When states need to redraw districts after every census, it is often up to state legislatures to figure out the lines. Within limits, the state legislatures can draw the districts however they see fit. The basic requirements from the federal government are equal populations in each congressional district, and compliance with the 1982 Voting Rights Amendment. The Voting Right Amendment prohibited both discriminatory intents and effects when drawing district lines, and allowed for the creation of majority-minority districts as a method of remedying discriminatory effects. Most other considerations – such as a desire to make districts geographically compact – are based on state laws. Within what the laws require and allow, legislatures are free
…show more content…
If increasing descriptive representation was a goal of the redistricting process across the country, it would likely result in more women and minorities as congresspersons. Increasing the diversity in Congress is an important goal, both because having descriptive representation increases people’s confidence in Congress, as well as because having more diverse backgrounds and personal experiences in Congress increases the diversity of bills that are introduced on the floor (Schildkraut, Sept. 22). Currently – thanks to recent attempts to increase diversity in Congress –20 percent of congresspersons are women, while 8.9 percent are African American, and 7 percent are Hispanic (Manning 2016, 6-7). However, these numbers are not mutually exclusive, as there are congresswomen who are also party of minority groups. Ideally, descriptive representation will be achieved to the point where the demographics of Congress mirror the demographics of the …show more content…
Creating districts that are more likely to have “shared legislative ends” also assumes that the goal of redistricting is making Congress work more smoothly. If the goal of redistricting is instead making Congress more demographically representative of the American citizenry, geographical compactness does not directly contribute to that goal. In addition, geographical compactness is not a neutral way to create districts. Ignoring other factors (like race) that affect what representative people might choose does not make those factors nonexistent; by drawing districts that are meant to “neutral,” but specifically “race-neutral,” the districts end up favoring white voters (Amy 2009). Not taking factors like race into account does not make district-drawing practices less biased, it simply makes the biases of redistricting less obvious. It allows people to think that redistricting is more neutral than it is because people think of geography – as opposed to race, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation -- as a neutral factor, when in fact the geographical location of voters often intersects with various demographic
If increasing descriptive representation was a goal of the redistricting process across the country, it would likely result in more women and minorities as congresspersons. Increasing the diversity in Congress is an important goal, both because having descriptive representation increases people’s confidence in Congress, as well as because having more diverse backgrounds and personal experiences in Congress increases the diversity of bills that are introduced on the floor (Schildkraut, Sept. 22). Currently – thanks to recent attempts to increase diversity in Congress –20 percent of congresspersons are women, while 8.9 percent are African American, and 7 percent are Hispanic (Manning 2016, 6-7). However, these numbers are not mutually exclusive, as there are congresswomen who are also party of minority groups. Ideally, descriptive representation will be achieved to the point where the demographics of Congress mirror the demographics of the …show more content…
Creating districts that are more likely to have “shared legislative ends” also assumes that the goal of redistricting is making Congress work more smoothly. If the goal of redistricting is instead making Congress more demographically representative of the American citizenry, geographical compactness does not directly contribute to that goal. In addition, geographical compactness is not a neutral way to create districts. Ignoring other factors (like race) that affect what representative people might choose does not make those factors nonexistent; by drawing districts that are meant to “neutral,” but specifically “race-neutral,” the districts end up favoring white voters (Amy 2009). Not taking factors like race into account does not make district-drawing practices less biased, it simply makes the biases of redistricting less obvious. It allows people to think that redistricting is more neutral than it is because people think of geography – as opposed to race, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation -- as a neutral factor, when in fact the geographical location of voters often intersects with various demographic