Reading #1 Danielle Thomsen and Aaron King (Why Women Representation Lags)

• Thesis: Women do not have power in pipelines to house of representatives

  • Potential causes: ambition, election aversion, less likely to be encouraged, less likely to be recruited

• This article focuses on three pools of candidates: those named in newspapers, lower level officeholders, lawyers who donated to political campaigns

  • Strengths of this method include traditional vs. non traditional entry and different propensities to run

• 1st Pipeline State Legislatures

  • 75-80% male

  • Table 1 demonstrates rates of entry virtually the same, but initial total numbers skewed

• 2nd Pipeline Law 

  • Men make up 64% of practicing lawyers

  • Men more likely to donate money

  • Lawyer donors signal candidate vitality

  • Table 1 shows women in the pool donate as much but their total numbers are lacking

• 3rd Pipeline Newspaper speculation

  • Table 1 demonstrates Women almost equally speculated as a percent, but total number of women lacking

• Key takeaway is that men dominate three main pools

• Figure 1 demonstrates women must be 3 times as likely to run for victory

• Table 2 demonstrates 3 different candidate pools 

• Potential Solutions

  • Women’s groups focus on attracting women to law and/or related fields

  • Women should target legislatures with history of promoting female dominated fields

  • Candidate training programs

• Table 3 demonstrates that avenues to house did not change after 2018

• Figure 2 demonstrates as percent lawyers increase women representation goes down and vice versa for teachers (EXPLAIN)

• Effects of having women in government

  • Policy: women prioritize bills that affect women

  • Quality: Women more effective at bringing resources to districts, sponsor more bills

    • Theory for this is women face more hurdles so only extra talented ones make it

  • Constituent Services: People talk to representatives with same demographics

• Role Model’s Theory: Harris win makes it more viable for other women

• Other barriers also exist, distance to capitals, recruitment, aversion to competition, and pipeline

Reading #2 Nicholas Carnes and Eric Hansen (Raising Salaries and Workers)

• Central Question: Does increased salary attract working people to run for office

• When politicians paid more they propose more legislation, miss less votes, and less often pursue outside employment (more effects also)

• Having fewer working class people sidelines their minimum wage, taxes, and welfare priorities

• Raising pay affects utility of both, so matter of which group gains more utility

• Analyzes if working people are more likely to run, win, and run again

• Figure 1 demonstrates that as pay increases workers’ representation decreases

  • One theory is more pay makes it more attractive to professionals

    • States that pay more have more professionals period though

  • Career politicians replace worker politicians

• Percentage of career politicians significantly increases as salary increases 

• Figure 4 demonstrates White collar candidates have less anxiety about losing their incomes

• Study rules out workers being inexperienced and voters holding biases

• Workers hold office more often in states with high rates of unionization

• In CA aides paid more so it can become a profession compared to other states

Topic #5 Redistricting

Reading #1 Edward Tufte (Relationship Between Votes and Seats)

• There are four main trends between votes and seats

  • As vote share increases so does seat share

  • The party that wins the most votes usually wins the seats

  • Winning a majority of votes translates to even more seats

  • Oftentimes parties earn fewer than 65% of votes but could win more seats

• Percentage of Seats = b(percentage of votes)+c

  • b=swing ration

    • Ex. if swing ratio is 1.9% then increasing vote share by 1% increases seat share by 1.9%

  • c=party bias demonstrated by figure 2z

• Table 1 demonstrates swing ratios in various localities

• Cube law demonstrates relationships between seats and votes is nonlinear

  • Limitation #1 is that it assumes votes are distributed fairly

  • Limitation #2 bias is zero, essentially 50% votes = 50% seats

• Many closely contested races leads to greater swing ratio

• Table 3 explain

• Biases emerge due to gerrymandering, differential turnout, and different population of districts

• Oversized districts harder to finance giving swing ratio advantage to Democrats

• Lower swing ratios make it so votes lead to less seat shifts

• Higher swing ratios lead to more new members

• Question: Effects of lower and higher swing ratios

• Redistricting should yield electoral systems responsive to change and redistricting should be unbiased

• Gerrymandering used for incumbent protection, party advantage, or minority advantage

• Non Partisan considerations

  • Contiguous

  • Compact, ie Roch score 

    • Doesn't always show shared interest

• Computer simulations

  • Chen and Roden model builds districts out precinct by precinct

    • Naturally favors republicans

  • Trump changed this by making rural more republican, cities more republican, and suburbs more liberal

