Redistricting and Electoral Competition:  Part I 

 On Election Day, 2005, more than 48 million people in three states voted on whether non-partisan commissions, rather than elected state politicians, should conduct legislative redistricting.  Though these initiatives were defeated, the popular movement towards non-partisan redistricting is gaining strength.  Activists point to the systems in Iowa and Arizona - currently the only states without serious legislative involvement - as the way of future redistricting in this country. 

 The the non-partisan commission ballot initiatives - Proposition 77 in California and Issue Four in Ohio - were major policy items in the respective states.  (The initiative in Florida was citizen-sponsored and attracted less attention).  California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger placed the issue at the heart of his plan of reform, commenting that "Nothing, absolutely nothing, is more important than the principle of 'one person - one vote.'"  These measures have also received broad bipartisan support from politicians, organized interest groups, and grassroots organizations.  Though partisan political interest has played a role, many of these groups support the proposed move to independent commissions out of a sincere desire to increase competitiveness in the political system.  Unfortunately, the latest academic research suggests that this well-intentioned effort is misplaced:  Gerrymandering has not caused the increasing trend of low legislative turnover in the Congress. 

 Proponents of independent commissions argue that redistricting by politicians has led to a vast rise in incumbent reelection rates.  For instance, in the US House of Representatives, members are reelected at a 
staggering 98% rate.  Prior to World War II, that rate hovered around 85%.  Many in favor of independent commissions argue that new technologies available to redistricters, such as sophisticated map drawing software, 
has allowed bi-partisan gerrymandering.  Incumbents band together to protect each other's electoral prospects, creating impregnable districts packed with supporters.  As Bob Stern of the non-partisan Center for 
Governmental Studies has said, "This lack of competition is due significantly to the legislature's decision to redraw electoral districts to protect party boundaries." 

 There are, however, a number of other factors that might explain the increase in incumbent reelection rates.  For instance, there is a lot more money in politics than in the past.  Incumbents, who usually have greater fund raising ability, raise large war chests for their campaigns.  A more polarized electorate can also increase incumbent reelection rates because there are fewer swing voters for a potential challenger to persuade.  Growing media penetration in the post-war period provides incumbents with free advertising, further increasing their prospects.  All of these effects are magnified when more qualified challengers choose not to run against incumbents benefiting from these factors. 

 Tomorrow, we'll continue with our discussion of alternative explanations of low electoral turnover, plus a little about what we might do about it.