps drawn by legislatures or the courts.
Republicans saw their hopes falter
in Texas, the home state of President Bush, where they once thought
they could use their political strength to make large gains. When
the Legislature could not agree, redistricting was handled by a
panel of three federal judges. It protected the incumbents, 17
Democrats and 13 Republicans, and created two seats expected to go
Republican.
Still some states bucked the
trend. The Michigan map, drawn by the Republican-controlled
Legislature, is supposed to help the party gain two new seats and
strip Democrats of three. And Pennsylvania could give Republicans
two new seats while forcing Democrats to lose four.
Democrats returned the favor in
Georgia, squeezing out two Republicans and creating the possibility
that the party could pick up four new seats. And Maryland is
considering a map that could leave Representative Constance A.
Morella, a moderate Republican, highly vulnerable.
The numbers are not large, but the
year has produced some high-profile retirements and primary battles.
Representative David E. Bonior of Michigan, the Democrats' House
whip, chose to run for governor instead of Congress.
If the Michigan map survives court
challenges, it will force a primary face-off of Democratic
incumbents: Representative John D. Dingell, who has served in
Congress since 1955, against Representative Lynn N. Rivers, a former
school board member who won her seat in 1994.
Another intense matchup is in
Georgia, where two conservative stalwarts, Representatives John
Linder and Bob Barr, are competing for a district near Atlanta.
The general election will also pit
some incumbents against each other and see still others fight for
political life in substantially new districts.
Representative John M. Shimkus, a
Republican, and Representative David D. Phelps, a Democrat, have
been set against each other in Illinois's 19th District.
Representative Nancy L. Johnson, a Republican, will face
Representative James H. Maloney, a Democrat, in Connecticut. And
while a court fight is still under way, Representative Charles W.
Pickering Jr., a Republican, could face Representative Ronnie Shows,
a Democrat, in Mississippi.
USA Today Most incumbents
safely inside new districts; Big gain unlikely for either party By Tom Squitieri March 6, 2002
The once-a-decade process of
redrawing the nation's congressional districts is nearly complete,
and the big winners are those already in office.
Republicans and Democrats, using
computers, commissions and courts, have fought to a near-draw in
their efforts to seek political gains from population changes
recorded in the 2000 Census. Although Republicans predict they can
win up to 10 seats from redistricting, Democrats claimed Tuesday
that they will win simply by breaking even. Most independent
observers say any gain by the GOP will be minimal.
''I don't think either side will
be able to jump onto the podium and lift their arms up,'' says Amy
Walter of The Cook Political Report. ''Nobody is getting the gold
medal in redistricting except incumbents.''
Redistricting decisions in the 43
states with more than one congressional district are critical in the
battle for control of the House of Representatives, which has 222
Republicans, 211 Democrats and two independents. If Democrats win a
majority in November's elections, House Minority Leader Richard
Gephardt will become speaker and Democrats will take charge of the
committees that determine the fate of legislation. President Bush
would face more difficulty passing his agenda.
Traditionally, the party not
holding the White House -- Democrats in this case -- gains seats in
midterm elections. Republicans, who control a majority of governor's
offices, had hoped to blunt that trend by drawing lines favorably
for their side.
But now that 31 states have
finished redistricting, affecting 325 House districts, those gains
have not materialized, experts say. Seven states have only one House
district; the others remain unfinished.
Nowhere is the trend more clear
than in California, which held party primaries Tuesday. The
Democratic-controlled Legislature drew a plan that gave Democrats
the state's one new seat and eliminated the seat of a retiring
Republican. But the districts of 50 House members were made easier
for them to retain. Other states, including Ohio, New Jersey,
Tennessee, New Mexico and West Virginia, drew similar ''incumbent
protection plans.''
''We set out a year ago to get a
break-even in redistricting, and we have been successful,'' says
Rep. Martin Frost, D-Texas, who heads the Democrats' redistricting
effort. Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe adds,
''The net result of redistricting is parity.''
Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., who heads
the National Republican Congressional Committee, has been predicting
that redistricting would net 10 new Republican seats. He says
Democrats won't make major gains in states where they control the
map-making process, or where Republican and Democratic incumbents
have been drawn into the same district.
As a result of the 2000 Census, 12
congressional seats shifted states. Arizona, Florida, Georgia and
Texas each gained two seats; California, Colorado, Nevada and North
Carolina each gained one seat. Of those 12 new seats, only three --
one each in Arizona, Colorado and Nevada -- are considered tossups.
Losing two seats each were Pennsylvania and New York. Losing one
seat each were Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma and Wisconsin.
Redistricting highlights:
The biggest gain for either party
came in Pennsylvania, which lost two seats because of population
shifts. Republicans approved a plan that would force six Democrats
into three districts and pit another Democrat against a favored
Republican. They hope to turn an 11-10 GOP advantage into a 13-6
majority.
Republicans also stand to gain in
Michigan, which lost one seat. Four incumbent Democrats were placed
into two districts; the district of retiring Democrat Rep. David
Bonior, who's running for governor, was tilted toward Republicans.
Democrats are likely to gain in
Georgia, which added two seats. The plan, now under review by the
Justice Department, would give Democrats the edge in the two new
seats and put two Republicans together in the same district.
Democrats also are expected to
gain a newly created seat in the Raleigh area of North Carolina.
In Texas, two new seats are
expected to go to Republicans, leaving Democrats with a slim 17-15
edge.
In Ohio, which lost one seat,
Republicans opted to protect incumbents. The only Democrat targeted
was renegade James Traficant, now in court on racketeering charges.
Traficant plans to run as an independent against a fellow Democrat.
Says Tim Storey of the National
Conference of State Legislatures: ''It is safe to say there will not
be any big shifts in control of the House because of
redistricting.''
Associated Press Republicans trim
predictions of House gains, Democrats claim a draw By David Espo March 5,
2002
Republicans appeared to scale back
their predicted gains from redistricting of the House on Tuesday,
while Democrats insisted the result of the nationwide
reapportionment will be a draw.
At dueling news briefings,
officials agreed, though, that redistricting will create a series of
highly competitive House districts that will help determine which
party holds control of the House after this fall's elections.
Many will be in southern and
western states with Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, North Carolina and
Alabama among them.
Under the Constitution, the
apportionment of 435 House seats among the states must be adjusted
every decade to account for population shifts. Additionally,
district boundaries must be redrawn within individual states.
"The point is when this is over,
this will be dead even, or close to even," Rep. Martin Frost (news),
D-Texas, told reporters. "There are a lot of opportunities that have
been created" for Democrats to pick up the six seats or seven they
need to gain control.
He said Republicans had failed in
their strategy of reaping huge gains in a few states like Texas,
while Democrats had picked up one or sometimes two seats in several
states.
Republicans responded a few hours
later. Jack Oliver, deputy chairman of the Republican National
Committee (news - web sites), told reporters his party would have
"between a three- and eight-seat gain when all the dust settles"
from redistricting.
That's less than the 14 that Rep.
Tom Davis, R-Va., chairman of the House campaign committee, forecast
over a year ago, and slightly lower than the eight-to-10 seat pickup
that the Virginia Republican has lately been forecasting. Steve
Schmidt, spokesman for the committee, said later he still expects
gains in the eight-to-10 seat range.
Ohio provides an excellent case
study in the unpredictability of redistricting � first to the sorrow
of Republicans, lately to the embarrassment of Democrats.
The GOP once had high hopes for
gains of as many as three seats in the state, even though its
delegation in the House is due to shrink from 18 seats to 17.
But officials in both parties said
Democratic Rep. Sherrod Brown (news) threatened to challenge GOP
Gov. Bob Taft if his district was carved up. Then the GOP-controlled
legislature waited so long to act that leaders needed the votes of
Democrats in Columbus to beat a deadline.
The result was a plan that
strengthened the districts of nearly all the incumbents in both
parties � not exactly what GOP leaders in Washington had in mind.
