State-level redistricting processes shape congressional elections and representation, and recent reform efforts have propelled congressional redistricting procedures into mainstream political discussion. We ask whether citizens’ satisfaction with redistricting in their state is shaped by ends (election results) or by means (type of redistricting process). Leveraging questions on the 2022 Cooperative Election Study, state-level variation in redistricting processes, and 2022 election outcomes, we find that both ends and means shape the public’s satisfaction with redistricting in their state. Among respondents who correctly identified their state’s redistricting process for the 2022 midterm elections, those living in a state with a redistricting commission reported greater support for redistricting than those living in a state with legislature-controlled redistricting. We also find that respondents who are represented by a copartisan in the U.S. House are more supportive of their state’s congressional redistricting process than both respondents who identify as independent and respondents who are represented by an opposing party legislator. Successful electoral reforms require public buy-in, and our results suggest that partisan power considerations and a lack of public knowledge about congressional redistricting present barriers to reforming state-level redistricting processes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AldrichJohn, ReiflerJason, and MungerMichael C.. 2014. “Sophisticated and myopic? Citizen preferences for Electoral College reform.” Public Choice, 158(3–4):541–558.
2.
AltmanMicah and McDonaldMichael. 2015. “Redistricting and polarization.” In Yoshinaka, Antoine and James A. Thurber (Eds.), American Gridlock: The Sources, Character, and Impact of Political Polarization, pp. 45–67. Cambridge University Press.
3.
AltmanMicah and McDonaldMichael. 2018. “Redistricting by formula: An Ohio reform experiment.” American Politics Research, 46(1):103–131.
4.
AltmanMicah and McDonaldMichael . 2013. “Paradoxes of political reform: Congressional redistricting in Florida.” In McKee, Seth (Ed.), Jigsaw Puzzle Politics in the Sunshine State. pp. 163–183. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.
5.
AndersonChristopher, BlaisJ. André, BowlerShaun, DonovanTodd, and ListhaugOla. 2005. Losers’ Consent: Elections and Democratic Legitimacy. Oxford University Press.
6.
Ansolabehere, Stephen, and , RiversDouglas. 2013. “Cooperative Survey Research.” Annual Review of Political Science, 16(1):307–329; doi: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-022811-160625
7.
AnsolabehereStephen, SchaffnerBrian, and ShihMarissa. 2023. Guide to the 2022 Cooperative Election Study. Technical report Cooperative Election Study Available from: https://dataverse.harvard.edu/file.xhtml?fileId=7359254
8.
BestRobin E., LemSteve B., MaglebyDaniel B., and McDonaldMichael D.. 2022. “Do redistricting commissions avoid partisan gerrymanders?” American Politics Research, 50(3):379–395.
9.
BiggersDaniel R. 2019. “Does partisan self-interest dictate support for election reform? Experimental evidence on the willingness of citizens to alter the costs of voting for electoral gain.” Political Behavior, 41(4):1025–1046.
10.
BiggersDaniel R. and BowlerShaun. 2022. “Citizen assessment of electoral reforms: Do evaluations of fairness blunt self-interest?” Political Behavior, 44(1):435–454.
11.
BiggersDaniel R. and BowlerShaun. 2023. “How priming fairness and priming constitutionality impact the effect of partisan self-interest on citizen support for election reforms.” Public Opinion Quarterly, 87(1):156–169.
12.
BolsenToby, DruckmanJames N., and CookFay Lomax. 2014. “The influence of partisan motivated reasoning on public opinion.” Political Behavior, 36(2):235–262.
13.
BowlerShaun and DonovanTodd.. 2007. “Reasoning about institutional change: Winners, losers and support for electoral reforms.” British Journal of Political Science, 37(3):455–476.
14.
BowlerShaun and DonovanTodd. 2013. The Limits of Electoral Reform. New York: Oxford University Press.
15.
BowlerShaun and DonovanTodd. 2016. “A partisan model of electoral reform: Voter identification laws and confidence in state elections.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 16(3):340–361.
16.
BowlerShaun and DonovanTodd. 2018. “Partisan predispositions and public support for making it easier to vote.” American Politics Research, 46(6):971–995.
17.
BrownJacob R. and EnosRyan D.. 2021. “The measurement of partisan sorting for 180 million voters.” Nature Human Behaviour, 5(8):998–1008.
18.
ButlerDavid and CainBruce E.. 1992. Congressional Redistricting: Comparative and Theoretical Perspectives. New Topics in Politics New York. Toronto: Macmillan Pub. Co.; Maxwell Macmillan Canada.
19.
CainBruce E. 1985. “Assessing the partisan effects of redistricting.” American Political Science Review, 79(2):320–333.
20.
CainBruce E. 2012. “Redistricting commissions: A better political buffer.” Yale Law Journal, 121(7):1808–1844.
21.
CarsonJamie L. and CrespinMichael H.. 2004. “The effect of state redistricting methods on electoral competition in United States House of Representatives races.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 4(4):455–469.
22.
