Political socialization is the process by which people acquire a set of political attitudes and form opinions about social issues.
Agents of Political Socialization
Family Neighbors
Peer group Career
School Co-Workers
Religion Community organizations
Media Life stage
Higher education
Political values change throughout your life. The most important influences on your political values, however,
occur during your early life. Your family, school, community (religious organizations, youth groups, civic activities) and your peer groups have
the most profound effects. It is your family that gives you that basic attitude toward government that you will carry with you throughout your life.
PARENTAL INFLUENCE ON PARTY ID
% of children who are Democrat
% of children who are
Independent
% of children who are
Republican
Total
both parents Democrats
59%
29%
13%
100%
both parents Independents
17%
67%
16%
100%
both parents Republicans
12%
29%
59%
100%
-from National Election Study data
Family is the single most important factor in your political socialization. However, throughout your life, your political values
are influenced by college, adult peers (workers, friends, neighbors, spouses), political leaders, media and your political experiences. Too,
the maturation process alone will affect your political values. Until you have children, you will care little for public school issues. Until you own a home, you will care little for property tax issues. Political socialization, to a greater or lesser degree, will continue throughout your life.
The opinions you
form exist at three basic levels.
1.
values and beliefs
most abstract
broad
principles
Sam Huntington – liberty
equality, individualism, rule of law
2.
political orientation
translation of values and
beliefs into a systematic way of assessing the political environment
partisanship (psychological
attachment to a party)
ideology (consistent set of values and beliefs about the
purpose and scope of government)
3.
political preferences
attitudes about specific
issues / candidates
campaigns have little
effect on voting choices ... routine personal contact with family, neighbors,
co-workers and other acquaintances is the predominant influence
How Political Opinions Change: It's surprisingly easy to change
someone’s political views, revealing how flexible we are.
Public Opinion
Public opinion is the collected attitudes of citizens on a given issue or question.
Governments tend to react to public opinion.
The fact that a public official serves at the pleasure of the voters usually tends to make that official sensitive to public opinion.
American public opinion has some unique characteristics.
The public's attitudes toward a given government policy
vary over time but Americans’ views on domestic policy are largely
stable. Consider guns: Congress passed the last major federal gun measure,
the Brady Act, three decades ago. Since then, views on whether firearm
laws should be made more or less strict have barely moved, according to Gallup.
This is typical for most domestic policy issues, researchers have found.
Marijuana legalization is an exception. In 2000, 31% supported it; in 2024 70%
did. Why did public opinion on marijuana change so quickly? One explanation is
exhaustion with the war on drugs. Decades of punitive policy did not get great
results. The US is in the middle of its deadliest drug overdose crisis ever
(although overdose deaths are now falling). People want reform, and one place to
start is a drug that most Americans see as less dangerous than legal substances
like alcohol and tobacco.
That shift in public opinion has continued even as legalization has produced its
own problems. In states where marijuana is legal, people have reported more
addiction and other serious medical issues that are linked to daily marijuana
use. Still, public opinion remains in favor of legal pot.
On most issues in American politics, the majority of American voters stand somewhere near the
middle ground.
Americans tend to fall into 1 of 4 categories based on how knowledgeable they
are about politics & government.
opinion leaders
29%
informed public
34%
uninformed public
23%
politically clueless
13%
American citizens are more than willing to express opinions about things
of which they are totally ignorant.
American public opinion is pragmatic, rather than ideological.
We may often talk theoretically but we act practically. That does not mean we
don’t have political ideologies but it does mean we probably aren’t ideologues
in the true sense of the word.
American public opinion is:
uninformed
inconsistent
unconnected
Wlezien's Thermostatic Model: Government responds to public opinion but often
overshoots it, causing the public to move in the opposite direction.
post-truth: relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective
facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and
personal belief
I. Public Opinion Polls
... the instruments by which we discover the public’s opinion on an issue at a given point in time
The population is the group of people you’re interested in studying.
The sample is that part of the population considered to represent the entire population.
A poll is a type of survey or inquiry into public opinion conducted by interviewing a representative sample of the population.
population vs. sample / target population vs. random sample
A
random sample is the result of a process that selects a sample from the larger population entirely by chance.
A poll’s
sampling error tells you how much confidence you can have in the findings of the poll. The smaller the sampling error is, the more confidence you can have that the findings are accurate. The larger the sample is in relation to the population, the smaller the error. In general, you should look for a sampling error of ±3% … any poll with an error larger than ±5% is probably not worth the paper it’s printed on.
Properly conducted scientific polls are highly accurate and the data generated by an opinion poll are used to measure and analyze public opinion.
SLOPs (self-selected listener opinion polls),
CRAPs (computerized response audience
polling), intercept polls, FRUG
polls (fund raising under the guise of polls) and push
polls are neither scientific nor accurate. In fact, push polls only pretend to
be polls in order to "push" you into believing something, e.g. "If you found out
that the local community college has been overcharging students for their
tuition, would you continue to attend your local college?" Push polls don't
really care about your opinion ... they're trying to get you to believe their opinion.
Fox News (April 2004)
asked the following question of 900 registered voters:
Do you support or
oppose the US having taken military action to disarm Iraq and remove Iraqi
President Saddam Hussein? Is that strongly support/oppose or only somewhat
support/oppose?
Support strongly
49%
Support somewhat
16%
Oppose somewhat
7%
Oppose strongly
24%
Not sure
4%
In this example had the
question only offered the response options, support and oppose, the results
would have yielded only that 65% were in support and 31% opposed. The strength
of opinion at the two extremes would not have been ascertained along with the
knowledge that the conviction at either end — the strongly held views — was more
than triple the more mildly held views.
Truth or Fiction:
A non-partisan website where internet users can quickly and easily get
information about eRumors, fake news, disinformation, warnings, offers,
requests for help, myths, hoaxes, virus warnings and humorous or
inspirational stories that are circulated by email.
PolitiFact: Staffers
research statements and rate their accuracy on the Truth-O-Meter, from True to
False. The most ridiculous falsehoods get the lowest rating, Pants on Fire.
Snopes.com: This
highly regarded rumor analyzing site has been researching rumors since 1995.
Media
Bias/Fact Check: An
independent media outlet dedicated to educating the public on media bias and
deceptive news practices. They maintain a database of 900+ news sources.
AllSides:
News and issues from multiple perspectives. The site clearly identifies each
news story's position (left, center or right).
What are
Confirmation Bias Examples?:
Confirmation bias is the tendency for people to selectively search for and
consider information that confirms already held beliefs. People also tend to
reject evidence that contradicts their opinions. This page has some examples of
confirmation bias.
Convey information that will evoke positive feelings about the candidate
Information can be positive or negative
Define candidate
and issue positions
Define opponents
Candidate controls content
Candidate controls the appeal
Stress image and issues
Measure citizens’ responses
Reinforce long-held predispositions about issues, personalities, political parties
Increasingly negative
Positive ads have to run again and again and again to stick
Negative ads move poll numbers in three or four days
System rewards those who win ... more important than voter turnout
What does the research say about negative advertising?
Negative ads do not increase participation.
Negative ads reduce positive attitudes toward candidates and races.
Attack advertising extracts a toll on participation: voting drops by 2.5% with negative ads
and increases by the same amount with a positive ad. It's strongest effect is on independents.
Provides valuable information.
Reveals information about candidate's strengths or weaknesses.
Stimulates the base into action.
More knowledgeable voters are most likely to pay attention to ads.
Negative ads are given more weight.
Negative ads produce stronger emotional effects than positive ads.
Who participates in politics is an important issue. Those who participate are
likely to have more political influence than those who do not. Higher education
is the single most important factor in producing a high degree of participation.
Older persons and men are also likely to be active. Blacks participate more than
whites of equal socioeconomic status.
Although voter turnout has decreased over the past twenty years, it seems that
other forms of participation, such as writing letters to public officials and
engaging in demonstrations, have increased. There are many ways in which
Americans can participate in politics-ranging from voting, which a majority do
with some regularity, to belonging to a political club or organization, which
only a few do. In an elaborate analysis of the ways people participate, Verba
and Nie discovered six different kinds of citizens.
Inactives participate little if at all (22%).
Parochial participants neither vote nor engage in campaigns or
community activity, but they do contact officials about specific, often
personal, problems (4%).
Communalists engage in community activities of a nonpartisan nature
(20%).
Voting specialists regularly vote but do little else (21%).
Campaigners vote and also participate in conflictual political
activities, such as campaigns (15%).
Completeactivists participate in all forms of political
activity (11%).
Americans are less likely to vote than are Europeans. The reasons for this
difference are complex. First, the US has an almost bewildering number of
elective offices, an estimated 521,000 positions. Voters' enthusiasm for
elections is surely deflated by the sheer volume of names with which they must
familiarize themselves. In Europe, in contrast, each voter generally is
confronted with only one or two offices to fill per election, so that electoral
decisions do not impose a burden on the voter. Even in Europe, however, voter
apathy increases with the number of elections. Too much democracy, in terms of
either selecting government offices or making policy, is exhausting.
A second explanation for the poor turnout rate involves the mechanics of
voting procedures. It is common in other countries for voting to be
compulsory by law and for registration to be carried out automatically by the
government. Mandatory voting would probably fail to survive a constitutional
challenge in this country on First Amendment grounds. Just as people have a
right not to speak (like refusing to salute the flag), it would seem to
follow that they have a right to refrain from voting as well. Simplifying
registration is a different matter. Republicans in particular have tended to
resist any easing of registration standards. President Bush vetoed legislation
designed to enable voters to register when obtaining a driver's license,
legislation passed in 1993 and in effect as of 1995. As of summer 1997, the
partisan breakdown of new voters remained unknown.
The weakness of political parties must also be considered. Unlike in the
past, parties today lack the patronage and welfare incentives to mobilize voting
blocs. Moreover, the impact of progressive reforms, such as the Australian
ballot and stricter registration requirements for voting, have contributed to
the loss of party influence over the electorate.
All these factors combine to explain why people do not vote in large numbers in
the US. Yet it is equally important to comprehend the other side of the issue,
namely, the factors that lead people to vote. Research underscores the
significance of personal characteristics in motivating a person's decision
to participate on election day. Education is the most critical variable.
As their educational level increases, individuals develop a stronger sense of
civic duty and a greater interest in, and knowledge of, politics. But education
alone is not a sufficient explanation, since voting rates have continued to
decline despite the proliferation of college degrees in recent decades. Another
characteristic that correlates with voting is age; older voters are more
likely to participate. But here again, overall voting rates have diminished
while the population has aged. Something other than personal characteristics
therefore seem to play a role in election turnout: the characteristics of the
election itself. Most recent elections have presented voters with uninspiring
candidates who failed to stimulate interest or excitement. The lack of a
realigning issue has made politics boring. However, turnout reaches notable
peaks in certain elections, as in 1964 (a sharp ideological choice between
candidates) and 1992 (an economy in recession and the charismatic candidate H.
Ross Perot). Voters participate when aroused to do so.
Considering how few tangible rewards participation produces, it is not
surprising that over 40% of Americans either do not participate at all or limit
their participation to voting. Compared to citizens of other democracies,
Americans vote less but engage more in other forms of activity.
1. voting age population
(VAP): all adults over 18
2. registered voters: citizens registered to vote
3. turnout based on registered voters higher than
turnout based on VAP
Voting is the principal means of political participation for most Texans.
Years of formal schooling is the single best socioeconomic predictor of the likelihood of an individual to vote.
The primary source of campaign news in the US is television.
In a
pivotal state (a large, populous state with many electoral votes that a candidate must win to be elected), presidential candidates
are forced to rely on advertising.
Candidates try to sell themselves and their ideas on television
since it is the surest means of reaching the largest number of people.
In an effort to affect large numbers of voters, candidates often rely on
personal attacks on opponents ... negative campaigning. We complain about negative campaigning, but it works!
Texans are most likely to learn political information about candidates
from and make their voting decisions based on advertising materials prepared by the candidates.
