Advertisement

GeoJournal

pp 1–25 | Cite as

Congressional districts: How “equal” are they?

  • Kalyn M. Rossiter
  • David W. S. Wong
Article
  • 54 Downloads

Abstract

Congressional redistricting is the process of delineating boundaries for districts in which voters elect members to the United States (U.S.) House of Representatives. Currently, state legislative bodies and committees may consider up to eight criteria when determining the boundaries of districts and this paper focuses on one of those criteria, equal population. Congressional districts (CDs) are drawn to provide quality representation for a large population and are often redrawn due to changes in population reflected by the decennial census. The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided that equal population refers to the total population of a state, rather than any subgroups (e.g. registered voters, voting eligible population) but did not dictate that states could not evenly distribute any subgroups as well. This paper discusses how eligible voters may be defined and their distributions in each state for the 113th Congress. States with a large proportion of children or prisoners were expected to have CDs with eligible voting populations deviated from the equal population counts, but the results show that populations of children and prisoners were not significant factors related to the deviations from equal population counts at the state level. However, the changes in population between 2000 and 2010, and the non-citizen and Hispanic populations were strongly and significantly associated with the deviations from the ideals.

Keywords

Eligible voters Redistricting Equal population Census 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and animals rights

This research does not involve human participants or animals.

Supplementary material

10708_2018_9963_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (463 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 462 kb)

References

  1. Balinski, M. L., & Young, H. P. (1974). A new method for congressional apportionment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 7(4), 4602–4606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bickerstaffe, S. (2001). Effects of the voting rights act on reapportionment and hispanic voting strength in Texas. Texas Hispanic Journal of Law and Policy, 6, 99–122.Google Scholar
  3. Brady, D., & Edmonds, D. (1967). One man, one vote—So what? Society, 4(4), 41–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brunell, T. L. (2012). The one person, one vote standard in redistricting: The uses and abuses of population deviations in legislative redistricting. Case Western Reserve Law Review, 62(4), 1057–1077.Google Scholar
  5. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2015). http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2230. Accessed April 25, 2015.
  6. Desposato, S. W., & Petrockik, J. R. (2009). The variable incumbency advantage: New voters, redistricting, and the personal vote. American Journal of Political Science, 47(1), 18–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dixon, R. G., Jr. (1968). Democratic representation: Reapportionment in law and politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Forest, B. (2012). Electoral redistricting and minority political representation in Canada and the United States. The Canadian Geographer, 56(3), 318–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Forgette, R., & Platt, G. (2005). Redistricting principles and incumbency protection in the U.S. Congres. Political Geography, 24(2005), 934–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gaddie, R. K., Wert, J. J., & Bullock, C. S., III. (2012). Seats, votes, citizens, and the one person, one vote problem. Stanford Law & Policy Review, 23(2), 431–453.Google Scholar
  11. Gazell, J. A. (1970). One man, one vote. Political Research Quarterly, 23(2), 445–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Griffith, D. A., & Amrhein, C. G. (1997). Multivariate statistical analysis for geographers. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall College Div.Google Scholar
  13. Grofman, B. (1985). Criteria for districting: A social science perspective. UCLA Law Review, 35, 77–184.Google Scholar
  14. Haselswerdt, M. V. (2009). Con job: An estimate of ex-felon voter turnout using document-based data. Social Science Quarterly, 90(2), 262–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lichter, D. T., & Johnson, K. M. (2009). Immigrant gateways and hispanic migration to new destinations. International Migration Review, 43(3), 496–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections. (2015). http://www.doc.louisiana.gov. Accessed April 25, 2015.
  17. McConnell, M. W. (2000). The redistricting cases: Original mistakes and current consequences. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 24(1), 103–117.Google Scholar
  18. Mitrovich, T. M. (2002). Political apportioning is not a zero-sum game: The constitutional necessity of apportioning districts to be equal in terms of both total population and citizen voter-age population. Washington Law Review Association, 77(4), 1261–1293.Google Scholar
  19. Morrill, R. L. (1981). Political redistricting and geography theory. Washington, D.C: Association of American Geographers.Google Scholar
  20. Newbold, K. B. (2014). Population geography: Tools and issues. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  21. Oklahoma Department of Corrections. (2015). http://www.ok.gov/doc/. Accessed April 25, 2015.
  22. Persily, N., Grofman, B., Ansolabehere, S., Stewart III, C., & Cain, B. E. (2015). Brief in support of appellees. http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Evenwel-PersilyBrief092515.pdf. Accessed July 3, 2018.
  23. Sun, M., & Wong, D. W. S. (2010). Incorporating data quality information in mapping the American Community Survey data. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 37(4), 285–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Uggen, C., Shannon, S., & Manza, J. (2010). State-level estimates of felon disenfranchisement in the United States, 2010. http://felonvoting.procon.org/sourcefiles/2010_State_Level_Estimates_of_Felon_Disenfranchisement.pdf. Accessed March 30, 2015.
  25. U.S. Census Bureau. (2013). American FactFinder: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. Accessed November 18, 2013.
  26. U.S. Supreme Court. (2016). Evenwel v. Abbott, No. 14-940. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-940_ed9g.pdf. Accessed July 1, 2016.
  27. U.S. Supreme Court. (2018a). Gill v. Whitford, No. 16-116. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1161_dc8f.pdf. Accessed November 30, 2018.
  28. U.S. Supreme Court. (2018b). Rucho v. Common Cause, No. 17-1295. http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/rucho-v-common-cause/. Accessed November 30, 2018.
  29. U.S. Supreme Court. (2018c). Benisek v. Lamone, No. 17-333. http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/benisek-v-lamone/. Accessed November 30, 2018.
  30. Webster, G. R. (2013). Reflection on current criteria to evaluate redistricting plans. Political Geography, 32(2013), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Yoshinaka, A., & Murphy, C. (2009). Partisan gerrymandering and population instability: Completing the redistricting puzzle. Political Geography, 28(2009), 451–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of History, Political Science, and GeographyOhio Northern UniversityAdaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Geography and Geoinformation ScienceGeorge Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA

Personalised recommendations