Redistricting in Iowa

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Redistricting in Iowa
Policypedia-Election-logo-no background.png
General information
Current legislative control:
Divided (Republicans control the House; Democrats control the Senate)
Congressional process:
Advisory commission; the legislature retains final authority
State legislature process:
Advisory commission; the legislature retains final authority
Total seats
Congress: 4
State Senate: 50
State House: 100
Redistricting in other states
AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyoming

Horizontal-Policypedia logo-color.png
RedistrictingState-by-state redistricting proceduresState legislative and congressional redistricting after the 2010 Census
Redistricting is the process by which new congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn. Each of Iowa's four United States Representatives and 150 state legislators are elected from political divisions called districts. United States Senators are not elected by districts, but by the states at large. District lines are redrawn every 10 years following completion of the United States Census. The federal government stipulates that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.

Redistricting is a fiercely-contested issue, primarily due to gerrymandering, the practice of drawing district lines to favor one political party, individual or constituency over another. Two areas of contention include the following:

Competitiveness: Political parties or incumbents sometimes draw district lines for their benefit at the expense of proportionality and fair representation. Some argue that this practice contributes to the present lack of competitive elections. Uncompetitive elections can in turn discourage participation.[1]
Race and ethnicity: District lines sometimes minimize the influence of minority voters by disproportionately consolidating them within single districts or splitting them across several districts. These practices are examples of "packing" and "cracking," respectively.[1][2][3][4]
In Iowa, an advisory commission draws both congressional and state legislative district lines. The state legislature retains final authority, however. Notably, given the contention that typically surrounds redistricting, Iowa's congressional and state legislative maps were not subject to litigation following the 2010 redistricting cycle.

Background

See also: Redistricting

Federal law stipulates that all districts, whether congressional or state legislative, must meet two primary criteria.

  1. Equal population: According to All About Redistricting, federal law "requires that each district have about the same population: each federal district within a state must have about the same number of people [and] each state district within a state must have about the same number of people." Specific standards for determining whether populations are sufficiently equal vary for congressional and state legislative districts. See below for further details.[5]
  2. Race and ethnicity: Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 states that district lines must not dilute the voting power of racial or ethnic minority groups. This provision "applies whether the denial is intentional, or an unintended end result. Courts essentially test whether the way that districts are drawn takes decisive political power away from a cohesive minority bloc otherwise at risk for discrimination."[5]

In most states, the legislatures are primarily responsible for both congressional and state legislative redistricting. However, reformers argue that partisan legislators are incapable of establishing fair district lines because they have a vested interest in the outcome. Instead, reformers advocate using different redistricting processes, including independent commissions or electronic methods. Opponents of these reforms argue that alternative processes are less accountable to voters, subject to partisan abuse, and perhaps unconstitutional.

State requirements

"Gerrymandering"

In addition to the federal criteria noted above, individual states may impose additional requirements on redistricting. Common state-level redistricting criteria are listed below. Typically, these requirements are quite flexible.

  1. Contiguity refers to the principle that all areas within a district should be "physically adjacent." A total of 49 states require that districts of at least one state legislative chamber be contiguous. A total of 23 states require that congressional districts meet contiguity requirements.[5][6]
  2. Compactness refers to the general principle that "the distance between all parts of a district" ought to be minimized. The United States Supreme Court has "construed compactness to indicate that residents have some sort of cultural cohesion in common." A total of 37 states "require their legislative districts to be reasonably compact." A total of 18 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.[5][6]
  3. A community of interest is a "group of people in a geographical area, such as a specific region or neighborhood, who have common political, social or economic interests." A total of 24 states require that the maintenance of communities of interest be considered in the drawing of state legislative districts. A total of 13 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.[5][6]
  4. A total of 42 states require that state legislative district lines be drawn to account for political boundaries (e.g., the limits of counties, cities and towns). A total of 19 states require that similar considerations be made in the drawing of congressional districts.[5][6]

