Change and Continuity in Congressional Districts Michael H. Crespin
University of Oklahoma
O
nce a decade nearly all of the congressional districts in the United States undergo some degree of change. In a few states, district boundaries are drastically altered in the wake of political gerrymandering to reflect changing partisan and demographic landscapes. In others states with relatively stable populations and a limited number of representatives, lines have hardly changed over the past fifty or so years since the start of the redistricting revolution that begin with the Baker v Carr decision handed down in 1962. Of course, re-shaping districts is not a modern phenomenon and has been going on since the Founding. Although some question the claim,1 others assert that Patrick Henry manipulated district boundaries in Virginia prior to the 1789 elections in an attempt to clear a path for James Monroe to serve in the First Congress and keep James Madison from holding office. While the effort was unsuccessful, it took place over twenty years before the term “gerrymander” was coined after the Massachusetts state senate elections in 1812. A great deal of research focuses on the political aspect of redistricting, while scholars have placed less emphasis on the simple fact that redistricting represents the shuffling of constituents into different districts. Even when the new voters are ideologically similar to existing ones, switching districts means old representational ties are broken and fresh ones must be forged. In this article, I will explore some of the ways changing districts have influenced representation and elections. First, I will discuss what the extant literature tells us about changes in constituents. Then I describe one way to measure change and continuity in congressional districts before presenting some original data and results related to the 2012 election outcomes. Representation and Elections When large numbers of new constituents are introduced to a district, research shows there are both electoral and representational consequences. Theoretically, we would expect population changes to induce instability into the system. Members of Congress dedicate a great deal of time working in their districts to establish a positive identity, build trust with voters, and increase name recognition. They accomplish this through years of casework, working with the local media, and good old-fashioned hand shaking and baby kissing. Members also spend hours every week on the phones and attend local events to fundraise for future campaigns. All of this and more goes into building an incumbency advantage over any potential challengers. When districts change, most of this work goes for naught as new constituents have not witnessed any of the efforts of their new representative. On the flip side, political activists and donors who are drawn into different districts may find they have little to no pull with their new representative. In essence, the relationships built over the years are torn apart, and 12
Michael H. Crespin is associate director of the Carl Albert Congressional Research and Studies Center at The University of Oklahoma and an associate professor of political science. His research focuses on legislative politics, congressional elections, and political geography. Some of his work has appeared in American Journal of Political Science, Journal of Politics, Legislative Studies Quarterly, Political Analysis, and State Politics and Policy Quarterly. His email address is crespin.edu.
Winter 2015
extensions