“The stakes are incredibly high, every
congressman is keenly aware that redistricting looms.” –Tim Storey of the
National Conference of State Legislatures
Redistricting decides just how much your
vote counts, or does not count. It’s no wonder that politicians have
redistricting dates marked on their calendars. The process decides the fate of
their political career, their home district, and the future power of their
party. Politicians have perfected redistricting to a science that allows them
to keep control of an area for a decade. Every ten years, when the new census
comes out, districts across the country (at both the local and national level)
are redrawn. For the next year or two, redistricting will briefly be in the
spotlight as committees and congressional bills decide whether your vote will
count. Then the process returns to court cases, intellectual discourses, and
the murky shadows of backroom politics; only to rear its head once again in
another decade. Most people do not know how redistricting works or what affects
it has upon their lives. Democrats and Republicans use redistricting as battle
of tug of war that allows them to keep a stranglehold of their traditional
power bases. This happens especially in large states across the country,
especially in California and Texas, and for the purpose of this blog I will
discuss the troubles redistricting practices of Los Angeles. The impetus for
change must come from outside party lines. Redistricting can seem like an
impossible problem, and perhaps a truly perfect district may never exist, but
there is an elegant, albeit simple, mathematical solution that can remove the
infighting and political elements of redistricting.
If redistricting creates so many problems
why even go through the process? The history of redistricting is as long and
complicated as the process itself; but redistricting has slowly became a more
and more important issue due to the racial, population, and political party
changes that our country has seen. First, one has to understand the difference
between reapportionment and redistricting. Reapportionment determines how many congressmen,
and thus also how many Electoral College votes a state will receive. Just like
redistricting, this process also occurs once every ten years, and numbers are
based on the U.S. Census. Reapportionment has nothing to do with party
politics; there is no opportunity for gerrymandering, or any other form of
manipulation to suit parties' desires. It is purely mathematical. Up until 1930
congress cycled back and forth between different mathematical models created by
three famous early Americans politicians: Thomas Jefferson, Daniel Webster, and
Alexander Hamilton. http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/departments/scr/REDIST/red-us/redist-US.htm#N_9_. After the 1930 reapportionment,
congress came up with the model that has been in use for every census after
1940. This is called “the method of equal proportion.” http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/2a. You can read the lengthy law from this
link, but the basic idea is a simple math equation. “The
formula uses the State's population divided by the geometric mean of that
State's current number of seats and the next seat (the square root of n(n-1)).
This formula allocates the remainders among the States in a way that provides
the smallest relative difference between any pair of States in the population
of a district and in the number of people per representative” (Reapportionment
and Redistricting in the USA). These are basically the only words that the
constitution has to say on the subject of reapportionment. The system is based
on simple math, removes politics from the equation, and has gone unchanged
since 1930. It is a shame that redistricting is not such an easy process.
Redistricting
occurs when the states take census data, and the results of reapportionment, to
determine districts for congressional, as well as state and local elections.
Unlike reapportionment the process is highly politically charged process. There
is not mathematical formula involved, no absolute right or wrong way to go
about dividing up the cities and counties. Instead, long and contentious
arguments arise as the legislature members argue over how to divide the state
toward each individual’s party or personal advantage. Gerrymandering occurs
when a district is redrawn in such a way that one party has gained a clear
advantage over another. Though gerrymandering is technically illegal, the federal
government does very little to stop it, and so it has become a frowned upon
practice that happens in almost every state and is committed frequently by both
parties.
Redistricting
is primarily left to the states, but there is still some federal guidance. The
most useful verbiage from the constitution concerning redistricting is as
follows: “each state’s quota must be elected from single-member districts of
equal population.” This is states’ rights at its finest. Do whatever you want,
as long as the districts end up at about the same population size. Each state
has a vastly different system for redistricting. Since there is such little
guidance from the constitution, most federal regulations and laws come from the
courts.
Two
distinct population shifts have occurred, leading to courts mandating
redistricting reform. As populations moved from rural to urban, states
struggled to keep up and citizens of cities began to see their vote value
diminish below those of lower populated rural areas. This led to several court
cases, the most important of which was Baker
v. Carr. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_6.
The importance of Baker and subsequent
cases was that it gave courts the authority to examine state redistricting
plans, and to overturn them if necessary.