Congressional redistricting

According to Article 1, Section 4, of the United States Constitution, the states and their legislatures have primary authority in determining the "times, places and manner" of congressional elections. Congress may also pass laws regulating congressional elections. Section 4 explicitly vests the authority to regulate congressional elections with the legislative branches of the states and the federal government and not with the executive or judicial branches.[7][8]

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.[9]

—United States Constitution

Article 1, Section 2, of the United States Constitution stipulates that congressional representatives be apportioned to the states on the basis of population. There are 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives. Each state is allotted a portion of these seats based on the size of its population relative to the other states. Consequently, a state may gain seats in the House if its population grows, or lose seats if its population decreases, relative to populations in other states. In 1964, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Wesberry v. Sanders that the populations of House districts must be equal "as nearly as practicable."[10][11][5]

The equal population requirement for congressional districts is strict. According to All About Redistricting, "any district with more or fewer people than the average (also known as the 'ideal' population), must be specifically justified by a consistent state policy. And even consistent policies that cause a 1 percent spread from largest to smallest district will likely be unconstitutional."[5]

State legislative redistricting

The United States Constitution is silent on the issue of state legislative redistricting. In the mid-1960s, the United States Supreme Court issued a series of rulings in an effort to clarify standards for state legislative redistricting. In Reynolds v. Sims, the court ruled that "the Equal Protection Clause [of the United States Constitution] demands no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens, of all places as well as of all races." According to All About Redistricting, "it has become accepted that a [redistricting] plan will be constitutionally suspect if the largest and smallest districts [within a state or jurisdiction] are more than 10 percent apart."

State process

See also: State-by-state redistricting procedures

In 37 states, legislatures are primarily responsible for drawing congressional district lines. Seven states have only one congressional district each, so congressional redistricting is not necessary. Four states employ independent commissions to draw the district maps. In two states, politician commissions draw congressional district lines.

State legislative district lines are primarily the province of the state legislatures themselves in 37 states. In seven states, politician commissions draw state legislative district lines. In the remaining six states, independent commissions draw the lines.[12]

In Iowa, an advisory commission drafts congressional and state legislative district boundaries. The state legislature retains final authority to implement district maps. The Legislative Services Agency prepares redistricting plans for approval by the Iowa State Legislature. The Legislative Services Agency (LSA) consists of "civil servants committed to nonpartisanship and otherwise charged with tasks like legal and fiscal analysis of state legislation and state government oversight." The LSA is assisted by an independent commission, which consists of the following members:[13]

  1. one member selected by the majority leader of the Iowa State Senate
  2. one member selected by the majority leader of the Iowa House of Representatives
  3. one member selected by the minority leader of the Iowa State Senate
  4. one member selected by the minority leader of the Iowa House of Representatives
  5. one member selected by the first four members

The members of this commission cannot "hold partisan public office or an office in a political party, and none may be a relative or employee of a federal or state legislator (or the legislature as a whole)."[13]

Working with this independent commission, the LSA drafts congressional and state legislative district lines. The maps are presented as a single bill to the state legislature, which may approve or reject the bill without altering it (the legislature can provide feedback). If the legislature rejects the plan, the LSA must draft a second proposal. If the legislature rejects the second proposal, the LSA must draft a third, and final, set of maps. If the legislature rejects this plan, it may then approve its own maps. Since the implementation of this process in 1980, the state legislature has never chosen not to approve an LSA proposal. Redistricting plans are also subject to gubernatorial veto. In addition, the legislature may repeal or revise the maps at any time, though it has never done so.[13]

State law establishes the follow criteria for both congressional and state legislative districts:[13]

  1. Districts must be "convenient and contiguous."
  2. Districts must "preserve the integrity of political subdivisions like counties and cities."
  3. Districts must "to the extent consistent with other requirements, [be] reasonably compact–defined in terms of regular polygons, comparisons of length and width, and overall boundary perimeter."