The only exceptions were Rep. Tony
Hall (news), a Democrat looking to leave the House, and Rep. Jim
Traficant, a man of uncertain party and political future.
Traficant is on trial in federal
court on federal corruption charges, so eliminating his district
seemed a straightforward decision. Except that while he's nominally
a Democrat, he votes with Republicans when it comes time to elect a
speaker. Elimination of his seat actually brought Democrats one step
closer to their goal of taking control of the House � also not what
the GOP leaders in Washington had in mind.
Hall's district around Dayton was
made more Republican, and soon afterwards, he accepted appointment
as U.S. ambassador to U.N. food and agriculture agencies in Rome.
He's not expected to retire before
his Senate confirmation, though, and Democrats once talked
optimistically of being able to win a special election for his seat.
But to their dismay, their
preferred candidate to replace Hall declined to run � a development
that now has some Democrats hoping that Hall's confirmation will be
put on a slow track.
Democrats got some additional bad
news when the filing deadline passed.
Three Republicans � Reps. Steve
Chabot, Bob Ney and Paul Gillmor � will have no Democratic opponent
this fall.
Chabot, Ney and Gillmor joined a
growing list of lawmakers without major party rivals � 13
Republicans and 11 Democrats so far.
Others recently added to the list
include Democratic Reps. Alan Mollohan and Nick Rahall of West
Virginia and Tom Udall of New Mexico.
GOP Reps. Walter Jones and Howard
Coble of North Carolina drew no Democratic rivals, and are assured
of new terms.
Democrats also failed to field a
candidate in an Indiana district where two Republican incumbents �
Reps. Steve Buyer and Brian Kerns � were thrown together in
redistricting.
Roll
Call Between the Lines (excerpt) By John Mercurio March 4, 2002
Democratic Spin
Nearing the end of the latest
round of redistricting, House Democrats this week are planning to
mount a new spin offensive to portray the state-by-state process as
a Democratic success.
Democratic National Committee
Chairman Terry McAuliffe plans to hold a press conference Tuesday
with Democratic Caucus Chairman Martin Frost (Texas) and Democratic
Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Nita Lowey (N.Y.) to
highlight the DNC's financial commitment to redistricting and to
spin the party's success at creating a "level playing field" in the
latest remap.
The press conference is scheduled
to take place Tuesday morning at the DNC headquarters on Capitol
Hill.
Associated Press Race, History
Informs Redistricting By David Espo
February 21, 2002
Republicans and Democrats are
battling in state and federal courts over a single Mississippi House
district, a dispute that blends race, irony and politics and stirs
memories of the presidential recount of 2000.
``This is Florida at the
congressional level,'' says Republican Rep. Charles (Chip)
Pickering, Jr., thrown together with Democratic Rep. Ronnie Shows
(news) in a new district with unsettled boundaries.
Democrats charge President Bush
(news - web sites)'s Justice Department (news - web sites) with
trying to dilute the voting strength of Mississippi blacks, much as
they charged Bush's campaign with disenfranchising blacks in
Florida.
``Instead of enforcing the voting
rights act, they are carrying the water of Chip Pickering and the
Republican Party,'' alleges Rob McDuff, a lawyer in the case.
Agency officials and other
Republicans dispute the charge. ``One judge from one county
shouldn't draw the plan for the entire state of Mississippi,'' Henry
Barbour, Pickering's campaign manager, said in an interview. ``This
ought to be about all 2.8 million people in Mississippi.''
As was the case in Florida,
Republicans and Democrats filed suit in different courts. And as a
result, there are two court-drawn redistricting plans.
And in an irony acknowledged by
all sides, one argument central to the civil rights struggle of a
generation ago has been reversed. Democrats accuse Republicans of
trampling ``states' rights'' by going into federal court to deny
blacks their rights.
One redistricting plan, with 37.4
percent black voting age population, was issued by a local judge, is
backed by Democrats and - to their anger- has been awaiting approval
under the Voting Rights Act at the Justice Department for more than
six weeks.
Under the law, the agency must
make sure there is no backsliding - the legal term is
``retrogression'' - when new congressional district maps are drawn.
