Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

A traditional focus for political geographers, particularly those interested in U.S. politics, is redistricting—the process of changing the boundaries of electoral districts to maintain equal populations. It is a critical part of the maintenance of constituency-based systems, particularly those with single-member districts. In international contexts, redistricting is often called boundary delimitation, and in Commonwealth countries, it is called redistribution. In the United States, the term is sometimes used interchangeably with reapportionment, although the latter word more precisely refers to the redistribution of congressional seats among states following the decennial census. Manipulation of redistricting for electoral advantage is called gerrymandering.

Interest in redistricting stems from the fact that the way district boundaries are drawn can have a far-reaching impact on the distribution of political power. Placing large numbers of one group of voters in a single district (packing) or spreading them out over many districts (cracking) are just two of the strategies used by map drawers intent on tilting the balance in favor of one side or the other. Redistricting contributes to the levels of bias and responsiveness in single-member district systems. Bias, the degree to which the ratio of votes cast to seats won varies from 1:1, can undermine the basic fairness of an electoral system. The responsiveness of district-based systems, or their ability to translate temporal changes in voter preferences to changes in the distribution of seats, is constrained by the creation of safe districts and enhanced by competitive ones. The creation of safe districts—a usual result of gerrymandering—is often blamed in the United States for contributing to the polarization of the two main parties, as the party primarily becomes the key contestant and appeal to independents and crossover voters is devalued.

Redistricting in the United States

After the constitutional requirement for population equality, redistricting in the United States is driven by the intersecting interests of partisanship and race. It is also heavily litigated. Although a few states involve nonpartisan commissions in their redistricting process, most allow the party in control of the legislature and the governor's mansion to use the redistricting process to boost their political fortunes. The U.S. Supreme Court, while not completely closing the door on the possibility that a partisan gerrymander might violate the Constitution, has thus far refused to intervene. Judges have been much more active, however, in redistricting cases in which racial or ethnic minority groups are alleged to have been disadvantaged. The Voting Rights Act, originally passed in 1965 and renewed repeatedly by Congress since, allows the federal government and private plaintiffs to challenge state and local redistricting plans that they allege dilute the ability of minority voters to elect candidates of their choice. The result has been racial gerrymandering by those states with significant numbers of minority voters. Since the 1990s, racial gerrymandering has faced an increasingly skeptical Court, starting with the 1993 decision in Shaw v. Reno, in which a 5–4 majority struck down the formation of a serpentine North Carolina 12th congressional district, which for much of its length was no wider than the interstate highway it followed. The Court's tolerance of the continued use of racial and ethnic data to draw redistricting plans remains very much in doubt.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading