FairVote Feed: Fair Representation

Was the Iowa Caucuses’ Real Winner Not in the Race?

Fri, 04 Nov 2011 08:36:55 -0700

Last night, as the numbers rolled in from Iowa, cable news shows pundits analyzed the numbers in almost every way humanly possible – with particular obsession with who was going to “win.” But the media just may have missed the biggest winner: a candidate who wasn’t seeking Iowa votes last night. They also missed the biggest loser: a plurality, “top of the heap” voting system that can easily misfire in clarifying who is the strongest candidate.

First, the media hyped "winning" Iowa as if it really mattered in any meaningful way involving delegates. But Iowa won’t elect its national convention delegates for months, and the ultimate breakdown of delegates likely will have little correlation to last night’s results – and won’t be winner-take-all based on the statewide vote.

Looking at the hard vote total numbers, Mitt Romney “won” the caucuses by 8 votes over Rick Santorum But it’s all relative. In 2008, Romney had won 29,949 votes, or 25.2%. That result was seen as a crushing disappointment because that year he trailed Mike Huckabee's 34.4% of the vote.

With arguably a weaker field, somewhat higher turnout and more sweeping GOP establishment backing this year, Romney’s vote total only grew to 30,015 votes -- e.g., just 66 more votes. But because of the slight uptick in overall turnout, his percentage of the vote actually declined from 2008, down to 24.6%. The opposition vote was more fractured than in 2008, however, giving Romney his “win” – a “win” that means nothing for delegates in a non-winner-take-all contest.

That misunderstood outcomes makes plurality voting a loser yet again. It wouldn’t be hard for Iowa Republicans to determine a more definitive winner. By adopting instant runoff voting (easy to do and count on paper ballot in what essentially is a straw poll contest), we would know how Romney would have fared if matched one-on-one against Santorum, Based on second choice polling and favorability ratings, Santorum would have been favored – but we’ll never know for sure.

Turning to the night’s real winner, it wasn’t Ron Paul, whose longshot bid for the nomination grew longer despite his remarkably good night. Paul and Romney were the only candidates who contested the caucuses in both 2008 and 2012, but, unlike Romney, Paul more than doubled his vote from 11,817 to 26,219. According to New York Times entrance polls, Paul won 48% of the vote among attendees under 30, with Santorum taking 23% and Romney just 13%. Paul also beat Romney by more than two-to-one among independents, first time caucus attendees and voters with an income under $50,000.

Despite those gains, Paul’s third-place finish and downturn in support in the final week underscores his difficulties in a party where his libertarian stances on some issues like foreign policy are out of step with the party’s majority. But it’s those very stances that draw the passionate backing of younger, more independent backers – thus making it questionable that these voters will ultimate shift to back the eventual Republican nominee.

Enter Gary Johnson, who just may end up being the night’s big winner after the rise and likely fall of Rick Santorum. The former two-term governor of New Mexico sought the Republican nomination in the past year, but was kept out of most debates – and had trouble gaining traction because of similarities in his views to those of Paul. Now Johnson has announced that he’s seeking the Libertarian Party nomination, and he may well being on the November ballot in every state.

With states relying on the ever-inefficient plurality voting rule to allocate electors and given other potential third party and independent candidates – from the Americans Elect nominee to the Greens and the new Justice Party formed by former Salt Lake Mayor Rocky Anderson – Johnson could have a far bigger impact in the race than many are predicting right now if he ends up attracting disgruntled Ron Paul backers.

Stay tuned. 2012 promises a wild ride, one made more unpredictable by our antiquated voting rules and practices that are ill-equipped to handle voter choice.

(A note on turnout in Iowa: Although some pundits are touting the slight rise in GOP turnout from 2008, it in fact should give Republicans reason to be concerned. A PPP poll last weekend found that about one in six Iowans planning to vote in the GOP caucuses had voted in the Democratic caucuses in 2008. Without a competitive caucus on the Democratic side, their choice was easier for them to make than it was in 2008, when the Democratic caucuses were nearly double the Republican turnout last night. In other words, the overall turnout in Iowa caucuses last night plunged to less than half of overall caucus participation in 2008.)

No More Gerrymanders: Congressional Representation in the Seven At-Large States

Fri, 30 Dec 2011 13:26:05 -0800

All across the nation, lawmakers are engaged in a grand political game - decennial congressional redistricting - designed to benefit party elites rather than the people. Already, a number of states have passed controversial, opportunistic maps in which elected officials have chosen their voters before voters have chosen them. Redistricting, when combined with a winner-take-all rule in which 50% + 1 of the district vote guarantees 100% of representation, not only leaves substantial voting blocs unrepresented, but it reduces the vast majority of U.S. House elections to ceremonial, uncompetitive contests, in which voters are asked not to elect but to ratify the decisions party elites have already taken.

To address these problems, FairVote, as part of an ongoing series, has proposed state-specific "super-district" plans designed for elections with a proportional representation system, which we call "fair voting." Rather than use a winner-take-all rule, which accentuates the unfair effects of redistricting and encourages partisan games, FairVote has combined winner-take-all, gerrymandered districts to form multi-member super-districts. When using a fair voting system in these larger districts, every voter in every election will have a meaningful choice in a competitive contest and will be more likely to earn fair representation - a representative balance likely to include a winner from both major parties and occasionally a third party or independent candidate.

Winner-Take-All Plagues Seven At-Large States: However, in a handful of states, the partisan jockeying that is congressional redistricting does not occur. In each of these seven states - Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Delaware, and Vermont - just one member of Congress runs at-large across the entire state, meaning that controversies over redistricting occur only on the state legislative level. Rather than redrawing districts every ten years as the 43 other states must in order to maintain equal populations in each district, an at-large district's borders are fixed.

Though spared the controversies of congressional redistricting, winner-take-all rules still plague at-large states. By design, winner-take-all elections reduce millions of voters to irrelevancy, either because they live in a district that widely favors one party or because they vote for a candidate in a competitive constituency who falls short. Nowhere are the shortcomings of our voting system more acute than in at-large, winner-take-all races, where one individual is - rather astonishingly - responsible for representing the political and demographic diversity of an entire state. That this occurs in the U.S. House, the chamber of the national legislature that is by definition intended to reflect the complexities and vicissitudes of public opinion, is even more alarming. Americans forms of proportional representation, by contrast, would alleviate these problems.

When taken as a whole, FairVote's state-specific fair voting plans will achieve a U.S. House much more reflective of the nation's partisan and racial composition than what is possible under gerrymandered, winner-take-all contests - and, even more importantly, make every voter's participation meaningful in every election. Since these at-large states are locked in at one seat apiece, however, our construction of multi-seat super-districts is impossible under the U.S. House's current structure. For fair voting plans to be feasible in at-large states, one of two changes would need to occur: either a statutory change to federal law in order to expand the U.S. House beyond 435 seats (as was done regularly until 1910), which would give each of the at-large states at least two representatives, or a constitutional amendment allowing states to join with others to form interstate congressional districts.

Recent Winner-Take-All Elections in At-Large States: That said, it is informative to look at these states' recent congressional election results, in order to understand the degree to which winner-take-all has polluted the political waters. Racially, the at-large states are predominantly white (81.0%), with blacks (4.6%), Latinos (4.5%), and Native Americans (5.4%) all comprising roughly the same share of the combined population. Delaware is the only state with a significant black population (20.8%), while Alaska (14.4%) and South Dakota (8.5%) both contain an appreciable number of Native Americans.

With just one seat in each at-large state, racial minorities have had no chance to elect a preferred candidate who can't also draw significant support from white voters; unsurprisingly, none of the seven states have ever sent a racial minority candidate to Congress. The problem, of course, is not simply that these states lack multiple congressional districts in each of these states; rather, winner-take-all systems naturally struggle to reflect accurately the demographic composition of districts. Conversely, proportional systems lower the threshold of support necessary for like-minded voters in a minority group to help elect candidates of choice.

In terms of partisanship, all of the at-large states have partisanship index ratings that give a clear tilt toward one major party over the other. In other words, seven of seven seats are uphill battles for the other political party in House races – to the point that at least in presidential races, the contests essentially are over before they start.

Vermont and Delaware, with respective Democratic Party partisanship indexes of 64.9% and 58.9%, have backed the Democratic candidate in every presidential election since 1992. Of the other five states - Wyoming (30.3% Democratic partisanship), Alaska (35.6%), North Dakota (42.1%), South Dakota (42.2%), and Montana (45.2%) - all except Montana have voted Republican in every presidential election since 1968, and even then, the Big Sky Country gave only 37.6% to Bill Clinton in 1992, with independent Ross Perot earning 26.1% of the vote. Although the minority party has had some successes in these states' House races, all of them today are in line with their partisan leanings.

Partisanship Breakdown in the At-Large States

At-Large State	Population	Partisanship (D)	Safe Seats (D)	Leaning Seats (D)	Toss-Up	Leaning Seats (R)	Safe Seats (R)
AK	710,231	35.60%	0	0	0	0	1
MT	989,415	45.23%	0	0	0	1	0
WY	563,626	30.25%	0	0	0	0	1
SD	814,180	42.16%	0	0	0	1	0
ND	672,591	42.05%	0	0	0	1	0
DE	897,934	58.86%	1	0	0	0	0
VT	625,741	64.87%	1	0	0	0	0
Totals	5,273,718	-	2	0	0	3	2

*Partisanship percentages are based on an interpretation of vote totals in the 2008 presidential election. The seats are defined according to the following ranges: toss-up districts have a partisanship rating between 46% and 54%, leaning seats have a partisanship between 54% and 58%, and safe seats have a partisanship greater than 58%. Our projections do not take into account incumbent advantages but reflect the underlying partisanship leanings of each district.

At the congressional level, some at-large states have shown more competitiveness than their partisanship rating would suggest - likely a holdover of the more fluid political realities of the last century. For instance, Republican Mike Castle represented Delaware for nine terms until leaving the House in 2010 to run - unsuccessfully - for Vice President Joseph Biden's former U.S. Senate seat. Similarly, North Dakota and South Dakota sent Democrats to Congress before both were defeated in 2010 by Republican challengers; in the former, nine-term Democratic incumbent Earl Pomeroy fell to Rick Berg, while in the latter, four-term Democrat Stephanie Herseth Sandlin lost to Kristi Arnold Noem.

While these results show that both Democratic and Republican voters in these states have experienced electoral success, winner-take-all rules in one-seat states still mean that, in any given congressional district, only one major party's voters receive representation - and we likely will see fewer such surprises in the years ahead unless the partisan differences between the parties again become less clear. Such unfair results are to be expected in a voting system that makes nuanced representation virtually impossible.

Most at-large states have been dominated by one political party. Wyoming, for example, has not sent a Democrat to the U.S. House since Teno Roncalio resigned in 1978, while Alaska's last Democratic U.S. House representative, Nick Begich (father of current U.S. Senator Mark Begich), died while in office in 1972. In other words, it has been over 30 years since Democrats in either of these states have sent a candidate who shares their views to the U.S. House. Meanwhile, Vermont Republicans have not elected a U.S. House Member since 1990.

