REDMAP

Last updated

REDMAP (short for Redistricting Majority Project) is a project of the Republican State Leadership Committee of the United States to increase Republican control of congressional seats as well as state legislatures, largely through determination of electoral district boundaries. The project has made effective use of partisan gerrymandering, by relying on previously unavailable mapping software such as Maptitude to improve the precision with which district lines are strategically drawn. [1] The strategy was focused on swing blue states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina, and Wisconsin where there was a Democratic majority but which they could swing towards Republican with appropriate redistricting. The project was launched in 2010 and estimated to have cost the Republican party around US$30 million. [2]

Contents

Before REDMAP

The minority vote protections in the Voting Rights Act resulted in a situation where the party that elected minorities also had an advantage in the House of Representatives. [3] Democrats championed the process, redrawing districts to maintain minority populations. [4] Due in part to this, Democrats largely controlled Congress for 40 years, from 1955 to 1995. Democrats are increasingly winning the majority of the votes in densely populated but small geographic, mostly urban, areas. These urban districts are very hard to gerrymander. [5] This is because most local governments want House districts that respect local boundaries and that local politicians can defend in the polls, while Democratic city governments can influence Democratic state legislators who might otherwise be tempted to gerrymander.

GOP drawn boundaries have been seen to overcrowd districts created by Democrats with disproportionate amounts of minority populations. By increasing numbers in a safe Democratic district, Republicans reduce the influence of the liberal voting bloc in both state politics and congressional elections. Republicans controlled the US House from 1995 until 2007.

However, the Republican party regained its power in state legislatures following the losses by the Democrats in the 2010 mid-terms. The Democrats were unpopular with voters at this time, [6] allowing Republicans to implement a political effort called REDMAP that enabled them to redraw favorable maps with the 2010 Census data.

Effects

REDMAP targeted 107 local state legislative races in 16 states, including swing states like Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. [7] [8] With the intention of flipping Democratic-majority state legislatures and Democrat-held state governorships for the express purpose of controlling redistricting, REDMAP funded negative ads in lower-profile state legislative races. [1] [7] This helped to give Republicans control of 10 of the 15 states that would be redrawing their districts in 2010. [1] They then used sophisticated software such as Maptitude for Redistricting, the software used by most entities, independent commissions, and political parties involved in redistricting, [9] to devise districts favorable to the Republican party, for example by clustering Democratic voters into a handful of districts and ensuring the rest were drawn to include Republican majorities. [1]

The effects of REDMAP first came about in the 2012 United States House of Representatives elections, in which Republicans were able to secure several districts and retain control of the United States House of Representatives by a 33-seat margin despite Democratic candidates collectively receiving over 1 million more votes than Republican candidates. [2] However, in the 2018 US midterm elections, though the GOP won a majority of Senate seats, it lost the House by a portion roughly equal to the popular vote.[ citation needed ]

The redistricting of Wisconsin became the basis of a case before the Supreme Court of the United States, Gill v. Whitford , brought to challenge if the redistricting of that state was considered unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] The Court unanimously ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing in the evidence they brought to the Court, and remanded the case to the District Court so that they could present evidence in favor of their standing. [15] As such, the Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of the case.

Criticism

REDMAP has been criticized for its efforts to gerrymander districts. [2] [7] Critics have noted that the Republican Party won a 33-seat majority in the House of Representatives despite its candidates collectively receiving 1.4 million fewer votes than Democratic candidates. [7]

REDMAP has also been criticized for targeting people of color, particularly African Americans. David Daley, author of the 2016 book Ratf**ked: Why Your Vote Doesn't Count , stated that the effects of REDMAP constituted a "wholesale political resegregation along both sides of the Mason-Dixon line" and that redistricting by Republican legislatures redrew maps to "pack as many Black and Democratic voters into as few districts as possible". [7] Reverend William J. Barber II, co-chair of the Poor People's Campaign, has likewise asserted that Republicans "cracked, stacked, packed, and bleached Black voters". [7]

In response to this, Black political leaders made deals with Republicans in states like Missouri, North Carolina, and Georgia to preserve Black representation in Congress while giving Republicans more safe seats. In addition, some states are required by law to have majority-minority congressional districts due to the Voting Rights Act. [16]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gerrymandering</span> Form of political manipulation

In representative electoral systems, gerrymandering is the political manipulation of electoral district boundaries with the intent to create undue advantage for a party, group, or socioeconomic class within the constituency. The manipulation may involve "cracking" or "packing". Gerrymandering can also be used to protect incumbents. Wayne Dawkins, a professor at Morgan State University, describes it as politicians picking their voters instead of voters picking their politicians.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">North Carolina's congressional districts</span> U.S. House districts in the state of North Carolina