In this case, though, lawyers
raised questions about approving a statewide plan drawn up by a
local judge.
The other plan, supported by
Republicans, includes 30 percent black voting age population in the
contested district. It was advanced by federal judges who say they
will intervene if the Justice Department hasn't acted by Monday on
the rival map.
Democrats on Wednesday asked the
U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) to step in, with a March 1
filing deadline approaching for the two men at the center of the
dispute.
Pickering, 38, is a conservative
third-term lawmaker and protege of Senate Republican Leader Trent
Lott. In one of numerous ironies in the controversy, his father,
U.S. District Judge Charles Pickering, is at the center of another
racially charged dispute. Nominated by Bush for a seat on the
appeals court, he faces opposition from Democrats and national civil
rights groups.
Shows, 55, won his seat in 1998. A
conservative Democrat, he parts company on several issues with more
liberal national party leaders. In both his campaigns, he suggested
he might not vote for Democratic leader Dick Gephardt as speaker,
although he did in the end.
The presence of two incumbents on
the ballot guarantees both parties will focus on the contest in
their struggle for control of the House this fall.
But first comes the current
dispute, rooted in national population trends requiring Mississippi
to give up one of its five House seats. The Democratic-controlled
Legislature deadlocked in its efforts to draw new districts.
Democratic lawyers then won the
early rounds in court.
The state Supreme Court ruled that
a local judge had authority over statewide redistricting, despite an
assertion from Democratic Attorney General Mike Moore that ``under
current precedent ... a chancery court has no subject matter
jurisdiction'' in such matters.
Next, Hinds County Chancery Court
Judge Patricia Wise approved a map backed by Democrats. Moore
forwarded it to the Justice Department in December and requested
swift approval.
The GOP went to federal court,
where three federal judges advanced a map more favorable to
Pickering.
This time, Democrats objected.
``The plan drawn by the federal courts is a direct assault on
states' rights and the state of Mississippi, argued Shows.
Wise was elected in a nonpartisan
election from a district that is Democratic. The three federal
judges were appointed by Republican presidents.
Now, in another irony, Democrats
argue that Bush's Justice Department is turning the law upside down
by delaying approval of the plan that maximizes black voting
strength in the new district.
Assistant Attorney General Ralph
Boyd met recently with several Democratic lawmakers at their
request. Department spokesman Dan Nelson said Boyd told them that
review of the Mississippi controversy ``will be guided solely by
existing law and the facts presented.''
The
Hill House
women face losses in 2002 election By Allison Stevens and Sarita Chourey February 20, 2002
The number of women in Congress
could decrease for the first time in more than two decades, as this
election year is shaping up as yet another �Year of the White Male.�
At the same time, African
Americans could also see their congressional strength dwindle over
the course of the decade as a growing Hispanic population in
districts now represented by African Americans is likely to seek
representation by Hispanics.
The situation dismays many women
and minority groups, which had hoped that this midterm election
would mirror 1992, when they made historic gains in Congress.
Such gains were achieved in part
due to an unusually large number of retirements, the enactment of
new voting rights� laws and a redistricting process that created
plenty of new majority-minority seats.
This year, at best, women and
minority groups can hope to pick up only a handful of seats in
November. In fact, there are so many woman House members who plan to
retire next year or else are politically vulnerable that they could
actually lose ground.
The disappointing political
landscape comes after a banner year for Democratic women in the
House and Senate. Newly elected Minority Whip Rep. Nancy Pelosi
(D-Calif.) now holds the highest elected position of any woman in
history. And last year, Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Patty
Murray (D-Wash.) became the first women ever appointed to chair the
Democratic Congressional and Senatorial Campaign Committees.
Those realities are a far cry from
the heady predictions of success that women and minority groups made
at the onset of this election cycle. At the time, minorities pointed
to substantial population gains in their communities, while women�s
groups saw the prospect of as many as 100 competitive seats as an
auspicious omen for another banner post-redistricting election year.
