Friday
Jul232010
US Politics: How Governors and Redistricting Could Shape Obama's Fate (Haddigan)
Friday, July 23, 2010 at 7:39
Lee Haddigan writes for EA:
November's Congressional elections will have an important effect on the immediate future of US politics. They will determine, by the number of Republican gains in Washington, which policies President Obama can hope to implement in the final two years of his first term. Alongside these elections, however, another set of contests may help decide the course of the Federal Government beyond 2012. An unprecedent 37 races for State Governor will take place in the states, and the outcome of these will shape a process which could shift the balance of power in Washington: "redistricting".
Redistricting is a complex subject that differs from state to state over time. At its heart, however, is this battle as defined by Nick Ayers, the Republican Governors Association's executive director: “The association and its Democratic counterpart will be engaged in ‘a $100 million-plus chess match' for control of the foundation of American politics for the next 10 years.’" Ayers believes that control of the state political machinery, for which a Republican Governor is essential, could see his party gain 15 to 26 members in the 435-seat House of Representatives.
Under the Constitution, seats in the House of Representatives, the "lower" house of the US Congress, are shared out to each state according to its total population. The number of seats in the House never varies from 435, so as the number of people living in each state changes so does their representation. In simple numbers: if the population of the US as counted by the ten-yearly census is 435 million, and a state has a population of 10 million, that state will get 10 members in the House. If ten years later population remains at 435 million, but our imaginary state’s population has declined to 9 million, then that state will now only have nine members. This is known as reapportionment.
Because it now has nine representatives the state must redraw the boundaries of the former 10 congressional voting areas, in effect creating nine new voting districts. This is where the real fun for an observer, or controversy for the participants, begins. It can lead, and often does, to the political or racial "gerrymandering" of a district.
Gerrymandering refers to the practice where boundaries are drawn to give a particular party or ethnic group an advantage at the next elections. In 1812 Governor Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts signed into law a redistricting proposal that helped Jeffersonian Republicans. A Federalist opponent allegedly looked at a map of the new districts, and commenting on the physical appearance of one of them stated: "Salamander! Call it a Gerrymander."
This cartoon-map first appeared in the Boston Gazette of 26 March 1812:
Again in simple numbers, if our state of ten million voters has 6 million Republican voters, and 4 million Democrat supporters, then that state should return 6 Republican and 4 Democrat Representatives. If, however, you draw the boundaries for each district of one million people so it is composed of 600,000 Republicans and 400,000k Democrats, then the state will have 10 Republican members of the House and no Democrats.
The same procedure can be used to limit the impact of minority ethnic votes in a state. For instance, if in a southwestern state Hispanic voters are concentrated in an urban area, their influence can be diluted by redistricting. A congressional district with one million Hispanic voters can be redrawn amongst four districts which each absorb 250,000 urban Hispanic voters into a larger area of white suburbanites.The formerly ethnic majority becomes a minority.
This process of racial gerrymandering is illegal under the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965. Before the Act, states in the South drew their boundaries so black majorities were effectively nullified. The VRA declared that this racial gerrymandering violated the 14th Amendment equal practice provision and set new regulations for redistricting that protected the idea of "one person, one vote".
Now states must divide their districts into as equal a number of voters as possible, and they must respect the right of ethnic minorities to gain representation in the House of Representatives equal to their numerical strength in the state. In theory, a state with a 10% black minority should draw its boundaries so black voters can be represented in one of ten seats. This principle is protected in the VRA by the requirement that states with a discriminatory history apply to the Department of Justice for a "preclearance" of any proposed redistricting.
.
The illegality of partisan gerrymandering, however, is not as certain. In 2003 Tom DeLay, then Republican majority leader of the House of Representatives, helped push through the Texas legislature a redistricting plan that favored his party. As a result, and after much scandal, the Congressional elections of 2004 in Texas returned 21 Republican members to the House vs. 11 Democrats, compared to 15 Republicans v. 17 Democrats in 2002.
The Supreme Court reviewed the redistricting and invalidated one of the districts for violating the VRA, requiring a new set of boundaries to be mapped in Texas. But on the question of the unconstitutionality of partisan gerrymanderin,g the Court adopted a confusing and inconclusive opinion.
