THE SUPREME COURT’S decision in the case of Baker v. Carr, handed down in the spring of 1962, opened the way for reform of antiquated and inequitable patterns of representation in state legislatures. Over the ensuing twelve months, districting arrangements have been challenged in many states, and in several of them the legislatures have convened to draw up new districts which better reflect their actual population distribution. The Court’s decision has raised a number of issues, including the question whether the drive for more equal representation in the state legislatures will affect the United States Congress. The Brookings Institution therefore asked Prof. Andrew Hacker, of the Depart. of Government, Cornell University, to prepare a problem paper that would examine the present congressional districts from the viewpoint of the problems that might arise in connection with reapportionment in the states. The objective was a brief informative analysis drawing largely on available materials, with an early deadline precluding much new research. Mr. Hacker’s report approaches this subject from several vantage points. Among these are: the constitutional and historical background of congressional districting; state and judicial action as it applies to the Congress; reasons for the disproportion between votes cast and seats won; and the extent and consequences of inequalities in representation in the House of Representatives. Mr. Hacker indicates that the House does not give an equal voice to all of its constituents, and that prevailing inequities may become even more pronounced since the forces opposing reform feel strongly that justice is on their side, and the courts have yet to indicate how far they will go in applying the doctrine of equal representation enunciated in Baker v. Carr—or, indeed, whether they will apply it at all to congressional districts.—Robert Calkins

See and color the congressional districts of the United States. Have fun and learn about our democracy!

John Engler, former Governor of Michigan, once claimed that redistricting is one of the purest actions a legislative body can take. Academicians and political leaders alike, however, have regularly debated the ideal way by to redistrict national and state legislatures. Rather than being the pure process that Governor Engler envisioned, redistricting has led to repeated court battles waged on such traditional democratic values as one person, one vote, and minority rights. Instead of being an opportunity to help ensure maximum representation for the citizens, the process has become a cat and mouse game in many states with citizen representation seemingly the farthest idea from anyone’s mind. From a purely political perspective, those in power in the state legislature at the time of redistricting largely act like they have unilateral authority to do as they please. In this volume, contributors discuss why such an assumption is concerning in the modern political environment.

A 2022 Choice Reviews Outstanding Academic Title This authoritative overview of election redistricting at the congressional, state legislative, and local level provides offers an overview of redistricting for students and practitioners. The updated second edition pays special attention to the significant redistricting controversies of the last decade, from the Supreme Court to state courts.

The legitimacy of the American electoral system depends on sustaining reasonable levels of fairness, accountability, responsiveness, and common sense. Recent Congressional elections fly in the face of those requirements, however, with a startling lack of competition, growing ideological polarization, and a fierce struggle between the parties to manipulate the electoral rules of the game. Party Lines addresses these problems head on in an authoritative and timely analysis of redistricting in the United States. The practice of state legislatures redrawing district lines after the decennial census has long been a controversial aspect of our governing system. Recent developments have added new urgency to earlier debates. The sorry spectacle of mid-decade partisan gerrymandering in Texas renewed public attention to the potential problems of redistricting, reinforcing the view that it is unfairly dominated by self-serving elected officials and parties. The perfunctory character of Congressional elections is another growing problem—in 2002, only four House incumbents were defeated in the general election, the lowest in American history. Despite a hotly contested presidential contest in 2004, that number increased by only three. In Pa rty Lines, eminent political analysts explain the legal and political history of redistricting since the one person–one vote revolution in the 1960s and place it in the larger context of American politics. The authors document the impact of redistricting on competition, polarization, and partisan fairness, and they assess the role technology played in the redistricting process. The final chapter analyzes options for reform, including most importantly the use of independent redistricting commissions as an alternative to the normal state legislative process. Redistricting reform is no panacea but it is a start toward ensuring that American voters still have the largest say in who will represent them. Contributors include Micah