SCOTUS, Gerrymandering, and the Efficiency Gap

All District Map Drawing is Political, but at its most Extreme, it strikes at the heart of Representative Democracy. By letting Politicians pick their Voters rather than the other way around, this practice, known as Partisan Gerrymandering, corrodes the relationship between Lawmakers and their Constituents. it also discourages Bipartisanship and undermines the Public's Trust in Government.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly steered clear of solving this age-old problem. but on Tuesday, in a Case that could transform the American Political Landscape, the Justices will hear arguments over whether, and how, Partisan Gerrymandering can be reined in.

If any case could convince the Court that it's time to step in and find a solution fast, it's the one they're hearing on Tuesday. Gill v. Whitford, a Lawsuit out of Wisconsin that offers a stark lesson in just how Distorted the Map Drawing Process has become in an era of sophisticated Mapping Technology and intense Political Polarization.

In 2010, Republicans won Unified Control of Wisconsin's Government for the first time in years. To keep it, they turned the Decennial Redistricting Process, which began in 2011, into a clandestine Partisan Operation. They set up a Map Room at a Republican-allied Law Firm, used refined Data Analysis to draw new Republican friendly District Lines, then invited only Republican Lawmakers to come in and see their New Districts, after they signed Nondisclosure Agreements.

In 2012 it worked. Republican Candidates won 48% of the vote, but 60 of the State's 99 Legislative Seats. In 2014, Republicans again won 48% of the vote, but 63 of the State's 90 Legislative Seats. In other words, Republicans had figured out how to Draw Maps to lock in their Legislative Majority no matter how many, or few, votes they received. In 2016, a Federal Court in Wisconsin struck down the Maps under both the First and 14th Amendments.

There are several straightforward ways to measure the degree of Partisanship. The Plaintiffs have pointed to one in particular, called the Efficiency Gap, which looks at the difference between each Party's Wasted votes. That means every vote cast for its Losing Candidates, and all the votes for its Winning Candidates above the bare Majority needed to Win. The Greater the difference, the Higher the Partisan Bias in the Maps. The current Break Point is 8%.

Measures like this could appeal to Justice Anthony Kennedy, who said in a 2004 Case, that he was open to the possibility of a Standard that would allow the Court to Rule on Partisan Gerrymanders. Justice Kennedy, as usual, hold the Key vote on the issue, since the Four more Liberal Justices are probably prepared to Strike Down Wisconsin's Maps, while the Four Conservative Justices are likely to say the Court shouldn't get involved in the Political Process.

Extreme Gerrymandering is a problem that by definition can't be fixed through the normal Political Process, since the whole point is to make it hard or I'm possible for certain Voters to make their Voices heard. That's not Government of the People, it's Government in Spite of the People.

The better, although not perfect, solution is to take Map Drawing away from self-interested Politicians and put it in the hands of an Independent or Bipartisan Commission, as more than a dozen States have done, helping to make Races both more competitive and Less Partisan.

Until that happens everywhere, the Court must step in and Stop the most Egregious Gerrymanders. If it refuses to, the problem will only get Worse.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

How Data Can Save Democracy

One thing you have to admire about Gerrymandering, the dark art of drawing a Legislative Map that favors a Political Party: It's got some interesting slang.

Packing - Taking all the neighborhoods with voters who hate you and cramming them into one District. You know you will lose that District by a Landslide but have a leg up in all the other Districts.

Cracking - Breaking up a neighborhood that loathes you into chunks that you attach to other Districts where you are loved. Your opponents' votes get spread around and diluted.

Obviously these shenanigans warp and imperil Democracy. Various groups have sued over Gerrymandering Districts three dozen times in the past few decades, but they've always lost, because it's hard to prove how much a map is Gerrymandered. Usually Plaintiffs have resorted to Hypotheticals, but Courts don't like Hypotheticals. They want Hard Numbers.

Last year them got them. Eric McGhee. a Research Fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, has figured out a new way to think about Gerrymandering, in Terms of Efficiency. With Packing and Cracking, the goal is to ensure you opponents' votes are wasted, so they do not contribute to Victory. A Packed District has artificially too many votes for one side. A Cracked District too few. McGhee figured out how to calculate the Efficiency Gap of an Election. Go District by District, counting how many votes the Winner got above 50%, anything higher was a waste. Then count the Loser's votes, because all those went down the tubes. Add up all the waste by Party Statewide, then take the difference between the two numbers as a percentage of the votes cast, that's the Efficiency Gap. The bigger the Gap, the more Gerrymandered the State. A Judge could verify the calculations with a pencil and paper.

The Efficiency Gap has already scored one Major victory. In November 2016, a Federal Court relied in part on the Formula to determine that Republicans had Gerrymandered
Wisconsin.