North Carolina is currently divided into 14 congressional districts, each represented by a member of the United States House of Representatives. After the 2000 census, the number of North Carolina's seats was increased from 12 to 13 due to the state's increase in population. In the 2022 elections, per the 2020 United States census, North Carolina gained one new congressional seat for a total of 14.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Politics of Texas</span> Politics of a U.S. state

For about a hundred years, from after Reconstruction until the 1990s, the Democratic Party dominated Texas politics, making it part of the Solid South. In a reversal of alignments, since the late 1960s, the Republican Party has grown more prominent. By the 1990s, it became the state's dominant political party and remains so to this day, as Democrats have not won a statewide race since the 1994 Lieutenant gubernatorial election.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2003 Texas redistricting</span> Controversial redistricting of Texass districts for the U.S. House of Representatives

The 2003 Texas redistricting was a controversial intercensus state plan that defined new congressional districts. In the 2004 elections, this redistricting supported the Republicans taking a majority of Texas's federal House seats for the first time since Reconstruction. Democrats in both houses of the Texas Legislature staged walkouts, unsuccessfully trying to prevent the changes. Opponents challenged the plan in three suits, combined when the case went to the United States Supreme Court in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (2006).

The Democratic Party of Wisconsin is the affiliate of the Democratic Party in the U.S. state of Wisconsin. It is currently headed by chair Ben Wikler.

League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006), is a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court ruled that only District 23 of the 2003 Texas redistricting violated the Voting Rights Act. The Court refused to throw out the entire plan, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to state a sufficient claim of partisan gerrymandering.

Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court ruling that was significant in the area of partisan redistricting and political gerrymandering. The court, in a plurality opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas, with Justice Anthony Kennedy concurring in the judgment, upheld the ruling of the District Court in favor of the appellees that the alleged political gerrymandering was not unconstitutional. Subsequent to the ruling, partisan bias in redistricting increased dramatically in the 2010 redistricting round.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2010 United States elections</span>

The 2010 United States elections were held on Tuesday, November 2, 2010, in the middle of Democratic President Barack Obama's first term. Republicans ended unified Democratic control of Congress and the presidency by winning a majority in the House of Representatives and gained seats in the Senate despite Democrats holding Senate control.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Redistricting in Pennsylvania</span> Overview about redistricting in Pennsylvania

Redistricting in Pennsylvania refers to the decennial process of redrawing state legislative and federal congressional districts in Pennsylvania.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gerrymandering in the United States</span> Setting electoral district boundaries to favor specific political interests in legislative bodies

Gerrymandering is the practice of setting boundaries of electoral districts to favor specific political interests within legislative bodies, often resulting in districts with convoluted, winding boundaries rather than compact areas. The term "gerrymandering" was coined after a review of Massachusetts's redistricting maps of 1812 set by Governor Elbridge Gerry noted that one of the districts looked like a mythical salamander.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Redistricting in California</span> Redistricting of Californias districts for the U.S. House of Representatives

Redistricting in California has historically been highly controversial. Critics have accused legislators of attempting to protect themselves from competition by gerrymandering districts. Conflicts between the governor and the legislature during redistricting often have only been resolved by the courts.

The National Democratic Redistricting Committee (NDRC) is a US political organization that focuses on redistricting and is aligned with the Democratic Party. It was founded in 2017 with the primary goal of stopping partisan gerrymandering and advocating for fair and transparent redistricting processes. The organization coordinates campaign strategy, supports redistricting reform, and files lawsuits against state redistricting maps.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 United States redistricting cycle</span>

The 2020 United States redistricting cycle is in progress following the completion of the 2020 United States census. In all fifty states, various bodies are re-drawing state legislative districts. States that are apportioned more than one seat in the United States House of Representatives are also drawing new districts for that legislative body.

Gill v. Whitford, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the constitutionality of partisan gerrymandering. Other forms of gerrymandering based on racial or ethnic grounds had been deemed unconstitutional, and while the Supreme Court had identified that extreme partisan gerrymandering could also be unconstitutional, the Court had not agreed on how this could be defined, leaving the question to lower courts to decide. That issue was later resolved in Rucho v. Common Cause, in which the Court decided that partisan gerrymanders presented a nonjusticiable political question.

Benisek v. Lamone, 585 U.S. ____ (2018), and Lamone v. Benisek, 588 U.S. ____ (2019), were a pair of decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States in a case dealing with the topic of partisan gerrymandering arising from the 2011 Democratic party-favored redistricting of Maryland. At the center of the cases was Maryland's 6th district which historically favored Republicans and which was redrawn in 2011 to shift the political majority to become Democratic via vote dilution. Affected voters filed suit, stating that the redistricting violated their right of representation under Article One, Section Two of the U.S. Constitution and freedom of association of the First Amendment.