This sets the stage for this year's gubernatorial elections and the redistricting plans that will be implemented in time for the 2012 elections. Each state has different requirements for the drawing of new boundaries that begins when the 2010 census figures are made available to them by 1 April 2011. In most states the Governor, as the leading political figure, plays a pivotal role in determining how the state is redistricted. (For those interested in how their state redistricts the Rose Institute in California publis has recentlyhed a report with the latest information on all 50 states.) Available at
Despite efforts by many organizations to take the redistricting process out of political hands, little will have changed by 2011. The next decade will see changes in the House directly resulting from redistricting and reapportionment; the outcome will indicate which party was most effective in gerrymandering the states they controlled.
The gubernatorial races this fall also have a significance beyond the redistricting wars. Traditionally, the election contests allow ambitious politicians the chance to present their credentials for a possible Presidential run. With no consensus on the Right as to who will oppose President Obama in 2012, the opportunity is there for a governor to challenge the current frontrunners --- Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney --- for the Republican nomination.
The immediate political interest in this particular cycle of gubernatorial elections will be provided by how much and how fa, Democratic candidates are prepared to distance themselves from the administration in Washington. Voters are angry that the stimulus package has not brought significant increases in jobs in their states, and Democratic governors will answer these concerns by calling for greater funding for employment assistance from a reluctant Congress. One sign of how far discontent with President Obama’s agenda has infiltrated the Democratic Party will be revealed by the extent to which governors and candidates criticise the federal administration’s record on jobs.
A governor is interested primarily in pleasing the voters of his state (or, more accurately in the current political climate, of placating them), not the party bosses in Washington. And those bosses will be worried for their prospects come 2012 if a significant number of Democrat governors lose their posts. President Obama’s first two years in office have seen historical changes in health care and banking reform. But his chances for re-election rest on how the nation rates his effectiveness in dealing with the Great Recession.
Quite simply, if Obama retains the support of all those who voted for him in 2008 then he wins in 2012, and if he loses their backing he loses in 2012. And the first indication of how Democrat voters view the success or failure of his stimulus package will come in the gubernatorial elections.
*For those interested in the campaign to end political control of redistricting see the website of the film Gerrymandering
for a list of organizations involved.
November's Congressional elections will have an important effect on the immediate future of US politics. They will determine, by the number of Republican gains in Washington, which policies President Obama can hope to implement in the final two years of his first term. Alongside these elections, however, another set of contests may help decide the course of the Federal Government beyond 2012. An unprecedent 37 races for State Governor will take place in the states, and the outcome of these will shape a process which could shift the balance of power in Washington: "redistricting".
US Politics: Why is Obama’s Popularity Dipping?
Redistricting is a complex subject that differs from state to state over time. At its heart, however, is this battle as defined by Nick Ayers, the Republican Governors Association's executive director: “The association and its Democratic counterpart will be engaged in ‘a $100 million-plus chess match' for control of the foundation of American politics for the next 10 years.’" Ayers believes that control of the state political machinery, for which a Republican Governor is essential, could see his party gain 15 to 26 members in the 435-seat House of Representatives.
Under the Constitution, seats in the House of Representatives, the "lower" house of the US Congress, are shared out to each state according to its total population. The number of seats in the House never varies from 435, so as the number of people living in each state changes so does their representation. In simple numbers: if the population of the US as counted by the ten-yearly census is 435 million, and a state has a population of 10 million, that state will get 10 members in the House. If ten years later population remains at 435 million, but our imaginary state’s population has declined to 9 million, then that state will now only have nine members. This is known as reapportionment.
Because it now has nine representatives the state must redraw the boundaries of the former 10 congressional voting areas, in effect creating nine new voting districts. This is where the real fun for an observer, or controversy for the participants, begins. It can lead, and often does, to the political or racial "gerrymandering" of a district.
Gerrymandering refers to the practice where boundaries are drawn to give a particular party or ethnic group an advantage at the next elections. In 1812 Governor Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts signed into law a redistricting proposal that helped Jeffersonian Republicans. A Federalist opponent allegedly looked at a map of the new districts, and commenting on the physical appearance of one of them stated: "Salamander! Call it a Gerrymander."