The U.S. House elections of 2008 and 2010 are illustrative of the lack of representation inherent in winner-take-all. In 2008, a combined 787,916 voters (counting Democrats in AK, MT, WY, and DE and Republicans in SD and ND) were left unrepresented - a number that would have been even larger had Vermont's Peter Welch received a Republican challenger. The same story occurred two years later in 2010, when - despite partisan turnover in three of the seven seats - a combined 700,304 voters (counting Democrats in AK, MT, WY, SD, and ND and Republicans in DE and VT) were unable to send a favored candidate to the U.S. House. In spite of our basic American principles grounded in representative democracy, winner-take-all ensures that the voices of many thousands of voters are left unheard and unrecognized in the halls of Congress.

Neglected Major Party Voters in the 2008 and 2010 U.S. House Elections

At-Large State	2008 Winning Party	Number of Losing Party 2008 Voters	Losing Party % 2008 Vote	2010 Winning Party	Number of Losing Party 2010 Voters	Losing Party % 2010 Vote
AK	R	141,754	45.1%	R	77,606	30.7%
MT	R	154,713	32.4%	R	121,954	33.8%
WY	R	103,677	42.8%	R	45,768	24.5%
SD	D	122,943	32.4%	R	146,589	45.9%
ND	D	118,430	37.9%	R	106,542	45.1%
DE	R	146,399	38.0%	D	125,442	41.0%
VT	D	Unopposed	N/A	D	76,403	32.1%
Totals	-	787,916	-	-	700,304	-

*Source for 2008 data and 2010 data is the New York Times.

Conclusion

Although at-large states avoid the partisan jockeying that goes along with congressional redistricting, they still struggle under the weight of oppressive winner-take-all rules. If the winner-take-all games continue, voters are likely to become even more disenchanted with our political system. In all of the at-large states, scores of voters are left unrepresented, sometimes for decades. They are forced to participate in congressional elections that lack competition and give them a representative in the "people's house" with views they strongly oppose. It is clear that one candidate cannot possibly reflect the makeup of everyone in a district, as winner-take-all assumes. Therefore, we need a new approach that will more accurately reflect the residents of each state. This will be harder to achieve for states with one House member, but by adopting fair voting plans with multi-seat super-districts, we can begin the march toward a more representative democracy.

No More Gerrymanders: Missouri's Partisan Plan versus the Fair Voting Alternative

Fri, 16 Dec 2011 11:31:25 -0800

Snapshot

Lawmakers in Missouri have recently passed a congressional redistricting plan as required by the U.S. Constitution.
The root of the worst problems associated with redistricting lies with winner-take-all elections, in which 50% + 1 of the vote guarantees 100% of the representation.
As part of an ongoing series, FairVote has produced a "super-district" plan designed for elections with a fair voting system. Fair voting systems are a constitutionally permissible form of proportional representation and, by allowing all voters to participate in a meaningful election, are a far better way to achieve public interest objectives than winner-take-all elections.
FairVote's fair voting plan for Missouri would result in more balanced representation and competitive elections.

The Political Context in Missouri

Missouri and the 2010 Census: From 2000 to 2010, Missouri's population grew slightly, from 5.60 million to 5.99 million, for an increase of 7.0%, as compared to a rate of 9.3% from 1990 to 2000. This rate was slightly below the national average of 9.7%. As a result, Missouri lost one U.S. House seat in congressional reapportionment, going from nine seats to eight, the first time the state has lost seats since the 1980 Census. Missouri was just 16,000 people shy of holding on to its nine seats.

Internally, population shifts appear to be a blow to congressional Democrats, with St. Louis city having seen its population decline sharply by 8.3%. Such a dip continues the Democratic stronghold's decades-long slide, as the ‘Gateway to the West' has now lost just shy of 500,000 residents since 1960, with its population of 320,000 being roughly equivalent to the city's size in 1870. As a result, St. Louis, which currently sends three members to Congress, will likely lose a seat and clout in Congress.

Missouri's other major cities appear to be going in the opposite direction, with Kansas City and Columbia growing between four and five percent and Republican-leaning Springfield soaring by over 25%. As a result, Columbia residents believe the area is entitled to a "central Missouri district," as opposed to being lopped into the northeastern 9th District that encompasses both rural towns on the Iowa boarder and affluent St. Louis suburbs. Racially, Missouri remains predominantly white (81.0%), with appreciable percentage increases for the black (11.5%) and Latino communities (3.5%), the latter of which grew by nearly 80%.

Redistricting in 2001 was relatively sedate, as split control (Democrats controlled the State House and the governorship, while Republicans had a slim majority in the State Senate) required the two parties to work together. Collaboration yielded a congressional map that locked in the 5-4 Republican advantage until 2010. In the five congressional elections since 2001, only one incumbent out of 41 (2.4%) lost, while 38 of the 40 (95%) victorious incumbents prevailed in blowouts (20%+ margin of victory) or uncontested races.

Electorally, a Closely Divided State: Democrats have had recent statewide success in Missouri, with former State Auditor Claire McCaskill - who narrowly lost her bid for the governor's office in 2004 - winning a contentious 2006 U.S. Senate race over incumbent Jim Talent, 49.6-47.3%. In the presidential race, Barack Obama lost by only 3,600 votes, but given the magnitude of his victory across the nation, Democrats in fact lost ground in the state. Indeed, this election marked the first time since 1956 in which the "bellwether" Missouri did not award its electoral votes to the national winner (in 1956, Missouri went for Democrat Adlai Stevenson).

After Democrats' statewide gains in 2006 and 2008, however, Republicans rebounded with a very strong 2010. Most dispiriting for Democrats was Secretary of State Robin Carnahan's (daughter of the late former Governor Mel Carnahan and former U.S. Senator Jean Carnahan) 13-point defeat to U.S. Representative Roy Blunt, the No. 2 ranking Republican in the 111th Congress, for Kit Bond's vacated U.S. Senate seat.

At the U.S. House level, the GOP made significant inroads, as Tea Party favorite Vicky Hartzler knocked off Democrat Ike Skelton in the 4th District by casting the 17-term incumbent as a "loyal lapdog Democrat" and a "foot soldier for Nancy Pelosi." Hartzler's victory increased the GOP control of the state's U.S. House delegation from 5-4 to 6-3. Elsewhere, Democrats Emanuel Cleaver II of the 5th District and Russ Carnahan (son of the late governor) of the 3rd District barely fended off formidable GOP challengers - Cleaver, having shed 11% since his comfortable victory in 2008, won with 53% of the vote, while Carnahan's support actually dipped below 50%, for a 17-point decrease. Perhaps most importantly for redistricting, Republicans expanded their majorities in the General Assembly, grabbing a veto-proof majority in the State Senate and coming within three votes of a two-thirds majority in the State House.

Quarreling Republicans Struggle to Reach Agreement: With control of the redistricting process split between the two parties, state Republicans faced a difficult balancing act: any lines drafted to protect GOP incumbents in Congress would be likely to draw the veto from Governor Nixon, the veto of whom State House Republicans would be unable to override absent the support of at least three Democratic representatives. Early speculation hinted that Republicans would seek to exploit tensions between the Democratic establishment and urban African Americans; by giving the 1st District's William Lacy Clay, Jr. "what he wants," the GOP hoped to persuade St. Louis black state legislators to jump ship (Clay represents Missouri's only majority-minority district).

As the General Assembly began to turn to redistricting in late March, it quickly became clear that House and Senate Republicans were of different minds and that intra-party rather than inter-party squabbles might lead to dreaded political impasse. Under the leadership of State Representative John Diehl, House Republicans made the first move, passing their proposed map on April 6 after having controversially suspended procedural rules that would have delayed the vote. Importantly, the 106-53 vote was three votes short of a veto-proof majority (three Republicans voted against the bill, while four African American Democrats supported the measure). Spurning the House proposal, Senate Republicans on April 13 passed their own plan, 22-11.

Both the Senate and the House plans eliminated Russ Carnahan's seat, forcing the four-term Democrat into either a primary against colleague William Lacy Clay, Jr. of the 1st District or a general election campaign against Republican incumbent Todd Akin in a GOP-leaning 2nd District. Alternatively, some pundits speculate that Carnahan is considering a statewide bid for lieutenant governor. The two maps differed, however, in how to divide the Democratic-leaning St. Louis collar counties of St. Charles and Jefferson in order to optimize Republican chances - the House version provided Akin with a more Republican district, and Akin agreed to support Diehl's map.

With Split Control Comes a Redistricting Nightmare: The deadlock continued with Senate and House Republicans steadfast in their loyalty to their respective proposals. Party leaders, recognizing that further delay would have caused them to miss the party's strategic April 22 deadline, agreed to conference on April 20. Republicans, anticipating Governor Nixon's opposition, wanted to ensure that they would have enough time to override the veto before the conclusion of the regular legislative session on May 13; failure to meet this timeline would have forced the General Assembly to call a special session or to wait until the fall regular session. Conference committee, coupled with the pressures of time constraints, paid dividends for the GOP, which ironed out a compromise between the two competing maps. The House passed the modified map on April 21, 96-55, with the Senate concurring in a subsequent 27-7 vote.

Governor Nixon, who reportedly objected to the map's partition of Jefferson County and its commensurate weakening of the area's influence in Washington, D.C., mollified congressional Democrats when he refused on April 30 to sign the bill into law. Undeterred, House Republicans pieced together a "rare legislative rebuke," overriding the Nixon veto 28-6 in the Senate and 109-44 in the House, making the redistricting map official. The veto override, the first since 2003, required four House Democrats to join with 105 Republicans (one GOP legislator had to leave the hospital bed to which doctors had consigned him) to break with the party line.

That all four "defectors" were African American legislators with ties to the state's two African American congressmen - Clay of St. Louis and Cleaver of Kansas City, both of whom received safer districts under the Republican map - was not lost on the media. Adding fuel to the fire, one of the four Democratic legislators, Jamilah Nasheed, defended her vote to protect Clay saying, "I'm black before I'm a Democrat." Yet another, Leonard Hughes, who had cast the deciding vote to override and who had opposed the House's April 6 map as a "gerrymander," told the Kansas City Star that Cleaver had pressured him to cross the aisle, further highlighting that high-stakes redistricting can lead to odd bedfellows. Michael Brown, a Cleaver ally also of Kansas City, cited similar reasons as Hughes, adding that he hoped the vote would encourage Republicans to work with members of the Black Caucus in the future.

Partisan Implications of the Missouri Map: If anything, the partisan implications of the map are rather predictable, the process having been more enthralling than the product. All six of the state's current GOP members of Congress find themselves in highly safe districts (although Akin has since announced a bid for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by McCaskill). Jefferson and St. Charles counties remain divided between districts, while fast-growing Columbia now finds itself not in a hoped-for "central district" but the rural southwestern 4th District.

Although the map shores up Clay and Cleaver by packing urban Democrats into two districts - all of St. Louis, for instance, is now in the 1st District - state Democrats are irate, as Carnahan's district has been axed and his home placed inside Clay's urban district. "If anybody believes that this state is a 6-2 state [when] Barack Obama narrowly lost the presidential vote," State House Minority Leader Mike Talboy intoned, "then we really need an education bill because nobody can count." Democrats' only chance for three seats is if Carnahan pulls off an upset in an Akin-less 2nd District instead of taking on Clay. Indeed, POLITICO reports that national Democratic leaders, specifically House No. 2 Steny Hoyer, are quietly encouraging Carnahan to avoid "a kamikaze mission against Clay" by helping him pursue other electoral options.

