The elevated levels of party polarization observed in the contemporary Congress have been attributed to a variety of factors. One of the more commonly recurring themes among observers of congressional politics is that changes in district boundaries resulting from the redistricting process are a root cause. Using a new data set linking congressional districts from 1962 to 2002, we offer a direct test of this claim. Our results show that although there is an overall trend of increasing polarization, districts that have undergone significant changes as a result of redistricting have become even more polarized. Although the effect is relatively modest, it suggests that redistricting is one among other factors that produce party polarization in the House and may help to explain the elevated levels of polarization in the House relative to the Senate.
Abramowitz, A.I., Alexander, B., & Gunning, M. (2006). Incumbency, redistricting, and the decline of competition in U.S. House elections. Journal of Politics, 68, 75-88.
2.
Aldrich, J.H., & Rohde, D.W. (1997-1998). The transition to Republican rule in the House: Implications for theories of congressional politics. Political Science Quarterly, 112, 541-567.
3.
Aldrich, J.H., & Rohde, D.W. (2001). The logic of conditional party government: Revisiting the electoral connection. In L. C. Dodd & B. I. Oppenheimer (Eds.), Congress reconsidered (7th ed., pp. 269-292). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
4.
Ansolabehere, S., Snyder, J.M., Jr., & Stewart, C., III. (2000). Old voters, new voters, and the personal vote: Using redistricting to measure the incumbency advantage. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 17-34.
5.
Ansolabehere, S., Snyder, J.M., Jr., & Stewart, C., III. (2001). Candidate positioning in U.S. House elections. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 136-159.
6.
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962).
7.
Balz, D. (2005, March 29). Partisan polarization intensified in 2004 election. Washington Post, p. A4.
8.
Boatright, R.G. (2004). Static ambition in a changing world: Legislators' preparations for, and responses to, redistricting. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 4, 436-454.
9.
Brady, D.W., Han, H., & Pope, J.C. (2007). Primary elections and candidate ideology: Out of step with the primary electorate?Legislative Studies Quarterly , 32, 79-105.
10.
Butler, D., & Cain, B. (1992). Congressional redistricting: Comparative and theoretical perspectives. New York: Macmillan .
11.
Canes-Wrone, B., Brady, D.W., & Cogan, J.F. (2002). Out of step, out of office: Electoral accountability and House members' voting. American Political Science Review , 96, 127-140.
12.
Carson, J.L. (2005). Strategy, selection, and candidate competition in U.S. House and Senate elections. Journal of Politics, 67, 1-28.
13.
Collie, M.P., & Mason, J.L. (2000). The electoral connection between party and constituency reconsidered: Evidence from the U.S. House of Representatives, 1972-1994. In D. W. Brady, J. F. Cogan, & M. P. Fiorina (Eds.), Continuity and change in House elections (pp. 211-234). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
14.
Cox, G.W., & Katz, J.N. (2002). Elbridge Gerry's salamander: The electoral consequences of the reapportionment revolution. New York: Cambridge University Press.
15.
Cox, G.W., & McCubbins, M.D. (1993). Legislative leviathan: Party government in the House. Berkeley: University of California Press.
16.
Crespin, M.H. (2005). Using geographic information systems to measure district change, 2000-02. Political Analysis, 13, 253-260.
17.
Crespin, M.H., Gold, S., & Rohde, D.W. (2006). Ideology, electoral incentives, and congressional politics: An examination of the Republican class of 1994 in the House. American Politics Research, 34, 135-158.
18.
Democracy in voters' hands. (2005, October 23). Washington Post, p. A18.
19.
Engstrom, E.J., & Kernell, S. (2005). Manufactured responsiveness: The impact of state electoral laws on unified party control of the presidency and U.S. House of Representatives, 1840-1940. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 547-565.
20.
Erikson, R.S., & Wright, G.C. (2000). Representation of constituency ideology in Congress . In D. W. Brady, J. F. Cogan, & M. P. Fiorina (Eds.), Continuity and change in House elections (pp. 149-177). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
21.
Fleisher, R., & Bond, J. (2004). The shrinking middle in the U.S. Congress. British Journal of Political Science, 34, 429-451.
22.
Glazer, A., & Robbins, M. (1985). Congressional responsiveness to constituency change . American Journal of Political Science, 29, 259-273.
23.
Hetherington, M.J., Larson, B., & Globetti, S. (2003). The redistricting cycle and strategic candidate decisions in U.S. House races. Journal of Politics, 65, 1221-1234.
24.
Jacobson, G.C. (2000). Party polarization in national politics: The electoral connection. In J. R. Bond & R. Fleisher (Eds.), Polarized politics: Congress and the president in a partisan era (pp. 9-30). Washington, DC : CQ Press.
25.
Jacobson, G.C. (2004). The politics of congressional elections (6th ed.). New York: Longman.
26.
Kiewiet, D.R., & McCubbins, M.D. (1991). The logic of delegation: Congressional parties and the appropriations process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27.
Lee, F.E., & Oppenheimer, B.I. (1999). Sizing up the Senate: The unequal consequences of equal representation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
28.
Mann, T.E. (2007). Polarizing the House of Representatives: How much does gerrymandering matter? In P. S. Nivolo & D. W. Brady (Eds.), Red and blue nation? Characteristics and causes of America's polarized parties (pp. 263-283). Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace.
29.
Mann, T. E., & Cain, B. E. (Eds.). (2005). Party lines: Competition, partisanship, and congressional redistricting. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
30.
Mann, T.E., & Ornstein, N.J. (2006). The broken branch: How Congress is failing America and how to get it back on track. New York: Oxford University Press.
31.
Mayhew, D.R. (1974). Congress: The electoral connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
32.
McCarty, N., Poole, K., & Rosenthal, H. (2006a). Does gerrymandering cause polarization? Unpublished manuscriptPrinceton University, Princeton, NJ.
33.
McCarty, N., Poole, K., & Rosenthal, H. (2006b). Polarized America: The dance of political ideology and unequal riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34.
Nagourney, A. (2005, February 7). States see growing campaign to change redistricting laws. New York Times, p. A19.
35.
Oppenheimer, B.I. (2005). Deep red and blue congressional districts: The causes and consequences of declining party competitiveness. In L. C. Dodd & B. I. Oppenheimer (Eds.), Congress reconsidered (8th ed., pp. 135-157). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
36.
Poole, K.T. (1998). Recovering a basic space from a set of issue scales . American Journal of Political Science, 42, 954-993.
37.
Poole, K.T., & Rosenthal, H. (1997). Congress: A political-economic history of roll call voting. New York: Oxford University Press.
38.
Roberts, J.M., & Smith, S.S. (2003). Procedural contexts, party strategy, and conditional party voting in the U.S. House of Representatives, 1971-2000. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 305-317.
39.
Rohde, D.W. (1991). Parties and leaders in the postreform House. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
40.
Stonecash, J.M., Brewer, M.D., & Mariani, M.D. (2003). Diverging parties: Social change, realignment, and party polarization. New York: Westview.
41.
Stratmann, T. (2000). Congressional voting over legislative careers: Shifting positions and changing constraints. American Political Science Review, 94, 665-676.
42.
Theriault, S.M. (2006). Party polarization in the US Congress: Member replacement and member adaptation. Party Politics, 12, 483-503.
