As attempts to combat partisan gerrymandering transition from proposals to the Supreme Court to state-based districting commissions, it is time to ask two questions. First, how well did commissions in the 2010 round of redistricting perform as neutral decision makers? We answer that question with applications to each of the three independent commissions (AZ, CA, and WA) and four other commission forms (IA, NJ, NY, and VA) in place for post-2010. We take as the neutrality criterion the idea that a commission would produce a district plan that comports with a partisan outcome that could be expected from a set of approximately 10,000 computer generated plans adhering to minimalist constraints of contiguity, compactness, and equal populations. Our results indicate three of seven commissions produced suspect results that redounded to the benefit of one party or the other: pro- Democrat in Arizona; pro-Republican in New Jersey and Virginia.
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015). 576 U. S. ___.
2.
BaroneM.McCutcheonC. (2013). The almanac of American politics 2014. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
3.
BestR. E.DonahueS.KrasnoJ.MaglebyD.MichaelM. D. (2018). Considering the prospects for establishing a packing gerrymandering standard. Election Law Journal, 17(1), 1-20.
4.
BlalockHubertM.Jr. (1979). Social statistics (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
5.
BozkayaB.ErkutE.LaporteG. (2003). A tabu search heuristic and adaptive memory procedure for political districting. European Journal of Operational Research, 144(1), 12-26.
6.
BrowdyM. H. (1990). Simulated annealing: an improved computer model for political redistricting. Yale Law and Policy Review, 8(1), 163-179.
7.
ButlerD. E. (1951). Appendix.. In NicholsH. G. (Ed.), The British general elections of 1950 (pp. 306-333). London: Oxford University Press.
8.
CarsonJ. L.CrespinM. H. (2004). The effect of state redistricting methods on electoral competition in United States House of representatives races. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 4(4), 455-469.
9.
ChenJ.CottrellD. (2016). Evaluating partisan gains from congressional gerrymandering: using computer simulations to estimate the effect of gerrymandering in the U.S. house. Electoral Studies, 44, 329-340.
10.
ChenJ.RoddenJ. (2013). Unintentional gerrymandering: political geography and electoral bias in legislatures. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 8(3), 239-269.
11.
ChoW. K. TLiuY. Y. (2016). Toward a talismanic redistricting tool: a computational method for identifying extreme redistricting plans. Election Law Journal, 15(4), 351-366.
12.
ChouC. -I.LiS. -P. (2006). Taming the gerrymander? statistical physics approach to political districting problem. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 369(2), 799-808.
13.
CirincioneC.DarlingT. A.O’RourkeT. G. (2000). “Assessing South Carolina’s 1990s congressional districting. Political Geography, 19(2), 189-211.
14.
CottrillJ. B. (2012). The effects of non-legislative approaches to redistricting on competition in congressional elections. Polity, 44(11), 32-50.
15.
Davis, v. Bandemer (1986). 478. U. S. 109.
16.
EdgeworthF. Y. (1898). Miscellaneous applications of the calculus of probabilities. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 61(3), 534-544.
17.
EdwardsB.CrespinM.WilliamsonR. D.PalmerM. (2017). Institutional control of redistricting and the geography of representation. The Journal of Politics, 79(2), 722-726.
18.
EriksonR. S. (1972). Malapportionment, gerrymandering, and party fortunes in congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 66(4), 1234-1245.
19.
FryerR. G.Jr.HoldenR. (2011). Measuring the Compactness of Political Districting Plans. The Journal of Law and Economics, 54(3), 493-535.
20.
GarfinkelR. S.GeorgeL. N. (1970). Optimal political districting by implicit enumeration techniques. Management Science, 16(8). 449-577.
21.
GrofmanB.KoetzleW.BrunellT. (1997). An integrated perspective on the three potential sources of partisan bias: malapportionment, turnout differences, and the geographical distribution of party vote shares. Electoral Studies, 16(4), 457-470.
22.
GudginG.TaylorP. J. (1979). Seats, votes, and the spatial organisation of elections. London, UK: Pion.
HendersonJ. A.HamelB. T.GoldzimerA. M. (2018). Gerrymandering incumbency: does nonpartisan redistricting increase electoral competition?Journal of Politics, 80(3), 1011-1016.
