Welcome to the new version of CaltechAUTHORS. Login is currently restricted to library staff. If you notice any issues, please email coda@library.caltech.edu
Published August 16, 2017 | Submitted
Report Open

What Are Judicially Manageable Standards For Redistricting? Evidence From History

Altman, Micah

Abstract

In the 1960s the courts adopted population-equality measures as a means to limit gerrymandering. In recent cases, the courts have begun to use geographical compactness standards for this same purpose. In this research note, I argue that unlike population-equality measures, compactness standards are not easily manageable by the judiciary. I use a variety of compactness measures and population-equality measures to evaluate 349 district plans, comprising the 3390 U.S. Congressional districts created between 1789 and 1913. I find that different population-equality measures, even those with poor theoretical properties, produce very similar evaluations of plans. On the other hand, different compactness measures fail to agree about the compactness of most districts and plans. In effect, the courts can use any convenient measure of population equality and obtain similar results, while the courts' choice of compactness measures will significantly change the evaluations in each case. Since there is no generally accepted single measure of compactness, this disagreement among measures raises concerns whether compactness is a readily operationalizable notion, to use a social scientific formulation, or a judicially manageable one, to employ terms from law.

Additional Information

The author would like to thank Morgan Kousser for his guidance during the development of this paper and Daniel Lowenstein for his many helpful comments.

Attached Files

Submitted - sswp976.pdf

Files

sswp976.pdf
Files (420.8 kB)
Name Size Download all
md5:2f6168bd68584894cba11f92c8a42a2e
420.8 kB Preview Download

Additional details

Created:
August 19, 2023
Modified:
January 14, 2024