Redistricting: Studies & Research

Comparison of Congressional Redistricting Plans

To view the side by side comparison, click here.

Building A National Redistricting Reform Movement

"Building a National Redistricting Reform Movement" is the product a two-day redistricting reform conference held last April. The report presents lessons learned from the failed 2005 redistricting reform efforts in California and Ohio. It also examines strategies, tactics, and tools necessary for the adoption of redistricting reform in several states looking ahead to the prospects for a national reform effort prior to the 2010 census and 2011 redistricting of the House of Representatives.

To read the full report, click here.

The Shape of Representative Democracy

A report from the June 2005 Redistricting Reform Conference held in Airlie, Virginia.

To read the full conference report, click here.

Research Shows Ohio's Trends in Redistricting

Oct. 27, 2005. The following report done by the group For The Rest of Us, is an analysis of Ohio's current political boundaries. The report finds that moderates and women are under-represented in Ohio's current political districts, the party favored by district composition won 91% of the time, and the party that controlled the redistricting process historically has gained an average of 8 seats in the Ohio house and 2 in the Ohio Senate over the past 4 decades, even when that party was fairing poorly in national elections.

Click here to read the report.

United States Elections Project: Enhancing Competitiveness in Redistricting

One of the fundamental characteristics of democratic government is that voters have a meaningful choice among candidates on the ballot. The 2002 congressional election sorely tested the degree of democracy in the United States. Pundits widely reported the 2002 congressional elections as the least competitive in modern history. Only 40 - plus or minus a few - out of 435 House races were considered close enough going into election night that the outcome was not known with a high degree of certainty.

How can the country regarded as leader of the free world host legislative elections whose competitiveness is nearly on par with one-political party dictatorships such as Cuba, old Iraq, Libya, and the old Soviet Union? The answer lies in how the districts are drawn. Districts are redrawn every ten years in a process known as redistricting. Only in the United States do the politicians have so much say in how their districts will look. Democracy is turned on its head during redistricting - instead of the voters choosing the representatives, the representatives choose the voters. Naturally, they choose voters that will further their political goals, not enhance democracy.

Click here to read full text.

Incumbency, Redistricting, and the Decline of Competition in U.S. House Elections

Competition in U.S. House elections has been declining for more than 50 years and the 2002 and 2004 House elections were the least competitive of the postwar era. This paper tests three hypotheses that attempt to explain the decline in competition in House elections: the redistricting hypothesis, the partisan polarization hypothesis, and the incumbency hypothesis. We find strong support for both the partisan polarization hypothesis and the incumbency hypothesis but no support for the redistricting hypothesis. Since the 1970s there has been a substantial increase in the number of House districts that are relatively safe for one party and a substantial decrease in the number of marginal districts. However, this shift has not been caused by redistricting but by demographic change and ideological realignment within the electorate. Moreover, even in the remaining marginal districts only a small minority of House races are competitive. The main explanation for the lack of competition even in marginal districts appears to be the inability of challengers to compete financially with incumbents.

Click here to read the full study.

Drawing Lines: A Public Interest Guide to Real Redistricting Reform

On March 28, 2005 the Center for Governmental Studies and Demos released a joint report, Drawing Lines: A Public Interest Guide to Real Redistricting Reform. Drawing Lines recommends criteria for selection of IRC members and suggests key components to be included in any redistricting plan. The report and a newly drafted Addendum analyze the major features of current initiative proposals and pending legislation in light of these recommendations. The analysis finds that while clearly making progress, all have room for improvement to serve the public interest more effectively.

Click here to read Drawing Lines: A Public Interest Guide to Real Redistricting Reform.

Click here to read the Addendum.

Redistricting Reform: What is Desirable? Possible?

Thomas E. Mann, a celebrated political author and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution prepared a study for the Institute of Governmental Studies Conference on "Competition, Partisanship, and Congressional Redistricting," last fall. His study deals with incumbancy protection and the decline of competitiveness in elections; focusing on how redistricting reform might be implemented.

Click here to view the full text.

When Judges Carve Democracies: A Primer on Court-Drawn Redistricting Plans

Associate Professor Nathanial Persily of the University of Pennsylvania Law School recently released a draft essay entitled "When Judges Carve Democracies: A Primer on Court-Drawn Redistricting Plans." Mr. Persily discusses the unique legal constraints on court-drawn plans and assesses the costs and benefits of following various procedures or substantive redistricting principles.

Click here to view When Judges Carve Democracies: A Primer on Court-Drawn Redistricting Plans.