III. Low Turnouts in Texas
A. current registration laws
citizen: immigrants in Texas cannot vote
18 years old
30-day registration deadline (longer than most states)
B. historical barriers
$1.75 poll tax: a device used in Texas to prevent lower income persons from voting during the 20th century
annual registration required
white primaries: in one-party state
the primary determines winner of general election
property requirements for local elections
women’s suffrage
C. unique social factors in Texas that keep turnout low
higher poverty rates
large minority population
large immigrant population
lower than average educational levels
lower than average age
D. lack of two-party competition
one-party Democratic from end of Reconstruction until 1970s
The legal voting requirements include 18 years of age, thirty days residency, registered, and no felony offenses. Approximately 45% of all eligible voters have turned out to vote in elections since 1960. The voter turnout among Hispanics and Blacks is usually low because they feel they have little stake in politics. As a general rule, whites vote; minorities do not. Older people and those with higher incomes vote, while the young and poor do not. Those with professional jobs vote; those with blue- and pink-collar jobs do not. This should not be surprising since various means to prevent these people from voting have been used throughout our history. Literacy tests and the white primary were aimed at minorities. The poll tax was used to prevent many lower income persons from voting during much of the 20th century. How frequent a voter are you? Do you fit the stereotypes above?
An interest group is an organization of individuals with similar views that tries to influence government to respond favorably to those views.
The principal purpose of interest group activity is to influence government to respond to the group’s objectives.
I. Types of Interest Groups
A. Membership Organizations
business (dominant)
agriculture
professional organizations (doctors, lawyers, teachers)
labor unions (weak in Texas, a right-to-work state)
ethnic (NAACP, LULAC)
religious organizations
B. Non-Membership Organizations
individual businesses not part of a membership organization
C. Local Governments
D. Functions of Interest Groups
They provide a vehicle for grassroots political participation.
They channel information on key issues to the general public.
They monitor the performance of federal officials and programs.
II. Techniques Used by Interest Groups
A. lobbying
communication by a representative of an interest group directed at a government official to influence the official’s decisions
legislature: provide information, communications with constituents, file bills
executive agencies: influence implementation of laws
types of lobbyists
contract
in-house
government (local)
citizen
private individual
B. electioneering
donate $ to campaign
media strategy (TV ads, newspaper ads)
raise $ for candidates
campaign volunteers
C. grassroots lobbying - shape public opinion
Groups Allied with
the Democratic Party
Groups Allied with
the Republican Party
organized labor
business groups and
trade organizations
environmental
organizations
most professional
organizations, including doctors and realtors
consumer groups
farm groups
African-American
rights organizations
religious
conservatives
Hispanic rights
groups
National Rifle
Association
gay and lesbian
rights organizations
right-to-life
advocates
teachers' groups
tort reform
organizations
Texas Abortion and
Reproductive Rights
Action League
trial lawyers
women rights group
III. Interest Group Power
A. Money: oil and gas industry
B. Membership: strength in numbers, teachers
C. Hire former legislators: former members know system and the current members
D. Distribution across state
wide distribution: strong
narrow or limited distribution: weaker
IV. Comparing Interest Group Power Across States
A. economic diversity
more diverse economy: more groups, less influence
less diverse economy: few dominant groups, more influence
B. party strength
weak two-party competition: strong groups
strong two-party system: weak groups
C. structure of state government
decentralized executive structure: strong groups
iron triangle (legislative committee, executive agency, interest group)
centralized executive structure: weaker groups
An interest group is any organized group whose members have common views about certain issues and so try to influence the government. There are a number of distinct differences between political parties and interest groups. For example,
the purpose of a
political party is strictly political. Parties want to win elections. The
purpose of an interest group, however, is to represent its members' interests.
This may mean supporting a winning candidate but it means many other things as
well, such as influencing legislation. Interest groups differ on membership, as well. The membership of a political party is extensive (broad activity) and inclusive (everyone) – meaning they include everyone who is interested in a broad range of issues. By contrast, interest groups have a membership that is intensive (specific activity) and exclusive (not everyone) – only those people who share their opinions on a narrow range of issues are welcomed. Be careful, though, since in recent years the parties have from time to time been captured by small groups that act more like interest groups than political parties. The antiwar Democrats of the 1970s and the fundamentalist Christian Republicans of the 1980s and 1990s are two good examples. Because Texas has traditionally had weak political parties, it has had very strong interest groups to fill the gap.
All interest groups have three general
functions. First, they act to identify, aggregate and express the interests of different segments of society. Second, they gather and disseminate information. Third, they provide expertise to the government and to their members. Depending on whom they are trying to influence, interest groups use a number of techniques to carry out these functions. In the
executive and legislative arenas, interest groups engage in lobbying, which is presenting views directly to government officials. Lobbying is one of the most successful techniques that interest groups have. Therefore, a lobbyist's most important asset is access. Can he readily meet with legislators and executives? Lobbying is very effective because the legislature lacks independent sources of information. Interest groups also attempt to influence the legislative and executive branches by influencing elections with money, votes, volunteers and endorsements. This is known as
electoral activity or electioneering. In order to circumvent campaign contribution laws, interest groups set up
PACs, or political action committees. The central purpose of a PAC is to provide campaign funds for candidates. Most recently organized PACs are associated with corporations which are not allowed to make campaign contributions. Interest groups have become such a powerful force in the Texas legislature, they are often referred to as the
third house.
In the
bureaucratic arena, interest groups regularly attempt to influence the legislature in order to bring about an increase or a decrease in the
appropriations to agencies that work with or against the interest group. Interest groups often have a direct involvement in
developing and implementing programs run by the bureaucracy. We often speak of an
iron triangle that exists between legislators, bureaucrats and lobbyists. These groups often become so intertwined and interdependent that it is hard to tell who is who.
In the
judicial arena, small, not-so-popular interest groups that have little money and little chance of winning in the legislature are more active since these techniques are less expensive than other techniques. Interest groups frequently file
amicus curiae briefs. These briefs express the opinion of the interest group on a case that is appearing before the court in an attempt to influence the judge’s ruling. The three largest filers of amicus curiae briefs are the US Attorney General’s Office, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the NAACP. A more extensive technique used in the judicial arena is
sponsoring test cases. Often, interest groups will use a particular person or incident as a test case of the constitutionality of a particular law. Two excellent examples of test cases sponsored by interest groups were
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka and Roe v. Wade. In those states where judges are elected, interest groups may engage in
electoral activity although, as with the legislative and executive arenas, this technique can be quite expensive.