The Fair Voting Alternative

Time for an Honest and Fair System: These controversies demonstrate the way in which the current system is inadequate: it fails not only to represent accurately the people of Missouri, but it reduces voters to mere pawns in a grand political game designed to benefit party elites rather than the people. Especially in states affected by reapportionment, there is the impulse to engage in gerrymandering and other highly undemocratic maneuvering.

In contrast to the Missouri state legislature's politically motivated plan, fair voting puts voters first. Rather than use a winner-take-all system, which accentuates the effects of redistricting and encourages partisan games, FairVote has combined these winner-take-all, gerrymandered districts to form multi-member districts called "super-districts" in which a fair voting system will allow like-minded voters to elect candidates in proportion to their voting strength and, as a result, allow far more voters to elect a favored candidate. As our analysis will demonstrate, FairVote's super-district plan with a fair voting system generates competitive elections in every corner of the state; it also allows for fuller representation of the political and demographic dynamics of geographical areas: what we call "shared representation."

Several candidate-based forms of fair voting, notably choice voting and cumulative voting, have been upheld by the courts and fit well with our traditions. Choice voting, in which voters rank candidates in order of choice in at-large elections, helped break the power of urban political machines in New York and Cincinnati. It is used currently by Minneapolis in citywide elections. From 1870 to 1980, members of the Illinois House of Representatives were elected using cumulative voting, where voters can cast as many votes as there are seats, and nearly all of the districts elected both Democrats and Republicans in every election. Fair voting plans in super-districts are legal for congressional elections under the U.S. Constitution and have been upheld by the Supreme Court, but Congress would need to repeal a 1967 law mandating single-member districts.

Under the current winner-take-all system, candidates must receive over 50% of the vote to be sure of winning a seat. Consequently, substantial voting blocs are often left unrepresented. For instance, one party's candidate could get just one vote shy of the 50% threshold, and all of her voters would lose out on representation. Similarly, if a voter lives in a district that widely favors one party, that voter might feel like his vote does not matter, especially if that voter favors the less popular party.

With fair voting in super-districts, on the other hand, nominees from more than one party are nearly certain to represent a district, which enables a more accurate representation of the broad spectrum of political opinion. These multi-seat districts also lower the threshold for racial minorities to select a preferred candidate of their own.

Winning with Fair Voting in a Super-District: If FairVote were working from scratch, we could draw the super-district lines with more geographical compactness. Because we created the super-districts from the recently approved congressional districts, however, our super-districts also appear to look somewhat gerrymandered. Even so, the super-district approach demonstrates that full representation can be attained even within these highly gerrymandered confines.

Missouri 2011 Redistricting Plan Missouri Fair Voting Plan with Super-Districts

From the eight congressional districts in Missouri, the FairVote proposal creates two super-districts: one three-seat district and one five-seat district. Each congressional seat still represents approximately 748,616 people, but with a fair voting system, representation is far more likely to reflect the political opinion and demographic makeup of the state. In a three-seat district, like-minded voters are assured of a representative if they consist of at least 25% of the electorate, while in a five-seat district, like-minded voters are assured of a representative if they consist of at least 16.67% of the electorate.

Super-District Breakdown

Super-District	Number of House Seats	Population Per Seat	Threshold of Exclusion	Districts Used to Make SD
1	3	748616	25% + 1	4, 5, 6
2	5	748616	16.67% + 1	1, 2, 3, 7, 8

Partisanship Analysis: Based on the 2008 presidential election, Missouri has a partisanship index of 46.33% Democratic, a narrow margin reflecting its status as a competitive state in presidential elections. However, the recent plan passed by the state legislature does not reflect the close partisan split of the entire state. Based on district partisanship, the Missouri plan would result in six Republican seats (five safe and one leaning), two safe Democratic seats, and zero toss-ups. To put this in perspective, the statewide Democratic partisanship index of 46.33% should result in the Democratic Party winning at least three seats and the Republican Party coming away with four seats at a minimum, while an additional seat would swing to the party or individual candidate performing well that election cycle. Yet, the Missouri plan guarantees the Republicans more than their expected share. To win four seats, Democratic candidates would need to succeed in flipping two solidly Republican districts. This gerrymandered setup presents a daunting challenge for the Democrats every election year, regardless of the party's national momentum.

Missouri Plan's Partisanship Breakdown

District	Population Per Seat	Partisanship (D)	Safe Seats (D)	Leaning Seats (D)	Toss-Up	Leaning Seats (R)	Safe Seats (R)
1	748,616	77.24%	1	0	0	0	0
2	748,616	43.28%	0	0	0	1	0
3	748,616	39.89%	0	0	0	0	1
4	748,616	39.10%	0	0	0	0	1
5	748,615	59.02%	1	0	0	0	0
6	748,616	40.30%	0	0	0	0	1
7	748,616	32.52%	0	0	0	0	1
8	748,616	35.58%	0	0	0	0	1
Statewide	5,988,927	46.33%	2	0	0	1	5

*Partisanship percentages are based on an interpretation of the 2008 presidential election. Our source for the data is Daily Kos. The seats were allocated according to the following ranges: toss-up districts have a partisanship between 46% and 54%, leaning seats have a partisanship between 54% and 58%, and safe seats have a partisanship greater than 58%. This does not reflect incumbent advantages.

In stark contrast, a fair voting plan would accurately represent the state's partisan divide and provide representation to voters from all parts of the state. FairVote's super-district plan shows that both major parties would be well positioned to win at least three seats: one seat to each party in Super-District 1 and two seats apiece in Super-District 2. With an additional toss-up seat in each super-district, each party would have the opportunity to gain one or both of the swing seats, depending on the quality of their candidates and the national partisan swing.

FairVote's plan clearly offers a far more reflective representation of the state's political division than the 75% of representation Republicans would earn even when losing the statewide vote. It also increases voter interest since almost all Republican and Democratic voters can elect a candidate in their super-district, who represents their political views - and have a real choice within their party's candidates as well.

Once in Congress, representatives from opposing parties would share constituents of super-districts and, therefore, have new incentives to cooperate on at least some legislative initiatives. There also would be more representatives bridging the gap that currently exists between the major parties, as fair voting means a more balanced representation of the left, right, and center. As far as competition, the current Missouri plan offers zero swing districts; in the super-district plan, every voter would experience a competitive election.

While these partisan breakdowns are based on the current two-party duopoly, the FairVote proposal would open the door for third-party and independent candidates, unlike the single-member district, winner-take-all plan. Because challengers to the major parties are rarely able to acquire over 50% of the vote, their backers are left typically unrepresented. Fair voting methods lower the threshold and provide third parties a better chance to win seats. Fair voting is not just fair for Democrats and Republicans; it is fair for voters of all political opinions.

FairVote's Super-District Partisan Breakdown

Super-District	Number of Seats	Threshold of Exclusion	Partisanship (D)	Safe Seats (D)	Leaning Seats (D)	Toss-Up	Leaning Seats (R)	Safe Seats (R)
1	3	25% + 1	46.33%	1	0	1	0	1
2	5	16.67% + 1	46.34%	2	0	1	0	2
Statewide	8	-	46.33%	3	0	2	0	3

*The seats were allocated according to the following ranges: toss-up districts have a partisanship ±4% of the threshold, leaning seats have a partisanship 4-8% greater than the threshold, and safe seats have a partisanship greater than 8% of the threshold. This does not reflect incumbent advantages.

Race and Voting Power: When a racial minority group votes as a bloc and meets the threshold, it has the power to elect a strongly preferred candidate, although it may not choose necessarily a racial minority. To evaluate the racial impact of a state's redistricting plan, we tabulate the number of districts in which the voting age population (VAP) of a racial minority group exceeds the threshold to win a seat (50% + 1 vote). For districts where a racial minority group is within three percent of the threshold, we designate the seat as a strong "opportunity" to win.

In Missouri, the black VAP consists of nearly 11% of the statewide VAP, and despite the state's relatively small black population, two of Missouri's eight seats (25%) belong to African American Congress members, William Lacy Clay, Jr. (D-1) and Emanuel Cleaver II (D-5). Under Missouri's new plan, no district has a black VAP greater than the 50% threshold; however, as noted earlier, pundits generally regard the newly drawn 1^st Congressional District as the state's only majority-minority district. Latinos, for their part, currently make up less than three percent of the state's total population but have negligible influence in any single-member district.

Using our methodology to evaluate the racial dynamics of Missouri's plan, we would expect the white population in each district to have the voting power to elect a preferred candidate. Although the white VAP in Congressional District 1 maintains a plurality, blacks of voting age constitute nearly half (45.66%) of the district's total VAP, enabling that group to have significant weight in any election. Given this considerable influence, the district was the first in the state to elect an African American to the U.S. House (William Lacy Clay, Sr.) in 1968 and has continued to send an African American representative to Congress in every election since. In the 5^th Congressional District, currently represented by Emanuel Cleaver, there is another sizable black community (20.40%). In spite of the voting power that whites possess in each congressional district, the state is consistently friendly to electing representatives of color when running in strongly Democratic-leaning districts.

Missouri Plan Race Breakdown

District	Total Population	White VAP%	Black VAP%	Latino VAP%	Black Voters	Latino Voters
1	748,616	48.60%	45.66%	2.69%	0	0
2	748,616	92.21%	2.79%	1.88%	0	0
3	748,616	92.72%	3.63%	1.78%	0	0
4	748,616	91.90%	4.32%	2.66%	0	0
5	748,615	71.95%	20.40%	6.82%	0	0
6	748,616	93.04%	3.62%	2.68%	0	0
7	748,616	92.93%	1.52%	3.31%	0	0
8	748,616	93.39%	4.13%	1.28%	0	0
Statewide	5,988,927	84.54%	10.81%	2.89%	0	0

*Source for race voting age population data is the Missouri State Senate.

While the fair voting plan drastically shakes up the political landscape of Missouri's redistricting plan, it sustains the influence that black communities hold in the new map, even after combining the highly concentrated minority population in District 1 with other predominantly white districts. Similar to the black constituency's prospects for voting power in District 1, this group in Super-District 2 (11.61%) falls merely two percentage points below our threshold for an "opportunity" to win representation (13.67%). Just as District 5 consistently elects an African American representative to Congress, we would anticipate black voters in Super-District 2 to have the comparable influence in electing a candidate who best represents their interests. Super-District 1, which encompasses District 5, offers black voters significant influence (9.46% VAP in a super-district with a threshold of 25%), as candidates in congressional elections would presumably cater to the black community, given the competitive nature of super-district elections and the need to solidify relationships with large voting blocs.

