Abstract
This chapter illustrates how to documents and understand two recognized forms of vote dilution—“packing” and “cracking”—whether for racial or partisan purposes. Dallas County illustrates the steps in detecting racial vote dilution in districts redrawn after the 2010 census. The new district boundaries effectively disenfranchised one-ninth of all White voters countywide, and one-tenth of Black voters. Maryland’s 6th Congressional District illustrates gerrymandering for apparent partisan purpose. Here “packing” and “cracking” flipped the district from Republican to Democratic control. This case study illustrates the steps in documenting: (1) systematic dismemberment of an existing district through the excessive interchange of territory and population; (2) disregard of communities of interest; and (3) a partisan aim—here, replacing Republican voters with Democrats. It also unveils a worrisome legacy: the further residential separation of new outsiders from the long-established populace, potentially undermining commonalities of interest tied to place.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
CDPs have been recognized and identified in each decennial census since 1980 as the counterparts of incorporated cities, towns, and villages. CDPs are populated areas that generally include one officially designated but currently unincorporated small community, for which the CDP is named, plus surrounding inhabited countryside of varying dimensions and, occasionally, other smaller unincorporated communities as well. CDPs include small rural communities, colonias located along the U.S. border with Mexico, and unincorporated resort and retirement communities and their environs. Current Census Bureau criteria require that a CDP name “be one that is recognized and used in daily communication by the residents of the community” (not “a name developed solely for planning or other purposes”) and recommend that a CDP’s boundaries be mapped based on the geographic extent associated with inhabitants’ regular use of the named place.
- 2.
Conceptually, DI measures the percentage of a group’s population that would have to change residence for each neighborhood to have the same percentage of that group as in the 6th CD as a whole. Residential separation would be least (i.e., closest to zero on DI) when native-born Marylanders and outsiders happen to be distributed in nearly equal proportions in every census place within the 6th CD. Conversely, residential separation would be greatest (i.e., closest to 100 on DI) when both groups happen to reside almost entirely separate from each other. Details on calculating DI at: GitHub 10-006.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Morrison, P.A., Bryan, T.M. (2019). Unmasking “Packing” and “Cracking” for Racial or Partisan Purposes. In: Redistricting: A Manual for Analysts, Practitioners, and Citizens. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15827-9_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15827-9_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-15826-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-15827-9
eBook Packages: Mathematics and StatisticsMathematics and Statistics (R0)