Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byEleanor Crawford Modified over 9 years ago
1
What problem?What problem? –Low public approval (15% today) public thinks Congress works for special interestspublic thinks Congress works for special interests –Low participation in elections (35% avg.) –Little turnover resulting from elections –Vote-to-seats “swing” effect limited Can new election rules “fix” theseCan new election rules “fix” these Congress: Electoral Reform
2
ReformsReforms –Term limits –Redistricting –Proportional representation –Increase size of House –Public financing of campaigns Congress: Electoral Reform
3
Term limitsTerm limits –Prevent professional politicians from running the legislatures? 21 states adopted between 1990 and 200021 states adopted between 1990 and 2000 –Many applied TL to Congressional elections 4 state courts rejected; leg changed in 34 state courts rejected; leg changed in 3 Limit number of terms (2 or 3)Limit number of terms (2 or 3) May or may not apply to lifetimeMay or may not apply to lifetime Congress: Electoral Reform
4
Term limitsTerm limits –USSC ruled unconstitutional –States can’t change rules about how US Congress is elected ‘Congress shall regulate time, place, manner of election’‘Congress shall regulate time, place, manner of election’ –Would require Const. Amendment Congress: Electoral Reform
5
Term limitsTerm limits –Arguments for More open seats, new mix of candidatesMore open seats, new mix of candidates More “citizen” legislatorsMore “citizen” legislators Idealized by Anti-federalistsIdealized by Anti-federalists Increase voter interest, turnoutIncrease voter interest, turnout –more electoral competition Congress: Electoral Reform
6
Term limitsTerm limits –Arguments for More diversity, new mix of candidatesMore diversity, new mix of candidates More opportunities for members of groups under-represented in current crop of incumbentsMore opportunities for members of groups under-represented in current crop of incumbents –Women –Racial, ethnic minorities Congress: Electoral Reform
7
Term limitsTerm limits –Arguments for Less special interest influenceLess special interest influence “Termed out” legislators not as worried about re-election“Termed out” legislators not as worried about re-election –vote in “public interest” Congress: Electoral Reform
8
Term limitsTerm limits –Arguments for Restore faith in CongressRestore faith in Congress –Cynicism about Congress due to special interests, gridlock –vote in “public interest” Congress: Electoral Reform
9
Several attempts in WASeveral attempts in WA –Initiative 552, 1991 (Failed) –Initiative 573, 1992 (Passed) (Leg, Lt Gov and Gov. and UC Congress)(Leg, Lt Gov and Gov. and UC Congress) 1993 USDC rejects part of I-5731993 USDC rejects part of I-573 –Initiative 670, 1996 (ballot notice) –1998; WA Sup Court, 6-2 “statute may not change the state constitution” Overturns remains of I-573Overturns remains of I-573 Term Limits
10
In effect in many statesIn effect in many states –1996 first legislator term limited out in ME & CA (26 house members in ME, 22 in CA) –1998 204 in CA, CO, ME, MO, MI, OR –2000 380 legislators termed out –2006 268 termed out 26 leaders, 122 committee chairs26 leaders, 122 committee chairs Term Limits
12
Terms limits may remove entrenched politiciansTerms limits may remove entrenched politicians Increased legislative turnoverIncreased legislative turnover Takes time to learn the ropesTakes time to learn the ropes Less focus on districts?Less focus on districts? Reduced power of legislature relative to the governorReduced power of legislature relative to the governor Are we better off w/ term limits?Are we better off w/ term limits? Term Limits
13
What effects?What effects? –Relations with other branches Might strengthen had of exec (and staff)Might strengthen had of exec (and staff) Stronger role for lobbyists?Stronger role for lobbyists? –Turnout no changeno change –Institutional memory Leg leaders lostLeg leaders lost Term Limits
14
What effects?What effects? –Increased competition? No, safe seats are still safeNo, safe seats are still safe –Fewer career politicians? In CA, pols shuffle to new officesIn CA, pols shuffle to new offices –Diversity mixed resultsmixed results Term Limits
16
Congressional Elections as “filters”Congressional Elections as “filters” –Even w/ little threat of defeat, “bad” candidates lose –Association w/ scandal = defeat –Study of “quality” incumbents shows worst most likely to lose Term Limits
17
Reapportionment and re-districtingReapportionment and re-districting –Change how the process of districting is done –Congressional districts drawn by state legislatures Non-partisan commissions?Non-partisan commissions? –Make districts more competitive –Dont use GIS info, party-reg info Courts?Courts? Congress: Electoral Reform
18
Before the 1960s, states rarely redrew district boundariesBefore the 1960s, states rarely redrew district boundaries Populations shifted howeverPopulations shifted however Malapportionment—unequal representationMalapportionment—unequal representation In 1962, the Supreme Court established “one person, one vote”In 1962, the Supreme Court established “one person, one vote” Redistricting
19
Baker v Carr; Reynolds v Sims; VRA 1965Baker v Carr; Reynolds v Sims; VRA 1965 Re-apportionment revolutionRe-apportionment revolution –no longer a “political question” but justicable –State plans now subject to litigation –rural areas no longer over-represented –major effect on state legislatures Redistricting
20
Old DisparitiesOld Disparities CT191 people vs 81,000CT191 people vs 81,000 NH3 people vs 3,200NH3 people vs 3,200 TN10:1TN10:1 AL41:1AL41:1 ID951 people vs 93,000ID951 people vs 93,000 Redistricting
21
What criteria?What criteria? –Now justicable, but on what grounds? Same size population....Same size population.... –contiguous –compact –communities of interest –protect incumbents –protect two party system –minority representation Redistricting
22
Incumbent-protection districts—many districts are drawn to protect incumbentsIncumbent-protection districts—many districts are drawn to protect incumbents Cracking and packing are often used when one party controls the processCracking and packing are often used when one party controls the process Gerrymandering—drawing districts for political purposesGerrymandering—drawing districts for political purposes Redistricting
23
What criteria?What criteria? “Partisan Gerrymanders”“Partisan Gerrymanders” –can gross “packing” and “cracking” be litigated Redistricting
24
How often?How often? –States may redraw districts as often as they like following League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (2006) –Challenge to TX plan... At least once every decadeAt least once every decade Redistricting
25
Who should draw districts?Who should draw districts? LegislatureLegislature –majority party controls process –require Governors signature “Independent Commission”“Independent Commission” –WA, CA, IA...who appoints it? CourtsCourts Redistricting
26
Redistricting reform for Congress can be done at state levelRedistricting reform for Congress can be done at state level –No constitutional amendment –Not likely all / most states would do this Redistricting
27
Increase size of HouseIncrease size of House Arguments for:Arguments for: –hard to represent 700K –Costs of campaigns too high –Large districts very heterogeneous Small groups never a geographic majoritySmall groups never a geographic majority Congress: Electoral Reform
28
Again, what problem?Again, what problem? –Low public approval (15% today) public thinks Congress works for special interestspublic thinks Congress works for special interests –Low participation in elections (35% avg.) –Little turnover resulting from elections –Vote-to-seats “swing” effect limited Can new election rules “fix” theseCan new election rules “fix” these Congress: Electoral Reform
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.