Finally interest groups attempt to influence you and me. In the
public arena, interest groups engage in grass roots activities, which include a whole list of techniques from advertising to mass mailings. While interest groups are often vilified in the US, they play an important role in a democracy. They allow citizens to become actively engaged in influencing the government on issues that are of importance to them. In fact, one in three Americans are members of one or more interest groups. As with voting, higher educated, higher income professionals are most likely to be members of interest groups. Do you belong to or have you thought of belonging to an interest group? Why or why not? If you’ve never joined an interest group, give it a try! You might find that you like the experience.
Texas has weak parties and strong interest groups.
The principal purpose of political party activity is to gain control of government by winning elections.
I. 50 Two-Party Systems
A. state parties are independent of national organizations
1. few national offices, many state offices
2. common goals and similar issues, but separate organizations
B. state party ideology
1. competitive vs. noncompetitive states
2. policy-relevant vs. non-policy-relevant states
3. Texas
a. not competitive, Republican dominance
b. not policy relevant: old southern Democrats similar to new Republicans
c. traditional culture, small government, low taxes
II. Party Realignment in Texas
A. One-party Democratic
end of Reconstruction through 1970s
southern Democratic hostility to party of Lincoln, Reconstruction, Yankees
conservative Democrats dominate party: landowners and merchants
no competition for almost a century
Yellow Dog Democrats
B. a very gradual realignment from top to bottom
1950s presidential elections: Eisenhower over Stevenson
1961: first Republican senator since Reconstruction (Tower)
1970s: first Republican governor since Reconstruction (Clements)
1980s: Democratic defectors (Gramm)
1990s: Republican dominance ushered in by Bush
21st
century Republicans taking traditional Democratic county offices
The single factor most responsible for Republican growth in Texas after WWII was the increased size and prosperity of the Texas middle and upper classes.
C. voter profiles
Republicans
Democrats
suburbs
urban areas
younger
older
new Texans
old and native Texans
white
minorities
Protestant
Catholic
Which of the following policies would a conservative support?
a. strengthening the hand of labor unions
b. tighter government regulations of factory emissions of pollutants
c. strengthening protection of women, ethnic minorities, and the disabled in employment discrimination matters
d. reduction or elimination of the graduated income tax
Which of the following policies would a liberal support?
a. restricting the ability of a woman to obtain an abortion
b. prohibiting gays and lesbians from holding public employment
c. laws that provide equal pay for equal work for women
d. reducing the progressiveness of the national income tax
D. de-alignment and the declining influence of parties
more independent voters
party outsiders winning party nominations
media weeds out candidates, not party leaders
raise $ from individuals and interest groups, not just parties
well-funded candidates have upper hand, not party organizations
precinct chair: basic level in the party organization in Texas
county chair and executive committee
state chair and executive committee
B. Temporary Party: only during election years
precinct convention: held on primary election day, must vote in primary
to attend
select delegates to:
county or district convention
select delegates to:
state convention
select national convention delegates
nominate electors for electoral college (presidential election years only)
write party platform
C. Delegate selection systems
primary elections
used in Texas
caucus
used in Iowa
Political parties in the US are composed of two different structures. The
permanent party structure is those people and organizations that keep the party functioning on a daily basis. The permanent party structure has three parts. The
party organization is composed of all those activists, volunteers and party officials that are active in the day-to-day functioning of the party. The party organization is organized like the federal government – it has organizations at the national, state and local levels. That means it is decentralized – decisions and money flow from the bottom to the top. The party organization is also diverse – each organization has its own unique flavor. Among the people in the party organization are the party officials. Check with your text to find out the duties of the following party officials and how they are chosen: the national chair and vice chair, the national executive committee, the state chair and vice chair, the state executive committee, the county chair and county executive committee, and the precinct chair. The precinct chair is the basic level in the party organization in Texas.
The
party-in-government, the second part of the permanent party organization, is composed of all those elected government officials of the party. You will frequently find conflict between the party organization and the party-in-government over who is in charge of the party and who should determine its course, beliefs, strategy, platform and so forth. Because of the rise of candidate-centered campaigns, candidates no longer need party permission or support to get elected. Too, the party cannot determine who uses its name. Thus government officials are elected with the label of the party, but without party support, endorsement or loyalty.
The
party-in-the-electorate is all those people who identify with the party. Party identification makes it more likely that people will get involved in politics. Independents vote in much less numbers than do people who are self-identified as belonging to a party.
The second major structure of US political parties is the
temporary party structure, sometimes called the Convention System. The temporary party structure occurs every two years beginning with the primary election and ending with the national convention. It may involve people who have no real connection with the party, but rather are ideologues or one-issue groups that do not necessarily represent the party as a whole (much less the voters). Nonetheless, because these people attend the party conventions in large numbers, it is these people who decide party issues. The convention system is described in detail in your text. It consists of the precinct convention/caucus, the county convention, the state convention and the national convention. Each convention level has its own responsibilities. The national convention adopts a national platform and rules, elects a national chair and vice chair, and selects the party’s presidential nominee every 4 years. The state convention adopts a state platform and rules, elects a national committeeman and committeewoman, elects delegates to the national convention, elects the state chair and vice chair, and elects the district committeemen and committeewomen who make up the state executive committee. The county convention adopts the county platform and rules, and elects delegates to the state convention. The precinct convention adopts precinct resolutions and elects delegates to the county convention. As we spend more time on elections, you will begin to see the how the role of the parties has changed over the last two hundred years.
From the end of Reconstruction until the late 1970s, the Democratic Party dominated Texas politics. The Republican Party began to grow, however, following WWII with the increased size and prosperity of the middle and upper classes in Texas. The first Republican official elected to a statewide office was John Tower, who was elected to the US Senate in 1961. The Republican base generally lies in urbanized, rapidly growing areas that contain lots of non-Texans. African Americans overwhelmingly vote Democratic. This has been true of Hispanics as well, although the latter may be changing.