FairVote's Super-District Race Breakdown

Super-District	Number of Seats	Threshold of Exclusion	White VAP%	Black VAP%	Latino VAP%	Black Voters	Latino Voters
1	3	25% + 1	85.61%	9.46%	4.06%	0	0
2	5	16.67% + 1	83.90%	11.61%	2.19%	0	0
Statewide	8	-	84.54%	10.81%	2.89%	0	0

Conclusion

Although Missouri Republicans clearly engineered a partisan gerrymander, electoral problems do not rest solely with Democrats and Republicans. Rather, the problem lies with the winner-take-all nature of single-member district elections, which allow district lines to determine most outcomes no matter how they are drawn. In this analysis, we have not touched the blatantly partisan lines that were our building blocks; we merely changed the rules and showed that fair voting provides immediate dividends to all voters.

If the redistricting games of winner-take-all continue, voters are likely to become even more disenchanted with our political system. Under Missouri's redistricting plan and many others like it across the country, a vast amount of voters are left with diminshed representation and no real choices. Many of these congressional elections lack competition or offer just two candidates to the diverse array of voters. It is also clear that one candidate cannot possibly reflect the makeup of everyone in a district, as winner-take-all assumes. Therefore, we need a new approach that will more accurately reflect the makeup of each state. By adopting fair voting methods in super-districts, we can attain a more representative democracy.

Cambridge, Massachusetts Election Results – November 2011

Thu, 10 Nov 2011 13:45:43 -0800

FairVote often writes about ranked choice voting elections as they happen – indeed six cities voted with a ranked ballot this week. However, we would be remiss to overlook what is the most enduring use of the system in American history. This week marks the start of the eighth decade of choice voting elections in Cambridge (MA), where every seat on the city council and school committee this week was elected by the choice voting method of proportional voting.

The history of choice voting in Cambridge, Massachusetts tells the tale of an American city that has successfully used proportional voting to elect its local officials for decades. Cambridge has employed choice voting (also called the single transferable vote) every two years for city elections since 1941.

Since its implementation, choice voting has served to provide greater opportunities for racial minorities and women in representation, as well as to promote at least relatively greater voter turnout and voter satisfaction.

Cambridge holds choice voting elections, as detailed in the resources created by long-time civic activist Robert Winters, for seats on a nine-member city council and a six-member school committee. That makes the threshold to win a seat on city council 10% (plus one) and a little over 14% (plus one) for a seat on the school committee.

One way of measuring the impact of that threshold is the consistent representation of Cambridge’s black population on its elected bodies even though blacks make up only 13% of the total population – just barely over the 10% threshold for the city council. With at-large elections every two years, a black candidate has been elected to city council in every election since the 1950s. Black candidates also have a long history of election to the smaller school committee, including a new candidate winning a seat this week.

In addition, in 2009, Leland Cheung won a seat on the city council, making effective use of social media in becoming the first Asian American and youngest-ever member of the city council. Women have successfully been elected to both elected bodies, often comprising one-third to two-thirds of the city council and school committee. These numbers are indicative of choice voting’s proportional effect and ability to provide greater representation opportunities for minority voters. The council also demonstrates other kinds of diversity, with a mix of political opinions, neighborhood representation, and three LGBT members on the current city council.

Tuesday’s election reinforced Cambridge’s successful use of choice voting in its local elections. Although some had feared that voter turnout would be “ridiculously low,” reflecting national trends this year, turnout was the same as in 2009, and representation of the city’s racial diversity increased.

Every incumbent had chosen to run in both the city council and school committee races. In each race
one incumbent was defeated. On the city council Sam Seidel lost, being replaced by Minka vanBeuzekom. Also, on the school committee, Nancy Tauber lost out to Mervan Osborne, a young black civic leader.

On the city council, a few examples of diverse representation include: Leland Cheung, a Chinese-American born to immigrant parents, two LGBT and also black city council members, Ken Reeves and Denise Simmons, and a total of four women overall. The school committee election was also positive, as voters elected committee members including two women, Patty Nolan and Alice Turkel, and two black committee members, Richard Harding and Mervan Osborne.

For the unofficial election results as of November 9, 2011, see the links below:
City Council:
http://www.cambridgema.gov/citynewsandpublications/news/2011/11/unofficialresults_citycouncil.aspx
http://www.cambridgema.gov/election2011/unofficial/ccouncil/Council%20Round.htm
School Committee:
http://www.cambridgema.gov/citynewsandpublications/news/2011/11/unofficialresults_schoolcomm.aspx
http://www.cambridgema.gov/election2011/unofficial/schoolcomm/School%20Round.htm

All results are unofficial until the provisional and absentee ballots are counted on November 18, 2011. However, the results above are expected to be similar in the final tally and take into account all ballots cast on Election Day, including write-in and auxiliary ballots.

Why Settle? A Review of the Conference on “Creating the Voting Rights Act of 2012”

Fri, 04 Nov 2011 08:36:53 -0700

Why Tuesday? held its 2012 election campaign kickoff event on November 7th. The organization, which is famous for travelling the country asking political leaders why America votes on Tuesdays, hosted a program entitled “Creating the Voting Rights Act of 2012.” Why Tuesday? will have every 2012 presidential candidate explain what they would do to improve voter turnout in the United States.

The conference had four panelists who addressed current voting barriers, possible solutions to those barriers, and how voters, particularly young voters, can take action in urging political elites to get serious about electoral reform efforts that combat poor voter participation. The speakers were: Meghan McCain, daughter of 2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain; Why Tuesday? Executive Director, Jacob Soboroff; Mimi Marziani, Counsel for the Brennan Center for Justice; and David Becker, Director of the Pew Center on the States Election Initiatives. The moderator was Why Tuesday? Board member Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute.

Mimi Marziani of the Brennan Center began by explaining that state legislatures have severely targeted voting rights today. To date, there are 21 new laws in 14 different states that have decreased the ease of voting. The Brennan Center’s report found that restrictions on acceptable forms of identification at the polls and reduced periods of early voting will likely affect up to five million students, racial minorities, poor, disabled and elderly Americans.

In Texas, for example, a law was recently passed declaring college or university IDs to be invalid forms of identification on Election Day. However, Texas does allow handgun licenses as an acceptable ID. Looking at the statistics provided by the Brennan Center, we find that African American students make up 17% of the university population in Texas. But only 7.5% of African Americans in the state of Texas have handgun licenses. This law puts students, especially those who are studying out-of-state, at a potential disadvantage in successfully casting their ballot on Election Day.

In Florida, a civics teacher who was helping her students register to vote (doing something FairVote has backed strongly in making use of the state’s new law-- one passed with bipartisan support- allowing 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds to “pre-register” to vote) now faces thousands of dollars in fines because she was not in compliance with Florida’s new election law. Florida’s new law on voter registration makes it harder for third party organizations to aid eligible citizens in registering to vote.

Those in favor of these restricting election laws say it is voter fraud that has driven them to make these changes. But opponents of these laws, like Norm Ornstein, explained that the claims being made about voter fraud at the polls is virtually non-existent.

Whether these new laws now seen as suppressing voter turnout are the product of political motives, or whether they are guided by a desire to protect the right that so many Americans hold dear, it is clear that modernizing voter registration is a better way to safeguard the right to vote. One out of every nine Americans moves each year, and that amount is double among young people. We live in a technologically advanced society, yet the question still remains, why are voter registration procedures still functioning within the confines of the 19th and 20th centuries?

The United States is just about the only major democracy that puts the burden of voter registration on the voters. If voter registration information is shared between states, updated by the states, managed online, and is operated on an opt-out basis rather than an opt-in basis, it would take away that burden put on voters. It would also reduce problems that arise when election officials receive waves of new forms due to a mobile society right before the deadline, and would eliminate the struggle of trying to read illegible handwriting on paper applications.

Solutions such as the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC) and state-run automatic registration when eligible citizens turn 18 years old will help alleviate some of the costs of voting. There are many brilliant ideas on how to fix our voting system that have surfaced from both electoral reform organizations and unaffiliated voters alike. But with a country in the midst of a debt crisis and an economy slow to bounce back, it is hard to get political leaders to see the importance in reforming the current electoral system. The ability to choose the few people who are tasked with making decisions on behalf of the many is important, and that selection process should not be looked at as insignificant by those leaders themselves.

Here’s how FairVote suggests you can get involved!

-If you are a student or know a student, have them take advantage of any poll worker opportunities in your community
- Voice your views on the importance of voter participation by using email, or through free social media outlets such as Facebook and Twitter
- Have discussions with those you know about why you are a voter, how meaningful it is to participate in choosing who represents and speaks for you in government
- Be ready to work for structural reforms to our electoral process. When we are in a position to cast meaningful votes in contested elections, we can expect voter turnout to rise.
-Show appreciation for your ability to vote by going to the polls on Election Day!

Stay tuned for FairVote doing a lot more to make it easier to get involved in these activities.

No More Gerrymanders: California's Commission Plan versus the Fair Voting Alternative

Thu, 03 Nov 2011 12:46:24 -0700

Summary:

For the first time in California's history, the Citizens Redistricting Commission has drawn the lines for congressional districts. Despite taking control away from partisan state legislators and sharply increasing potential competition in congressional elections, the commission's map still gives Democrats a clear advantage in 29 seats compared to only 12 for Republicans. Republicans have fought the new maps in court, and some racial minorities have expressed concerns as well.
The root of the worst problems associated with redistricting lies with winner-take-all elections, in which 50% + 1 of the vote can elect 100% of the representation. Fair voting systems, relying on a form of proportional representation, are a far better way to achieve public interest objectives and allow all voters to participate in meaningful elections.
As part of an ongoing series, FairVote has produced a "super-district" plan designed for elections with a fair voting system. Our California plan upholds U.S. Supreme Court rulings on apportionment while providing fair representation and voter choice for California voters. Fair voting plans in super-districts are legal for congressional elections under the U.S. Constitution, but Congress would need to repeal a 1967 law mandating single-member districts. State and cities often have the power to adopt fair voting systems under current law.
FairVote's fair voting plan for California would result in far more balanced representation and competitive elections.

The Political Context in California

California and the 2010 Census: From 2000 to 2010, California's population grew slightly, from 33.87 million to 37.25 million, for an increase of 10.0%, as compared to a rate of 13.8% from 1990 to 2000. This rate was roughly equivalent to the national average of 9.7%. California maintained its 53 seats, making 2010 the first Census since 1920 that the state had not increase the size of its U.S. House delegation. (From 1920 through 2000, the state's number of House seats skyrocketed from 11 to 53.).

Some conjectured that population shifts within the state helped congressional Republicans, as slow-growing, Democratic-heavy urban districts and coastal areas failed to keep pace with inland Republican-leaning regions. Racially, California is a 'no-majority' state, with non-Hispanic whites (40.1%) currently comprising a plurality. Asians (12.8%) posted the largest rate of growth of any group at just over 30%, while the Latino community (37.6%) - fast on track to becoming the most numerous group in the state - continues to increase appreciably as well. Non-Hispanic blacks held steady at roughly six percent of the population.

Although Democrats controlled all levels of government in Sacramento in 2001, super-majority requirements in redistricting gave Republicans shared power over maps. The process was a protracted affair, with legal challenges by disenchanted Latino interest groups extending the process until January 2003, when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a June 2002 California U.S. District Court ruling upholding the districts. Fearing that a citizen referendum or a state Supreme Court packed with Republican appointees might overturn an overtly partisan map, Democrats decided to collaborate with GOP state legislators n order to secure the required supermajority. As a result, both political parties essentially signed off on a deal to maintain the status quo.