The Data Age is likely to spell trouble for Gerrymandering. This skulduggery relies on Geometry, Geography, and Demographic Tables, precisely the Domains where math nerds can give us clarity. Recently, Moon Duchin, a Mathematician at Tuffs University, realized her research in Geometry, figured out the average distance between points in various shapes, had a bearing on Compactness, the Legislative definition of what makes a Fair District. Inspired, Duchin formed the Metric Geometry and Gerrymandering Group. Their program, which aims to train Mathematicians in Mapping and Civil Rights Law so they can be Expert Witnesses in Gerrymandering Cases, was so flooded with applications, she expected dozens and got over 1,100, that Duchin is expanding the size.

Technology could fight Gerrymandering in a lot of ways. The Public Mapping Project and Programmer Dave Bradlee have created Apps that let anyone Redistrict a State, to see just how easy or hard it is to Map fairly.

The Nations Political Maps will be redrawn in 2020, with new Census numbers. The Data of Democracy is up for grabs. Thank goodness the Mathematicians are watching.











NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

Independent Redistricting Commissions and Gerrymandering

There is the major party way and the independent way to draw political maps.

The wrong way: New York’s legislature recently approved a constitutional amendment, which will go before voters in 2014, to create a 10-member redistricting commission. However, lawmakers would pick eight of its members. A handful of states: Iowa, Washington, Idaho, and Arizona among them, have undertaken redistricting reforms. Yet most continue to give party leaders some say over the final maps.

The independent way: In 2010, California voters stripped lawmakers of their authority over redistricting, the once-a-decade process of redrawing congressional lines to account for demographic shifts, and awarded that power to an independent citizens’ panel. By the 2012 elections, the group’s work had done exactly what it was supposed to: create competition for seats that had long been safe. After the 53 new districts were revealed, 14 House members decided not to seek reelection or lost their race in November, resulting in a 26 percent turnover in the state’s delegation.

“You’ve had voters shoehorned into districts for the sake of maintaining incumbency, and we aren’t doing that in California anymore,” says Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, a nonpartisan advocacy group. “That’s probably what would happen everywhere if you had fair redistricting.”

No state has come as close as California to getting partisan politics out of legislative map making. Advocates for fair elections say the state’s reform could be a model for others, leading to more competitive races. And because representatives whose constituents are disproportionately Republican or Democratic are under less pressure to find middle ground on legislation, more competition could produce a House that’s much less polarized. At least theoretically.

The California process began by more than 36,000 people submitted applications for the $300-a-day part-time positions. The agency pored over required essays and conducted interviews. Eventually, the state auditor randomly drew names of three Democrats, three Republicans, and two independents. That group then picked the remaining two Democrats, two Republicans, and two independents. Among those chosen: a retired high school principal, an architect, a chiropractor, and an independent bookstore owner.

In February 2011 the full board set about drafting new boundaries. Its charter called for districts of roughly equal population with compact, regular shapes that respected city and county lines, as well as so-called communities of interest. That meant commissioners tried to group together people with shared economic and social features, such as race, religion, sexuality, commuting habits, and household income. “We thought about it the same way you would think about a neighborhood, what makes up a neighborhood,” says Commissioner Cynthia Dai, a consultant from San Francisco.

The board wasn’t allowed to consider incumbents’ home addresses or look at voters’ party registration. It did take into account 20,000 written comments and testimony from more than 2,700 residents who spoke at several dozen public hearings. Based on their input, and under the guidance of an outside consultant who helped draw the lines, the panel released its new maps in August 2011.

The number of districts didn’t change, but their boundaries were drastically different. The commissioners erased a skinny 200-mile-long district that Schwarzenegger had called the “Ribbon of Shame” because it was drawn to hug the central coastline, an area full of Democrats, and to exclude the right-leaning ranchers who lived inland. Ten incumbents were displaced, their homes newly located in districts where they’d have to square off against each other if they decided to run.

That’s what happened to 15-term Congressman Howard Berman and his colleague of 15 years, Brad Sherman. Their homes in greater Los Angeles ended up in the same district, and the men almost came to blows during a debate as they fought for the seat last November. Sherman won. “The most offensive gerrymander of the last decade has been the preservation of white, liberal seats around Los Angeles to the downside of Latino seats,” says Rob Stutzman, a GOP consultant who served in Schwarzenegger’s administration. “The fact that you had Berman and Sherman drawn together is a great example of what should have been done a decade ago.” The panel combined territory from their old districts to create a new one composed mostly of Latinos. Democrat Tony Cardenas prevailed there, becoming the San Fernando Valley’s first Latino congressman.

Democrats maintained their sizable edge. They won 38 seats, compared with 15 for Republicans. But Justin Levitt, an associate professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who runs a website tracking redistricting issues around the country, says the board stands as “the best example against the incumbent protection plan that was in place before,” because it’s driven by people who “don’t have incentives to pay back into the political system.” It will take another couple elections to know whether straighter lines on a map can keep sending entrenched politicians home.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us