Abstract
We utilize the Cox and Katz (1998, 2002) bargaining model of the redistricting process and data from the 1972-2000 House elections to answer two questions: first, does the creation of majority-minority districts increase the likelihood that minority candidates will be elected in those districts? Second, does the creation of majority-minority districts also generate pro-Republican gerrymanders? We show that majority-minority mandates increase the likelihood of minority candidates being elected to office, regardless of which party controls the redistricting process. This result is consistent with previous research. To test the hypothesis that majority-minority districting has perverse-effects, the seats-votes curves are estimated for each election, allowing for the partisan or bipartisan control of the redistricting process and the presence of majority-minority mandates. We demonstrate that there is no significant difference in the level of partisan bias observed under redistricting plans with majority-minority districts and those without majority-minority districts. The claim that majority-minority districting has perverse-effects is not supported by the data.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call