Congressional Elections, Incumbency & Gerrymandering

Focus of lecture: mechanics of congressional elections (House & Senate) prior to moving on to presidential elections.
U.S. Constitution creates a bicameral legislature:
- U.S. House of Representatives
- U.S. Senate

Original constitutional design (1789):
- House members directly elected by the people.
- Senators chosen by state legislatures (2 per state).
17th Amendment (ratified $1913$ ):
- Established direct popular election of U.S. senators.
- Same voter eligibility requirements as House elections (citizen, resident, age).
Representation scale:
- Example: California – $53$ House districts (each covers a small geographic area) vs. $2$ statewide senators.
- Small states (e.g.
  Wyoming) – $1$ at-large House member who, like senators, represents the entire state.
Political consequence: Senators must appeal to a broader, more ideologically diverse electorate; House members focus on local, often homogeneously drawn districts.

House reelection rate: $\approx 90–95\%$ ; Senate reelection rate lower.
Reasons Senate incumbents are more vulnerable:
- Statewide constituency generally contains moderate “purple” voters—less safe partisan majorities.
- Longer term ( $6$ yrs) → more time for controversies to arise.
- High-profile challengers (former governors, business magnates, celebrities) gravitate to Senate races because of prestige.
Core advantages every incumbent enjoys:
- Name recognition (media coverage, legislative visibility).
- Fund-raising edge—interest groups donate to the “known quantity.”
- Constituent service / casework – “I helped you with the VA, DMV, Social Security, etc.”
- Experience & record – can claim tangible accomplishments.
- Franking privilege (mailing to constituents at taxpayer expense—mentioned implicitly under “doing the job”).
- Access to media as sitting officeholder.
- Ability to frame reelection as “answering the call of constituents.”
Illustrative story: 2000 Missouri Senate race—Sen.
John Ashcroft suspended his campaign after Democratic challenger Mel Carnahan died; Carnahan won posthumously, and the governor appointed Carnahan’s widow. Demonstrates power of sympathy & name over incumbency.

House term: $2$ years.
Senate term: $6$ years.
No constitutional term limits for either chamber.
- Only the presidency is term-limited (22nd Amendment).
Occasionally members self-impose limits, but many later renege.
1994 GOP “Contract with America” promised a congressional term-limits amendment—passed House, died in Senate.
Arguments:
- Pro: curb entrenched power, reduce influence of lobbyists.
- Con: restrict voter choice, remove experienced lawmakers, strengthen unelected bureaucracy.

Constitution requires population count every $10$ years (most recent: $2020$ ).

Reapportionment = allocating the fixed number of House seats among $50$ states according to population.
Permanent Reapportionment Act of $1929$ caps House at $435$ seats; after each census:
$\text{total seats }(435) \rightarrow \text{collected into a pool} \rightarrow \text{re-distributed by population formula}$
Zero-sum: If California gains a seat, another state must lose one.
Political fights emerged after 1910 & 1920 counts because parties wanted to manipulate chamber size for advantage.

Once a state knows its seat count, state government redraws district lines.
Process governed like ordinary legislation (bill, committee, governor signature).
Goals / constraints:
- Equal population (see Wesberry v.
  Sanders).
- Contiguity & compactness (varies by state law).
- Compliance with Voting Rights Act (racial fairness).

Wesberry v. Sanders (1964):
- House districts must be “as nearly equal in population as practicable.”
- Rationale: Representatives serve people, not “hills, trees, or dirt.”
- Decision eliminated earlier huge disparities (e.g.
  <100{,}000 vs. >700{,}000 in the same state).

Definition: Deliberate manipulation of district boundaries to maximize partisan advantage.
Two major flavors:
1. Ideological/Partisan Gerrymandering – cluster or crack voters to help a party.
2. Racial Gerrymandering – draw lines predominately to include/exclude a racial group (disallowed).
Supreme Court stance:
- Continues to permit partisan gerrymandering (Court calls it “justiciable-but-so-far-unsolved”); refuses to set a clear standard.
- Prohibits racial gerrymandering that dilutes minority voting power (e.g.
  Shaw v.
  Reno line of cases).
Typical tactics:
- “Packing” – load opposition voters into a few super-majority districts.
- “Cracking” – split opposition concentrations across many districts to deny them a majority anywhere.
Visual cues: bizarre shapes (hooks, salamanders, donuts) often signal gerrymanders; however, geography & equal-population rules can also produce odd shapes legitimately (esp.
coastal vs. rural California).

States experimenting: California, Arizona (and a few others) use citizen commissions.
- Composition: equal Democrats, Republicans, and independents chosen by lottery.
- Forbidden to consult party-registration data; focus on population, city/county cohesion, “communities of interest.”
Constitutional challenge: Legislatures argued they alone possess the redistricting power under Art. I.
- Supreme Court narrowly upheld commissions—citizen initiative counts as “legislative power of the state.”
Early consequences in CA:
- Some previously “safe” Republican or Democratic seats became competitive (example: an LA-area district nearly flipped).
- Effects may combine with “top-two” primary system to moderate partisanship; still being studied.

National control typically hinges on ≈ 40–65 swing districts out of $435$ .
Election-night coverage usually shows 200–200 “safe” seats already called; remaining toss-ups decide majority.

High-profile entrants prefer Senate over House because of prestige, statewide platform, $6$ -yr term.
Campaign financing: money follows power—interest groups favor incumbents who control committees & agendas.
Citizens’ feelings about term limits differ from politicians’ self-interest; most incumbents (both parties) resist limits.
Serving on CA’s citizen commission compared humorously to “helping a neighbor move” or “giving rides to the airport”—a civic chore paid little but considered an honor.

The lecture concludes with a teaser that the next class will cover the Electoral College and presidential campaign mechanics.