Partisan Alignment Increases Voter Turnout: Evidence from Redistricting


Partisan gerrymandering and polarization have created an electoral landscape where Americans increasingly reside in congressional districts dominated by one party. Are individuals more likely to vote when their partisanship aligns with the partisan composition of the district? Leveraging nationwide voter file data and the redistricting process, we present causal evidence on this question via a longitudinal analysis of individual-level political participation. Tracking turnout before and after a redistricting cycle, where the boundaries of congressional districts change, we observe what happens when registrants experience a shock to the partisan composition of their district. We find turnout increases for individuals assigned to districts aligned with their partisanship as compared to individuals in misaligned districts, consistent with voters deriving expressive benefits from voting for the winning party. By demonstrating how districting influences political participation, our findings suggest a new implication of partisan gerrymandering that may clash with other democratic goals.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5


  1. 1.

    Benisek v. Lamone, 348 F. Supp. 3d 493, 501 (D. Md. 2018).

  2. 2.,_2018.

  3. 3.

    In instrumental models of voting, the size of the expressive benefit to voting is not a function of which candidate wins. In subsequent sections of the paper, we will use the term “expressive voting” to refer to our narrower expressive voting hypothesis.

  4. 4.

    Alternatively, we may consider “threat” to be greatest when the risk of loss is greatest, as in highly competitive districts. In this case, turnout should be highest in the most competitive districts, and less high in both heavily aligned and heavily misaligned districts.

  5. 5.

    Online Appendix Section A.4 provides context for analyzing differences in turnout in presidential versus mid-term election years.

  6. 6.

    See here for basic information on Catalist:

  7. 7.

    See Online Appendix Section A.6 for the list of party-registration states in the sample.

  8. 8.

    Specifically, we use an average of the de-meaned presidential vote from the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections to measure the district partisan composition (Moskowitz and Schneer 2019). We use this same measure based on the 2004 and 2008 presidential election returns to measure district partisanship for pre-2012 district boundaries and post-redistricting boundaries.

  9. 9.

    We use mean deviations here to address the issue of partisan tides; doing so facilitates direct comparisons within districts across years.

  10. 10.

    Using a binary variable in this context allows us to focus on the comparisons between aligned and misaligned districts rather than changes within each category. Second, and crucially, it allows us to match exactly on similar voters who do and do not experience changes in partisan alignment. Third, we examine an alternate threshold of \(\pm 10\) in the Online Appendix and it does not appear to make a meaningful difference to our results.

  11. 11.

    When estimating the effect of moving from a competitive to a misaligned district, we conceptualize the binary variable as \(\text {Partisan Misalignment}_{ist}\) with a value of 1 when party registration is opposite district partisanship and 0 otherwise.

  12. 12.

    As noted above, the sample includes only stationary individuals.

  13. 13.

    This approach is based on the framework provided in Sekhon and Titiunik (2012).

  14. 14.

    For a sense of the extent of changes in partisan composition experienced by voters in the sample, see the histograms in Figures A.5–A.7.

  15. 15.

    The new regression equation takes the form \(E(\text {Turnout}_{ist}) = \gamma _i + \lambda _{st} + \delta \cdot \text {Partisan Alignment}_{ist} + \zeta \cdot \text {Marginal Voter}_{ist} + \pi \cdot \text {Partisan Alignment}_{ist} \times \text {Marginal Voter}_{ist}\).

  16. 16.

    Online Appendix A.8 outlines some other possible explanations for this phenomenon.

  17. 17.

    As in our analyses using voter file data, we restrict to respondents who did not move throughout the period of the panel. This question is only asked to panel respondents (i.e., it is not included in the CCES Common Content for 2012 or 2014).

  18. 18.

    Moving from an R+10 to a D+10 district is associated with about a 0.4 increase in perceived district partisanship (which is measured on a scale from -1 to 1).

  19. 19.

    While we focus on perceived district partisanship in 2012, results are extremely similar for perceptions of district partisanship in 2014. See Figure A.9 and Table A.31 in the Appendix.

  20. 20.

    For technical details on measuring voter awareness of the party’s candidate, see Online Appendix Section A.11.

  21. 21.

    Results are based on candidate evaluations made in 2010 and 2014. We use 2010 and 2014 because the 2010–2014 CCES Panel does not have candidate evaluations for 2008.

  22. 22.

    While we show the relationship between partisan alignment and ideology for 2012, the patterns are generally similar for other characteristics and other years.

  23. 23.

    Respondents are asked: “Did a candidate or political campaign organization contact you during the [INSERT YEAR] election?” If “yes,” they are asked: “How did these candidates or campaigns contact you...[in person / phone call / email or text message / letter or post card.”

  24. 24.

    We show this relationship for 2010, 2012, and 2014 in Figure A.10 in the Appendix.

  25. 25.

    The loess curve begins to increase again in the extreme ends of both aligned and misaligned districts, but very few CCES respondents are in these parts of the distribution.


