Redistricting Reforms Reduce Gerrymandering by Constraining Partisan Actors

TL;DR

This paper models redistricting as a game to evaluate how reforms like commissions and veto point removals reduce gerrymandering, showing reforms constrain partisan actors and improve electoral competitiveness.

Contribution

It introduces a game-theoretic model of redistricting and provides empirical evidence that reforms constraining partisan actors effectively reduce bias.

Findings

Reforms reduce partisan bias and increase electoral competitiveness.

Removing veto points is more effective than partial control by parties.

Reforms generally lead to less gerrymandering across states.

Abstract

Political actors often manipulate redistricting plans to gain electoral advantages, a process known as gerrymandering. Several states have implemented institutional reforms to address this problem, such as establishing map-drawing commissions. Estimating the impact of such reforms is challenging because each state structures its processes and rules differently. We model redistricting as a sequential game whose equilibrium solution summarizes multi-step institutional interactions as a univariate score. We argue this score measures the leeway political actors have over the partisan lean of the final plan. Using a differences-in-differences design, we demonstrate that reforms reduce partisan bias and increase competitiveness when they constrain partisan actors. We perform a counterfactual policy analysis to estimate the effects of enacting recent reforms nationwide. Though commissions generally reduce bias, reforms that restrict partisan actors in multiple ways, like removing veto points (Michigan), are more effective than commissions where parties retain some control (Ohio).