List of Tables and FiguresPrefaceIntroduction: Race, Redistricting, and Representation in the U.S. House of RepresentativesChapter One: Black Interests, Difference, Commonality, and RepresentationChapter Two: A Legal Primer on Race and RedistrictingChapter Three: The Supply-Side Theory of Racial Redistricting, with Matthew M. Schousen and Patrick J. SellersChapter Four: Race and Representation in the U.S. House of RepresentativesChapter Five: Links to the ConstituencyChapter Six: Black Majority Districts: Failed Experiment or Catalyst for a Politics of Commonality?Appendix A. Data SourcesAppendix B. Procedures for Coding the Newspaper StoriesNotesReferencesIndex Copyright © Libri GmbH. All rights reserved.

Pundits have observed that if so many incumbents are returned to Congress to each election by such wide margins, perhaps we should look for ways to increase competitiveness – a centerpiece to the American way of life – through redistricting. Do competitive elections increase voter satisfaction? How does voting for a losing candidate affect voters’ attitudes toward government? The not-so-surprising conclusion is that losing voters are less satisfied with Congress and their Representative, but the implications for the way in which we draw congressional and state legislative districts are less straightforward. Redistricting and Representation argues that competition in general elections is not the sine qua non of healthy democracy, and that it in fact contributes to the low levels of approval of Congress and its members. Brunell makes the case for a radical departure from traditional approaches to redistricting – arguing that we need to "pack" districts with as many like-minded partisans as possible, maximizing the number of winning voters, not losers.

Since the creation of minority-dominated congressional districts eight years ago, the Supreme Court has condemned the move as akin to "political apartheid," while many African-American leaders argue that such districts are required for authentic representation. In the most comprehensive treatment of the subject to date, David Canon shows that the unintended consequences of black majority districts actually contradict the common wisdom that whites will not be adequately represented in these areas. Not only do black candidates need white votes to win, but this crucial "swing" vote often decides the race. And, once elected, even the black members who appeal primarily to black voters usually do a better job than white members of walking the racial tightrope, balancing the needs of their diverse constituents. Ultimately, Canon contends, minority districting is good for the country as a whole. These districts not only give African Americans a greater voice in the political process, they promote a politics of commonality—a biracial politics—rather than a politics of difference.

Reapportionment and Redistricting in the West is a collection of essays and original research which examines the unique characteristics of redistricting in the western United States. It includes case studies of Arizona, California and Oregon as well as chapters on congressional reapportionment and redistricting in the west, how redistricting impacts the Latino population, redistricting law in the west, and much more.

In 1812 the Jeffersonian-dominated Massachusetts legislature, with the approval of Governor Elbridge Gerry, split Essex County in an effort to dilute the strength of the Federalists. Noting the resemblance of the new, oddly shaped district to a well-known amphibian, a local newspaper dubbed the creation a "gerrymander." Less well known about this oft-recounted episode of American history, writes political scientist Mark Rush, is its outcome: in the ensuing election, the Federalists won the district anyway. Today, politically divisive redistricting--gerrymandering to some--still causes bitter reapportionment disputes, renewed threats of class action lawsuits, and legislative wrangling. In Does Redistricting Make a Difference? Rush offers a skeptical inquiry into this controversy and a critical assessment of the assumptions underlying current analyses of the redistricting process. He focuses on long-term voting results in redrawn districts and concludes that redistricting--at least given present criteria and guidelines--has little impact. By showing how difficult it is to perpetrate a successful partisan gerrymander, Rush challenges the notion that an electorate can be organized into Democratic and Republican "groups." He further questions the validity of current political research--and highly paid political consulting--undertaken on the assumption that such organization is feasible. Certain to provoke discussion and debate, Does Redistricting make a Difference? is a timely look at a topic as controversial today as it was in the days of Elbridge Gerry.

Collects the four major papers and three commentaries from the January 1997 conference convened by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies on the prospects for minority representation in the US. Topics include examinations of the present and future politics of majority-minority districts, a number of voting rights/reapportionment issues of particular salience to Hispanics, the legal issues surrounding the creation of districts, and the enduring significance of racially polarized voting on the electoral chances of black candidates. Annotation copyrighted by Book News, Inc., Portland, OR

The symbolic importance of Barack Obama's election is without question. But beyond symbolism, does the election of African-American politicians matter? Grose argues that it does and presents a unified theory of representation. Electing African-American legislators yields more federal dollars and congressional attention directed toward African-American voters. However, race and affirmative action gerrymandering have no impact on public policy passed in Congress. Grose is the first to examine a natural experiment and exceptional moment in history in which black legislators – especially in the U.S. South – represented districts with a majority of white constituents. This is the first systematic examination of the effect of a legislator's race above and beyond the effect of constituency racial characteristics. Grose offers policy prescriptions, including the suggestion that voting rights advocates, the courts, and redistricters draw 'black decisive districts', electorally competitive districts that are likely to elect African Americans.