�We thought there would be more
open seats,� said Gilda Morales, program coordinator of information
services at the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers
University. �But that hasn�t materialized. It was a bit
disappointing. Incremental changes are going to continue on the
order of two or three seat pickups.� She added later, �There is a
possibility that [women] could lose one or two seats.�
Minority groups echoed those
sentiments.
�For the most part, we�re pretty
disappointed about the number of opportunities [for Hispanic
candidates],� said Larry Gonzalez, co-director of the National
Association of Latino Appointed Officials. �This round of
redistricting was disappointing because it really was about
incumbent survival, to the detriment of our community.�
Such other ethnic groups as
Asian-Americans, Native Americans and Middle Eastern-Americans have
also been virtually shut out of the wider debate on increasing
minority participation in Congress. Their numbers remain negligible.
In 1992, a record 24 women and 26
minority candidates � eight Hispanics, 16 African-Americans and two
Asian-Americans � won office for the first time. After decades of
incremental gains, women picked up a net 19 seats, nearly doubling
their ranks from 28 to 47.
Minority caucuses also swelled.
The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) picked up 13 new seats, growing
from 25 members to 38; the Congressional Hispanic Caucus grew from
11 members to 17; and Asian Americans doubled their numbers from two
to four.
Since then, however, women have
seen only incremental gains while minorities have seen their ranks
plateau.
The 1992 election year importantly
featured 91 open seat races, creating the most promising
opportunities for women and minority candidates in history. This
year, however, political observers expect that there will be roughly
40 open seats upon completion of the redistricting process. The
relatively small number makes life more difficult for challengers
because incumbents, being mostly white men, are notoriously
difficult to unseat.
In 1992, 22 women won open seat
races. And 13 blacks and six Hispanics won in new districts drawn
specifically to help elect minorities. All but one of the new
majority-minority districts sent a minority member to Congress.
This year, however, Democrats have
shifted their remapping strategy in an attempt to take back the
control of the chamber that they lost in 1994. To do that,
Democratic state legislators created few new majority-minority
districts. They also sought to unpack districts that had a high
concentration of minorities.
They succeeded in the former goal
but met with limited success in the latter one.
The close party division in
Congress has also produced far fewer competitive districts than
anticipated while encouraging members to stay in office rather than
retire. The series of redrawn district maps aimed at protecting
incumbents and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks have also swayed some
otherwise fence-sitting members to seek another House term.
This year, only 24 incumbents have
said they will retire � far fewer than the average number of
retirements in the past six post-redistricting election years. On
average, about 40 members have retired in post-redistricting
election years. The number peaked in 1992, when 65 incumbents (41
Democrats and 24 Republicans) retired. The surge of retirements came
in the wake of a House banking scandal that involved checks cashed
in underfunded congressional accounts and amid the controversial
Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas hearings.
Women especially are more
vulnerable than they have been in recent years.
Two of them � Reps. Eva Clayton
(D-N.C.) and Marge Roukema (R-N.J.) have said they will retire at
the end of the 107th Congress. Two more � Reps. Lynn Rivers
(D-Mich.) and Nancy Johnson (R-Conn.) � will face tough races
against male incumbents.
Several more vulnerable woman
members are in danger of losing their seats. These include Reps.
Anne Northup (R-Ky.), Connie Morella (R-Md.) and Shelley Moore
Capito (R-W.Va.). In addition, Heather Wilson (R-N.M.), Diana
DeGette (D-Colo.) and Melissa Hart (R-Pa.) could have tougher races
this year than they faced in the past.
Nonetheless, women�s groups are
banking on Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris (R), who is
considered a slam-dunk winner in 2002. They also see several
promising candidates who are running strong campaigns in crowded
primaries as possible victors.
On the Democratic side, they
include state Rep. Martha Fuller Clark of New Hampshire; state Sen.
Elaine Richardson of Arizona; state Supreme Court Justice Margaret
Workman of West Virginia; state Rep. Nancy Kaszak of Illinois;
attorney Stephanie Herseth of South Dakota; and Janice Cole of
Georgia.