And the status quo is what Californians received. In the five elections since 2001 redistricting, the partisan composition of California's U.S. House delegation changed by only once (2002: 33D, 20R; 2004: 33D, 20R; 2006: 34D, 19R; 2008: 34D, 19R; 2010: 34D, 19R). During the same period, only a stunning two of 253 incumbent representatives (0.8%) lost their bids for reelection, while just 14 of 265 contests (5.3%) were won by less than ten percentage points; 233 of these 265 (87.9%) races were either blowouts (20%+ margin of victory) or uncontested.

With Redistricting, a New Way of Doing Business in the Most Populous State: Although Jerry Brown is only the second Democratic governor since he had last been elected in 1978, California has become a strongly Democratic state. Arnold Schwarzenegger's election to the governorship in a 2003 post-recall special election and reelection in 2006 are the only recent examples of Republicans winning major statewide office, and Democrats' vote share in presidential races has grown steadily. In 2010, well-funded Republican candidates for U.S. Senate (Carly Fiorina) and governor (Meg Whitman) lost badly in their respective bids despite initial high expectations.

At the U.S. House level, however, California's delegation in 2010 again saw no change in terms of partisan composition, as voters returned all 51 incumbents who ran for reelection and stuck with the candidate representing the incumbent party in the remaining two open seats. Such stasis was clearly at odds with the discernibly anti-incumbent and anti-Democratic national trend in 2010, although a few Democratic candidates, such as Loretta Sanchez of the 47^th District and Jim Costa of the 20^th District, performed far below their 2008 numbers. Yet while the Californian congressional elections to the 112^th Congress were an aberration nationally, they nevertheless conformed to the state's post 2001-redistricting reputation for safe seats and commensurate political calcification.

This reputation for no-contest elections, which Governor Schwarzenegger famously captured with the quip, "We laugh at Putin in Russia...but there's more turnover in the Kremlin than...in California," caused voters to support recent ballot initiatives designed to reshape dramatically the way California draws its political boundaries. In 2008, a slim majority of voters approved Proposition 11, which took control of redistricting away from the state legislature and established an independent commission charged with crafting state legislative districts. In 2010, 61.3% of voters approved Proposition 20, which extended the jurisdiction of the California Citizens Redistricting Commission (CCRC) to include the drafting of congressional lines as well, and voted down Proposition 27, a measure designed to repeal the CCRC largely funded by the Democratic establishment.

California's Citizens Redistricting Commission and its Work: On February 20, 2011, the Justice Department pre-cleared California Proposition 20, making the new commission's oversight of redistricting official. Although 2011 marks the first time in California's history that citizens, rather than state legislators, will draw district boundaries, California joins a handful of other states nationwide employing a redistricting commission.

Very specific rules, designed to ensure the process is bipartisan and independent, govern both the body's composition and its work. First, the fourteen-member commission must contain an equal number of registered Republicans and Democrats (five each), as well as four independents /no affiliation voters. Second, the selection process is multi-tiered - government auditors select eight of the members (3R, 3D, and 2 independent) randomly from a pool of voters, while these eight commissioners, in turn, select the final six individuals (2R, 2D, and 2 independent). Third, once the maps have been drawn, nine of the 14 commissioners must approve - three from each party and three independents/no affiliates. Finally, lobbyists or individuals having given more than $2,000 in political donations in a two-year cycle may not serve on the CCRC's staff.

Despite these precautions, the CCRC was ultimately accused of partisanship, especially during the contracts phase of the project. Republicans cried foul when the commission tapped what they believed to be Democratic-leaning firms to produce maps and provide legal advice regarding minority rights and voting power. Tom Del Beccaro, chairman of the California GOP, warned that the CCRC's selection of such firms "defeat[ed] the very purpose of the commission's existence."

On July 29, the commission approved preliminary congressional maps by a 12-2 vote, moving the draft plans to a 14-day public review stage. Employing a wide range of glowing superlatives, the commissioners extolled the CCRC's work as "extraordinary," "unprecedented," and "enriching," noting that its maps "portend[ed] a brighter political future for California." Two weeks later, the CCRC formally certified these maps on August 15 and forwarded them to the secretary of state's office, after another 12-2 vote.

Arguing the CCRC had produced congressional maps advantaging Democratic candidates, California Republicans wasted little time in organizing a voter referendum to overturn the work of a commission they believed "political partisans" had "hijacked." The GOP, however, dropped its initial plan in late September, citing inadequate fundraising and lackluster enthusiasm among certain Republican members of the California U.S. House delegation, such as Minority Whip Kevin McCarthy; several GOP strategists contended the statewide referendum against the congressional map was a poor use of limited campaign resources - and potentially tacit acceptance of the fact that Democratic advantages are grounded in Democrats' overall edge in the state.

Undeterred, however, dissenting Republicans, led by former U.S. congressman George Radanovich , joined minority voters to file suit on September 29 with the California Supreme Court, alleging that some of the CCRC's congressional boundaries were in violation of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (1965). Republicans in the state have a history of working with black and Latino groups, recognizing that drawing districts with larger numbers of minority voters also produces surrounding districts that lean GOP. On October 22, the CCRC officially requested that the state Supreme Court dismiss the lawsuit, saying it had met the constitutional requirements and Voting Rights Act obligations governing redistricting. Four days later, on October 26, the Supreme Court - without comment - unanimously rejected the Radanovich suit as well as the GOP's request for an emergency stay that would have halted use of the maps.

The Fair Voting Alternative

Time for an Honest and Fair System: FairVote applauds the goals for a fair process embodied by having an independent commission governed by public interest criteria. Despite the precautions Californians have taken, controversies over the maps and the still-high number of uncompetitive districts in the new plan illustrates that the absence of partisan antics in the redistricting process does not lead us necessarily to fair elections. Redistricting, whether under the auspices of an independent commission or a partisan legislature, merely exaggerates a more fundamental structural issue outside the CCRC's purview: winner-take-all.

In contrast to any plan governed by winner-take-all plan, our fair voting alternative truly puts voters first. Rather than use a winner-take-all system, which exaggerates representation for certain groups, FairVote has combined the CCRC's single-member districts to form larger "super-districts." As an American form of proportional representation, this fair voting system will elect multiple representatives in each super-district and allow far more voters to choose a favored candidate. As our analysis demonstrates, FairVote's super-district plan with a fair voting system generates competitive elections in every corner of the state; it also allows for fuller representation of the political and demographic dynamics of geographical areas: what we call "shared representation."

Several candidate-based forms of fair voting, notably choice voting and cumulative voting, have been upheld by the courts and fit well with our traditions. Choice voting systems, in which voters rank candidates in order of choice in at-large elections, helped break the power of urban political machines in New York and Cincinnati. It is used currently by Minneapolis in citywide elections. From 1870 to 1980, members of the Illinois House of Representatives were elected using cumulative voting, where voters can cast as many votes as there are seats. Using this fair voting system, nearly all of the districts elected both Democrats and Republicans in every election.

Winning with Fair Voting in a Super-District: From the 53 congressional districts in California, the FairVote proposal creates 11 super-districts: ten five-seat districts and one three-seat district. Each congressional seat still represents approximately 702,905 people, but with a fair voting system, representation is far more likely to reflect the political opinion and demographic makeup of the state. In a five-seat district, like-minded voters are assured of a representative if they consist of at least 16.67% of the electorate, and in the only three-seat district, like-minded voters are assured of a representative if they consist of at least 25% of the electorate.

California 2011 Redistricting Plan

California Fair Voting Plan with Super-districts

Super-district Breakdown

Super-District	Number of House Seats	Population Per Seat	Threshold of Exclusion	Districts Used to Make SD
1	5	702904	16.67% + 1	38, 40, 43, 44, 47
2	5	702904	16.67% + 1	28, 29, 30, 34, 37
3	5	702906	16.67% + 1	32, 39, 45, 46, 48
4	5	702905	16.67% + 1	31, 35, 41, 42, 49
5	5	702905	16.67% + 1	36, 50, 51, 52, 53
6	5	702904	16.67% + 1	24, 25, 26, 27, 33
7	5	702905	16.67% + 1	11, 12, 13, 14, 15
8	5	702905	16.67% + 1	10, 16, 17, 18, 19
9	5	702905	16.67% + 1	3, 5, 6, 7, 9
10	5	702905	16.67% + 1	8, 20, 21, 22, 23
11	3	702905	25% + 1	1, 2, 4

Partisanship Analysis: Based on the 2008 presidential election, California has a partisanship index of 58.3% Democratic. However, the CCRC's plan does not reflect the partisan split of the entire state. Based on district partisanship, the commission's plan would allocate Democrats 29 seats (24 safe and 5 lean) and Republicans 12 seats (8 safe and 4 lean) with an additional 12 districts that could swing to either party. To put this in perspective, the statewide Republican partisanship index of 41.7% should generally result in Republicans winning 22 seats, yet the California plan creates only eight absolutely safe seats. To win those 22 seats, Republicans would need to hold on to their four leaning seats, as expected, and succeed in 10 of 12 toss-up districts. This presents a daunting challenge for the GOP every election year, regardless of the party's national momentum.

California Plan's Partisanship Breakdown, Summary

	Statewide Percentages	CCRC's Plan
Democrats	58.3%	24 Safe, 5 Lean
Republicans	41.7%	8 Safe, 4 Lean
Toss-Up	-	12

*Partisanship percentages are based on an interpretation of the 2008 presidential election. Our source for the data is from RedistrictingPartners.com The seats were allocated according to the following ranges: toss-up districts have a partisanship between 46% and 54%, leaning seats have a partisanship between 54% and 58%, and safe seats have a partisanship greater than 58%. This does not reflect incumbent advantages. Full district partisanship data located here.

In stark contrast, the FairVote super-district plan accurately represents the state's partisan divide, positioning each major party to win at least one seat in every super-district. Republicans would have a clear advantage to win 17 seats and be well-positioned to add between three to nine seats based on the quality of their candidates and the national partisan swing. Democrats would have a clear advantage to win 26 seats, a reasonable chance to add seven more and an outside chance of winning up to 36 seats.

FairVote's plan clearly offers a far more reflective representation of the state's political division than California's redistricting plan, which gives the Democratic Party a running start every election year. Fair voting also increases voter interest because almost all Republican and Democratic voters will be able to elect a candidate in their district, who represents their political views. Additionally, voters will have a real choice within their party's candidates, since each super-district election presents each party with a chance to win multiple seats.

Once in Congress, representatives from opposing parties would share constituents of super districts and, therefore, have new incentives to cooperate on at least some legislative initiatives. There also would be more representatives bridging the gap that currently exists between the major parties, as fair voting means a more balanced representation of the left, right, and center. As far as competition, the California plan offers at best 12 competitive districts; in the super-district plan, every voter would experience a competitive election.