In addition, state House districts are required to be contained within state Senate districts "where possible, and where not in conflict with the criteria above." It is explicit in state law that district lines cannot be drawn "to favor a political party, incumbent, or other person or group."[13]

District maps

Congressional districts

See also: United States congressional delegations from Iowa
Click the above image to enlarge it.
Source: The National Atlas of the United States of America

Iowa comprises four congressional districts. The map to the right depicts Iowa's congressional district lines as drawn following the 2010 United States Census. The table below lists Iowa's current House representatives.

Iowa delegation to the United States House of Representatives
NamePartyPositionAssumed officeTerm ends
Dave LoebsackDemocratic PartyDistrict 2 2007January 3, 2017
David YoungRepublican PartyDistrict 3 2015January 7, 2017
Rod BlumRepublican PartyDistrict 1 2015January 3, 2017
Steve KingRepublican PartyDistrict 4 2003January 3, 2017

State legislative maps

See also: Iowa State Senate and Iowa House of Representatives

Iowa comprises 50 state Senate districts and 100 state House districts. State senators are elected every four years in partisan elections. State representatives are elected every two years in partisan elections. To access the current state legislative maps, click here.[14]

Competitiveness

There are conflicting opinions regarding the correlation between partisan gerrymandering and electoral competitiveness. Some critics contend that the dominant redistricting methods result in a lack of competitive elections. Jennifer Clark, a political science professor at the University of Houston, said, "The redistricting process has important consequences for voters. In some states, incumbent legislators work together to protect their own seats, which produces less competition in the political system. Voters may feel as though they do not have a meaningful alternative to the incumbent legislator. Legislators who lack competition in their districts have less incentive to adhere to their constituents’ opinions."[15]

Some question the impact of redistricting on electoral competitiveness. In 2006, Emory University professors Alan Abramowitz, Brad Alexander and Matthew Gunning wrote, "[Some] studies have concluded that redistricting has a neutral or positive effect on competition. ... [It] is often the case that partisan redistricting has the effect of reducing the safety of incumbents, thereby making elections more competitive."[16]

The individuals involved in redistricting must balance the desire for increased competitiveness with other principles that might conflict with that goal, such as compactness, contiguity, and maintaining communities of interest. For instance, it may at times be impossible to draw a competitive district that is both compact and preserves communities of interest.

In 2011, James Cottrill, a professor of political science at Santa Clara University, published a study of the effect of "non-legislative approaches" to redistricting on the competitiveness of congressional elections. Cottrill found that "particular types of [non-legislative approaches] encourage the appearance in congressional elections of experienced and well-financed challengers." Cottrill cautioned, however, that non-legislative approaches "contribute neither to decreased vote percentages when incumbents win elections nor to a greater probability of their defeat."[17]

Congress

CongressLogo.png
See also: Margin of victory analysis for the 2014 congressional elections

In 2014, Ballotpedia analyzed the margins of victory in all 435 contests for the United States House of Representatives. Ballotpedia found that the average margin of victory was 35.8 percent, compared to 31.8 percent in 2012. An election is deemed competitive if it was won by a margin of victory of 5 percent or less. A total of 318 elections (73 percent of all House elections) were won by margins of victory of 20 percent or more. Only 26 elections (6 percent of the total) were won by margins of victory of 5 percent or less. See the table below for further details.

Note: The data below are provided only for informational purposes. It should be noted that there are conflicting opinions regarding the correlation between redistricting and competitiveness. A variety of factors at the local, state and federal levels can impact electoral competitiveness.

In Iowa, one election for the United States House of Representatives was won by a margin of victory of 20 percent or greater. The smallest margin of victory occurred in District 1, where Rod Blum (R) won by 2.3 percent. The largest margin of victory occurred in District 4, where Steve King (R) won by 23.3 percent. The average margin of victory in Iowa was 10.3 percent. See the table below for full details.