Reading #2 Vieth V. Jubelirer

• Partisan gerrymandering requires a standard 

• Based on PA partisan gerrymandering claim

  • Based upon Article 1 and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment

• Baker V. Carr establishes 6 points for why a political gerrymander is not justiciable

  • Absence of a  constitutional commitment

  • Absence of a judicial standard

  • Unclear

  • Breaking the separation of power

  • Unclear 

  • Embarrassment if they get it wrong

• Davis V. Bandemer failed to establish standard, but promised they would

  • Requires that a group is deprived of opportunity not enough for a preferred candidate to lose

  • Basically must prove intent

• Other alternative test to Bandemer is “Effects Prong” Test

  • Systematic “packing” and “cracking” of rivals

  • Court examines “totality of circumstances” to discern to confirm a majority of votes would not translate to a majority of seats

    • Court does not like this test since political affiliation can change, race does not

    • Also not justiciable since past election results not accurate for present

    • Even if a majority party identified under district scheme it will sometimes result in minority party winning

      • Basically “packing” and “cracking” will always happen a little

• In responding to Kennedy, Scalia overturns Bandemer

• Ginsburg and Souter establish five points needed for justiciability

  • Cohesive political group

  • No respect for contiguity, compactness, etc. 

  • Plaintiff would need to show the deviations between traditional districting practices

  • Draw a hypothetical district absent of such biases

  • Demonstrate intent for “packing” or “cracking”

• Scalia argues latter four tests are too subjective

• 2012 loss in house due to Democrats being too focused in cities, as redistricting only cost them 7 seats

• Efficiency Gap emerged as best standard but not good enough to satisfy court

Reading #3 Rucho V. Common Cause

• Compares MD and NC redistricting plans

  • Intent was completely clear in these cases

  • Case argued upon 1st Amendment, 14th Amendment, and Art. 1 Sec. 2 Election Clause

• Robert disagrees

  • Gerrymandering was known to the founders

  • No straightforward standard

  • Definition of fairness is contested

  • No comparison to racial gerrymandering

    • Congress could always pass a law

  • Constitutional arguments are pretty weak

    • No clear relationship between harm on rights and gerrymandering

  • 14th Amendment provides no protections since it protects identity not party

  • Already being addressed in non partisan commissions

• Kagan in dissent says gerrymandering inherently undemocratic

  • Existential threat to democracy

  • There have been technological changes since 2010

  • Courts already on the way to a standard

    • Intent

    • Effect

    • Casual relationship

  • Kagan’s anger may come from associating race with party

    • In south democrat used as synonym for black

• Geography plays bigger role in voters, thus democrats must change policy

Topic #6 The Voting Rights Act and Racial Gerrymandering

Redistricting History

• Whites in south after civil war tried to stop Blacks from voting

• Used vote denial policies, violence, poll taxes, threats, literacy tests

  • Also grandfather clause, ie if your grandfather voted so could you

• Gomillion V. Lightfoot got rid of unincorporated black neighborhoods (vote denial)

• Section 2 of voting rights act anyone can bring a case if discriminated in “totality of circumstances”

  • Also political processes must be open and able to “elect representatives of choice”

    • Actual 1965 VRA had different language that required intent

• Redsitricting and at large elections are both vote dilution

Reading #1 Thornburg V. Gingles

• Centered around five multi member districts in NC which violated section 2

  • Based also on violations of 14th and 15th Amendments

• Section 2 intent clause early repealed

  • Divisive

  • Too much burden of proof

  • Asks the wrong questions, right one is was opportunity deprived

• Senate report says at large district not necessarily violations ie unequal access must be proved, dilutive electoral mechanism not enough, and results test not good enough

• There exists a three prong test to see if minority group has VRA protections (Gingles Standard)

  • Sufficiently large and geographically cohesive

  • Politically cohesive

  • Must demonstrate white majority votes as a bloc against protected minority

• Ruled it was a racial gerrymander

  • Proof of vote dilution can establish a Section 2 violation

Reading #2 Shelby County V. Holder

• Section 5 only applied to south required preclearance

  • Applies to states were half do not vote and/or where a poll tax/literacy test was used

  • Places under preclearance need DOJ approval to change election law

    • The must PROVE changes do not make it harder to vote ie guilty until proven innocent