FairVote's Super-district Partisan Breakdown

Super-District	Number of Seats	Threshold to Win	Partisanship (D)	Safe Seats (D)	Leaning Seats (D)	Toss-Up	Leaning Seats (R)	Safe Seats (R)
1	5	16.67% + 1	62.5%	3	0	0	1	1
2	5	16.67% + 1	66.8%	3	0	1	0	1
3	5	16.67% + 1	48.6%	2	0	1	0	2
4	5	16.67% + 1	51.3%	2	0	1	0	2
5	5	16.67% + 1	51.8%	2	0	1	0	2
6	5	16.67% + 1	51.8%	2	0	1	0	2
7	5	16.67% + 1	74.3%	3	1	0	0	1
8	5	16.67% + 1	61.1%	3	0	0	1	1
9	5	16.67% + 1	58.2%	3	0	0	0	2
10	5	16.67% + 1	45.6%	2	0	0	1	2
11	3	25% + 1	50.3%	1	0	1	0	1
Statewide	53	-	58.3%	26	1	6	3	17

*The seats were allocated according to the following ranges: toss-up districts have a partisanship ±4% of the threshold, leaning seats have a partisanship 4-8% greater than the threshold, and safe seats have a partisanship greater than 8% of threshold. This does not reflect incumbent advantages.

Race and Voting Power: When a racial minority group votes as a bloc and meets the threshold, it has the power to elect a strongly preferred candidate, although it may not choose necessarily a racial minority. California is one of the most racially diverse states in the country, yet the CCRC's redistricting plan does not reflect its demographic composition. To evaluate the racial impact of the California plan, we have tabulated the number of districts in which a racial minority group exceeds the threshold to win a seat (50% + 1 vote). For districts where a racial minority group is within three percent of the threshold, we have designated the seat as a strong "opportunity" to win.

The way the CCRC plan is currently constructed, white voters have a disproportionate advantage (32 seats + 2 opportunities, or 64%) to elect candidates of their preference, though their share of the citizen voting age population (CVAP) sits at just over 55%. The Latino community represents 23% of the state's CVAP but has opportunities to elect a preferred candidate in only nine districts (7 seats + 2 opportunities, or 17%). African Americans and Asian Americans may have a significant presence in some districts, which, combined with strong incumbents, can lead to victories for candidates of these racial groups. But these communities are not anywhere close to meeting the 50% threshold in any single district, which severely jeopardizes their chances of receiving representation in the state's congressional delegation. In an additional ten districts, no racial group meets the threshold or falls within our opportunity category, so racial minority groups have increased chances to elect preferred candidates, provided they can build a diversified coalition of voters.

California Plan Race Breakdown, Summary

Column1	Statewide	CCRC's Plan
White CVAP	55.4%	32 + 2 Opportunities
Black CVAP	7.3%	0
Latino CVAP	23.3%	7 + 2 Opportunities
Asian CVAP	12.0%	0
???	-	10

*Race data for each district can be found here.

Though the CCRC plan makes significant strides to extend voting power to multiple racial groups, the fair voting plan offers opportunities more reflective of the state's racial composition. In the super-district plan, white voters have the voting power to win 30 seats (57%), while Latinos broaden their voting power to 11 seats (9 seats + 2 opportunities, or 21%). Unlike the CCRC's map, the fair voting plan also gives voting power to African Americans and Asian Americans. African Americans are well-positioned to win at least one seat, and make up more than half of what it takes to win a seat in four additional super-districts. Asian American voters jump from voting power in zero districts to voting power over three seats, with their numbers more than half of what it takes to win a seat in seven more districts. Both these racial minority groups and Latino voters would be competitive for many of the eight seats in which no racial group meets the threshold or falls within the opportunity category

FairVote's Super-District Race Breakdown

Super-District	Number of Seats	Threshold to Win	White CVAP	Black CVAP	Latino CVAP	Asian CVAP
1	5	16.67% + 1	27.5%	16.3%	42.2%	12.2%
2	5	16.67% + 1	46.4%	11.8%	28.6%	12.0%
3	5	16.67% + 1	52.9%	2.7%	25.8%	17.4%
4	5	16.67% + 1	51.4%	8.6%	31.8%	6.3%
5	5	16.67% + 1	60.7%	5.5%	23.2%	8.6%
6	5	16.67% + 1	62.7%	4.4%	19.2%	12.3%
7	5	16.67% + 1	52.5%	10.7%	12.5%	22.3%
8	5	16.67% + 1	53.1%	4.2%	22.7%	18.3%
9	5	16.67% + 1	62.0%	9.0%	15.2%	11.1%
10	5	16.67% + 1	58.2%	5.6%	29.4%	4.5%
11	3	25% + 1	84.8%	1.7%	7.2%	2.9%
Statewide	53	-	55.4%	7.3%	23.3%	12.0%

Conclusion

California's plan is clear evidence that even an independent redistricting commission cannot alleviate the problems of our U.S. House elections. Although partisan gerrymandering receives the most attention, the undemocratic nature of our elections is endemic to the winner-take-all voting system - a structural issue the CCRC was not allowed to change. In this analysis, we have not touched CCRC's lines that were our building blocks; we merely changed the rules and showed that fair voting provides immediate dividends to all voters, empowering them to choose representatives who truly reflect their perspectives.

If the redistricting process paired with a winner-take-all rule continues, voters are likely to become disenchanted with our political system. Under California's redistricting plan and many others like it across the country, a vast amount of voters are left unrepresented. Many of these congressional elections lack competition or offer just two candidates to the diverse array of voters. It is clear that one candidate cannot possibly reflect the makeup of her district, as winner-take-all assumes, so we need an alternative to make full representation possible. By adopting fair voting methods in super-districts, we can attain a more representative democracy.

No More Gerrymanders: Georgia's Partisan Plan versus the Fair Voting Alternative

Mon, 31 Oct 2011 13:11:56 -0700

Summary:

Lawmakers in Georgia have recently passed a congressional redistricting plan that gives Republican candidates a strong advantage in 10 of 14 seats and protects nearly all incumbents.
The root of the worst problems associated with redistricting lies with winner-take-all elections, in which 50% + 1 of the vote can elect 100% of the representation. Fair voting systems, relying on a form of proportional representation, are a far better way to achieve public interest objectives and allow all voters to participate in meaningful elections.
As part of an ongoing series, FairVote has produced a "super-district" plan designed for elections with a fair voting system. Our Georgia plan upholds U.S. Supreme Court rulings on apportionment while providing fair representation and voter choice for Georgia voters. Fair voting plans in super-districts are legal for congressional elections under the U.S. Constitution, but Congress would need to repeal a 1967 law mandating single-member districts. State and cities often have the power to adopt fair voting systems under current law.
FairVote's fair voting plan for Georgia would result in far more balanced representation and competitive elections.

Political Context in Georgia

Georgia and the 2010 Census: From 2000 to 2010, Georgia's population grew robustly, from 8.19 million to 9.69 million, for an increase of 18.3%, as compared to a rate of 26.4% from 1990 to 2000. This rate was significantly above the national average of 9.7%. As a result, Georgia gained one U.S. House seat in congressional reapportionment, going from 13 seats to 14, which continued a positive trend in its number of House seats dating back to the 1980 Census.

Internally, population shifts appear to help congressional Republicans; the rural areas of northern Georgia have driven the state's population growth, as Democratic-leaning urban centers have stagnated. Of the state's five largest cities - Atlanta, Augusta, Columbus, Savannah, and Athens - only Athens posted growth over five percent; Macon, the state's seventh largest incorporated place, actually saw its population decline. Racially, Georgia remains majority white (55.9%), with an appreciable percentage increase for the black (30.0%) and Latino communities (8.8%), the latter of which nearly doubled.

Redistricting in 2001 was highly contentious as Democrats survived racial and regional infighting to craft an ambitiously partisan map; the Democratic plan was designed to reduce the state's 8-3 GOP U.S. House advantage. Viewed by some as an overreach, the U.S. District Court in D.C. upheld the plan. Democrats picked up the state's two new seats and ultimately held 6 of 13 seats in 2006-2010 before falling back to five seats in 2010. Even so, in the five congressional elections since 2001, only seven of 65 (10.8%) seats were won by less than ten percentage points, while 53 (81.5%) contests were blowouts (20%+ margin of victory) or uncontested.

Republicans, in Control, Push through Partisan Redistricting Plan: Alhough Democrats won every governor's race from 1872 to 2002, Georgia has now become a predominantly Republican state. Democrats haven't won a federal statewide election since 1996, when disabled Vietnam veteran Max Cleland joined the U.S. Senate. In 2008 Barack Obama ran stronger than many expected, finishing six percentage points behind John McCain, and incumbent U.S. Senator Saxby Chambliss finished below 50% of the vote. But Chambliss won his December 2008 runoff easily and in 2010, Nathan Deal defeated former governor Roy Barnes by 10%..

Democratic officeholders at the U.S. House level struggled in 2010, with the 8^th District's Jim Marshall - one of the most conservative Democrats in the 111^th Congress - falling to Austin Scott in 2010. Sanford Bishop and John Barrow barely held onto their seats.

Having claimed the governorship and majorities in both chambers of the state legislature, Republicans ensured they would exercise control over the drawing of district boundaries, lines capable of locking in a GOP advantage at the U.S. House level for a decade. This year marks the first time in Georgia history that the Republican Party will control the congressional redistricting process.

Republicans in the Georgia General Assembly made their plan public on August 22, with each chamber, according to The Atlanta Constitution Journal, "moving quickly on proposals favorable to the Legislature's Republican majority." Ignoring Democratic protestations that the proposed map would dilute racial minority voting power, the Georgia House on August 25 passed an amended version of the plan along party lines, by a vote of 110-60, receiving concurrence from the Senate six days later, 34-21. Governor Deal signed the new lines into law on September 7, insisting the map"honor[ed] the sacred principle of 'one person, one vote.'"

Georgia, with its history of racial discrimination, is among the states that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (1965) requires to obtain federal approval for changes to its state election laws and district boundaries. Governor Deal and Attorney General Sam Olens decided to seek "pre-clearance" for their redistricting maps in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. rather than from the Department of Justice. In 2001, Georgia Democrats under Barnes employed a similar strategy.

Partisan Effects of the Republican Redistricting Plan: Looking at the partisan implications of the map, Republicans have "packed" Democrats into four redrawn districts in order to create safe or lean-GOP districts in other parts of the state. The GOP has positioned itself to take 10 of 14 seats, even in years when Democrats win the statewide vote.

The most striking aspect of the plan is the GOP's clear targeting of John Barrow - the Deep South's (SC, GA, AL, MS, LA) last remaining white U.S. House Democrat. Under the new map, Barrow's 12^th District would become overwhelmingly Republican, losing liberal Savannah, from where Barrow derives much of his support, to Republican Jack Kingston's southeastern 1^st District, while picking up Republican-leaning Augusta. "Barrow is a tough man to bring down," The Washington Post notes, but such a "staggering shift" in the partisan composition of his constituency means he is a "marked man."

Although Barrow, currently of Savannah, is not constitutionally required to live in the district he represents, tradition and political expediency leave him with little choice but to move to Augusta; previously, the GOP's 2006 mid-Census fine-tuning of redistricting had caused Barrow to abandon his home in Athens. Barrow has assailed the map, saying that it "reflects a rigging of the district lines in order to produce a predetermined outcome." Republican state representative Lee Anderson will be Barrow's likely general election opponent.