Electoral margins of victory in 2014 United States House of Representatives elections, Iowa
District Winner Margin of victory Total votes cast Top opponent
District 1 Republican Party Rod Blum 2.3% 289,306 Pat Murphy
District 2 Democratic Party Dave Loebsack 5.1% 273,329 Mariannette Miller-Meeks
District 3 Republican Party David Young 10.5% 282,066 Staci Appel
District 4 Republican Party Steve King 23.3% 275,633 Jim Mowrer

State legislatures

See also: Margin of victory in state legislative elections

In 2014, Ballotpedia conducted a study of competitive districts in 44 state legislative chambers between 2010 and 2012. Ballotpedia found that there were 61 fewer competitive general election contests in 2012 than in 2010. Of the 44 chambers studied, 25 experienced a net loss in the number of competitive elections. A total of 17 experienced a net increase. In total, 16.2 percent of the 3,842 legislative contests studied saw competitive general elections in 2010. In 2012, only 14.6 percent of the contests studied saw competitive general elections. An election was considered competitive if it was won by a margin of victory of 5 percent or less. An election was considered mildly competitive if it was won by a margin of victory between 5 and 10 percent. For more information regarding this report, including methodology, click here.

Note: These data are provided only for informational purposes. It should be noted that there are conflicting opinions regarding the correlation between redistricting and competitiveness. A variety of factors at the local, state and federal levels can impact electoral competitiveness.

There were 18 competitive elections for the Iowa House of Representatives in 2012, compared to 16 in 2010. There were nine mildly competitive state House races in 2012, compared to 13 in 2010. This amounted to a net loss of two competitive elections.

Partisan composition

The tables below summarize the current partisan composition of the Iowa House of Representatives and the Iowa State Senate.

House

SLP badge.png
Party As of May 2015
     Democratic Party 43
     Republican Party 57
Total 100

Senate

Party As of May 2015
     Democratic Party 26
     Republican Party 24
Total 50


Race and ethnicity

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 mandates that electoral district lines cannot be drawn in such a manner as to "improperly dilute minorities' voting power."

No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.[9]

—Voting Rights Act of 1965[18]

States and other political subdivisions may create majority-minority districts in order to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. A majority-minority district is a district in which minority groups comprise a majority of the district's total population. As of 2013, Iowa was home to no congressional majority-minority districts.[2][3][4]

Proponents of majority-minority districts maintain that these districts are a necessary hindrance to the practice of "cracking." Cracking occurs when a constituency is divided between several districts in order to prevent it from achieving a majority in any one district. In addition, supporters argue that the drawing of majority-minority districts has resulted in an increased number of minority representatives in state legislatures and Congress.[2][3][4]

Critics, meanwhile, contend that the establishment of majority-minority districts results in "packing." Packing occurs when a constituency or voting group is placed within a single district, thereby minimizing its influence in other districts. Because minority groups tend to vote Democratic, critics argue that majority-minority districts ultimately present an unfair advantage to Republicans by consolidating Democratic votes into a smaller number of districts.[2][3][4]

Demographics

See also: Demographics of congressional districts as of 2013 and Demographics of congressional districts as of 2013 (as percentages)

The tables below provide demographic information for each of Iowa's congressional districts as of 2013. At that time, the population of the largest congressional district, District 3, totaled 771,876, and the population of the smallest, District 4, totaled 760,730, which represented a difference of 1.5 percent.[19]

Demographics of Iowa's congressional districts (as percentages)
District Hispanic White Black Native
American
Asian Pacific
Islander
Other Multiple
races
Iowa 5.15% 88.23% 2.92% 0.24% 1.81% 0.04% 0.08% 1.52%
District 1 3.4% 90.2% 3.2% 0.3% 1.1% 0% 0.1% 1.6%
District 2 5% 87.7% 3.5% 0.2% 2% 0% 0.1% 1.5%
District 3 6.2% 85.5% 3.7% 0.1% 2.5% 0% 0.1% 1.8%
District 4 6% 89.6% 1.2% 0.3% 1.6% 0.1% 0% 1.2%
Source: United States Census Bureau, "2009-2013 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates," accessed April 8, 2015
Demographics of Iowa's congressional districts
District Hispanic White Black Native
American
Asian Pacific
Islander
Other Multiple
races
Total
Iowa 157,711 2,702,157 89,485 7,418 55,450 1,314 2,424 46,594 3,062,553
District 1 26,135 689,143 24,525 2,439 8,765 271 531 12,387 764,196
District 2 38,189 671,602 27,036 1,368 15,309 232 567 11,448 765,751
District 3 48,090 659,763 28,582 1,150 19,110 304 994 13,883 771,876
District 4 45,297 681,649 9,342 2,461 12,266 507 332 8,876 760,730
Source: United States Census Bureau, "2009-2013 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates," accessed April 8, 2015