The majority of American voters stand somewhere near the middle ground on many issues of American politics. Where do you place yourself politically? Now, most importantly, why? If you think you are a conservative ... why? If you think you are a liberal ... why? Don't look at only one or two issues. Look at a broad range of issues.
Campaigns and Elections
I. Primary Elections
Primary elections are the first elections held in an electoral cycle. Primary
elections are voting processes by which voters can indicate their preference for
their party's candidate in an upcoming general election. The laws governing
primary elections vary from state to state and can vary within states by
locality and by political party. Primaries are generally considered partisan or
nonpartisan.
Our current primary system has a number of drawbacks. In one-party states (which
often have candidates from only one party running), a partisan primary election
may be the only election in which voters have a choice. Too, since partisan
gerrymandering has resulted in the vast majority of districts being “safe,”
partisan primary elections can limit choice even in competitive states. Only 10%
of each party’s voters, who tend towards the extremes, show up for partisan
primaries, resulting in increasingly extreme candidates making it to the general
election. Partisan primary elections disproportionately empower partisan
gatekeepers, who largely decide the candidates that receive support and
publicity. By the time most voters make their voices heard, the winner has
already been decided. Thus, partisan primary elections do a poor job of
reflecting the true preferences of the voters in a district.
Texas officially recognizes four political parties: the Democratic, Green,
Libertarian and Republican parties. Primaries must be held by any party
receiving 20% or more of the total number of votes received by all candidates
for governor in the most recent election. Primaries are also used to choose the
party’s convention delegates and leaders. Political parties receiving 2%-20%
must nominate their candidates through a convention process.
open: A voter of any political affiliation may vote in the primary
of any party. For example, a voter registered as a Democrat can choose to
vote in the Republican primary. A voter may only vote in one party’s
primary. In many states, voters are not required to choose a political
affiliation when they register to vote. States vary in how they administer
open primaries for absentee voters. Critics of this type worry that members
of the opposing party can “raid” the election process through crossover
voting. Considered a partisan primary.
In Texas, voters must affiliate with a party but not at the time of
registration so it is considered an open primary state. There are
several main ways for a voter to affiliate with a party: by being
accepted to vote in a party’s primary election, by taking the required
oath at a party precinct convention, or by taking a party oath of
affiliation generally. A voter’s affiliation with a party automatically
expires at the end of each calendar year. After being affiliated with a
party, a voter is not able to change or cancel their party affiliation
until the end of the calendar year. If a voter has not yet affiliated
with a party, they are able to vote in either party’s primary election.
However, if a voter votes in the primary of one party, they will only be
able to vote in that party’s primary runoff election. Texas primary
elections are held on the first Tuesday in March of even-numbered years
and local election officials (county, city and township) are
predominantly responsible for administering them.
closed: Voters may only vote in the primary of the party they are
registered with. For example, a voter registered as a Republican can only
vote in a Republican primary. Absentee voters in states that conduct closed
primaries are often required to choose a party affiliation on their voter
registration form in order to participate in the state’s primary elections.
Voters who have declared loyalty to minor parties or are Independent are not
permitted to participate. Considered a partisan primary.
semi-closed: Independent voters, or those without a party
affiliation, may choose which party’s primary they want to vote in. Those
registered with a party may only vote in that party’s primary. For example,
a voter registered as a Democrat may only vote in a Democratic primary,
while a voter registered as an Independent may choose to vote in a
Democratic or Republican primary. Considered a partisan primary.
top-two: All candidates are listed on the same ballot. Voters choose
one candidate per office regardless of party affiliation. The top two
vote-getters advance to the general election, regardless of their partisan
affiliations, Consequently, it is possible for two candidates belonging to
the same political party to win in a top-two primary and face off in the
general election. Considered a nonpartisan primary.
top-four: All candidates are listed on the same ballot. Voters are
allowed to choose one candidate per office regardless of the candidate's
party affiliation. The top four vote-getters advance to the general
election, regardless of their partisan affiliations. Consequently, it is
possible for four candidates belonging to the same political party to win in
a top-four primary and face off in the general election. Considered a
nonpartisan primary.
blanket: All candidates are listed on the same ballot. Voters are
allowed to choose one candidate per office regardless of the candidate's
party affiliation. The top vote-getters from each party that is
participating in the primary then advance to the general election.
Consequently, one candidate for each political party participating in the
primary will face off in the general election. Considered a nonpartisan
primary.
runoff: An election held if no candidate for a particular office
receives the vote necessary to be elected in an election requiring a
majority vote.
Texas requires a majority to win in primary elections so that if no
candidate for an office wins 50%+ of the vote, a runoff is held between
the candidates with the top two numbers of votes.
presidential preference: Presidential candidates are not directly
nominated via primary elections but rather are formally nominated at
political party conventions. Presidential preference primary elections or
caucuses are held in each state to determine how that state's delegation
will vote during the nominating convention. A presidential preference
primary is an election at which a political party’s voters are given an
opportunity to express their preferences for the party’s presidential
candidates, for the purpose of determining the allocation of the party’s
delegates from that state to the party’s national presidential nominating
convention. There are differences in whether the ballot lists candidate or
delegate names. The presidential preference primary is a direct vote for a
specific candidate. The voter chooses the candidate by name. The second
method is more indirect, giving the voter a choice among delegate names
rather than candidate names. Delegates voice support for a particular
candidate or remain uncommitted. The Democratic Party always uses a
proportional method for awarding delegates. The percentage of delegates each
candidate is awarded (or the number of undecided delegates) is
representative of the number of primary votes for the candidate. For example
imagine a state with ten delegates and three candidates. If 60% of the
people supported candidate X, 20% supported candidate Y, and 20% supported
candidate Z, candidate X would receive six delegates and candidates Y and Z
would each receive two delegates. The Republican Party, unlike the
Democratic Party, allows each state to decide whether to use the
winner-take-all method or the proportional method. In the winner-take-all
method the candidate whom the majority of voters supports receives all the
delegates for the state.