Elsewhere, the plan squeezes the state's newly awarded fourteenth constituency - though branded as the 9^th District - into northeastern Georgia, shifting the old districts of GOP representatives Phil Gingrey, Tom Graves, and Paul Broun. Graves - who took over Governor Deal's former seat - now lives in the 14^th District, having shed Hall County, the home of Deal and Lieutenant Governor Casey Cagle. Not surprisingly, Hall County state representative Doug Collins, a purported "close ally" of the governor, has announced he will run in the new 9^th District.

Finally, the GOP apparently decided to spare Sanford Bishop after his narrow win in 2010. His 2^nd District is now over 50% black; previously, Bishop's district had been approximately 47% black. Although the map thus creates a fourth majority-minority district, Democrats have accused Republicans of having "bleached" surrounding districts by packing blacks into four constituencies, thereby reducing the potential influence of the black community in other areas of the state. Republicans have countered that "minority influence districts" are not protected under the Voting Rights Act.

The Fair Voting Alternative

Time for an Honest and Fair System: These controversies demonstrate the way in which the current system is inadequate: it fails not only to represent accurately the people of Georgia, but reduces voters to mere pawns in a grand political game designed to benefit party elites rather than the people. Especially in states affected by reapportionment, there is the impulse to engage in gerrymandering and other highly undemocratic maneuvering.

In contrast to the Georgia state legislature's politically motivated plan, fair voting puts voters first. Rather than use a winner-take-all system, which accentuates the effects of redistricting and encourages partisan jockeying, FairVote has combined these winner-take-all, gerrymandered districts to form multi-member constituencies called "super-districts." As our analysis will demonstrate, FairVote's super-district plan with a fair voting system generates competitive elections in every corner of the state; it also allows for fuller representation of the political and demographic dynamics of geographical areas: what we call "shared representation."

With fair voting in super-districts, on the other hand, it is nearly certain that candidates from at least two parties will represent a district, which enables a more accurate representation of the broad spectrum of political opinion. These multi-seat districts also lower the threshold for racial minorities to select a preferred candidate of their own.

Winning with fair voting in a super-district: If FairVote were working from scratch, we could draw the super-district lines with more geographical compactness. Because we created the super-districts from the recently approved congressional districts, however, our super-districts also appear to look rather gerrymandered. Even so, the super-district approach demonstrates that full representation can be attained even within these highly gerrymandered confines.

Georgia 2011 Redistricting Plan Georgia Fair Voting Plan with Super-Districts

From the 14 congressional districts in Georgia, the FairVote proposal creates four super-districts: three three-seat districts and one five-seat district. Each congressional seat still represents approximately 691,975 people, but with a fair voting system, representation is far more likely to reflect the political opinion and demographic makeup of the state. In a three-seat district, like-minded voters are assured of a representative if they consist of at least 25% of the electorate, while in a five-seat district, like-minded voters are assured of a representative if they consist of at least 16.67% of the electorate.

Super-district Breakdown

Super-District	Number of House Seats	Population Per Seat	Threshold of Exclusion	Districts Used to Make SD
1	3	691975	25% + 1	3, 13, 14
2	3	691975	25% + 1	9, 10, 12
3	3	691975	25% + 1	1, 2, 8
4	5	691975	16.67% + 1	4, 5, 6, 7, 11

Partisanship Analysis: Based on the 2008 presidential election, Georgia has a partisanship index of 43.79% Democratic. However, the recent plan passed by the state legislature does not reflect accurately the political composition of the entire state and grossly exaggerates Republican influence. Based on district partisanship, the Georgia plan would result in ten safe Republican seats, four Democratic seats (three safe, one leaning), and no toss-ups. To put this in perspective, the statewide Republican partisanship index of 56.21% should result in the GOP winning only eight seats, yet the Georgia plan is designed to guarantee Republicans two more seats than their expected share. Democrats, on the other hand, should win at least five seats, but they are only given the opportunity for four. To win at least five seats, Democratic candidates would need to succeed in flipping a gerrymandered, safe Republican district.

Additionally, Georgia's plan produces uncompetitive elections all over the state: 13 out of the 14 districts are projected as safe victories for one party or the other. Over the next decade, Democratic voters living in the ten safely Republican districts will have no shot at electing a representative who reflects their ideological preference, likewise for any Republican residents in the three urban Atlanta districts, which have a heavy Democratic tilt. There is just one district that might offer a competitive election, but it requires the Republicans to perform well in a Democratic-leaning district.

Georgia Plan's Partisanship Breakdown

District	Population Per Seat	Partisanship (D)	Safe Seats (D)	Leaning Seats (D)	Toss-Up	Leaning Seats (R)	Safe Seats (R)
1	691974	41.12%	0	0	0	0	1
2	691976	54.54%	0	1	0	0	0
3	691974	30.73%	0	0	0	0	1
4	691976	69.86%	1	0	0	0	0
5	691976	81.08%	1	0	0	0	0
6	691975	36.95%	0	0	0	0	1
7	691975	35.93%	0	0	0	0	1
8	691976	34.52%	0	0	0	0	1
9	691975	21.20%	0	0	0	0	1
10	691976	35.59%	0	0	0	0	1
11	691975	31.57%	0	0	0	0	1
12	691975	40.56%	0	0	0	0	1
13	691976	63.81%	1	0	0	0	0
14	691974	24.81%	0	0	0	0	1
Statewide	9,687,653	43.79%	3	1	0	0	10

*Partisanship percentages are based on an interpretation of the 2008 presidential election. Our source for the data is DailyKos.com . The seats were allocated according to the following ranges: toss-up districts have a partisanship between 46% and 54%, leaning seats have a partisanship between 54% and 58%, and safe seats have a partisanship greater than 58%. This does not reflect incumbent advantages.

In stark contrast, the FairVote super-district plan accurately represents the state's partisan divide. FairVote's super-district plan shows that both major parties have the opportunity to win at least one seat in every super-district. Republicans would have a clear advantage to win seven seats and be well positioned to add between one to two seats based on the quality of their candidates and the national partisan swing. Democrats would have a clear advantage in four districts and a reasonable chance to add up to one to two more seats.

In addition to providing more accurate partisan representation, FairVote's plan triggers other positive effects: it sparks voter interest and helps to repair the emergent ideological divide between the left and the right. Almost all Republican and Democratic voters will be able to elect a candidate in their district, who represents their political views. Voters will also have a real choice within their party's candidates, since each super-district election presents each party with a chance to win multiple seats. As far as competition, the current Georgia plan offers zero competitive districts; in the super-district plan, every voter would experience a competitive election. Once in Congress, representatives from opposing parties would share constituents of super-districts and, therefore, have new incentives to cooperate on at least some legislative initiatives. Since multiple candidates of a political party are able to win office under the fair voting plan, there will be more opportunities for moderate candidates to win office and contribute their temperate message to the political forum.

FairVote's Super-district Partisan Breakdown

Super-District	Number of Seats	Threshold of Exclusion	Partisanship (D)	Safe Seats (D)	Leaning Seats (D)	Toss-Up	Leaning Seats (R)	Safe Seats (R)
1	3	25% + 1	40.84%	1	0	0	0	2
2	3	25% + 1	32.56%	0	1	0	0	2
3	3	25% + 1	43.47%	1	0	0	1	1
4	5	16.67% + 1	51.93%	2	0	1	0	2
Statewide	14	-	43.79%	4	1	1	1	7

Race and Voting Power: When a racial minority group votes as a bloc and meets the threshold, it has the power to elect a strongly preferred candidate, although it may not choose necessarily a racial minority. Under Georgia's new plan, there are three districts with a black voting age population (VAP) greater than 50% and an additional "opportunity," which has a black VAP within three percentage points of the threshold. Over the next ten years, black voters will be positioned well to maintain voting power in these four districts. Latinos, for their part, currently make up over seven percent of the state's total population but have negligible influence in any single-member district.

Georgia Plan Race Breakdown

District	Total Population	Black VAP%	Latino VAP%	Black Voting Power	Latino Voting Power
1	691974	28.35%	4.95%	0	0
2	691976	48.91%	4.03%	1 Opportunity	0
3	691974	21.96%	4.35%	0	0
4	691976	55.36%	8.15%	1	0
5	691976	56.56%	6.87%	1	0
6	691975	12.36%	11.99%	0	0
7	691975	17.10%	16.76%	0	0
8	691976	28.17%	4.85%	0	0
9	691975	6.41%	8.95%	0	0
10	691976	23.74%	3.96%	0	0
11	691975	14.97%	9.26%	0	0
12	691975	32.77%	4.51%	0	0
13	691976	52.89%	8.70%	1	0
14	691974	7.97%	8.13%	0	0
Statewide	9,687,653	29.15%	7.49%	3 + 1 Opportunity	0

While the Georgia plan offers opportunities for African Americans in four of the state's 14 districts, under the fair voting plan, there is a real possibility to have the black community represented in all four super-districts. Currently, representation of the black community centers around three urban Atlanta districts, but a super-district plan would allow representation that extends throughout all regions of the state. Our fair voting system combines the Georgia legislature's highly concentrated majority-minority districts with predominantly white constituencies, while maintaining at least the same number of opportunities for the black community. In Super-Districts 1, 3, and 4, the black VAP surpasses the threshold required to win a seat. Yet another opportunity exists in Super-District 3, where a second seat representing the black community lies within three percentage points of the threshold. In Super-District 2, black voting power falls just below our opportunity category. Nevertheless, black voters have significant influence at 21% in a super-district with a 25% threshold.

If the Georgia congressional delegation proportionally reflected the demographics of the state, the Latino community would have the voting power to elect one preferred candidate. Under this fair voting plan, the Latino community does not surpass the threshold in any super-district, but it does have significant presence in Super-District 4, where its 11% VAP just misses the super-district's 16.67% threshold. Given the competitive nature of super-district elections, candidates in Super-District 4 would presumably cater to the Latino community.

FairVote's Super-District Race Breakdown

Super-District	Number of Seats	Threshold of Exclusion	Black VAP%	Latino VAP%	Black Voting Power	Latino Voting Power
1	3	25% +1	27.38%	7.04%	1	0
2	3	25% + 1	20.95%	5.81%	0	0
3	3	25% + 1	35.12%	4.61%	1 + 1 Opportunity	0
4	5	16.67% + 1	31.55%	10.52%	1	0
Statewide	14	-	29.15%	7.49%	3 + 1 Opportunity	0

Conclusion

Although Georgia Republicans clearly engineered a partisan gerrymander, electoral problems do not rest solely with Democrats and Republicans. Rather, the problem lies with the winner-take-all nature of single-member district elections, which allow district lines to determine most outcomes no matter how they are drawn. In this analysis, we have not touched the blatantly partisan lines that were our building blocks; we merely changed the rules and showed that fair voting provides immediate dividends to all voters.

If the redistricting games of winner-take-all continue, voters are likely to become even more disenchanted with our political system. Under Georgia's redistricting plan and many others like it across the country, a vast amount of voters are left unrepresented. Many of these congressional elections lack competition or offer just two candidates to the diverse array of voters. It is clear that one candidate cannot possibly reflect the makeup of her district, as winner-take-all assumes. Therefore, we need a new approach that will more accurately reflect the residents of each state. By adopting fair voting methods in super-districts, we can attain a more representative democracy.