Republicans see as potential
prospects Candice Miller of Michigan, Lynette Boggs-McDonald of
Nevada, Sydney Hay of Arizona, Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado,
Christine Ferguson of Rhode Island, Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida,
Carolyn Grant of North Carolina and Melissa Brown of Pennsylvania.
The 38-member Congressional Black
Caucus and the 18-member Congressional Hispanic Caucus are unlikely
to lose members this year because most come from relatively safe
Democratic districts.
But they are highly unlikely to
make the gains they had hoped for when a 2000 census showing high
population growth in minority communities was released.
Moreover, African-Americans could
see losses over the course of the decade, according to Rob Ritchie,
executive director of the Center for Voting and Democracy.
Population growth among Hispanics
in districts held by black members of Congress � such as those held
by Reps Julia Carson (D-Ind.) and Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) � could
lead to losses in the Congressional Black Caucus. �It�s going to
take more [majority-opportunity] districts to maintain their numbers
through the decade,� Ritchie said.
Indeed, both groups will be lucky
if they pick up only a handful of new members. Still, pending
lawsuits against state legislatures that rejected minority groups�
efforts to create more majority-minority seats could alter their
election-year prospects for the better.
Hispanics can count on picking up
California�s newly drawn district near Los Angeles, where the top
three candidates � Linda Sanchez, Sally Havice and Hector De La
Torre � are Latinos.
They can also bank on an ethnic
pickup in Arizona�s newly drawn 7th District, where at least five
Hispanic candidates have expressed interest in running.
State legislators in Florida are
also expected to draw a majority-minority district near Latino-rich
Dade County, where GOP state Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, brother of Rep.
Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.), is expected to make the race.
Democrats Dario Herrera (Nev.) and
Dennis Cardoza (Calif.) are poised to win their party�s nominations,
although neither is running in majority-minority districts.
Hispanics Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) and Sam Martinez (D-Ariz.) are
also running in districts with sizable Latino communities.
The African-American community,
however, has fewer opportunities to pick up new members.
Georgia�s newly drawn 12th
District features four black Democratic candidates. They are Robert
Finch, Charles Walker Jr., state Rep. Ben Allen and Merwin Scott,
the chief of staff to Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.). Two or three
white candidates may also enter the race for the heavily
African-American district.
New York Times In Real Elections,
There Is Competition By Samuel
Issacharoff February 16, 2002
To no one's surprise, the
Republicans in Albany's Senate majority have just gerrymandered
themselves once again into districts designed to last for life,
while the Democrats controlling the Assembly have done the same. The
next, inevitable step is legal challenge by legislators or groups on
the losing end of the fight - with taxpayers picking up much of the
tab.
A simple question arises every 10
years, with each replay of redistricting: Why should political
insiders be able to conjure up cartographic fantasies to keep
themselves in office? For political insiders, the result is to lock
in political power. For voters, it is dreary elections without
meaningful competition.
Real competition, where a
challenger to an incumbent might have some actual chance of winning,
is evidenced in elections that are won by margins of less than 10
percent of the vote. Those results are notably absent in New York
legislative races. In 1996, for example, 201 of the state's 211
legislative seats were won by margins of more than 10 percent.
Races for Congress - with
districts drawn by state legislatures working to guard party
interests - are also overwhelmingly noncompetitive. In 1996, of the
113 members of Congress who were first elected in the 1980's, all
113 won - 109 of them by at least 10 percent and 75 by 30 percent or
more.
Despite the fashionable worry
about low voter turnout, the wonder is that anyone bothers to
participate at all in such hollow elections.
The redistricting process will not
be reformed from within. No politician has incentive to change a
system by which he or she obtained office and that dramatically
enhances the prospect of remaining there.
In some states, voter initiatives
have changed things. Arizona, for example, passed a proposition in
2000 setting up a nonpartisan redistricting commission and directing
it to work without reference to partisan information and without
regard to incumbent political bases. In New York and most other
states, however, there is no initiative process allowing voters to
bypass the legislature.
