Elena Kagan was right about the harms of gerrymandering.
What injury does partisan gerrymandering cause? Until last year’s Supreme Court decision in Gill v. Whitford, almost everybody would have given the same answer. Gerrymandering harms parties by costing them seatsthey would have won if the district lines hadn’t been manipulated. In her impressive concurrence in Whitford, though, Justice Elena Kagan offered a necessary and expanded accounting of the damage it wreaks. In this view, the problem with gerrymandering isn’t just that it costs parties seats but also that it impedes their associational activities. As Kagan put it, “members of the disfavored party,” having been “deprived of their natural political strength by a partisan gerrymander,” may “face difficulties fundraising, registering voters, attracting volunteers, generating support from independents, and recruiting candidates to run for office.” All of these party functions are protected by the First Amendment because they involve the right of association. And all of them, according to Kagan, may be inhibited by gerrymandering. Since Whitford, plaintiffs in several states have mounted associational challenges against district plans. They have introduced testimony that after the plans went into effect, fewer candidates from the victimized party ran for office, donors gave less money to that party’s candidates, voters became less supportive of the party, and so on. This evidence is certainly relevant, but on its own, it can’t prove causation. It can’t show, that is, that the litigants’ associational difficulties were due togerrymandering—and not, say, to Trump’s election, a shift in public opinion, a strong economy, or any number of other factors. To come closer to establishing a causal link, political scientist Chris Warshaw and I first assembled a data set of gerrymandering. We used several common measures of partisan advantage, all calculated for congressional and statehouse elections from 1972 to the present. We then quantified as many as we could of the associational activities that Kagan mentioned in Whitford. In sum, we found data on the seats that parties contest, the quality of parties’ candidates, the contributions these candidates receive, and voters’ partisan preferences. Lastly, we controlled for time- and state-related factors that might also influence the relationship between gerrymandering and party health. In a nutshell, we found that Kagan was right. A party disadvantaged by gerrymandering fails to contest more districts. The candidates it does nominate have weaker credentials. Donors give less money to these candidates. And voters are less inclined to support them. Moreover, these effects are statistically significant at both the congressional and statehouse levels and hold no matter how gerrymandering is measured. The effects are substantively quite large too. A 1 standard deviation rise in gerrymandering, for example, is linked to about a 5 percentage point drop in the targeted party’s share of campaign contributions. It’s also tied to roughly a 9 point decline in relative candidate quality, as measured by incumbency or having previously won another office. These results should be helpful to the plaintiffs currently pursuing associational claims around the country. To date, these litigants have relied on qualitative testimony from injured voters, candidates, and party officials. This evidence can now be complemented by our data-driven conclusion that, across many states and years, gerrymandering hinders parties in performing several key functions. Our study provides the methodological rigor that has been absent, so far, from the courtroom. Our findings should also be of interest to the Supreme Court as it prepares to hear two more gerrymandering cases next month. The plaintiffs in Whitforddidn’t allege associational burdens. The court thus left “for another day consideration of other possible theories of harm not presented here.” That day has now arrived. The litigants in the pending Maryland and North Carolina suits have raised associational claims. The lower courts in these cases have also ruled in favor of the claims, holding that the district maps are unconstitutional because they breach the First Amendment right of association. This time around, then, the high court won’t be able to dodge Kagan’s associational account of gerrymandering. And when the justices confront this view, they should find that it’s correct. Gerrymandering does systematically undermine party health. And it does so not just in Maryland and North Carolina, and not just during the last decade—but, as our study shows, throughout the nation and over almost half a century.Recently in Jurisprudence
相关推荐
- 最近发表
-
- Supercritical geothermal power: Limitless promise or impossible dream?
- Ruling bloc urges repeal of taxation on investors' gains
- US again downplays informal talks with NK
- Seoul to work with Hanoi to pursue peace on Korean Peninsula
- Google Gemini now allows AI
- Turns out there is hope for true love, and it's from Twitter
- N. Korea to hold ruling party plenary meeting on agriculture this month
- Joe Biden mocks Bloomberg's meme strategy and calls out his fake friendship with Obama
- Malan retires from international cricket
- Bill Maher doesn't understand how Milo Yiannopoulos works
- 随机阅读
-
- Trump won't stop making a deceptive bird claim. Experts debunk it.
- Kate Nash to Snapchat: 'Where's my paycheck?'
- 雅电集团多项措施保障电网安全运行
- Apple announces $129 Smart Battery Case for iPhone XR, XS, XS Max
- How do you make safe, cheap nuclear reactors? Bury them a mile deep
- Swiping is here to turn the YouTube app into ultimate time
- Police fail to enforce warrant to perform autopsy on farmer
- US again downplays informal talks with NK
- Deceased K
- Yoon warns North Korea will pay 'heavy price' for provocations
- Apple responds to people's tweets with entire commercials
- Twitter bug that made your private tweets public went unnoticed for over 4 years
- Tesla Robotaxis aren't coming in August, it seems
- 50天 查处3000多起违法停车行为
- Bill Maher doesn't understand how Milo Yiannopoulos works
- Twitter bug that made your private tweets public went unnoticed for over 4 years
- The Wonderful World of Christmas Trees
- Apple responds to people's tweets with entire commercials
- US again downplays informal talks with NK
- Ramos 'never dreamt' of World Cup hat
- 搜索
-
- 友情链接
-