• 14th/15th Amendment gave Congress the power to create this election law

  • Still conservatives on court uncomfortable with racialized voting

• Shaw V Reno, NC 20% black with 12 districts

  • DOJ says must be a second district

  • Crazy district drawn and O’Connow doesn't like it, since it looks segregated

• 2008 Election makes it seem like VRA Sec. 5 not needed anymore

  • Obama won white and black voters and won two confederate states

    • So question was should 1960s standards be used for 2010s

    • Contrary argument was Virginia improving was result of VRA

• Shelby County V. Holder rules it violates “equal sovereignty of states”

  • Not in constitution but seems unfair

  • But congress can keep section 5 if they come up with an updates standard

• After this the importance of section 2 grows (clarify)

  • Previously used for vote dilution cases

  • Used against voter ID laws

Bronovich V. DNC 

• New Arizona law said voting at wrong precinct is illegal

  • Also said random carrier cannot deliver ballot

• DNC argues this could have disproportionate effect on minorities

  • Has almost no effect

  • .15% of ballots discarded with mostly minorities

  • Scotus says Sec. 2 not built for such small cases with no intent

    • Small effects

    • Racial disparity small

    • Lots of different ways to vote

  • Sec. 5 plaintiffs have to prove it so they failed

  • Liberals say court lacks sensitivity to issues

• Vote denial is process of voting

• Vote dilution is like gerrymandering or at large

Reading #3 Sophie Schuit and Jon Rogowski

• Members from pre clearance districts more positive on civil rights legislation

• Black turnout surged after VRA enacted

• Table 1 demonstrates the following

  • Over time civil rights records improved for democrats and worsened for republicans

  • Covered districts increased civil rights roll call votes

• Table 2 demonstrates members from preclearance had civil rights scores 12 points higher than non preclearance

  • More democrat, more competitive, etc also more likely to support civil rights 

• Table 3 expand sup[on groups more likely to support civil rights ie VRA coverage, competitiveness, democrat, and not republican 

• Figure 2 demonstrates that as black population increases VRA districts record improves but non covered get worse

•  

California Article and Race

• Most cities had been using at large elections

• Made it easier to sue cities to use districts

  • Did not have to show collective voting or compactness

  • Did not increase minority representation

• In areas were latinos spread out ward system is worse for them

• Parties realigned in 1900s

• In 1930s Northern AA started associating with labor unions

• 1930 80% in southern states, 1970 only 50%

  • AA begin to see northern democratic party as helpful

    • They begin to incorporate civil rights agenda

    • Southern democrats begin to become anti union

• When Johnson ena ted Civil Rights support from AA became unanimous

• “Linked fate” theory used to explain why regardless of income AA support democrats

  • See race as most important proxy for their value

• Why so long for White Southerners to switch parties?

  • More partisan loyalty ie anti north (generational replacement)

  • There was not a two party system in the south only democrats

  • Democrats originally tried to make biracial coalition

    • Fielded white conservatives who played well in African American politics

• Campaigns then became racialized

  • Republicans racialized everything to drive up white support

• After 2012 loss Republicans wanted to outreach to latinos

  • Trump wanted to maximize white turnout

  • Ended up doing both

• The more evenly racially divided a place is, the more racialized it is ex. MS

Topic #7 Incumbency, Coattails, and Term Limits and Ballot Counting and Election Certification

Reading #1 Robert Erickson (Coattails)

• Coattail Effect is predicting house vote using presidential vote

• Anticipation causes many to ticket split in presidential election

  • This is called “advanced balancing” and masks coattails that are later swept away

• Meredith study demonstrates each gubernatorial vote equals 0.1/0.2 down ballot votes 

• Vote for congress does not influence vote for president

• Figure 1 demonstrates linear correlation between % Democratic presidential vote and betting odds for house

• Table 1 demonstrates coattails (EXPLAIN)

• Table 3

• Both tables demonstrates strong ideological balancing and strong coattails

• TABLE 4

• Educated voters balance elections due to knowledge of election forecast and awareness of future policies contingencies

• When betting markets show informed voters preferred choice winning they are more likely to split ticket

• Table 5

• NEED STILL READ DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

• Ex. 1948 Advanced balancing Truman expected to lose so Democrats do well in house

• Moderates, Independents, and Politically informed most likely to balance

Reading #2 John Carey (Compositional, Behavioral, Institutional)

• Term limits have no effect on types of people elected

• “Burkean Shift” measures how term limited politicians become beholden to other interests

  • Across categories legislators close to end of tenure spend less time campaigning

  • Table 3 demonstrates less time to constituent outreach and less effort to attain government money

  • Less district oriented more state and conscience

• Early analysis showed term limits lead to more women and minorities, but this is a misconception

• Legislators in states with term limits have equal career ambitions

• Term limits still allow lobbyists to target executive, agencies, staffers, etc in place of legislators

  • Legislature also loses power

  • Legislature also much weaker when bargaining with governor over budget

  • Loss of experience not a problem

  • More creativity in policies towards end of term

• Four categories of term limits, NTLs, adopted TLs, Implemented TLs, and PostTLs

• Different effects of term limits require different models

  • Analyzing composition of legislatures uses legislator specific models

• Effects of Term Limits

  • Between NTL and TL no significant differences in terms of family income

  • No differences in religious affiliation

  • No difference in age

  • New comers more diverse and young

  • No difference in diversity

  • No differences in ideology

  • No effect on candidate pool

  • Table 1 demonstrates only observable differences is more women in TL states

  • Loss of institutional knowledge

  • Loss of long term relationships, ie Pelosi example

  • Behaviorally lawmakers shift from delegate to trustee model

  • Members don't show up as much once TL

• Table 2 shows NCTLs most likely to have held office prior

• Progressive ambition model remains unclear

• Table 4 demonstrates TL affects power 

  • TL gives governors more power (.5 on the 7 point scale)

  • Majority leaders and committee chairs also weaker

  • Bureaucrats become more powerful

• Constitution stipulates qualifications for congress, absence of term limits caused Court to say not allowed for congress

Incumbency

• Incumbents keep winning

  • Legislative explanations (not true)

    • Redistricting

    • Seniority

    • Legislator blame attribution

    • Advertising

  • Non Legislative Explanations

    • Human capital, ie humans get better at jobs

    • Signaling ie if nothing bad has happened stick with the devil you know

    • Wait challengers do not run

    • Decline in party voting in favor of incumbent advantage

  • In actuality incumbent advantage has faded and now its much more party oriented 

Electoral College and Bush V. Gore

• National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, PV winner gets all electoral votes

• In Florida counties had different ballots

• “Butterfly Ballot” determined election outcome as shown by graph

• There were also chad ballots 

• Types of ballot variation, optical scan, lever machines, and computer touchscreens

• Residual vote is (total race vote)/(total vote) showed presence of uncounted hanging chads

• Florida supreme court tried to fight legislature so went to scotus

  • Central question was due we care state legislatures have election authority

  • Later Moore V Harper ruled that state court actually can overturn election law

  • Scalia argued 14th Amendment to say recounts were not fair across counties

• After 2016 some Democrats called fraud

  • Voter ID Laws

  • Cambridge analytica and facebook ads

  • Trump involved in Russian collusion

• After 2020 some Republicans called fraud

  • Record number of votes with record low of counties

  • Biden lost bellwethers

  • Biden did better in counties with Dominion voting machines

Office Hour Questions

• Question 2 lost points due to evaluating pros and cons or analyzing donations examples?

• Question 3: Did cycling lose points due to poor examples?

• Table 3 Tufte Reading

• Table 3 and 4 Erikson Reading Regression

  • President’s party loses fewer seats than it gained in presidential years. Basically riding down steep curve 

• Table 2 Percent black Rogowski Reading

  • White people in the areas of heavy black population had most conservative whites

  • Some of this happened after VRA too

• Rucho Case

  • Fairness not the same as symmetry

    • Roberts argues 60% of votes and 45% of seats may not be fair but the fairness is not imbedded in constitution

    • Proportionality not in constitution

• In CA for racial bloc voting then city can be forced to go to district elections rather than at large

  • Forced many cities to change

  • Expectation was for more minorities to win

  • However they were not geographically intact or sufficiently large

• Vote dilution question

  • Vote denial is poll tax or literacy test

  • Vote dilution is racial gerrymandering

• Ways of analyzing gerrymandering

  • Rock score - contested

  • Lack of proportionality - contested

  • Grouping like minded people - contested

• Shaw V. reno

  • O’Connor thought too much emphasis on race

• Midterm loss and Coattails

  • Midterm loss consistent

  • Unclear if midterm loss more powerful if coattails more prominent

  • If Harris does really well then down ballots could create coattails effect

• Advanced balancing

  • More of a theory, only clear thing is midterm loss everything else from erikson is theory