Do Redistricting Commissions Avoid Partisan Gerrymanders?

17 September 2019, Version 1
This content is an early or alternative research output and has not been peer-reviewed at the time of posting.


We ask how well did the commissions used in the 2010 round of redistricting for states with three of more congressional districts perform in avoiding partisan gerrymanders of congressional districts? We answer that question with applications to each of the three independent commissions (AZ, CA, and WA) and four other commission forms (IA, NJ, NY, and VA) in place for post-2010. We take as the neutrality criterion the idea that a commission would produce a district plan that comports with a partisan outcome that could be expected from a set of approximately 10,000 computer generated plans adhering to minimalist constraints of contiguity, compactness, and equal populations. Our results indicate three of seven commissions produced suspect results that redounded to the benefit of one party or the other: pro-Democrat in Arizona; pro-Republican in New Jersey and Virginia.


redistricting commission


Comments are not moderated before they are posted, but they can be removed by the site moderators if they are found to be in contravention of our Commenting Policy [opens in a new tab] - please read this policy before you post. Comments should be used for scholarly discussion of the content in question. You can find more information about how to use the commenting feature here [opens in a new tab] .
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy [opens in a new tab] and Terms of Service [opens in a new tab] apply.