Although
voters across the country cast ballots for their preferred presidential
candidate during the presidential primary season, it’s actually the
delegates to the national party conventions who select the presidential
nominees for each major party. Pledged/bound delegates must vote for a
particular presidential candidate at the convention based on the results of
the primary or caucus in their state. The requirement to vote for a specific
candidate lasts at least through the first round of voting at the
convention, but depending on state and party rules, some pledged/bound
delegates become free to vote for any candidate on subsequent rounds of
voting. Unpledged/unbound/super delegates may support any presidential
candidate regardless of the primary or caucus results in their state or
local district.
There is a great deal of disagreement on whether pledged/bound delegates
could be stopped at convention if they voted contrary to their pledge.
Further, under Democratic Party rules “delegates pledged to a specific
candidate are encouraged - but not required - to vote for the candidate they
had been selected to support.” Republican delegates may be pledged to a
candidate by personal statements or even state law but, according to RNC
rules, “may cast their vote for anyone at the convention.”
In Texas, the names of presidential candidates are printed as the first
race on the primary ballot under the heading "Preference For
Presidential Nominee." Delegates are chosen via the so-called Texas
Two-Step method because Texans are required to first vote in the
primary election in order to be eligible for participation in party
caucuses in which delegates are selected. The Republican Party of Texas
has a winner-take-all provision in its primary, and the chances any
candidate will get all of that party’s Texas delegates are very small.
That candidate would have to win more than 50% of the vote statewide and
also in each of the state’s 38 congressional districts. Absent that, a
pro-rata system is followed to allocate delegates roughly according to
votes received. All Republican delegates are bound through the first two
rounds of voting. The Texas Democratic Party no longer selects state
delegates at caucuses. After the votes of Texans participating in the
Democratic primary are counted, delegates are awarded among the
candidates who received 15% or more of the vote, in proportion to the
votes received by each. It would be even harder for a Democrat than for
a Republican to get all of the Texas delegates from their party in a
presidential primary. A Democratic candidate could do so only by winning
85% of the vote statewide and in each of Texas’ 31 state Senate
districts. About 10% of Democratic delegates are unpledged, while the
rest are pledged through the first round of voting.
II. General Elections
General elections are statewide elections held every two years in even-numbered
years on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. In general elections
candidates (usually chosen via a primary election) are elected to office. Major
state officials (such as the attorney general, governor, lieutenant governor and
comptroller of public accounts) are elected in nonpresidential/midterm election
years. General elections occur at local, state and federal levels. In some
cases, general elections may occur at irregular times (special elections), such
as to elect a replacement for a seat vacated due to death, resignation or
removal from office. Other than those things stated in the US Constitution
regarding federal elections, states have control over the administration of
general elections, including those for federal offices.
In Texas, general elections for state and county offices are held in
even-numbered years. General elections for many local offices, such as
mayors and school boards, are held in odd-numbered years. A plurality (most
votes) is required to win in Texas general elections. Texas has automatic
recounts only in the case of a tie vote. However, it has liberal laws on
candidate-requested recounts. A losing candidate can request and pay for a
recount if the margin between the top candidates is less than 10% of the
leader's vote total. Losing candidates can also request recounts in any race
with fewer than 1,000 total votes.
A. Constitutional Amendment elections: Amending the Texas Constitution
is a two-step process. The Texas Legislature is required to pass proposed
amendments with a two-thirds vote. The proposed amendments are then approved
(or not) by a majority of Texas voters in state-wide general elections held
on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November in odd-numbered years.
This method of amending the constitution has a number of problems.
1. Although the issues voted on are often important and have far-reaching
effects, voter turnout is usually extremely low (9%-15% of registered
voters). That means a tiny number of Texans are making important
decisions for all.
2. Although voting is simple (a “yes” vote supports amending the
constitution, a “no” vote opposes amending the constitution) and voters
usually know where they stand on the issues involved, the wording of the
proposed amendments passed by the legislature is often so confusing that
voters don’t know whether to vote for or against them. For example,
voters were told one proposed amendment would lower property taxes for
disabled and elderly homeowners. This is what appeared on the ballot:
“The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for
the reduction of the amount of a limitation on the total amount of ad
valorem taxes that may be imposed for general elementary and secondary
public school purposes on the residence homestead of a person who is
elderly or disabled to reflect any statutory reduction from the
preceding tax year in the maximum compressed rate of the maintenance and
operations taxes imposed for those purposes on the homestead.”
3. The legislature sometimes packages several provisions into one proposed
amendment (usually 1 very popular and 1 or more unpopular), creating a lose-lose situation for voters.
4. Many proposed amendments deal with local issues, which means those
localities are at the mercy of state-wide voters. For example, in 2023
voters state wide had decide whether or not to allow Galveston County to
eliminate its county treasurer position.
5. Most Constitutional Amendment elections have at least a dozen proposed
amendments (and often many more) on the ballot so that voting often
becomes an endurance contest.
6. Keep in mind that all of this - the confusion, the lack of
participation, the packing and so on - is part of amending the
constitution, the basic law of the state.
B. Presidential general elections: Although in most states the names of
the candidates for president and vice president appear on the ballot, voters
are not electing them. Voters are electing a slate of electors, who
collectively will comprise the Electoral College and elect the president and
vice president.
The
Electoral College is a group of electors that formally elects the
president and vice president (elector: a person who elects someone else,
college: a decision-making group such as the College of Cardinals, which
elects the pope). The number of electors from each state is equal to the sum
of the state's senators and representatives in the Congress. The District of
Columbia received the right to be represented by electors in 1961 with the
ratification of the 23d Amendment. Today, the Electoral College has 538
representatives.
The Founding Fathers rejected the idea of direct elections. This was, of
course, a time when communication and travel were difficult and there were
no national parties. In the first presidential election, George Washington
and John Adams were elected president and vice president respectively by the
Electoral College. There was no popular vote.
The power to determine the method of choosing electors belongs to the
states. Generally, the parties select the slate of electors, who are then
chosen by popular vote. The electors assemble in their respective state
capitals on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December.