CarsonJamie L., CrespinMichael H., FinocchiaroCharles J., and RohdeDavid W.. 2007. “Redistricting and party polarization in the US House of Representatives.” American Politics Research, 35(6):878–904.
23.
CarsonJamie L., CrespinMichael H., and WilliamsonRyan D.. 2014. “Reevaluating the effects of redistricting on electoral competition, 1972–2012.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 14(2):165–177.
24.
CollJoseph, J. TolbertCaroline, and RitterMichael. 2022. “Understanding preferences for comprehensive electoral reform in the United States.” Social Science Quarterly, 103(7):1523–1538.
25.
CrespinMichael H. 2005. “Using geographic information systems to measure district change, 2000–2002.” Political Analysis, 13(3):253–260.
26.
DonovanTodd, TolbertCaroline, and HarperSamuel. 2023. “Considerations of American democracy, feeling like a loser, and support for changing the rules.” American Politics Research, 51(5):599–607.
27.
DrutmanLee. 2021. What We Know about Congressional Primaries and Congressional Primary Reform. New America.
28.
EdwardsBarry, SanchezAngel, YeargainTyler, CrespinMichael H., and HaydenJessica. 2016. “Can independent redistricting commissions lead us out of the political thicket.” Albany Government Law Review, 9(2):288–340.
29.
EdwardsBarry, CrespinMichael, WilliamsonRyan D., and PalmerMaxwell. 2017. “Institutional control of redistricting and the geography of representation.” The Journal of Politics, 79(2):722–726.
30.
FougereJoshua, AnsolabehereStephen, and PersilyNathaniel. 2010. “Partisanship, public opinion, and redistricting.” Election Law Journal, 9(4):325–347.
31.
GrahamMatthew H. and SvolikMilan W.. 2020. “Democracy in America? Partisanship, polarization, and the robustness of support for democracy in the United States.” American Political Science Review, 114(2):392–409.
32.
GronkePaul, HicksWilliam D., McKeeSeth C., StewartCharlesIII, and DunhamJames. 2019. “Voter ID laws: A view from the public.” Social Science Quarterly, 100(1):215–232.
33.
HayesDanny and McKeeSeth C.. 2009. “The participatory effects of redistricting.” American Journal of Political Science, 53(4):1006–1023.
KeenaAlex, LatnerMichael, AnthonyJ. McGann McGann, and SmithCharles Anthony. 2021. Gerrymandering the States: Partisanship, Race, and the Transformation of American Federalism. New York: Cambridge University Press.
36.
McCarthyDevin. 2019. “Partisanship vs. principle: Understanding public opinion on same-day registration.” Public Opinion Quarterly, 83(3):568–583.
37.
McCarthyDevin. 2022. “Limits of partisanship in citizen preferences on redistricting.” Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy, 21(2):155–170.
38.
McDonaldMichael P. 2004. “A comparative analysis of redistricting institutions in the United States, 2001-02.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 4(4):371–395.
39.
McDonaldMichael P. 2007. “Regulating redistricting.” PS: Political Science & Politics, 40(4):675–679.
40.
McDonaldMichael P. and SamplesJohn. 2007. The Marketplace of Democracy: Electoral Competition and American Politics. Rowman & Littlefield.
41.
McKeeSeth C., ShinoEnrijeta, and SmithDaniel A.. 2022. “Redrawn, withdrawn: Effects of redistricting on the representative-constituent relationship.” Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy, 21(4):280–295.
42.
MillerPeter, and GrofmanBernard. 2013. “Redistricting commissions in the Western United States.” UC Irvine Law Review, 3(3):637–668.
43.
NelsonMatthew. 2023. “Independent redistricting commissions are associated with more competitive elections.” PS: Political Science & Politics, 56(2):207–212.
44.
PanagopoulosCostas. 2013. “Public awareness and attitudes about redistricting institutions.” Journal of Politics and Law, 6(3):45–54.
SmithDaniel A., TolbertCaroline J., and KellerAmanda M.. 2010. “Electoral and structural losers and support for a national referendum in the US.” Electoral Studies, 29(3):509–520.
47.
SunshineJason and TylerTom R.. 2003. “The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing.” Law & Society Review, 37(3):513–547.
48.
TolbertCaroline J., SmithDaniel A., and GreenJohn C.. 2009. “Strategic voting and legislative redistricting reform: District and statewide representational winners and losers.” Political Research Quarterly, 62(1):92–109.
49.
VanderMolenKathryn and MilyoJeffrey. 2016. “Public confidence in the redistricting process: The role of independent commissions, state legislative polarization, and partisan preferences.” State and Local Government Review, 48(4):236–245.
50.
VirginSheahan G. 2023. “The effect of core values on support for electoral reform: Evidence from two survey experiments.” American Journal of Political Science, 67(1):239–256.
51.
WinburnJonathan, HendersonMichael, and DowlingConor M.. 2017. “From the constituent’s eye: Experimental evidence on the district selection preferences of individuals.” Political Research Quarterly, 70(1):32–41.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