  1. Abramowitz, A. I., Alexander, B., & Gunning, M. (2006). Incumbency, redistricting, and the decline of competition in U.S. House Elections. Journal of Politics, 68(1), 75–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Agranov, M., Goeree, J. K., Romero, J., & Yariv, L. (2018). What makes voters turn out: The effects of polls and beliefs. Journal of the European Economic Association, 16(3), 825–856.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson, C. J., Blais, A., Bowler, S., Donovan, T., & Listhaug, O. (2005). Losers’ consent: Elections and democratic legitimacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ansolabehere, S., & Hersh, E. (2012). Validation: What big data reveal about survey misreporting and the real electorate. Political Analysis, 20(4), 437–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ansolabehere, S., & Iyengar, S. (1994). Of horseshoes and horse races: Experimental studies of the impact of poll results on electoral behavior. Political Communication, 11(4), 413–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ashworth, J., Geys, B., & Heyndels, B. (2006). Everyone likes a winner: An empirical test of the effect of electoral closeness on turnout in a context of expressive voting. Public Choice, 128, 383–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ashworth, S., & Clinton, J. D. (2007). Does advertising exposure affect turnout? Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 2(1), 27–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Barber, M., & Kosuke, I. (2014). Estimating neighborhood effects on turnout from geocoded voter registration records. Working paper retrieved from

  9. Barreto, M. A., Segura, G. M., & Woods, N. D. (2004). The effects of overlapping majority-minority districts on Latino turnout. American Political Science Review, 98(1), 65–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bartels, L. M. (1988). Presidential primaries and the dynamics of public choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Blais, A. (2006). What affects voter turnout? Annual Review of Political Science, 9, 111–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Blais, A., & Achen, C. H. (2019). Civic duty and voter turnout. Political Behavior, 41(June), 473–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Brunell, T. (2010). Redistricting and representation: Why competitive elections are bad for America. London: Routledge.

  14. Brunell, T. L., & Buchler, J. (2009). Ideological representation and competitive congressional elections. Electoral Studies, 29(3), 448–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Caldeira, G. A., Clausen Aage, R., & Patterson, S. C. (1990). Partisan mobilization and electoral participation. Electoral Studies, 9(3), 191–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Campbell, A. (1960). Surge and decline: A study of electoral change. Public opinion quarterly, 24(3), 397–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Cho, W. K., Tam, J. G., Gimpel, K., & Iris S. H. (2013). Voter Migration and the Geographic Sorting of the American Electorate. Annals of the Association of American Geographers,103(4), 856–870.

  18. Cox, G. W., & Munger, M. C. (1989). Closeness, expenditures, and turnout in the 1982 US House Elections. American Political Science Review, 83(1), 217–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. de Bock, H. (1976). Influence of in-state election poll reports on candidate preference in 1972. Journalism Quarterly, 53(3), 457–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Downs, A. (1957). An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Enos, R. D. (2016). What the demolition of public housing teaches us about the impact of racial threat on political behavior. American Journal of Political Science, 60(1), 123–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Enos, R. D., & Fowler, A. (2016). Aggregate effects of large-scale campaigns on voter turnout. Political Science Research and Methods, 6(4), 733–751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Fraga, B., & Hersh, E. (2018). Are Americans stuck in uncompetitive enclaves? An appraisal of US Electoral Competition. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 13(3), 291–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Fraga, B. L. (2016a). Candidates or districts? Reevaluating the role of race in voter turnout. American Journal of Political Science, 60(1), 97–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Fraga, B. L. (2016b). Redistricting and the causal impact of race on voter turnout. Journal of Politics, 78(1), 19–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Fraga, B. L. (2018). The turnout gap: Race, ethnicity, and political inequality in a diversifying America. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Friedman, J. N., & Holden, R. T. (2008). Optimal gerrymandering: Sometimes pack, but never crack. The American Economic Review, 98(1), 113–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Gay, C. (2001). The effect of black congressional representation on political participation. American Political Science Review, 95(3), 589–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Gelman, A., & King, G. (1994). A unified method of evaluating electoral systems and redistricting plans. American Journal of Political Science, 38(2), 514–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Geys, B. (2006). Explaining voter turnout: A review of aggregate-level research. Electoral Studies, 25(4), 637–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Gimpel, J. G., Dyck, J. J., & Shaw, D. R. (2004). Registrants, voters, and turnout variability across neighborhoods. Political Behavior, 26(4), 343–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Green, D. P., McGrath, M. C., & Aronow, P. M. (2013). Field experiments and the study of voter turnout. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties, 23(1), 27–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Hersh, E., & Nall, C. (2016). The primacy of race in the geography of income-based voting: Evidence from public voting records. American Journal of Political Science, 60(2), 289–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Huber, G. A., & Arceneaux, K. (2007). Identifying the persuasive effects of presidential advertising. American Journal of Political Science, 51(4), 957–977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Huckfeldt, R., Carmines, E. G., Mondak, J. J., & Zeemering, E. (2007). Information, activation, and electoral competition in the 2002 congressional elections. Journal of Politics, 69(3), 798–812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Hunt, C. R. (2018). When does redistricting matter? Changing conditions and their effects on voter turnout. Electoral Studies, 54, 128–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Iyengar, S., Yphtach, L., Matthew, L., Neil, M., & Westwood, S. J. (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22, 129–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Jackson, R. A. (1996). The mobilization of congressional electorates. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 21(3), 425–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Jacobson, G. C, & Carson, J. L. (2019). The politics of congressional elections. Rowman & Littlefield.

