Mapmaking at the Grassroots: The Legal and Political Issues of Local Redistricting

Abstract

515 MOST EXISTING REDISTRICTING CASE LAW and political science research focuses on the United States Congress and state legislatures.1 On the one hand, emphasis on these legislative bodies makes sense, since they operate in the top tiers of American federalism. On the other hand, a narrow focus on congressional and state legislative district creation ignores the vast majority of redistricting activity, which unfolds in the more numerous city, county and special district arenas. There are thousands of local jurisdictions in the United States as compared to only fifty state legislatures and one national legislature. That we know so little and write so infrequently about these numerous local districting changes partly attests to the relative invisibility of cities, counties and special districts generally. But we might also commonly assume that redistricting issues at the lower levels of government are completely derivative of those at the higher ones, that is, that there is nothing unique or interesting to study about them. At a very basic level, all redistricting is similar in important ways. The purpose of drawing new boundaries is to adjust the demographic imbalances revealed in a new census to the constitutional expectations of “one person, one vote.”2 Overpopulated districts are forced to shed excess population and underpopulated ones to accept new areas in order to bring the districts within some conventionally accepted margin (usually less than plus or minus 5% of an ideal figure).3 Since Avery v. Midland County,4 the courts have treated cities, counties and special districts as comparable to state legislatures, applying the same population standard for both. In the words of Justice White: “We . . . see little difference, in terms of the application of the Equal Protection Clause and of the principles of Reynolds v. Sims, between the exercise of state power through the legislatures and its exercise by elected officials in the cities, towns and counties.”5 In addition,