Cracking Back: The Effectiveness of Partisan Redistricting in the Texas House of Representatives
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15763/issn.2374-7781.2005-2006.26.0.385-403Abstract
We assess the partisan consequences of alternative redistricting plans in 2001 for the Texas House of Representatives. In the paper, we combine a methodological tool (the JudgeIt program) that allows us to examine both enacted and proposed redistricting maps with data from not only the districts used in the 2002 and 2004 Texas House elections, but also from districts that existed only in proposed plans. We find that each redistricting plan benefited their sponsor’s party. In fact, a plan supported and advocated by Democratic Speaker Pete Laney is projected to have kept a Democratic majority in the Texas House after the 2002 elections. Our data also demonstrate that rules matter in redistricting, especially in the context of substantial party system change shown by the growth of the Republican Party in Texas.References
Abramowitz, Alan I. 1983. Partisan Redistricting and the 1982 Congressional Elections. Journal of Politics 45:767-770. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2130716
Abramowitz, Alan I. 1995. The End of the Democratic Era? 1994 and the Future of Congressional Election Research. Political Research Quarterly 48:873-889. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/106591299504800411 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/448979
Arbour, Brian K. 2006. Tempus Fugit: How Legislative Candidates Allocate Their Own Time. Journal of Political Marketing. 5:79-103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J199v05n01_05
Ayres, Q. Whitfield, and David Whiteman. 1984. Congressional Reapportionment in the 1980s: Types and Determinants of Policy Outcomes. Political Science Quarterly 99:303-314. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2150407
Barone, Michael, and Grant Ujifusa. 1993. The Almanac of American Politics 1994. Washington, DC: National Journal.
Black, Earl, and Merle Black. 2002. The Rise of Southern Republicans. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bullock, Charles S., III. 1995a. Affirmative Action Districts: In Whose Faces will They Blow Up? Campaigns & Elections, April, p. 22-23.
Bullock, Charles S., III. 1995b. Comment: The Gift that Keeps on Giving? Consequences of Affirmative Action Gerrymandering. The American Review of Politics 16:33-39.
Bullock, Charles S., III. 2000. Partisan Changes in the Southern Congressional Delegation and the Consequences. In Continuity and Change in House Elections, eds. David W. Brady, John F. Cogan, and Morris P. Fiorina. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Cain, Bruce E. 1985. Assessing the Partisan Effects of Redistricting. American Political Science Review 79:320-333. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1956652
Cameron, Charles, David Epstein, and Sharyn OíHalloran. 1996. Do Majority-Minority Districts Maximize Substantive Black Representation in Congress? American Political Science Review 90:794-812. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2945843
Campbell, James E. 1997. The Presidential Pulse and the 1994 Midterm Congressional Election. Journal of Politics 59:830-857. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2998639
Clayton, Dewey M. 2000. African Americans and the Politics of Congressional Redistricting. New York: Garland Publishing.
Copelin, Laylan. 2001a. Republicans Could Turn Redistricting Loss into Win. Austin American-Statesman, May 6, p. A1.
Copelin, Laylan. 2001a. Maps Likely Last Word on Districts for '02 Vote: Federal Judges Largely Accept GOP-backed Plans for Texas House, Senate. Austin American-Statesman, November 29, p. A1.
Copelin, Laylan. 2001b. Travis Democrats to Fight Redistricting: Republican Plan Puts 3 State Lawmakers in Central Austin District. Austin American-Statesman, July 11, p. A1.
Cox, Gary W., and Jonathan Katz. 2002. Elbridge Gerryís Salamander: The Electoral Consequences of the Reapportionment Revolution. New York: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511606212
Cranor, John D., Gary L. Crawley, and Raymond H. Scheele. 1989. The Anatomy of a Gerrymander. American Journal of Political Science 33:222-239. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2111260
Cunningham, Maurice T. 2001. Maximization, Whatever the Cost: Race, Redistricting and the Department of Justice. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Epstein, David, and Sharyn OíHalloran. 1999a. Measuring the Electoral and Policy Impact of Majority-Minority Voting Districts. American Journal of Political Science 43:367-395. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2991799
Epstein, David, and Sharyn O'Halloran. 1999b. A Social Science Approach to Race, Redistricting, and Representation. American Political Science Review 93:187-191. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2585770
Epstein, David, and Sharyn O'Halloran. 2000. Majority-Minority Districts and the New Politics of Congressional Elections. In Continuity and Change in House Elections, eds. David W. Brady, John F. Cogan, and Morris P. Fiorina. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Gelman, Andrew, and Gary King. 1994. A Unified Method of Evaluating Electoral Systems and Redistricting Plans. American Journal of Political Science 38:514-554. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2111417
Gelman, Andrew, and Gary King. 2001. JudgeIt: A Program for Evaluating Electoral Systems and Redistricting Plans. http://GKing.Harvard.edu.
