THE 2012 REDISTRICTING IN FLORIDA: THE MORE THINGS CHANGE…

Seth C. McKeeUniversity of South Florida

Redistricting Reform in 2010

• In 2010, Florida voters passed Amendments 5 and 6 (≈ 63% voted in favor of each)

• These amendments to the Florida Constitution provided a set of restrictions on line drawers

• Amendment 5 applies to state legislative districts

• Amendment 6 applies to U.S. House districts

Amendments 5 and 6 Language

• …plans may not be drawn to favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party. Districts shall not be drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice. Districts must be contiguous. Unless otherwise required, districts must be compact, as equal in population as feasible, and where feasible must make use of existing city, county and geographical boundaries.

Brief History of Reform

• As early as 2005 there were efforts to place redistricting initiatives before the voters

• A simple oversight denied them a place on the ballot (exceeded 75-word limit)

• Reform effort moved away from initiative for an independent commission and instead moved in favor of restricting line drawers’ options

Truly a Valence Issue• The passage of Amendments 5 and 6 is interesting because

1. Republican leaders controlling the legislature vehemently opposed reform, framing it as a Democratic scheme

2. Fair Districts Florida, the leading group pushing reform was primarily a Democratic group backed by Democratic allies

3. Nonetheless, the fight was successfully framed as a valence issue: “gerrymandering is BAD, let’s stop this.”

4. The Florida media presented the fight as a valence issue; REFORM IS GOOD. Print media showed bipartisan support.

5. Eagleton and Smith (2013) – Hardly any evidence of an identifiable opposition within the mass public

Adherence to 5 and 6 in 2012?

• 1) To the naked eye it is difficult to determine if districts look any prettier than they did prior to passage of 5 and 6

• 2) It is easy to interpret 5 and 6 as instituting “Voting Rights Act” language covering the entire state for state legislative and U.S. House contests (5 counties are under the VRA)

• 3) Clearly districts are still drawn to favor an incumbent or political party (neutrality hasn’t been established)

Minority RepresentationOffice Category After 2010 After 2012

Democrat Republican Total Democrat Republican Total

U.S. House

Blacks 3 1 4 3 0 3

Hispanics 0 3 3 1 2 3

State Senate

Blacks 6 0 6 6 0 6

Hispanics 0 3 3 1 3 4

State House

Blacks 18 0 18 21 0 21

Hispanics 3 9 12 4 9 13

Total 30 16 46 36 14 50

Brief Review of Redistricting: Before and After Amendments 5 and 6

• U.S. House 2000/2002 and 2010/2012Before• 2000: 8 D, 15 R• 2002: 7 D, 18 R (1 D incumbent defeated)After• 2010: 6 D, 19 R• 2012: 10 D, 17 R (2 R incumbents defeated)

Brief Review of Redistricting: Before and After Amendments 5 and 6

• State Senate 2000/2002 and 2010/2012Before• 2000: 15 D, 25 R• 2002: 14 D, 26 R (1 D incumbent defeated)After• 2010: 12 D, 28 R• 2012: 14 D, 26 R (1 R incumbent defeated)

Brief Review of Redistricting: Before and After Amendments 5 and 6

• State House 2000/2002 and 2010/2012Before• 2000: 43 D, 77 R• 2002: 39 D, 81 R (2 D incumbents defeated)After• 2010: 39 D, 81 R• 2012: 46 D, 74 R (4 R incumbents defeated)

U.S. House Redrawn Constituents 2002, 2012

Redrawn VAP Median Mean Std Dev Min Max

2002 Redistricting

All Incumbents 33% 29 15 1 54

Democrats (7) 34% 31 15 11 53

Republicans (14) 31% 29 16 1 54

2012 Redistricting

All Incumbents 30% 32 19 4 77

Democrats (6) 22% 24 7 15 35

Republicans (16) 37% 35 22 4 77

State Senate Redrawn Constituents 2002, 2012

Redrawn VAP Median Mean Std Dev Min Max

2002 Redistricting

All Incumbents 24% 26 16 2 63

Democrats (9) 25% 26 15 2 44

Republicans (18) 19% 25 16 7 63

2012 Redistricting

All Incumbents 34% 40 20 11 88

Democrats (8) 36% 36 13 19 54

Republicans (16) 34% 42 23 11 88

State House Redrawn Constituents 2002, 2012

Redrawn VAP Median Mean Std Dev Min Max

2002 Redistricting

All Incumbents 31% 33 18 2 83

Democrats (35) 39% 41 18 12 83

Republicans (57) 25% 28 16 2 74

2012 Redistricting

All Incumbents 42% 44 21 0 100

Democrats (20) 42% 45 20 14 85

Republicans (60) 42% 44 22 0 100

Redrawn VAP for Defeated Incumbents 2002, 2012Incumbent and Party Office Redrawn VAP

2002 Redistricting

Karen Thurman (D) U.S. House 53%

Richard Mitchell (D) State Senate 42%

Perry C. McGriff, Jr. (D) State House 60%

Sara Romeo (D) State House 39%

2012 Redistricting

David Rivera (R) U.S. House 33%

Allen B. West (R) U.S. House 77%

Ellyn Bogdanoff (R) State Senate 51% (Dueling Incumbent)

Chris Dorworth (R) State House 61%

Shawn Harrison (R) State House 38%

Peter Nehr (R) State House 42%

Scott Plakon (R) State House 55%

Concluding Thoughts• Amendments 5 and 6 seem to have increased competition

by weakening the incumbency advantage• Increasing the percent redrawn voting age population

redounded to the benefit of Democrats• Legislators have moved in the direction of compliance but

clearly still take incumbency and party into account when drawing lines

• Demography is catching up with Republicans and this probably helps explain the Democratic gains in conjunction with Amendments 5 and 6

• Perhaps passing 5 and 6 helps explain why in July, 2011 Republicans enacted HB 1355 into law (a very restrictive voting bill)