Maryland lawmakers propose compact for redistricting reform

[Virginiá]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/3/maryland-lawmakers-roll-out-redistricting-reform/?page=1

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I had actually never thought of this until I saw this proposal floated casually a month ago or so. Now, the MD, VA & PA idea seems "unfair" to Republicans, but a redistricting compact between Maryland and Virginia for fair maps seems like a good idea. I have to agree with MD lawmakers that it seems very unfair to unilaterally disarm while Republicans sit in their many, many rigged districts all smug and happy and unwilling to do the same.

From a Republican perspective, this is a good deal. Think about it: by 2021-2022, Virginia is very likely going to have either a Democratic Senate (Republicans are barely hanging on to a 1-seat majority here and there is little chance they can expand that long-term), or possibly a Democratic Governor. This means no gerrymandering for Republicans. If they already know they can't rig Virginia's maps again, then why not enter into a compact with Maryland and get them to do fair maps as well - They'll get an extra seat or so out of Maryland while not giving up much, as they very likely will end up with the same result in VA whether or not they enter into the compact.

Thoughts?

[muon2]

The OH Pubs did decide to reform their process for legislative maps unilaterally. That's the only part that required a constitutional change. Since congressional maps in OH are by statute, any time one party had control of both the legislature and governor they could overturn any action taken to change the process.

In principle the same is true in MD. Congressional lines are by statute and the 2021 legislature could change it if the governor signs the bill or overrides a veto. I'm not sure how a compact would bind the future MD legislature.

[Virginiá]

The OH Pubs did decide to reform their process for legislative maps unilaterally. That's the only part that required a constitutional change. Since congressional maps in OH are by statute, any time one party had control of both the legislature and governor they could overturn any action taken to change the process.

Fair point for Ohio, however, most states with fair (or fair-er) redistricting are blue states. California disarmed by voter initiative and lawmakers have made no serious attempts to fight that (even though they could potentially get quite a number of the remaining Republican seats by doing so). Oregon has rules against gerrymandering, Washington I believe is fair as well. New York just did something with their process as well, but I am not familiar with it. So honestly, it's time Republicans contributed (I didn't mention Arizona because they are in the process of trying to subtly undo their commission). I'd also like to mention Florida, but I'm unsure because Republicans rigged the maps anyway and dragged the ensuing lawsuits on for years, so the fair maps amendment wasn't entirely effective here.

In principle the same is true in MD. Congressional lines are by statute and the 2021 legislature could change it if the governor signs the bill or overrides a veto. I'm not sure how a compact would bind the future MD legislature.

I don't recall exactly, but I believe compacts are legally binding. The legislature could repeal it in their state and redraw, but SCOTUS ruled a state can redraw their maps at any point (Texas 2003), so if one state reneged, the other also can. I really don't think this would happen, though - At least between Maryland and Virginia.

[Nyvin]

It's a good start, but at some point or another the Republican states need to start making things fair on their own.

I really don't see the overall benefit for democracy in this country if it's just Dem/swing states that at least "try" to play fair while all the Republican states like Texas and Georgia all just run wild with rigged maps.

Heck,  let's look at where all the tossup seats are by PVI (I know this isn't directly related to redistricting...but still):

California    7th    
Illinois    12th    
Illinois    13th    
Iowa    3rd    
Nevada    3rd    
New York    3rd    
New York    18th    
New York    21st    
Oregon    5th    

Seven in heavily Dem states,  two in swing states (if you still want to call Nevada that...), and ZERO in Republican states.  If you expand this to D+1 districts and R+1 districts it hardly gets any better.

[muon2]

The parties took very different approaches to redistricting in 2011. The Dems were trying to win back the House so where they could they sought to maximize there possible gains given that Obama would be heading the ticket in the first election with new districts. That's why IL-12 and 13 are on Nyvin's list, they were calculated gambles by the Dems.

The Pubs only needed to hold their gains from 2010 and protect them against a potentially large Dem turnout in 2012. They pushed lots of their districts to R+2 or better as is seen in VA and OH or beyond, like R+8 in NC. Had the Dems adopted the Pub strategy in IL they would probably hold 11 or 12 seats instead of 10.

It's interesting to note that 3 NY seats are on the Nyvin list. That was a court drawn map. To me it confirms my view that neutral redistricting can greatly improve the responsiveness of delegations to the changing mood of the electorate.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Freedom Proposal!

...which will certainly go nowhere.

[Frodo]

From a Republican perspective, this is a good deal. Think about it: by 2021-2022, Virginia is very likely going to have either a Democratic Senate (Republicans are barely hanging on to a 1-seat majority here and there is little chance they can expand that long-term), or possibly a Democratic Governor.

 

The 2017 gubernatorial race looks very competitive, and if Republicans can gain the governor's mansion while retaining control of both chambers (including the Senate, which is quite possible) in 2019, they can certainly redraw the maps to ensure they have a 25:15 majority in the upper chamber, or at least something approximating that.  There are enough rural, moderately-conservative Democrats whose seats can give Republicans the numbers needed.  

[muon2]

The parties took very different approaches to redistricting in 2011. The Dems were trying to win back the House so where they could they sought to maximize there possible gains given that Obama would be heading the ticket in the first election with new districts. That's why IL-12 and 13 are on Nyvin's list, they were calculated gambles by the Dems.

The Pubs only needed to hold their gains from 2010 and protect them against a potentially large Dem turnout in 2012. They pushed lots of their districts to R+2 or better as is seen in VA and OH or beyond, like R+8 in NC. Had the Dems adopted the Pub strategy in IL they would probably hold 11 or 12 seats instead of 10.

It's interesting to note that 3 NY seats are on the Nyvin list. That was a court drawn map. To me it confirms my view that neutral redistricting can greatly improve the responsiveness of delegations to the changing mood of the electorate.

That's an interesting logic, but if you're trying to gerrymander a map for your party, why would you care whether you have say 9 or 11 seats when you're in the minority?  As long as you stay above 1/3rd of the seats, a minority party in the House (or in most state legislatures) is basically in the same position whether they have 37% or 47% of the seats.  If we had a proportional system with a few minor parties with 5-10 seats looking to cut deals or mid 20th century style depolarized parties, that would matter a lot more, but with polarized parties and the House basically being pure majority rule, it doesn't seem logical to spend too much time worrying about whether you narrowly lose the chamber or lose big.

In my experience parties would rather count on sure seats than spread their vote too thin. It's much cheaper over the long run to have fewer uncontestable seats and they provide a better buffer against adverse demographic change. Polarization helps the parties manage elections at the expense of providing the public with the opportunity to swing their legislature back and forth to reflect the mood of the electorate.

Within a legislature the minority does better with more seats even if there is little chance at the majority. Representatives have home districts and there will be votes that split party caucuses due to local interests. In those cases larger blocks within a caucus matters, even for the minority.

So at the remap the party in control ideally balances maximizing safe seats against maximizing potential gains through swing seats. What the party in control shouldn't want is to be so aggressive that they get give up more to the other than they need to. For example the IL legislative Dems played it quite safe insuring that few of their seats would be in play and they could safely hold a Senate supermajority. For the congressional plan the request from DCCC was a reach to get as many as 13 out of 18 seats, but in doing so they risked many of those when Obama wouldn't be on the ticket. That left them with only 10 of 18 after 2014, which is below what should have been a floor of 11.