Court challenges to political
control would seem a promising path to reform, but unfortunately,
current constitutional doctrine does not reach partisan
gerrymandering unless it "consistently degrades" the political
process - an exacting standard never once reached since it was
announced by the Supreme Court in 1986. Court oversight is allowed
only for questions of numerical equality of voting districts and
impermissible considerations of race. Nowhere does the court address
partisan-inspired, systemic degradations of the competitiveness of
the political process.
Where voters do have access to the
initiative process or are able to mobilize politically and force
legislative action, self-interested redistricting is often a target.
Already, 12 states have created special tribunals or administrative
processes to handle redistricting away from the direct control of
the legislature. These systems vary in their effectiveness,
depending on who chooses appointees to the redistricting bodies and
how insulated they are from political oversight. Hawaii and Montana
go so far as to make commission plans final without any legislative
review. Iowa relies upon an administrative, nonpartisan agency, the
Legislative Service Bureau, much like the Boundary Commissions that
handle redistricting in Britain. In order to prevent improper
political considerations, the Iowa agency conducts redistricting
without reference to voter registration data, partisan election
results or the residency of incumbents. (The main criteria used are
contiguity, compactness, and municipal and county lines.)
But the states using these
commissions remain a minority. Unless courts are prepared to address
the competitive integrity of the electoral process as a
constitutional issue, New York voters and most voters in this
country will remain captives of rigged political systems.
Samuel
Issacharoff is a professor at Columbia Law School and an author of
"The Law of Democracy."
Roll Call Between the
Lines (excerpt) By Chris Cillizza
February 18, 2002
Self-fulfilling Prophecies?
The electronic war of words
between IMPAC 2000 (the national redistricting arm of the Democratic
National Committee) and the National Republican Congressional
Committee over potential GOP gains resulting from the decennial
line-drawing process got even uglier last week with an IMPAC e-mail
accusing the NRCC of "Enron-like" tactics.
The Democratic group took umbrage
with a recent spate of e-mails sent by the NRCC, titled
"Redistricting: A Closer Look," which IMPAC claims are moving the
Republican argument from "bad spin to simple falsehoods."
"These e-mails show that the
Republicans have cooked the books all along," said IMPAC 2000
spokesman Greg Speed. "Their redistricting accounting is positively
Enron-like."
At issue are claims made in NRCC
e-mails detailing advances and setbacks across the country, which
Republicans say back up their assertions of an eight- to 10-seat net
gain in redistricting.
Steve Schmidt, communications
director for the NRCC, dismissed Speed's claims as a "desperate
barrage" from "a party that has no new ideas and is constantly
looking to attack and disparage because that's their only option
when confronted by fact."
A Feb. 13 NRCC release on Nevada,
which gained a seat following the 2000 census, predicted the
post-redistricting delegation will feature two Republicans and one
Democrat. The current two-Member House delegation is split between
the parties. The release states that the new 3rd district, which has
nearly equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans, "trends
Republican in turnout."
After putting the new seat in
Nevada in the Republican column, the NRCC release has the national
redistricting scoreboard at Republicans: plus five seats, Democrats:
minus four seats.
Speed believes that already
claiming a seat as competitive as Nevada's 3rd district shows the
GOP's desperation to make their redistricting predictions come true.
"They get to eight to 10 seats by
taking some of the most competitive races in the country, like
Connecticut's 5th district, Nevada's 3rd and Indiana's 2nd, and
calling them gimmes," said Speed.
"Those are extremely competitive
seats where Democrats are well positioned and will be hard fought
right up to Election Day," he argued.
Republicans fired back, pointing
out that Democrats employed similar counting methods in Georgia,
which gained two new seats in reapportionment and where Democrats
have claimed one of their most significant redistricting victories.
"Using their philosophy they
shouldn't be able to count Georgia as a plus four for them and a
minus two for us," Schmidt said. "Georgia has two tossups and two
lean Democratic seats" in play in November, he added.
Washington Post House Democrats
Ahead in Finances: GOP Trails in 14 of 22 Key Contests By Thomas B. Edsall February 6, 2002
In the competitive districts
likely to determine which party will control the House after
November, Democratic candidates began this election year in better
financial position than their Republican adversaries.
In 22 competitive races in which
the nominee of each party is generally agreed upon, Democratic
incumbents had a strong financial edge in 10, and Democratic
challengers were financially competitive in four, according to
reports recently filed with the Federal Election Commission. GOP
incumbents held solid cash advantages in four, and Republican
challengers were financially competitive in four, for an overall 14
to 8 Democratic advantage.
Political strategists predict that
about 30 to 50 of the House's 435 races will be competitive.
The financial findings are
preliminary, excluding many races in which one side or both still
have a substantial primary fight. Also, there is still considerable
time for all candidates to raise large sums of money. Within these
limits, the following trends emerged:
Democratic incumbents have done a
better job than GOP incumbents of financially outdistancing
challengers. New York freshman Rep. Steve Israel (D), for example,
had $719,766 in the bank, while his best-known possible opponent,
Rick Lazio (R) -- who held the seat until 2001 -- is carrying $1.8
million in debts from his failed Senate campaign. Arkansas freshman
Rep. Mike Ross (D) began 2002 with $502,349, compared with the
$29,921 held by Jay Dickey, a former GOP House member who may run
again.
Conversely, a number of Republican
House members have about the same amount of campaign cash as their
likely challengers -- if not less. Rep. Jim Leach (R-Iowa),
according to the FEC, had $68,009 in the bank but almost as much,
$57,000, in debts. His likely Democratic opponent, Ann Hutchinson,
had $83,297 in the bank, with a debt of just $5,000.
In Maryland, Rep. Constance A.
Morella (R) had a respectable $574,524 in the bank, with no debts.
But that amount was dwarfed by the $1.2 million held by Maryland
Del. Mark K. Shriver, a possible Democratic opponent. Another
Democratic hopeful, Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen, had $560,574,
with a debt of $125,000.
The GOP is in good financial
condition in three of the four races pitting incumbent Democrats
against incumbent Republicans in new districts created by
redistricting. In the three races, the Republicans have substantial
advantages.
The most lopsided case is in
Connecticut, where Reps. Nancy L. Johnson (R) and James H. Maloney
(D) have been thrown into the same district. Johnson began the year
with $1.3 million, more than four times Maloney's cash on hand,
$295,613.
A similar but not quite as extreme
tilt can be found in Mississippi, where two incumbents, Reps.
Charles W. "Chip" Pickering Jr. (R) and Ronnie Shows (D), are
expected to go head-to-head. Pickering began the year with $1.1
million, compared with Shows's $369,357.
In Illinois, where Rep. John M.
Shimkus (R) faces Rep. David D. Phelps (D), Shimkus began the year
with a solid cash edge, $626,846 to Phelps's $370,366.
The one case in which the
Democratic candidate had the solid lead in cash on hand was in
Pennsylvania. Rep. Tim Holden (D) had $346,965 in the bank, compared
with $92,036 for Rep. George W. Gekas (R). The relatively slow
fundraising pace of Gekas, 71, has raised speculation that he might
not seek reelection.
Such retirement speculation has
been more intense around Rep. Tony P. Hall (D-Ohio). He raised just
$16,012 last year while spending $44,778, leaving a cash balance of
$103,160. Without Hall as the Democratic nominee, a Republican would
be favored to take the seat.
In what may be the nation's most
closely contested House race, former GOP candidate Jon Porter Sr.
and Democrat Dario Herrera are locked in a tough fundraising battle
to win a new Nevada seat. Herrera started the year with $479,140,
compared with Porter's $415,951. Porter had a $173,886 debt.
In another likely close open-seat
contest, Candice Miller, Michigan's Republican secretary of state,
had $650,638 in the bank, compared with $223,749 for Carl J.
Marlinga (D), a prosecutor.
The only Republican challenger who
had almost as much money in the bank as the Democratic incumbent was
Trent Matson, a conservative seeking to oust Rep. Brian Baird
(D-Wash.). Matson had $208,552 and $16,392 in debts, compared with
Baird's debt-free $230,794.
|