The
second major shift occurred during the civil rights movement of the 1960s, as
minority populations grew in size and power. The next step in redistricting
regulation was the Voting Rights Act, a byproduct of Baker, and a law that
would lead to even more Supreme Court redistricting cases. The VRA created the
idea of “pre-clearance,” which gives the federal government the ability to
examine certain state redistricting proposals, and act on them, before they
become laws. As court cases about the VRA have arisen, the courts have created
more guidelines about how redistricting should proceed.
Federal
regulation for the redistricting process has come almost entirely from the
courts, and this creates quite a few problems. Courts have no real ways to
enforce their opinions and rulings. It can take years or even decades for a
case to reach the supreme court; this creates a huge problem in redistricting
when the law in question before the court can only last for eight to ten years
until the next census. Finally, the two major demographic changes that the
courts have allowed for are racial, and rural to urban population change. Prior
to the above demographic shifts, there was also a change to the two party
system, a third event that the courts have never accounted for. When Hamilton
and Jefferson derived their mathematical reapportionment system, and founding
fathers decided to leave the rest up to the states, they had no idea that we
would end up with a bipartisan system. The Supreme Court is loathed to
intermingle with political issues, and so while the Court faced race and
population issues, it has had little to say about gerrymandering for purely political
purposes.
The
courts have had some impact upon redistricting regulations, but most decisions
are still left up to the states. Each state has unique legislation to decide
its districts, but there are two basic models. Districts are either redrawn by
the legislature through bills that are crafted and approved by the state’s
congress, or by a type of state redistricting committee. Thirty-seven states
favor the legislation format, though it clearly lends itself more towards
gerrymandering. Of the remaining thirteen states that have used redistricting
reform to create committees, six states use political commissions, while seven
use independent commissions. http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/national-overview-redistricting-who-draws-lines.
The main difference between these two systems is that political commissions
have less balanced committee members and are more likely to end up with
gerrymandered districts. That said, each of the thirteen states have largely
different sets of criteria for their commissions.
California
is one of the seven states that use an independent commission, called the
Citizens Redistricting Committee. Article 21 of the California State
Constitution explains how the committee is set up and run. http://wedrawthelines.ca.gov/downloads/meeting_handouts_012012/handouts_20120104_crc_caconst.pdf.
“The commission shall consist of 14 members, as follows: five who are
registered with the largest political party in California based on
registration, five who are registered with the second largest political party
in California, and four who are not registered with either of the two largest
parties in California.” It takes nine concurring members to approve a vote. In
theory this creates a purely unbiased committee. Of course in a more liberal
state such as California there will still be some favoritism to the Democratic Party.
Though no one has claimed that gerrymandering has occurred as a result of this
committee, nonetheless there have still been complaints about the system and
its results. In just this past fall election, Proposition 40 served as
referendum that would have nullified the redistricting work of the CRS.
However, it received little support, lost its backers and was defeated 72% to 28%.
This was the same election in which California Democrats gained a super
majority (basically giving them total control of the California legislative
system) in over a decade. http://www.californiatargetbook.com/ctb/default/index.cfm.
So while California may have one of the fairest systems in the country, the CRS
has still led to redistricting controversy, and a state that has an extremely
polarized, and often one-sided political landscape. The CRS may not deserve all
the blame for California’s redistricting controversy, but committees are still
an imperfect answer to the problem. That said, California system might be the
closest in the entire country to a system void of political motivation.
When redistricting show up in the news,
it is usually concerning a southern state seeking pre-clearance, a high profile
court case concerning the VRA, or a state legislature mired in gridlock over a new
redistricting plan. State and federal level efforts are highlighted, and the
redistricting plans at the local level are largely ignored. However, local redistricting,
especially in large cities, can be just as contentious and secretive of a
process as what occurs in the legislature of any gerrymandering state. Here in
Los Angeles, the city elections are less than a week away, and many of their
outcomes have been heavily influenced or even predetirmined by the
controversial redistricting that occurred in mid 2012.
Local politicians rarely register with a
party, but LA politics are certainly not devoid of conflict, and the
redistricting process can be brutal. This was especially true in 2012. Los
Angeles does not have as impartial a system as the CRS, and instead has a
borderline dysfunctional committee system. Los Angeles must create two forms of
districts every ten years, City Council Districts (LACCRC), and Los Angeles Unified
School Districts (LAUSD). I will be focusing on the LACCRC, which came into the
spotlight for its continuous gridlock last summer.