This cartoon-map first appeared in the Boston Gazette of 26 March 1812:
Again in simple numbers, if our state of ten million voters has 6 million Republican voters, and 4 million Democrat supporters, then that state should return 6 Republican and 4 Democrat Representatives. If, however, you draw the boundaries for each district of one million people so it is composed of 600,000 Republicans and 400,000k Democrats, then the state will have 10 Republican members of the House and no Democrats.
The same procedure can be used to limit the impact of minority ethnic votes in a state. For instance, if in a southwestern state Hispanic voters are concentrated in an urban area, their influence can be diluted by redistricting. A congressional district with one million Hispanic voters can be redrawn amongst four districts which each absorb 250,000 urban Hispanic voters into a larger area of white suburbanites.The formerly ethnic majority becomes a minority.
This process of racial gerrymandering is illegal under the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965. Before the Act, states in the South drew their boundaries so black majorities were effectively nullified. The VRA declared that this racial gerrymandering violated the 14th Amendment equal practice provision and set new regulations for redistricting that protected the idea of "one person, one vote".
Now states must divide their districts into as equal a number of voters as possible, and they must respect the right of ethnic minorities to gain representation in the House of Representatives equal to their numerical strength in the state. In theory, a state with a 10% black minority should draw its boundaries so black voters can be represented in one of ten seats. This principle is protected in the VRA by the requirement that states with a discriminatory history apply to the Department of Justice for a "preclearance" of any proposed redistricting.
.
The illegality of partisan gerrymandering, however, is not as certain. In 2003 Tom DeLay, then Republican majority leader of the House of Representatives, helped push through the Texas legislature a redistricting plan that favored his party. As a result, and after much scandal, the Congressional elections of 2004 in Texas returned 21 Republican members to the House vs. 11 Democrats, compared to 15 Republicans v. 17 Democrats in 2002.
The Supreme Court reviewed the redistricting and invalidated one of the districts for violating the VRA, requiring a new set of boundaries to be mapped in Texas. But on the question of the unconstitutionality of partisan gerrymanderin,g the Court adopted a confusing and inconclusive opinion.
This sets the stage for this year's gubernatorial elections and the redistricting plans that will be implemented in time for the 2012 elections. Each state has different requirements for the drawing of new boundaries that begins when the 2010 census figures are made available to them by 1 April 2011. In most states the Governor, as the leading political figure, plays a pivotal role in determining how the state is redistricted. (For those interested in how their state redistricts the Rose Institute in California publis has recentlyhed a report with the latest information on all 50 states.) Available at
Despite efforts by many organizations to take the redistricting process out of political hands, little will have changed by 2011. The next decade will see changes in the House directly resulting from redistricting and reapportionment; the outcome will indicate which party was most effective in gerrymandering the states they controlled.
The gubernatorial races this fall also have a significance beyond the redistricting wars. Traditionally, the election contests allow ambitious politicians the chance to present their credentials for a possible Presidential run. With no consensus on the Right as to who will oppose President Obama in 2012, the opportunity is there for a governor to challenge the current frontrunners --- Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney --- for the Republican nomination.
The immediate political interest in this particular cycle of gubernatorial elections will be provided by how much and how fa, Democratic candidates are prepared to distance themselves from the administration in Washington. Voters are angry that the stimulus package has not brought significant increases in jobs in their states, and Democratic governors will answer these concerns by calling for greater funding for employment assistance from a reluctant Congress. One sign of how far discontent with President Obama’s agenda has infiltrated the Democratic Party will be revealed by the extent to which governors and candidates criticise the federal administration’s record on jobs.
A governor is interested primarily in pleasing the voters of his state (or, more accurately in the current political climate, of placating them), not the party bosses in Washington. And those bosses will be worried for their prospects come 2012 if a significant number of Democrat governors lose their posts. President Obama’s first two years in office have seen historical changes in health care and banking reform. But his chances for re-election rest on how the nation rates his effectiveness in dealing with the Great Recession.
Quite simply, if Obama retains the support of all those who voted for him in 2008 then he wins in 2012, and if he loses their backing he loses in 2012. And the first indication of how Democrat voters view the success or failure of his stimulus package will come in the gubernatorial elections.
*For those interested in the campaign to end political control of redistricting see the website of the film Gerrymandering
for a list of organizations involved.
in US Politics
Reader Comments