25.
KeenaA.MichaelL.CharlesA. S.AnthonyJ. M. (2019). “Here’s how to fix Partisan Gerrymander, now that the supreme court has kicked it back to the states”. Washington Post (Monkey Cage), July 2.
26.
KousserT.PhillipsJ.ShorB. (2018). Reform and representation: a new method applied to recent electoral changes. Political Science Research and Methods, 6(4), 809-827.
27.
League of Women Voters of Florida v. Detzner (2015). 172 So. 3d 363 (Fla.).
28.
League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (2018). 178 A.3d 737, 741 (Pa).
29.
LindgrenE.SouthwellP. (2013). The effect of redistricting commissions on electoral competitiveness in U.S. House elections, 2002-2010. Journal of Politics and Law, 6(2), 13-18.
30.
LittonN. (2012). The road to better redistricting: empirical analysis and state-based reforms to counter partisan gerrymandering. Ohio State Law Review, 73(4), 839-881.
31.
MaglebyD.McDonaldM. D.KrasnoJ.DonahueS.BestR. E. (2019). Gerrymandering. In CameronS.WynterT. (Eds.), Pippa Norris. Electoral Integrity in America (pp. 83-101). New York: NY: Oxford University Press.
32.
MaglebyD. B.MosessonD. B. (2018). Neutral redistricting using a multi-level weighted graph partitioning algorithm. Political Analysis, 26(2), 147-167.
33.
McDonaldM. P. (2004). A comparative analysis of redistricting institutions in the United States, 2001-02. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 4(4), 371-395.
34.
McDonaldM. D.BestR. E. (2015). Unfair partisan gerrymandering in politics and law: a diagnostic applied to six cases. Election Law Journal, 14(4), 312-330.
35.
McDonaldM. D.EngstromR. L. (1989). Detecting gerrymanders. In GrofmanB. (Ed.), Toward Fair and Effective Representation: Political Gerrymandering and the Courts (pp. 178-202). New York, NY: Agathon.
36.
McGannAnthonyJ.Anthony SmithC.LatnerM.KeenaA. (2016). Gerrymandering in America: The House of representatives, the Supreme court, and the future of popular sovereignty. New York: Cambridge University Press.
37.
MillerP.GrofmanB. (2013) Redistricting commissions in the Western United States. University of California Irvine Law Review, 3(3), 637-668.
38.
NagelS. S. (1965). Simplified bipartisan computer redistricting. Stanford Law Review, 17(5), 863-899.
39.
NiemiR. G.GrofmanB.CarlucciC.HofellerT. (1990). Measuring compactness and the role of a compactness standard in a test for partisan and racial gerrymandering. Journal of Politics, 52(4), 1155-1181.
40.
Page v. Virginia State Board of Elections (2014). 58 F.Supp. 3d 533 (E.D. Va).
41.
QuittM. H (2008). Congressional (partisan) constitutionalism: the apportionment debates of 1842 and 1844. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 28(4), 627-651.
42.
Reynolds, v. Sims (1964). 377 U.S. 533.
43.
RoydenL.LiM. (2017). Extreme maps. New York: Brennan Center.
44.
Rucho, v. Common Cause (2019). ___ U.S. ___.
45.
Shelby CountyHolderv. (2013). 570U.S. 529.
46.
SnedecorGeorgeW.CochranW. G. (1967). Statistical methods. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.
47.
StephanopoulosN.McGheeE. (2015). Partisan gerrymandering and the efficiency gap. University of Chicago Law Review, 82(2), 831-900.
48.
VickreyW. (1961). On the prevention of gerrymandering. Political Science Quarterly, 76(1), 105-110.
49.
WangS. S.-H. (2016a). A three-Prong standard for practical evaluation of partisan gerrymandering. Stanford Law Review, 68(4), 1263-1321.
50.
WangS. S.-H. (2016b). Three practical tests for gerrymandering: applications to Maryland and Wisconsin. Election Law Journal, 15(4), 367-384.
51.
WeaverJ. B.HessS. W. (1963). A procedure for nonpartisan districting: development of computer techniques. The Yale Law Review, 72(2), 288-308.