Maryland Gerrymander Triggers Support for Fair Voting

Tue, 18 Oct 2011 13:44:13 -0700

The Maryland state senate today passed a proposed map for congressional redistricting that has been highly controversial for its gerrymandered district lines and disputes involving partisanship and race. State Senator Jamie Raskin, a constitutional law professor and former FairVote board member, made a well-received floor speech arguing that the best way to address the problem in the future was to put voters in charge over their representation. Raskin shared FairVote's plan for fair voting in super-districts with three and five members that would lead to nearly every voter being able to elect a favorite candidate.

FairVote is drawing such plans for all states in the nation. They could be established for congressional elections by repealing a 1967 law requiring winner-take-all districts.

* Fair Voting Plan for Maryland

* Baltimore Sun on Sen. Raskin's speech

* The congressional map as passed state senate

* Example of Fair Voting plans for Ohio and North Carolina

* Commentary from FairVote's Rob Richie and Krist Novoselic

Low Voter Turnout in West Virginia’s Special Election for Governor Part of Disturbing Pattern

Thu, 06 Oct 2011 05:50:27 -0700

Voters in West Virginia went to the polls West Virginia went to the polls on Tuesday, October 4 to elect a new governor The winner was Democrat Earl Tomblin, who had served as interim governor since Joe Manchin’s departure from the position after winning a U.S. Senate seat last year

Well, let’s say “some voters went to the polls.” In fact, only 25% of registered voters turned out to vote for a total of 304,145 people. Tomblin won just 150,732 votes in a state with 1,852,994 residents.

The question is, what is happening to our electoral process that is causing such low voter turnout rates? Is it not troubling that our elections, as in the case of West Virginia, are really only generating representation from only one-fourth of the electorate? Holding an election is a democratic process that enables citizens the chance to shape the future of their government. When maximum participation is not met, true representation of the full electorate can never be fulfilled.

It’s not just West Virginia. Last month the states of New York (9th District) and Nevada (2nd District) held special elections to fill open congressional seats. In New York, only one in five voters participated in the special election. The Huffington Post reported Huffington Post reported that citizens in the district were very frustrated with the poor economy.

In Nevada, the New York Times found people speaking of “fear and dread” when asked about the future of the country. Not many voters found the candidates’ arguments convincing, with few actually believing that whoever they elected would be able to make their living situation better. Overall, only 33% of the district’s registered voters cast a ballot.

It is clear that hard times and the growing amount of frustration about the state of the economy is taking a toll on voter participation. In an August 2011 Washington Post poll, just 26% of Americans actually believe the federal government could solve the country’s economic problems, a percentage that fell 21 points since October of 2010. It is a concern when people are upset with government but do not see elections as a way to fix it.

A disconnect has occurred regarding the effectiveness of elections, but my hope is that if citizens across the country were to come together to the polls, as a family, community, or organization, that strength in numbers would produce a far better outcome regarding policies for the future of the country than if voters decided to stay home.

Think of it as a basketball game. If you sit out of the game on the sidelines, you might send a message to the other team that you do not care much about interacting with them, but you can never score points, never have input in the results, and ultimately, the other team will win. Our political leaders will never have the time to sit with every constituent one-on-one. An election is that designated time to speak to them, and without participation in the electoral process, the government is less likely to make policies that citizens favor because the government has not received their input.

FairVote is going to be regularly reporting on voter turnout in our elections and looking for good ideas people have to increase it. We have a number of reform ideas that we believe would help, but the problem is more deeply rooted than any set of structural reforms. We need your ideas – and need to keep putting a spotlight on the problem.

Shelby County v. Holder: Upholding Section 5 of Voting Rights Act

Tue, 06 Sep 2011 10:26:48 -0700

Introduction
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) has been touted as one of the most powerful federal laws enhancing civil rights in American history. It has been amended several times, most recently in 2006. Those amendments extended voting rights protections under Section 5 of VRA, requiring states and localities covered by Section 5 to submit changes in law and practice to the Department of Justice or the District Court of the District of Columbia for “preclearance.” The preclearance process prevents changes that would weaken voting rights for racial minorities – sometimes directly, but far more often, the very fact that jurisdictions know they must present changes for review serves as a deterrent to jurisdictions seeking to implement potentially discriminatory practices.

For an excellent review of key legal cases involving Section 5, see Pavel Sternberg’s newly published FairVote report. But those challenges to Section 5 are far from over, as evidenced by new litigation, including the State of Alabama’s recent constitutional challenge to the preclearance requirement. This month, the D.C. district court struck down Shelby County, Alabama’s facial and as applied challenges to Section 5, finding that Section 5 was a valid remedy for discriminatory voting practices. Here is a review of the key issues in the Shelby County case.

Procedural History
In April 2010, plaintiff Shelby County, Alabama, brought an action against defendant Attorney General seeking a declaratory judgment that Section 5 of the VRA was facially unconstitutional, and also a permanent injunction to prevent the Attorney General from enforcing Section 5 against Shelby County. The D.C. district court denied the facial challenge to Section 5 of the VRA, finding that it was a “congruent and proportional” remedy to the extensive history of voting discrimination for which Section 5 was enacted. The court employed the standard of review set out in the Supreme Court case, City of Boerne v. Flores. Under this standard of congruent and proportional, the court found that it was necessary to look not only to the history of voting rights abuses, but also to the legislative record considered by Congress during the 2006 renewal of Section 5 in order to determine whether Section 5 was a congruent and proportional remedy to the problem. Finding that the congressional record clearly pointed to a need for a remedy, for which Section 5 was appropriate, the court upheld Section 5’s validity.

Analysis
The court reviewed the reasons for Section 5’s importance, noting that it was originally enacted in response to mostly southern states’ attempt to disenfranchise minority voters at the polls. The court also reviewed Section 5 as an important legal step forward for those disenfranchised under discriminatory practices; for under Section 5, the burden shifted from the victim having to come forward to bring suit, to the state to have to bring its practices to either the D.C. district court or the Attorney General for preclearance. Also the court noted that Section 5 was originally intended only as a temporary measure to be in place for five years. However, Section 5 has been renewed three times, most recently in 2006 – an indication that Congress considers voting discrimination a problem enough that Section 5 should remain and that sixteen states should be covered by its preclearance requirement. The states fully or partially covered under Section 5’s preclearance requirement include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, California, Florida, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, and South Dakota.

The bulk of the court’s opinion was devoted to determining whether the City of Boerne v. Flores standard of review was the correct standard of review for Section 5 of the VRA. City of Boerne v. Flores was a Supreme Court decision originally deciding the constitutionality of a statute enacted by Congress under its powers under § 5 of the 14th Amendment. However, the VRA is a statute whose enforcement powers stem from the 15th Amendment, not the 14th Amendment. Under the § 5 of the 14th Amendment, Congress has the power to enforce, but not to define constitutional rights. The power to enforce such rights, as determined in City of Boerne v. Flores, is whether a law is congruent and proportional to the harm the law is seeking to protect. The D.C. district court determined that the analysis for enforcing laws created under the 15th Amendment were “virtually identical” to the enforcement of laws created under the 14th Amendment, and therefore, that City of Boerne v. Flores was the correct standard to apply. Alternatively, the court found that the VRA could also be analyzed under the same standard of review as the 14th Amendment because the VRA was originally enacted to prevent racial discrimination, which is part of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection provision.

After determining that City of Boerne v. Flores was the correct standard, the court entered into an analysis under the three prongs set out under City of Boerne v. Flores: 1) identifying the constitutional right the law seeks to protect; 2) determining whether there is a history and pattern of unconstitutional state conduct; and 3) assessing whether the legislation is congruent and proportional to that conduct. Traditionally, the court noted, that where the right at stake is a fundamental right, the Supreme Court has been more likely to find the legislation valid. See Nev. Dept. of Human Resources v. Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721 (2003); Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004); cf. Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of Ala. V. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001); Kimbel v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000). The court stated that the rights protected under the VRA were not only the right to vote, but also the right to be free from racial discrimination, both fundamental rights warranting heightened scrutiny. By analyzing the extensive legislative record, the court noted factors including: minority voter registration and turnout, the lack of minority elected officials, Section 5 enforcement suits, and Section 2 litigation. Thus, the court determined that the second prong was met because voting rights abuses were still a problem enough for Section 5’s continued existence. Finally, under the third prong, the court stated that Section 5 of the VRA was congruent and proportional as both a remedial and prophylactic measure to target the voting discrimination practices it was meant to solve. The court found that Section 5 was limited enough in its coverage to only the most serious offenders, and by also allowing for a “bailout” in certain circumstances.

In answer to Shelby County’s claim that Section 5 is unconstitutional because the preclearance requirement violates the 10th Amendment’s principle of “equal sovereignty”, the court simply reverted back to its reasoning that Section 5 was a congruent and proportional remedy for the historical and current voting rights abuses in the states in which it is implemented. The court stated that where laws differentiate based on geographical area, a state must be able to demonstrate that the law violates equal sovereignty by failing to have a sufficient relation to the problem it is meant to target. The court stated that since Section 5 has a sufficient relationship to the problem – voting discrimination – that it targets, and that the problem exists predominantly in the states originally covered under Section 5 and those continued to be added to Section 5’s preclearance coverage, that the 10th Amendment was not violated.

Therefore, under the court’s extensive analysis, the arguments brought forth by Shelby County were denied. Shelby County’s challenge to Section 5’s constitutionality on its face means that there would be no circumstances under which Section 5 could possibly be legitimate. The court’s findings that Section 5 is a congruent and proportionate remedy to voting rights abuses historically and currently in the United States means that Shelby County’s argument must fail. Thus, Section 5 remains valid.

Impact
Looking to the future, it seems likely that this case is a positive step forward for the preservation of Section 5. The D.C. district court laid out a thorough analysis of Section 5’s validity under the City of Boerne v. Flores standard, and found Section 5 to be valid. The Supreme Court has repeatedly used the congruent and proportional standard throughout its jurisprudence to uphold laws protecting insular minorities. Though the Supreme Court has not used the congruent and proportional standard to analyze Congress’ enforcement powers under the 15th Amendment, the D.C. district court soundly addressed the similarities between the 14th and 15th Amendments and the reasons for their identical treatment. The court in the instant case also noted that Section 5 of the VRA could alternatively be analyzed under the enforcement provisions of the 14th Amendment, as it was enacted, and as it continues to stand for the equal protection of minorities from voting discrimination.

It is noteworthy that Justice Thomas famously stated in Nw. Austin Mun. Util. Dist. No. One v. Holder, 129 S. Ct. 2504, 2519 (2009) (Nw. Austin II) (Thomas, J. concurring in judgment in part, dissenting in part) that “the lack of current evidence of intentional discrimination with respect to voting renders § 5 unconstitutional.” However, the Supreme Court has yet to overturn Section 5. Now, with a strong case upholding its continued existence, supported by an extensive list of evidence of voting discrimination – the very argument Justice Thomas used in his critique of Section 5 – the future of Section 5 looks bright.