Redistricting after the 2010 census

See also: Redistricting in Iowa after the 2010 census

Following the 2010 United States Census, Iowa lost one congressional seat. The Legislative Services Agency released its proposed congressional and state legislative maps on March 31, 2011. The maps were approved with nearly unanimous votes in both the Democratic Iowa State Senate and the Republican Iowa House of Representatives. On April 19, 2011, Governor Terry Branstad (R) signed the maps into law. Notably, given the contention that typically surrounds redistricting, Iowa's maps were not subject to litigation.[13][20]

Redistricting after the 2000 census

In the redistricting cycle following the 2000 United States Census, the Iowa State Legislature rejected the first proposal submitted by the Legislative Services Agency. The second proposal was approved and enacted on June 22, 2001.[13][20]

Over the next decade, the Iowa plan produced more strenuous competition, at least in non-presidential years, than has been seen in most states. In 2002, four of the five districts were contested seriously by both parties. In 2006, [Jim] Nussle, who was running for governor, was replaced by a Democrat in the 1st District and [Jim] Leach, after 30 years in the House, was defeated in the 2nd District. In 2010, three of the districts were seriously contested.[9]

—The Almanac of American Politics

Redistricting ballot measures

Voting on
elections and campaigns
Campaignsandelections.jpg
Ballot measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
See also: Redistricting measures on the ballot and List of Iowa ballot measures

Ballotpedia has tracked no ballot measures relating to redistricting in Iowa.

Recent news

This section displays the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms "Redistricting Iowa."

Some of the stories below may not be relevant to this page due to the nature of Google's news search engine.

Redistricting in Iowa - Google News Feed

  • Loading...

See also

External links

Additional reading

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 All About Redistricting, "Why does it matter?" accessed April 8, 2015
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Indy Week, "Cracked, stacked and packed: Initial redistricting maps met with skepticism and dismay," June 29, 2011
  3. 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 The Atlantic, "How the Voting Rights Act Hurts Democrats and Minorities," June 17, 2013
  4. 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Redrawing the Lines, "The Role of Section 2 - Majority Minority Districts," accessed April 6, 2015
  5. 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 All About Redistricting, "Where are the lines drawn?" accessed April 9, 2015
  6. 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 FairVote, "Redistricting Glossary," accessed April 9, 2015
  7. The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, "Election Regulations," accessed April 13, 2015
  8. Brookings, "Redistricting and the United States Constitution," March 22, 2011
  9. 9.0 9.1 9.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.
  10. Brennan Center for Justice, "A Citizen's Guide to Redistricting," accessed March 25, 2015
  11. The Constitution of the United States of America, "Article 1, Section 2," accessed March 25, 2015
  12. All About Redistricting, "Who draws the lines?" accessed March 25, 2015
  13. 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 13.6 All About Redistricting, "Iowa," accessed April 21, 2015
  14. Iowa Secretary of State, "Maps," accessed April 21, 2015
  15. The Daily Cougar, "Redistricting will affect November election," October 16, 2012
  16. The Journal of Politics, "Incumbency, Redistricting, and the Decline of Competition in U.S. House Elections," February 2006
  17. Polity, "The Effects of Non-Legislative Approaches to Redistricting on Competition in Congressional Elections," October 3, 2011
  18. Yale Law School, The Avalon Project, "Voting Rights Act of 1965; August 6, 1965," accessed April 6, 2015
  19. United States Census Bureau, "2009-2013 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates," accessed April 8, 2015
  20. 20.0 20.1 Barone, M. & McCutcheon, C. (2013). The almanac of American politics 2014 : the senators, the representatives and the governors : their records and election results, their states and districts. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.