What Are Judicially Manageable Standards For Redistricting? Evidence From History

Abstract

In the 1960s the courts adopted population-equality measures as a means to limit gerrymandering. In recent cases, the courts have begun to use geographical compactness standards for this same purpose. In this research note, I argue that unlike population-equality measures, compactness standards are not easily manageable by the judiciary. I use a variety of compactness measures and population-equality measures to evaluate 349 district plans, comprising the 3390 U.S. Congressional districts created between 1789 and 1913. I find that different population-equality measures, even those with poor theoretical properties, produce very similar evaluations of plans. On the other hand, different compactness measures fail to agree about the compactness of most districts and plans. In effect, the courts can use any convenient measure of population equality and obtain similar results, while the courts' choice of compactness measures will significantly change the evaluations in each case. Since there is no generally accepted single measure of compactness, this disagreement among measures raises concerns whether compactness is a readily operationalizable notion, to use a social scientific formulation, or a judicially manageable one, to employ terms from law.