Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-846f6c7c4f-k2x4h Total loading time: 0.158 Render date: 2022-07-07T10:08:46.195Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

The 2010 Midterm Elections: Signs and Portents for the Decennial Redistricting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2011

Michael P. McDonald
Affiliation:
George Mason University

Extract

The 2010 midterm elections are consequential not only in terms of the candidates who were elected to office, but also in terms of the government policies that they will enact. High on the list of important policies is the decennial practice of drawing new redistricting plans for legislative offices. A new census reveals population shifts that will result in a reallocation of congressional seats among the states through apportionment and—following U.S. Supreme Court rulings in the 1960s—a re-balancing of congressional and state legislative district populations within states that aims to give fast-growing areas more representation and slow-growing areas less. Of course, much more than an innocuous administrative adjustment occurs during the process of redistricting. The individuals who draw districts are keenly aware that district lines may affect the fortunes of incumbents, political parties, and minority voters' candidates of choice.

Type
Symposium
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Altman, Micah, and McDonald, Michael P.. 2010. “The Promise and Perils of Computers in Redistricting.” Duke Journal of Constitutional Law and Public Policy 5: 69112.Google Scholar
Cain, Bruce E. 1984. The Reapportionment Puzzle. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Grofman, Bernard, and Handley, Lisa. 1998. “Estimating the Impact of Voting-Rights-Related Districting on Democratic Strength.” In Race and Redistricting in the 1990s, ed. Grofman, Bernard, 5166. New York: Agathon.Google Scholar
Lawrence, Steve. 2001. “Democrats May Not Seek Big Gains in House Delegation.” Associated Press State and Local Wire, August 14.Google Scholar
Levitt, Justin. 2008. A Citizen's Guide to Redistricting. New York: Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law.Google Scholar
Levitt, Justin, and McDonald, Michael P.. 2007. “Taking the ‘Re’ out of Redistricting: State Constitutional Provisions on Redistricting Timing.” Georgetown Law Review 95 (4): 1,247–86.Google Scholar
McDonald, Michael P. 1999. Optimal Probabilistic Gerrymandering: Theory and Consequences for a Changing Electorate. Unpublished Ph.D. diss, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
McDonald, Michael P. 2004. “A Comparative Analysis of U.S. State Redistricting Institutions.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 4 (4): 371–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, Michael P. 2006. “Drawing the Line on District Competition.” PS: Political Science and Politics 39 (1): 9194.Google Scholar
McDonald, Michael P. 2009. Midwest Mapping Project [monograph]. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University.Google Scholar
Owen, Guillermo, and Grofman, Bernard. 1988. “Optimal Partisan Gerrymandering.” Political Geography Quarterly 7:522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, Frank R. 1990. Black Votes Count. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reader, Scot A. 1994. “One Person, One Vote Revisited: Choosing a Population Basis to Form Political Districts.” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 17: 521–65.Google Scholar
Riskin, Jonathan. 2002. “GOP Missteps Were Hallmark of Redistricting.” Columbus Dispatch, January 20, 3C.Google Scholar
Schotts, Kenneth W. 2001. “The Effect of Majority–Minority Mandates on Partisan Gerrymandering.” American Journal of Political Science 45 (1): 120–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The 2010 Midterm Elections: Signs and Portents for the Decennial Redistricting
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

The 2010 Midterm Elections: Signs and Portents for the Decennial Redistricting
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

The 2010 Midterm Elections: Signs and Portents for the Decennial Redistricting
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *