Mark E. Rush

Redistricting and partisan fluidity: do we really know a gerrymander when we see one?

Abstract Redistricting analysis and the concept of gerrymandering are based on the assumption that the electorate is comprised of durable racial, ethnic or partisan blocs of voters. Accordingly, vote dilution analysis is employed to determine whether the constituencies comprised of these durable blocs have had their aggregate voting power diminished by a particular redistricting scheme. In this article, I demonstrate that this assumption does not hold for partisan redistricting analysis because partisan blocs of voters are not durable. Instead, their partisan profile changes in response to incumbency, electoral competition and redistricting . These findings not only contradict prevailing analyses of redistricting, but also undermine the logic of remedial redistricting.

Voting Power in Federal Systems: Spain as a Case Study

Spain occupies a prominent position in the teaching of comparative politics. It is a paradigmatic example of a successful transition to and consolidation of democracy, as well as an intriguing study in constitutional development, federalism, and a host of other topics. I have found that it is particularly useful when discussing electoral systems and representation.

Gerrymandering: Out of the Political Thicket and Into the Quagmire

Rule, Wilma, and Joseph F. Zimmerman, eds. 1992. United States Electoral Systems: Their Impact on Women and Minorities. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Simpson, G. G. 1961. Principles of Animal Taxonomy. New York: Columbia University. Taagepera, Rein, and Matthew S. Shugart. 1989. Seats and Votes: The Effects and Determinants of Electoral Systems. New Haven: Yale University Press. About the Author

Seabrook, Nicholas R. Drawing the Lines: Constraints on Partisan Gerrymandering in U. S. Politics: Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2017. 160 pages.

chance to feature oneself in one’s own video productions, plus one’s “greatest hits” from CSPAN, other cable shows and local media has also proven irresistible for virtually everyone in Congress—even if its power to shape policy remains far less discernible than that of more traditional media. There are special opportunities here for even the smallest fish in the Hill’s great pond. Although TV and print attention still gravitates toward the famous and powerful, social media offers a profoundly democratized space. Here, Professor Vinson notes, “the unknown members had the same opportunities as leaders, and the boring could have their say along with the fire-breathers...” and the topics discussed “were substantiallymore varied than what they found possible via the traditional media” (109). In the later chapters, Professor Vinson turns to three lively case studies: presidential proposals to “save” Social Security, the media overtures and efforts of the Congressional Black Caucus and the contrasting styles of “going public” displayed by two South Carolina Republicans in the Senate, Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint. Indeed, Professor Vinson’s work is largely summed up in her enjoyable review of Senator Graham and Senator DeMint’s media personae. She notes that their maverick natures and positions made them irresistible to media seeking ‘conflict and drama.’ Knowing well this element of the media mind, she also shows how savvy members have learned to live with it, thrive on it and use it to empower themselves.

49.95 (hardcover).

With the Supreme Court decision in Easley v. Cromartie, the 1990s round of redistricting litigation came to an end just in time for the new decades round to commence. Looking back upon the Court decisions from the 1990s as well as the extensive scholarly commentary on them, anyone new to the field of voting rights in the United States might wonder how the Voting Rights Act, which was a straightforward attempt to remedy indisputably unjust political practices, could have given rise to the I-85 district in North Carolina.