Legislative Redistricting

U.S. Legislatures

The U.S. Supreme Court responds favorably to the nonpartisan Amici Curae Brief on partisan gerrymandering filed by Gary King, Bernard Grofman, Andrew Gelman, and Jonathan Katz (Brief: PDF) and requests additional information. This information is provided in the context of a brief history of the scholarly literature, a summary of the state of the art in conceptualization and measurement of partisan symmetry, and the state of current jurisprudence, in: Bernard Grofman and Gary King. The Future of Partisan Symmetry as a Judicial Test for Partisan Gerrymandering after LULAC v. Perry,, forthcoming, July 2007, Election Law Journal.(Abstract: HTML | Article: PDF)
The concept of partisan symmetry as a standard for assessing partisan gerrymandering:

Defines, distinguishes, and measures "partisan bias" and "electoral responsiveness" (or "repesentation"), key concepts that had been conflated in much previous academic literature, and "partisan symmetry" as the definition of fairness to parties in districting. A concensus in the academic literature on partisan symmetry as the definition of partisan fairness has held since this article. King, Gary and Robert X Browning. Democratic Representation and Partisan Bias in Congressional Elections, American Political Science Review, Vol. 81, No. 4 (December, 1987): 1252-1273. (Article: PDF | Abstract: HTML)
Related work on clarifying normative assumptions underlying proposed standards for fairness to different ethnic groups, and formalizes several absolute standards. King, Gary; John Bruce; and Andrew Gelman. Racial Fairness in Legislative Redistricting, in Paul E. Peterson, ed., Classifying by Race, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996. (Article: PDF | Abstract: HTML)
Browning, Robert X and Gary King. Seats, Votes, and Gerrymandering: Measuring Bias and Representation in Legislative Redistricting, Law and Policy, Vol. 9, No. 3 (July, 1987): Pp. 305-322. (Article: PDF | Abstract: HTML)

The methods for measuring partisan bias and electoral responsiveness, and related quantities, that first relaxed the assumptions of exact uniform partisan swing and the exact correspondence between statewide electoral results and legislative electoral results, among other improvements:

A now widely used set of methods for estimating bias and responsiveness, including applications to redistricting in the states and the U.S. Congress. Gelman, Andrew and Gary King. A Unified Method of Evaluating Electoral Systems and Redistricting Plans," American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 38, No. 2 (May, 1994): Pp. 514-554, (Replication Data: ICPSR s1054 | Article: PDF | Abstract: HTML)
The most technically sophisticated method, many aspects of which were simplified in the above paper. Gelman, Andrew and Gary King. Estimating the Electoral Consequences of Legislative Redistricting, Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 85, No. 410 (June, 1990): Pp. 274-282. (Article: PDF | Abstract: HTML)
The first attempt to eliminate the exact uniform partisan swing assumption, using data from a single election. King, Gary. Representation Through Legislative Redistricting: A Stochastic Model, American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 33, No. 4 (November, 1989): Pp. 787-824. (Article: PDF | Abstract: HTML)

Demonstrates the paradoxical benefits of redistricting to American democracy, even partisan gerrymandering, (as compared to no redistricting) in reducing partian bias and increasing electoral responsiveness. (Of course, if the symmetry standard were imposed, redistricting by any means would produce less bias than any other arrangement.)

Gelman, Andrew and Gary King. Enhancing Democracy Through Legislative Redistricting, American Political Science Review, Vol. 88, No. 3 (September, 1994): Pp. 541-559, Parts reprinted in California Policy Studies Brief, a publication of the California Policy Seminar, Vol. 7, No. 5 (April, 1995). (Replication Data: ICPSR s1101 | Article: PDF | Abstract: HTML)
A shortened, popular version of the previous article. Gelman, Andrew and Gary King. Advantages of Conflictual Redistricting, Pp. 207-218 in Iain McLean and David Butler, eds., Fixing the Boundary: Defining and Redefining Single-Member Electoral Districts, Aldershot, England: Dartmouth Publishing Company, 1996. (Article: PDF | Abstract: HTML)

Evaluates the partisan bias of the electoral college, and shows that there is little basis for reform of the system. Changing to popular vote of the president would not even increase individual voting power. Gelman, Andrew; Jonathan Katz; and Gary King. Empirically Evaluating the Electoral College, Chapter 5, Pp. 75-88, in Ann N. Crigler, Marion R. Just, and Edward J. McCaffery, eds., Rethinking the Vote: The Politics and Prospects of American Electoral Reform, New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. (Article: PDF | Abstract: HTML)
Formalizes normative criteria used to judge presidential selection contests by modeling the translation of citizen votes in primaries and caucuses into delegates to the national party conventions and reveals the patterns of biases and responsiveness in the Democratic and Republican nomination systems. Ansolabehere, Stephen and Gary King. Measuring the Consequences of Delegate Selection Rules in Presidential Nominations, Journal of Politics, Vol. 52, No. 2 (May, 1990): Pp. 609-621. (Article: PDF | Abstract: HTML)
Unifies existing multiyear seats-votes models as special cases of a new general model, and was the first formalization of, and method for estimating, electoral responsiveness and partisian bias in electoral systems with any number of political parties. King, Gary. Electoral Responsiveness and Partisan Bias in Multiparty Democracies, Legislative Studies Quarterly, Vol. XV, No. 2 (May, 1990): Pp. 159-181. (Article: PDF | Abstract: HTML)

Gelman, Andrew and Gary King. JudgeIt: A Program for Evaluating Electoral Systems and Redistricting Plans, Version 1.0, 2.0 (1992-2002), (ICPSR s1047). (Software: JudgeIt)

King, Gary and Bradley Palmquist. The Record of American Democracy, 1984-1990, Sociological Methods and Research, Vol. 26, No. 3 (February, 1998): 424-427; and PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. XXX, No. 4 (December, 1997): 746-747; and ICPSR Bulletin, Vol. XVIII, No. 4 (May, 1998): 1-3. (Website: ROAD)
Gary King, Elections to the United States House of Representatives, 1898-1992, ICPSR data set number 6311. (Data: ZIP)