2021 Redistricting In Virginia: Evaluating The Effectiveness of Reforms

The redistricting cycle that followed the 2020 census provided the first test of Virginia’s redistricting reforms that were enacted when voters approved the constitutional amendment in the 2020 General Election. The centerpiece of these reforms is the bipartisan Virginia Redistricting Commission, comprised of eight citizen and eight legislator members. This article details how the 2021 redistricting occurred under the new reforms, and it evaluates the maps that were ultimately approved. While the selection of the commissioners unfolded successfully and in accordance with the law, the work of the commission was mired by partisan fighting and dysfunction. Nevertheless, a statistical analysis of the maps drafted by the Republican and Democratic commissioners suggests that they were largely free of one-party bias, in contrast to the maps approved during the previous redistricting cycle, when Republicans racially gerrymandered the congressional and House of Delegates maps to achieve a partisan advantage. Ultimately, the Commission deadlocked, and redistricting shifted to the Supreme Court of Virginia (SCOVA), which appointed two special masters to draw the maps. The maps drawn by the special masters and approved by SCOVA are free of extreme partisan bias and advance the goals of minority representation, competitiveness, and partisan neutrality. In the selection of the special masters and subsequent approval of their maps, the Supreme Court demonstrated a commitment to fairness and transparency, and to redistricting standards approved by the General Assembly in 2020. In sum, the 2020 redistricting reforms succeeded in preventing gerrymandering. However, the redistricting process can be further improved by establishing multimember districts with a single transferable vote rule, and by replacing politician members of the Virginia Redistricting Commission with citizen members with no partisan preference

The Fundraising Effects of Facebook Marketing During the 2020 Election

Social media has become a powerful tool for political candidates and interest groups to reach supporters. However, little is known about the effectiveness of social media marketing as a fundraising tool. In this paper, we analyze the fundraising records of a “Super PAC”, The Lincoln Project, which was founded by a group of Republicans to oppose President Trump and his allies. We study the links between ads The Lincoln Project purchased through Facebook Marketing during the 2020 election and campaign contributions the group received. We model the association between the number of users exposed to ads per state per day and the dollar amount received by The Lincoln Project Super PAC in campaign contributions per state per day. Our model estimates that every 100 impressions gained from a Facebook ad campaign in a given state on a given day is associated with an additional $6 in campaign contributions received, and that The Lincoln Project likely saw a more than 250% return in campaign contributions on their “investments” in Facebook ads

Why electing former governors may help ease the partisan gridlock in the US Senate

The US Senate now hosts more than 20 former state governors, a group which played an important role in ending the recent government shutdown. In new research, Alex Keena and Misty Knight-Finley examine the bipartisan role that former governors play in the US' upper house. They find that former governors were 8 percent more likely to vote with the other side, compared to legislators who had not previously been in charge of a state

Why the Republicans will retain the House in 2016...and 2018...and 2020

At this stage of the 2016 election cycle, which party will control the White House and the US Senate come January 2017 seems to be very much up in the air. The US House of Representatives on the other hand, is almost certain to remain in the hands of the Republican Party, a situation which is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. Anthony J. McGann , Charles Anthony Smith , Michael Latner and Alex Keena argue that the GOP’s continued control of the House is down to the gerrymandering of Congressional districts by Republican-controlled state legislatures. They write that in certain states like Pennsylvania, this gerrymandering leads to an asymmetry between the number of seats the Democrats gain and their vote share, reducing their share of US House seats

The Supreme Court's quiet gerrymandering revolution and the road to minority rule

This month the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a Wisconsin case over the constitutionality of the Republican-dominated state legislature's redistricting plan. Michael Latner, Anthony McGann, Charles Anthony Smith, and Alex Keena argue that while this case is important, no matter what it decides, the Supreme Court has already enabled large-scale gerrymandering. They write that the Court's 2004 decision ..

Maryland's electoral maps show how proportional representation could solve the problem of gerrymandering

This week the US Supreme Court hears a case concerning the constitutionality of partisan gerrymandering in Maryland. Examining current, past, and alternative electoral maps, Alex Keena, Michael Latner, Anthony J. McGann, and Charles Anthony Smith find that by making districts more competitive, some redistricting plans can actually work against one party or the other. Only the introduction of proportional representation with multi-member districts, they argue, would mean a truly fair electoral system for Maryland

Gerrymandering the Presidency: Why Trump could lose the popular vote in 2020 by 6 percent and still win a second term.

Donald Trump was the clear Electoral College winner in the 2016 election, despite losing the popular vote by a wide margin to Hillary Clinton. Anthony J. McGann, Charles Anthony Smith, Michael Latner and Alex Keena write that, unless the Supreme Court stops congressional gerrymandering, President Trump can guarantee re-election in 2020 – even if he loses by 6 percent

The US Supreme Court has decided partisan gerrymandering is outside its remit. A democratic restoration now depends on the people alone.

The United States Supreme Court has determined that reviewing partisan gerrymandering cases was outside the remit of federal courts. Alex Keena, Michael Latner, Anthony J. McGann and Charles Anthony Smith argue that in failing to recognise the vote dilution caused by the redrawing of a state’s electoral district boundaries to the party in power’s advantage, as well as connecting the majority rule standard to the 14th Amendment, the decision removes Americans’ fundamental right to participate equally in the political process

The 2018 House elections may be historic enough to end the redistricting wars

This year’s midterm elections saw reforms to the way US House districts are drawn in four states. Alongside these successful measures, write Alex Keena, Michael Latner, Anthony J. McGann and Charles Anthony Smith, Democratic takeovers of gubernatorial mansions and successful voting rights reforms such as Florida’s felon reenfranchisement are likely to signal the beginning of an era of significant electoral reforms in the US