  41. Jacobson, G. C., & Kernell, S. (1983). Strategy and choice in congressional elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Kaniovski, S., & Mueller, D. C. (2006). Community size, heterogeneity, and voter turnouts. Public Choice, 129(3), 399–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Kenney, P. J., & Rice, T. W. (1994). The psychology of political momentum. Political Research Quarterly, 47(4), 923–938.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Key, V. O. (1949). Southern politics in state and nation. New York: Vintage.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Krasno, J. S., & Green, D. P. (2008). Do televised presidential ads increase voter turnout? Evidence from a natural experiment. Journal of Politics, 70(1), 245–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Lowenstein, D. H. (2006). “Vieth’s Gap: Has the Supreme Court gone from bad to worse on partisan gerrymandering?” Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy N:X (January): 101–130.

  47. Malhotra, N., Michelson, M. R., Rogers, T., & Valenzuela, A. A. (2011). Text messages as mobilization tools: The conditional effect of habitual voting and election salience. American Politics Research, 39(4), 664–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Mason, L. (2018). Uncivil agreement: How politics became our identity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Matsusaka, J. G. (1993). Election closeness and voter turnout: Evidence from California ballot propositions. Public Choice, 76(4), 313–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. McCarty, N., Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (2009). Does gerrymandering cause polarization? American Journal of Political Science, 53(3), 666–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. McKee, S. C. (2013). Political conditions and the electoral effects of redistricting. American Politics Research, 41(4), 623–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Meredith, M. (2009). Persistence in political participation. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 4(3), 187–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Moskowitz, D. J., & Schneer, B. (2019). Reevaluating competition and turnout in U.S. House Elections. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 14(2), 191–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Oishi, S., Trawalter, S., & Nosek, B. A. (2014). How ideological migration geographically segregates groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 51, 1–14. Forthcoming.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Mummolo, J., & Nall, C. (2016). Why partisans don’t sort: The constraints on political segregation. Journal of Politics, 79(1), 45–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Mutz, D. C. (2002). The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 838–855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Niemi, R. G., & Bartels, L. M. (1984). “The responsiveness of approval voting to political circumstances.” PS: Political Science & Politics 17 (3): 571–577.

  58. Peskowitz, Z. (2018). Selection and incentives in the electoral security-constituency communication relationship. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 43(2), 275–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Riker, W. H., & Ordeshook, P. C. (1968). A theory of the calculus of voting. American Political Science Review, 62(1), 25–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Rosenstone, S. J., & Hansen, J. M. (1993). Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America. Macmillan.

  61. Schuessler, A. A. (2000). Expressive voting. Rationality and Society, 12(1), 87–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Sekhon, J., & Titiunik, R. (2012). When natural experiments are neither natural nor experiments. American Political Science Review, 106(1), 35–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Shachar, R., & Nalebuff, B. (1999). Follow the leader: Theory and evidence on political participation. American Economic Review, 89(3), 525–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Silberman, J., & Durden, G. (1975). The rational behavior theory of voter participation. Public Choice, 23(1), 101–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Stephanopolous, N. O., & McGhee, E. M. (2015). Partisan gerrymandering and the efficiency gap. University of Chicago Law Review, 82, 831–900.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Stephanopoulos, N. O., & Warshaw, C. (2020). The impact of partisan gerrymandering on political parties. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 45(4), 609–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Vavreck, L. (2007). The exaggerated effects of advertising on turnout: The dangers of self-reports. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 2(4), 325–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Wielhouwer, P. W., & Lockerbie, B. (1994). Party contacting and political participation, 1952–90. American Journal of Political Science, 38(1), 211–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Wolfinger, R. E., & Rosenstone, S. J. (1980). Who votes? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 

Download references


We are grateful for comments from Stephen Ansolabehere, Brad Gomez, Jon Rogowski and Jim Snyder, participants in the Harvard Kennedy School DPI Junior Faculty Workshop, as well as audiences at MPSA 2017 and the MIT Election Sciences workshop. Schneer thanks Florida State University for research support for this project in the form of the First-Year Assistant Professor Grant.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bernard L. Fraga.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 890 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fraga, B.L., Moskowitz, D.J. & Schneer, B. Partisan Alignment Increases Voter Turnout: Evidence from Redistricting. Polit Behav (2021).

Download citation


  • Redistricting
  • Partisanship
  • Voter turnout
  • Voter participation