Rucho v. Common Cause, No. 18-422, 588 U.S. 684 (2019) is a landmark case of the United States Supreme Court concerning partisan gerrymandering. The Court ruled that while partisan gerrymandering may be "incompatible with democratic principles", the federal courts cannot review such allegations, as they present nonjusticiable political questions outside the jurisdiction of these courts.

Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a case argued before the United States Supreme Court on March 18, 2019, in which the Virginia House of Delegates appealed against the decision in 2018 by the district court that 11 of Virginia's voting districts were racially gerrymandered, and thus unconstitutional. The Court held the "Virginia House of Delegates lacks standing to file this appeal, either representing the state's interests or in its own right." In other words, the court upheld the decision made by a federal district court ruling in June 2018 that 11 state legislative districts were an illegal racial gerrymander. This was following a previous (2017) case, Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Bd. of Elections.

<i>League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania</i> 2018 Pennsylvania Supreme Court case regarding gerrymandering

League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania et al. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania et al.—abbreviated League of Women Voters v. Commonwealth—was a decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on gerrymandering, concerning the power of the Pennsylvania General Assembly to draw maps based on partisan advantage. The Court ruled that the maps adopted by the Republican controlled legislature in 2011 was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander under the Constitution of Pennsylvania.

The 2010 United States redistricting cycle took place following the completion of the 2010 United States census. In all fifty states, various bodies re-drew state legislative districts. States that are apportioned more than one seat in the United States House of Representatives also drew new districts for that legislative body. The resulting new districts were first implemented for the 2011 and 2012 elections.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Redistricting in Texas</span>

Texas House of Representatives districts, Texas Senate districts, Texas Board of Education districts, and Texas's congressional districts are redistricted once every decade, usually in the year after the decennial United States census. According to the Texas Constitution, redistricting in Texas follows the regular legislative process; it must be passed by both houses of the Texas Legislature and signed by the governor of Texas—unless the legislature has sufficient votes to override a gubernatorial veto. Like many other states in the American South after the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, federal judges and the United States Supreme Court have struck down Texas's congressional and legislative districts on multiple occasions, including in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Zelizer, Julian E. (June 17, 2016). "The power that gerrymandering has brought to Republicans". The Washington Post . Retrieved December 29, 2017.
  2. 1 2 3 Daley, Dave (June 2, 2017). "How Democrats Gerrymandered Their Way to Victory in Maryland". The Atlantic . Retrieved March 29, 2018.
  3. FRANKE-RUTA, GARANCE (August 26, 2013). "How Gerrymandering Has Created a Segregated House". The Atlantic.
  4. Sherman, Tom (October 29, 2014). "Gerrymandering: A Plague on Both Our Parties!". TruthOut.
  5. Bernstein, Jonathan (September 8, 2014). "Why Democrats Can't Blame Gerrymandering". Bloomberg.
  6. Roff, Peter (September 28, 2010). "Election 2010 Redistricting Gains Will Give GOP Lasting Majority". U.S. News & World Report.
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Daley, David (October 15, 2020). "Inside the Republican Plot for Permanent Minority Rule". The New Republic. Archived from the original on October 18, 2020. Retrieved October 18, 2020.
  8. Rove, Karl (March 4, 2010). "The GOP Targets State Legislatures". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on October 8, 2020.
  9. Milligan, Susan (March 25, 2019). "Supreme Court to Consider the Politics of Redistricting". U.S. News & World Report.
  10. Williams, Joseph (June 19, 2017). "Supreme Court Takes Up Partisan Redistricting". U.S. News & World Report . Retrieved March 29, 2018.
  11. Kolbert, Elizabeth (June 27, 2016). "How redistricting turned America from blue to red". The New Yorker . Retrieved December 29, 2017.
  12. "The Redistricting Majority Project". Republican State Leadership Committee . Retrieved January 2, 2018.
  13. Rosenberg, Paul (June 13, 2016). "This is how the GOP rigged Congress: The secret plan that handcuffed Obama's presidency, but backfired in Donald Trump". Salon . Retrieved December 29, 2017.
  14. "'Gerrymandering On Steroids': How Republicans Stacked The Nation's Statehouses". Here and Now . WBUR. July 19, 2016. Retrieved December 29, 2017.
  15. de Vogue, Ariane (June 18, 2018). "Supreme Court sidesteps partisan gerrymandering cases, let maps stand for now". CNN . Retrieved June 18, 2018.
  16. "The Unlikely Alliance Black Democrats and White Republicans have in Missouri". NPR.org. Retrieved December 29, 2021.

See also

Further reading