Congress: Electoral Reform

1. Congress: Electoral Reform • What problem? • Low public approval (15% today) • public thinks Congress works for special interests • Low participation in elections (35% avg.) • Little turnover resulting from elections • Vote-to-seats “swing” effect limited • Can new election rules “fix” these

2. Congress: Electoral Reform • Reforms • Term limits • Redistricting • Proportional representation • Increase size of House • Public financing of campaigns

3. Congress: Electoral Reform • Term limits • Prevent professional politicians from running the legislatures? • 21 states adopted between 1990 and 2000 • Many applied TL to Congressional elections • 4 state courts rejected; leg changed in 3 • Limit number of terms (2 or 3) • May or may not apply to lifetime

4. Congress: Electoral Reform • Term limits • USSC ruled unconstitutional • States can’t change rules about how US Congress is elected • ‘Congress shall regulate time, place, manner of election’ • Would require Const. Amendment

5. Congress: Electoral Reform • Term limits • Arguments for • More open seats, new mix of candidates • More “citizen” legislators • Idealized by Anti-federalists • Increase voter interest, turnout • more electoral competition

6. Congress: Electoral Reform • Term limits • Arguments for • More diversity, new mix of candidates • More opportunities for members of groups under-represented in current crop of incumbents • Women • Racial, ethnic minorities

7. Congress: Electoral Reform • Term limits • Arguments for • Less special interest influence • “Termed out” legislators not as worried about re-election • vote in “public interest”

8. Congress: Electoral Reform • Term limits • Arguments for • Restore faith in Congress • Cynicism about Congress due to special interests, gridlock • vote in “public interest”

9. Term Limits • Several attempts in WA • Initiative 552, 1991 (Failed) • Initiative 573, 1992 (Passed) • (Leg, Lt Gov and Gov. and UC Congress) • 1993 USDC rejects part of I-573 • Initiative 670, 1996 (ballot notice) • 1998; WA Sup Court, 6-2 “statute may not change the state constitution” • Overturns remains of I-573

10. Term Limits • In effect in many states • 1996 first legislator term limited out in ME & CA (26 house members in ME, 22 in CA) • 1998 204 in CA, CO, ME, MO, MI, OR • 2000 380 legislators termed out • 2006 268 termed out • 26 leaders, 122 committee chairs

12. Term Limits • Terms limits may remove entrenched politicians • Increased legislative turnover • Takes time to learn the ropes • Less focus on districts? • Reduced power of legislature relative to the governor • Are we better off w/ term limits?

13. Term Limits • What effects? • Relations with other branches • Might strengthen had of exec (and staff) • Stronger role for lobbyists? • Turnout • no change • Institutional memory • Leg leaders lost

14. Term Limits • What effects? • Increased competition? • No, safe seats are still safe • Fewer career politicians? • In CA, pols shuffle to new offices • Diversity • mixed results

16. Term Limits • Congressional Elections as “filters” • Even w/ little threat of defeat, “bad” candidates lose • Association w/ scandal = defeat • Study of “quality” incumbents shows worst most likely to lose

17. Congress: Electoral Reform • Reapportionment and re-districting • Change how the process of districting is done • Congressional districts drawn by state legislatures • Non-partisan commissions? • Make districts more competitive • Dont use GIS info, party-reg info • Courts?

18. Redistricting • Before the 1960s, states rarely redrew district boundaries • Populations shifted however • Malapportionment—unequal representation • In 1962, the Supreme Court established “one person, one vote”

19. Redistricting • Baker v Carr; Reynolds v Sims; VRA 1965 • Re-apportionment revolution • no longer a “political question” but justicable • State plans now subject to litigation • rural areas no longer over-represented • major effect on state legislatures

20. Redistricting • Old Disparities • CT 191 people vs 81,000 • NH 3 people vs 3,200 • TN 10:1 • AL 41:1 • ID 951 people vs 93,000

21. Redistricting • What criteria? • Now justicable, but on what grounds? • Same size population.... • contiguous • compact • communities of interest • protect incumbents • protect two party system • minority representation

22. Redistricting • Incumbent-protection districts—many districts are drawn to protect incumbents • Cracking and packing are often used when one party controls the process • Gerrymandering—drawing districts for political purposes

23. Redistricting • What criteria? • “Partisan Gerrymanders” • can gross “packing” and “cracking” be litigated

24. Redistricting • How often? • States may redraw districts as often as they like following League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (2006) • Challenge to TX plan... • At least once every decade

25. Redistricting • Who should draw districts? • Legislature • majority party controls process • require Governors signature • “Independent Commission” • WA, CA, IA...who appoints it? • Courts

26. Redistricting • Redistricting reform for Congress can be done at state level • No constitutional amendment • Not likely all / most states would do this

27. Congress: Electoral Reform • Increase size of House • Arguments for: • hard to represent 700K • Costs of campaigns too high • Large districts very heterogeneous • Small groups never a geographic majority

28. Congress: Electoral Reform • Again, what problem? • Low public approval (15% today) • public thinks Congress works for special interests • Low participation in elections (35% avg.) • Little turnover resulting from elections • Vote-to-seats “swing” effect limited • Can new election rules “fix” these