In the political world, the ending of the decade and the beginning of the New Year bring with it the constitutionally mandated new census count followed by the required reapportionment and redistricting of legislative representation. The resulting shifts will have significant consequences for everything from the Electoral College to the make-up of state legislatures, but the impact is most direct and visible in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The Process of Reapportionment
Once all fifty states are granted at least one representative (and for seven states, currently, that is all they get), the remaining 385 seats are apportioned based on population, using a complex mathematical formula. The whole number, 435, has not changed since 1912, though it is only fixed in statute, not constitutional, law. Until that cap is lifted (and it looks unlikely), reapportionment remains a high stakes, zero-sum game—with winners and losers. Based on the most recent, year-end projections, with the caveat that the actual census count could alter the results, there will be an 11 seat shift with 8 Southern and Western states gaining and 9 Northeastern and Midwestern states and Louisiana losing. With a possible 4 seat gain, Texas is the big winner; Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah, and Washington add one each to their House delegations. On the “donor” side, Ohio gives up 2 while Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania face a reduction of 1 in their respective delegations. We will know for sure how this will shake out by the fall.

The likely 2010 movement of seats from the Northeast-Midwest to the South and West continues a pattern evident in American political demographics since 1950—growth of the Sunbelt and decline of the Rustbelt. Over the past half century the change has been dramatic: in 1950, the South, the Rocky Mountain region, and the Pacific Coast made up 38% of the House; after 2000, representatives from that area occupied 53% of House seats. If the 11 seat shift holds, 2010, in fact, will indicate a slight slowing of the process. By contrast, 17 seats moved after 1980, 19 after 1990, and 12 following the 2000 count. Studies pointed to the deep economic recession that began to grip the country in the fall of 2007 as responsible for a marked slowdown in the high mobility rates normally characteristic of Americans. One obvious victim of the trend was California. For the first time since entering the union in 1850, the Golden State will not gain additional representation in Congress.

Much of the growth that has sustained the big gainers, like Texas and Arizona, has come from an increase in their Hispanic population. A contributing factor, too, has been the counting of non-citizens. For purposes of apportionment, the Constitution merely specifies “counting the whole number of persons in each State,” regardless of citizenship status. Based on field work and using a numerical formula, the Census Bureau extrapolates the size of the undocumented population. Disputes over using this factor in the count have produced partisan and regional tensions among the members and have led some to propose a constitutional amendment to base representation on citizenship only. Change here, however, appears unlikely.

Redistricting
Redistricting, defined simply, is the redrawing of district boundaries for legislative representation at the federal, state, and local level. It is done after each decennial census, and for the federal and state level is part of the state legislative process (i.e., done by state legislatures and governors).  It has been with us since the earliest days of the Republic; almost equally ancient is the practice of drawing district lines for partisan advantage.

One of the Founding Fathers, Elbridge Gerry, as Massachusetts governor, directed a redistricting to benefit his Jeffersonian-Republican Party. One odd shaped district was said to resemble a salamander having a long body and four side legs. A political cartoonist quickly satirized it and applied the name “Gerrymander” in recognition of the governor’s role. The term was incorporated into the American political lexicon. For the first three-fourths of American history, redistricting was done by the states with little federal guidance or interference. In the 1960s, however, the US Supreme Court, jettisoning its longstanding reluctance to rule on the matter, issued several redistricting decisions. Only one strict rule emerged: numerical equality (as best can be approximated) among districts, sometimes referred to as “one person, one vote.” There was reference to “compactness, contiguity, and community of interest” in the districts, but no definition or guidance for those terms was supplied. Similarly, in the 1980s and 1990s the Court ruled on the use of race and ethnicity as factors in redistricting. Again, the guidance has been vague—race and ethnicity can be a factor in considering representation of certain groups (African Americans and Hispanics), but not the only factor. The Court has been reluctant to rule on “the political question” of partisan redistricting.

Over the past forty years, however, gerrymandering has not remained the same—it evolved from an art into a science. From the old practice of political leaders trading precincts, it became in the 1980s a matter of employing computers to combine a variety of statistical information that, in the end, could produce more reliably Democratic or Republican legislative districts.

Redistricting, 2010-2011
With all of the above in mind, some aspects of redistricting in 2010 are apparent already, others we’ll have to watch. For example, we know the population figure for a congressional district will rest somewhere between 700,000 and 710,000 people, up from 657,000 in 2000. For another, it matters who controls the state legislatures and governorships.

Of the 43 states that have House delegations of more than one member, 38 leave redistricting to the usual legislative process while the other five create independent commissions to decide on the boundaries (with Iowa having the most independent commission). At present, Democrats hold the governorships and state legislative houses in 15 states; Republicans have control in only 5 states, though they are all states gaining seats in the reapportionment. But the upcoming elections for governor and state legislatures could greatly alter these numbers (39 states will hold gubernatorial elections in 2010), so that bears watching.

Something else to watch for: a wave of congressional retirements before the 2012 cycle (as well as the defeat of incumbent members in primaries and general elections that year). It is no accident that the greatest numbers of House retirements have occurred leading up to the 1982, 1992, and 2002 cycles. Incumbent members may find themselves in newly configured districts running among voters who do not know them. The condition is exacerbated in states losing or gaining in the reapportionment. In those states, incumbents may be pitted against other incumbents of their own party or the opposition. Although the full effect will not be manifest until 2012, it’s a safe bet that planning for this scheduled political earthquake will occupy the thoughts of all Members of Congress and of the respective political parties.

How Much Does It Matter?
Redistricting is clearly a major factor in American political life, but whether it carries the weight many students of politics assigned it in the late 1990s and early 2000s is an open question. For example, in five big states—Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia—with 88 House seats, Republicans controlled the process after 2000. After applying the most sophisticated gerrymandering technology, GOP candidates in 2002 won in 59 districts. Following the 2008 elections the same five delegations had 46 Democrats and 42 Republicans. The lesson is that even the best gerrymandering doesn’t trump strong shifts in the political environment.

Also, a debate is currently raging over the role of gerrymandering in creating the hyper partisan atmosphere evident in American politics. That aggressive partisan redistricting as currently practiced has contributed to political polarization is indisputable, but it is much more likely a reflection of that polarization than a cause. At any rate, it is doubtful that the procedural reform some posit as the panacea to reduce hyper partisanship—independent redistricting commissions—is the answer to such a complex phenomenon in American society. 

A final thought on redistricting—I’d rather be on the side drawing the maps than not, but it has its limits in determining the political future. Like much in political life, its impact is uncertain. (A little secret: that’s what makes it interesting.)