1. The Evolution of Substantive and Descriptive Representation, 1974-2004 David Epstein Sharyn O’Halloran Columbia University

2. Georgia’s Gerrymander RangeBaselineProposed 0-253126 25-401117 40-5020 50-6028 60+105 Plan: Reallocate black voters to elect Democrats

3. Is This Retrogression?

4. The Perfect Storm  DC denied preclearance, saying state didn’t prove non-retrogression in three districts  SC overruled in Georgia v. Ashcroft: Retrogression should be assessed statewide, not district-by-district States could pursue substantive rather than descriptive representation Put much weight on testimony of black legislators

5. Consensus View  A conventional wisdom is forming about the meaning and importance of Ashcroft: 1. It abandoned a previous, “relatively mechanical” retrogression test based on electability; 2. It did so in favor of an amorphous concept of substantive representation that will be difficult to administer; and 3. The crux of the debate revolves around whether states should pursue substantive as opposed to descriptive representation.

6. This Paper  We disagree with all three of these statements The previous standard for retrogression was crumbling anyway, due to political changes  The Court revised this, too, in the opinion, moving to a statewide assessment of retrogression Substantive representation is not difficult to measure and administer Real arguments aren’t over descriptive vs. substantive representation, for the most part  Rather, the question is on how best to achieve secure levels of substantive representation

7. Electability: High Polarization

8. % BVAP 0 P* 50100 High Polarization Measuring Descriptive Representation

9. % BVAP 0 P* 50100 No Minority Control High Polarization Measuring Descriptive Representation Minority Control

10. Electability: Low Polarization

11. % BVAP 0 P* 50100 No Minority Control High Polarization Measuring Descriptive Representation Minority Control % BVAP 0 P* 50100 Low Polarization

12. % BVAP 0 P* 50100 No Minority Control High Polarization Measuring Descriptive Representation Minority Control % BVAP 0 P* 50100 Coali- tional Low Polarization

13. % BVAP 0 P* 50100 No Minority Control High Polarization Measuring Descriptive Representation Minority Control % BVAP 0 P* 50100 PSPS Coali- tional Unsafe Control Low Polarization

14. % BVAP 0 P* 50100 No Minority Control High Polarization Measuring Descriptive Representation Minority Control % BVAP 0 P* 50100 Safe Control PSPSP Coali- tional Unsafe Control Packing Low Polarization

15. % BVAP 0 P* 50100 No Minority Control High Polarization Measuring Descriptive Representation Minority Control % BVAP 0 P* 50100 No Minority Control Safe Control PSPSP Coali- tional Unsafe Control Packing Low Polarization PIPI Influence

16. % BVAP 0 P* 50100 No Minority Control High Polarization Measuring Descriptive Representation Minority Control % BVAP 0 P* 50100 No Minority Control Safe Control PSPSP Coali- tional Unsafe Control Packing Low Polarization PIPI Influence How to make tradeoffs?

17. Retrogression in Electability  Forget categories; just use the probability of electing a minority candidate in each district Estimate this using “S-curves”

18. Low Polarization

19. Retrogression in Electability  Forget categories; just use the probability of electing a minority candidate in each district Estimate this using “S-curves”  Then add up the probabilities to get the expected number of minorities elected Can consider the variance of this distribution, too  For Georgia, the proposed plan had slightly fewer expected minorities elected Problem with overpopulated districts

20. Substantive Descriptive Pareto Frontier Ashcroft & Substantive Representation

21. Substantive Descriptive SQ Pareto Frontier Ashcroft & Substantive Representation

22. Substantive Descriptive SQ 1 2 3 4 Pareto Frontier Ashcroft & Substantive Representation

23. Substantive Descriptive SQ 1 2 3 4 Pareto Frontier Ashcroft & Substantive Representation Pre-Ashcroft X X

24. Substantive Descriptive SQ 1 2 3 4 Pareto Frontier Ashcroft & Substantive Representation Post-Ashcroft X

25. Substantive Descriptive SQ 1 2 3 4 P Pareto Frontier Ashcroft & Substantive Representation X A move to P is now non-retrogressive

26. Measuring Substantive Representation  Great leaps have been made in the past two decades in the analysis of voting behavior This is now commonly used as a measure of members’ policy preferences  Not because voting is the only important act But because it correlates with constituency service, committee work, etc.  For substantive representation of black interests, define a legislator’s Black Support Score: BSS= % of votes cast with the black majority

27. Rep. Black Dem. White Dem. South Carolina State House

28. Overall Expected Representation  Can compare plans by calculating the expected substantive representation Combines prob. of election and support scores For Georgia, this was:  Real argument is over the distribution of these scores, not over descriptive vs. substantive representation MeanMedian Baseline62.3%50.2% Proposed65.9%69.2%

29. Trends, 1974-2004  Show changes in Election probabilities Substantive representation Maximizing plans  Results: Greater crossover in voting means point of equal opportunity is under 50% BVAP Southern Democrats become more liberal A tradeoff emerges between substantive and descriptive representation

30. Probability Black Dems Republicans White Dems

31. Substantive Representation, 1974-2000

33. The Emerging Pareto Frontier

35. BVAP & HVAP Combinations for PEO

36. Georgia State Senate, 1999-2002

37. Descriptive Representation, 1974-2000

38. Rep. Black Dem. White Dem.