Just like California, the LACCRC attempts
to form an unbiased committee. Section 204 of the Los Angeles city charter
explains the committee’s process and duties. Committee members are selected in
a rather confusing manner:
There shall be a
Redistricting Commission to advise the Council on drawing of Council district
lines. The Commission members shall be appointed in the following manner: one
by each Council member except that the Council President shall appoint two
members, three by the Mayor, one by the City Attorney, and one by the
Controller. No City officer or employee shall be eligible to serve on the
Commission. The Redistricting Commission shall appoint a director and
other personnel, consistent with budgetary approval, which positions shall be
exempt from the civil service provisions of the Charter.
One of the major
flaws with this system is that within local politics, a syndrome of cronyism
can easily arise when powerful parties are connected. The mayor, council
president, and city attorney can easily be friends, and can easily stack the
committee. Section 204 is really quite
basic and leaves much to be desired.
Last summer the LACCRC struggled to
complete their task of submitting a final plan by July 1st. The city
became bitterly divided, by race, class, politics, and a multitude of factors. “City
Council President Herb Wesson told a group of Baptist ministers that the city
was divided into factions, and that he was "able to protect the most
important asset that we as black people have, and that's to make sure that a
minimum of two of the council people will be black for the next 30 years"
(LA Times). This comment and others like it have led to several pending legal
cases against the final redistricting plan. In the end, the plan seemed to
favor blacks and whites over Latinos. In “LA Observed” Bill Boyarsky commented
that it was strange for a Latino Mayor to push in that direction, but left it
at that, “writing it off as another example of the murkiness of Los Angeles
Politics.” The LA Times took it a
step further when discussing Wesson, “Perhaps Wesson and others were actually
working to preserve black voting power, or to blunt Asian or Latino voting
power. It appears at least as likely that they were using their redistricting
power to punish enemies and reward friends and supporters.” The redistricting
ended up not really being about a struggle between Democrats and Republicans or
Latinos and Blacks, but rather an opportunity for the more influential city
council members to shore up their districts. “Council President Herb Wesson and
Councilman Jose Huizar are happy with their new districts. Wesson’s now
includes Koreatown and mostly black Baldwin Hills and Leimert Park; Huizars’s
now covers downtown Los Angeles” (http://www.dailynews.com/opinions/ci_20217500/editorial-l-city-council-redistricting-an-inside-job).
Wesson was not the only city council
member to have an unfortunate outburst.
“An explosion of verbal fireworks set
off the Los Angeles City Council's 90 minute discussion and vote on new
district boundaries today as Councilwoman Jan Perry told the council president
she regretted speaking out about what she saw as a corrupted process because it
ultimately led to the destruction of her district.”
Perry saw her own
district get cut to ribbons; the same district that lost parts of downtown to
Huizar’s. Perry ultimately decided to run for mayor, perhaps partially in an
attempt to settle the score, but trails considerably.
Here is the end result of months of
squabbles and backroom deals, a map that looks a bit arbitrary to any Angelino;
http://graphics.latimes.com/la-council-redistricting-v3/.
It seems that the LACCRC is little more than an attempt to give the outward
impression that Los Angeles’ redistricting process is not a petty, political,
popularity contest between the mayor and the city council.
Redistricting
at the federal, state, and national level is in desperate need of reform. There
are not enough federal mandates and a national precedent must be set (even with
the understanding that every state’s needs and populations are different). There have been several different
attempts and theories for redistricting reform in recent years. Committees like
the one in use in the state of California certainly seem to be a step in the
right direction, but after what I have witnessed in Los Angeles this Summer I
believe that no matter how impartial a committee is intended to be it can
always be manipulated to serve a darker purpose. Instead, I favor a simple
mathematical solution based upon an algorithm.
There are several different proponents
for this type of solution. Here is one presented by the Center For Range
Voting: http://rangevoting.org/GerryExamples.html. People fear the mixture of technology
and voting, but this is not like a voting machine that could be rigged without
anyone knowing. The method and equation is very simple, almost anyone could
check the math. Race, religion, and political party preference have all been
removed from the process creating fair normal looking districts for all fifty
states. A team at George Washington University has also come up with a slightly
more complex algorithm: http://redistrictingnow.wordpress.com/2010/04/16/the-k-means-algorithm/.
Pick any algorithm you like. Run them
1,000 times. Combine all the different models out there. It does not matter. What
matters is getting political scientists and mathematicians to work together to
get the politics out of redistricting forever. Sometimes the simplest solutions
are the best options. We do not need 30 person committees to muddy the waters
even more; we will see the results of such committees in one week after the Los
Angeles election results come in. Meanwhile, drowned out by all the squabbling,
simple math equations could provide the solution on how to permanently remove
gerrymandering from the American political lexicon.