Gierzynski, Anthony, and David Breaux. 1991. Money and Votes in State Legislative Elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly 16:203-217. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/439978
Gopoian, J. David, and Darrell M. West. 1984. Trading Security for Seats: Strategic Considerations in the Redistricting Process. Journal of Politics 46:1080-1096. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2131243
Gronke, Paul, and J. Matthew Wilson. 1999. Competing Redistricting Plans as Evidence of Political Motives: The North Carolina Case. American Politics Quarterly 27:147-176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1532673X99027002001
Halter, Gary M. 2005. Government and Politics of Texas: A Comparative View, 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hill, Kevin A. 1995. Does the Creation of Majority Black Districts aid Republicans? An Analysis of the 1992 Congressional Elections in Eight Southern States. Journal of Politics 57:384-401. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2960312
Hill, Kevin A., and Nicol C. Rae. 2000. What Happened to the Democrats in the South? US House Elections, 1992-1996. Party Politics 6:5-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1354068800006001001
Hogan, Robert E. 1997. Voter Contact Techniques in State Legislative Campaigns: The Prevalence of Mass Media Advertising. Legislative Studies Quarterly 22:551-571. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/440343
Hogan, Robert E. 2000. The Costs of Representation in State Legislatures: Explaining Variations in Campaign Spending. Social Science Quarterly 81:941-956.
Hogan, Robert E. 2004. Challenger Emergence, Incumbent Success, and Electoral Accountability in State Legislative Elections. Journal of Politics 66:1283-1303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3816.2004.00300.x
Jacobson, Gary C. 1996. The 1994 House Elections in Perspective. Political Science Quarterly 111:203-223. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2152319
Jacobson, Gary C., and Samuel Kernell. 1983. Strategy and Choice in Congressional Elections, 2nd ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Lublin, David, and D. Stephen Voss. 2000a. Racial Redistricting and Realignment in Southern State Legislatures. American Journal of Political Science 44:792-810. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2669282
Lublin, David, and D. Stephen Voss. 2000b. Boll-Weevil Blues: Polarized Congressional Delegations into the 21st Century. American Review of Politics 21:427-450.
Lublin, David, and D. Stephen Voss. 2003. The Missing Middle: Why Median-Voter Theory Can't Save Democrats from Singing the Boll-Weevil Blues. Journal of Politics 65:227-237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.t01-1-00011
Lublin, David. 1997. The Paradox of Representation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Ma, Jason. 2001. District Plans Costly for Area: Loss of House Seat is Likely in Legislative Plan. Corpus Christi Caller-Times, July 11, p. B1.
McKee, Seth C. 2002. Majority Black Districts, Republican Ascendancy, and Party Competition in the South, 1988-2000. American Review of Politics 23:123-139.
Niemi, Richard G., and Alan I. Abramowitz. 1994. Partisan Redistricting and the 1992 Congressional Elections. Journal of Politics 56:811-817. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2132195
Niemi, Richard G., and Simon Jackman. 1991. Bias and Responsiveness in State Legislative Districting. Legislative Studies Quarterly 16:183-202. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/439977
Olsson, Karen. 2002. Mr. Right. Texas Monthly, November, p. 125-133.
Petrocik, John R., and Scott W. Desposato. 1998. The Partisan Consequences of Majority-Minority Redistricting in the South, 1992 and 1994. Journal of Politics 60:613-633. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2647641
Rush, Mark E. 1993. Does Redistricting Make a Difference? Partisan Representation and Electoral Behavior. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Squire, Peverill. 1985. Results of Partisan Redistricting in Seven U.S. States during the 1970s. Legislative Studies Quarterly 10:259-266. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/439727
Swain, Carol M. 1993. Black Faces, Black Interests: The Representation of African Americans in Congress. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Tucker, Harvey J. and Ronald E. Weber. 1987. State Legislative Election Outcomes--- Contextual Effects and Legislative Performance Effects. Legislative Studies Quarterly 12:537-553. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/439747
Voss, D. Stephen, and David Lublin. 2001. Black Incumbents, White Districts: An Appraisal of the 1996 Congressional Elections. American Politics Research 29:141-182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1532673X01029002002
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with American Review of Politics agree to the following terms:
The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
Attribution: other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
Non-Commercial: the materials may not be used for commercial purposes;
Share Alike: If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.
The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a pre-publication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
The Author represents and warrants that:
the Work is the Author’s original work;
the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
the Work has not previously been published;
the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.