According to the Constitution, the electors may exercise their own
discretion in voting, but in practice all the votes in a given state go to
the presidential candidate who has received the plurality of the popular
vote. The candidate who becomes the President must win at least 270
electoral votes.
Some have proposed replacing the Electoral College with a system of direct
elections. Such proposals would require amending the US Constitution. A
system of direct elections would not only reduce the power of the two major
political parties, but would also reduce the importance of the states in the
electoral process.
In Texas, each political party nominates a slate of electors equal to
the number of votes the state has in the Electoral College. Each also
nominates a list of alternate electors. The names of the presidential
and vice presidential candidates appear on the general election ballot.
(State law forbids the placing of presidential elector names on the
ballot.) However, a vote for a presidential candidate and the
candidate’s running mate is counted as a vote for the corresponding
presidential elector nominees. So, for example, if the Republican
candidate for president wins the Texas general election, the Republican
slate of electors are the winning electors and will meet to cast Texas’
votes for president.
Prior to their meeting in Austin, each elector and alternate elector
must take the following oath: "If selected for the position of elector,
I swear to serve and to mark my ballots for president and vice president
for the nominees for those offices of the party that nominated me." When
the winning slate of electors and alternate electors meet, the Texas
Secretary of State presides and distributes two ballots to each elector
- one for president and one for vice president. Each elector is required
to mark both ballots in accordance with their oath, sign the ballots and
return them to the SOS. If an elector does not, that elector’s office is
considered vacant, a new elector is immediately chosen from the
alternate electors, both ballots are redistributed to the group of
electors, and they vote again. This process is repeated until all of the
state’s electoral votes have been cast.
C. drawing legislative districts
reapportionment: the process of distributing the 435 US House
seats among the 50 states based on changes in population. It is the
Constitutional basis for conducting the decennial census.
redistricting: happens after reapportionment, so that each
district has roughly the same number of people. Once a state finds out
how many House seats it will have for the next 10 years, it redraws the
district lines for its seats so that each House district in the state
represents the same number of people. The Census tells a state where its
residents are located within the state. Based on the results, the state
then redraws not only the district lines for its US House seats but also
for state legislative seats, state boards and commissions, judicial
districts, local officials - the district for any elected office that is
not statewide - so that all electoral districts represent an equal
number of people.
There is no universal process for drawing district maps, so states use
different methods. 17 states currently give some form of redistricting
commission responsibility over the map-drawing process. Commissions may
be independent, bipartisan, advisory or act only as a backup. 33 states
currently assign redistricting to their legislators. Unfortunately, with
partisan legislators drawing their own boundaries, there is ample room
for political bias.
When redistricting, state legislatures or redistricting commissions are
provided certain criteria with which to draw the lines. These criteria
are intended to make the districts easy to identify and understand, and
to ensure fairness and consistency. All states must comply with the
federal constitutional requirements related to population and
anti-discrimination. All districts must be as nearly equal in population
as practicable. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits plans that
intentionally or inadvertently discriminate on the basis of race, which
could dilute the minority vote.
In addition to these mandatory standards set out by the US Constitution
and the Voting Rights Act, states are allowed to adopt their own
redistricting criteria or principles for drawing the plans. These may be
found in state constitutions or statutes or be adopted by a legislature,
chamber or committee, or by a court when the legislative process fails.
These traditional districting principles have been adopted by many
states:
compactness: having the minimum distance between all the parts of a
constituency (a circle, square or hexagon)
contiguity: all parts of a district being connected at some point
with the rest of the district
preservation of political subdivisions: not crossing county, city or
town boundaries when drawing districts
preservation of communities of interest: geographical areas, such as
neighborhoods of a city or regions of a state, where the residents
have common political interests that do not necessarily coincide
with the boundaries of a political subdivision, such as a city or
county
preservation of cores of prior districts: maintaining districts as
previously drawn, to the extent possible, leading to continuity of
representation
avoiding pairing incumbents: avoiding districts that would create
contests between incumbents
prohibition on favoring or disfavoring an incumbent, candidate or
party: the prohibition in a given state may be broader, covering any
person or group, or it may be limited to intentionally or unduly
favoring a person or group
prohibition on using partisan data: line drawers, whether
commissioners, nonpartisan staff or legislators, are prohibited from
using incumbent residences, election results, party registration or
other socio-economic data as an input when redrawing districts
competitiveness: districts having relatively even partisan balance,
making competition between the two major parties more intense to
avoid the creation of “safe” districts for a particular party
proportionality: the statewide proportion of districts whose voters
(based on statewide state and federal partisan general election
results durin
g the last ten years) favor each political party correspond closely
to the statewide preferences of the voters
For US House districts, Texas adheres only to the criteria of equal
population and VRA requirements when redistricting. For the
redistricting of state legislative seats, the Texas Constitution also
requires contiguity and the preservation of political subdivisions.
malapportionment: the creation of electoral districts with
unequal population. For example, if one district has 10,000 voters and
another has 100,000 voters, voters in the former district have ten times
the influence, per person, over the governing body. Sometimes
malapportionment is built into the system. For example, the US
Constitution gives every state 2 US Senators even though, for example,
California has 70 times the population of Wyoming, making California
residents vastly underrepresented.
Baker vs. Carr (1962): The 14th Amendment prohibits
substantial disparities or malapportionment in total population
between electoral districts in the same districting plan … the one-
person, one-vote principle.
Reynolds vs. Sims (1964): Under Baker, the electoral
districts of state legislative chambers must be roughly equal in
population.
Voting Rights Act: Passed at the height of the Civil Rights
Movement in 1965, the VRA prevents the systemic and widespread voter
discrimination experienced by people of color. The VRA has been used to
block voter suppression laws such as demands for voter identification,
voter registration purges and making voter registration harder. The
process of voting involves not only casting a vote. It also includes
rules and processes that determine who is eligible, how to register, how
to vote, when polls are open and whether people are put in districts
that give them a fair chance of electing their candidate of choice.
Section 2 of the VRA protects voters from discrimination based on race,
color or membership in a language minority group in all these election
procedures.
However, the Supreme Court struck down key provisions of the VRA in
Shelby v. Holder (2013) and Brnovich v. Democratic National
Committee (2021). These decisions struck down sections 2 and 5 of
the VRA, allowing states with a history of racially discriminatory maps
and voting rules to implement new voting laws and maps without federal
approval, resulting in new discriminatory practices and restrictive
voting laws across the country. How effectively the VRA will be able to
protect voters of color going into the future is now in doubt.
12/2023 update: The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit found
that only the federal government could bring a legal challenge under
Section 2 of the VRA, a crucial part of the law that prohibits election
or voting practices that discriminate against Americans based on race,
effectively barring private citizens and civil rights groups from filing
lawsuits.
structural bias: the institutional patterns and practices that
confer advantage to some and disadvantage to others based on identity.
The US Constitution and constitutional law regulate the workings of
government and supply the rules of the political game. Whether by design
or by accident, these rules sometimes tilt the playing field for or
against certain political groups - not just episodically, based on who
holds power at a given moment, but systematically over time - in terms
of electoral outcomes or policy objectives.
single-member district system: the most common US electoral
system. It is used to elect the US House and most state and local
legislatures. Under single-member systems, an area is divided into a
number of geographically defined voting districts, each represented
by a single elected official. Voters can only vote for their
district’s representative, with the highest vote-getter winning
election. Single-member districts can provide voters with one easily
identifiable district representative, can maximize accountability
because a single representative can be held responsible and can be
re-elected or defeated in the next election, and can ensure
geographic representation. However, single-member districts must be
redrawn on a regular basis to maintain populations of relatively
equal size. They are also usually artificial geographic entities
whose boundaries don’t delineate clearly identifiable communities,
and as a consequence, have no particular relevance to citizens.
Because of their winner-take-all nature, single-member districts
tend to over-represent the majority party and under-represent other
parties. This can lead to bias.
urban-rural polarization: Because Democrats are increasingly
concentrated in densely populated cities, their candidates win by
overwhelming majorities in large cities but often lose by relatively
small margins elsewhere. They often win a greater share of votes
than their share of seats, especially in the states of the Midwest,
where it is commonplace for the Democrats to win statewide elections
without coming anywhere near a majority in the state legislature or
the House delegation. This leads to political underrepresentation of
people living in cities.
wasted votes: Single-member districts mean that a vote cast
for a losing candidate will not be represented. Similarly, a vote
cast for a candidate over the threshold needed to win is electorally
useless. Both of these votes are wasted votes. Democrats cast more
wasted votes than Republicans due to an imbalance in how party
members are distributed among districts. This imbalance is a result
of both natural sorting and political gerrymandering.
natural sorting: describes how members of the two parties are
distributed across the country. Democrats are heavily concentrated
in cities and urban areas. Republicans tend to be scattered among
rural, exurban and suburban districts. There are more districts with
very high concentrations of Democratic voters than there are
districts with very high concentrations of Republican voters. This
Democratic density makes it easy to win individual seats but creates
lots of wasted votes. The end result is that voters are
misrepresented in their government.
misrepresentation: In red states, Republicans garnered 56% of
the vote but 74.6% of representation. In blue states, Democrats won
60.3% of the vote but 69.1% of representation (seat bonus bias: the
gap between each party’s share of the national popular vote and
their share of seats). In the House, Democrats over-represent blue
states by 19 seats, whereas Republicans over-represent red states by
40 seats. For individual states, misrepresentation is even larger.
The level of misrepresentation is 20% or greater in 23 states -
almost half the country - and over 30% in 12 states.
Misrepresentation can lead to social and economic policy
distortions, feed distrust and drive discontent in government. The
edge provided by this misrepresentation gives the majority party
disproportionate power that is particularly destabilizing and
dangerous in an era of heightened polarization and partisanship.
gerrymandering: the practice of drawing the boundaries of
electoral districts in a way that gives one political party an unfair
advantage over its rivals (political or partisan gerrymandering) or that
dilutes the voting power of members of ethnic or linguistic minority
groups (racial gerrymandering), while ignoring voter preferences.
Gerrymandering is nearly as old as the US (1780s) but it has changed
dramatically since the founding. Where politicians once had to pick from
a few maps drawn by hand, they now can create and pick from thousands of
computer-generated maps, using tactics called packing and cracking.
Packing is drawing districts to heavily over-represent the opposition
party, wasting as many votes as possible over the winning threshold.
Cracking is the opposite: diluting the opposition’s voters into
districts so they cannot reach the threshold. Most statewide
gerrymanders are a combination of packing and cracking.
Done right, redistricting is a chance to create maps that, in the words
of
John Adams, are an “exact portrait, a miniature” of the people as a
whole. A truly representative government would mean that the composition
of the officials elected from districts would mirror the political
positions of the population. For instance, if the country were 60%
Republican, Congress ought to be 60% Republican as well. But sometimes
the redistricting process is used to draw maps that manufacture election
outcomes that are detached from the preferences of voters. Rather than
voters choosing their representatives, gerrymandering empowers
politicians to choose their voters. This tends to occur especially when
line drawing is left to legislatures and one political party controls
the process, as has become increasingly common. When that happens,
partisan concerns almost invariably take precedence over all else.
Gerrymandering is one reason that only about 10% to 15% of all 435 seats
in the US House are competitive, and one of the many reasons that
gerrymandering is extremely unpopular with voters.
Electoral districts that are both uncompetitive and skewed in favor of
one group produce electoral results are virtually guaranteed and have a
real impact on the balance of power in Congress and in many state
legislatures. There is no question that such practices are harmful to
democracy by creating electoral districts that are deeply
unrepresentative, by pre-determining outcomes and by depriving voters of
meaningful choices at the polls.
political gerrymandering: the manipulation of electoral
districts to favor one party over another. States where one party
controls the process often use gerrymandering to maximize their
party’s representation. Political gerrymandering characteristically
results in a greater number of wasted votes, both for the losing
party and for the winning candidate in excess of the number needed
to win (an efficiency gap). Political gerrymandering hinders party
competition and the resulting increase in safe seats leads to
political monopoly and feeds extremism in the majority party. On the
state level, political gerrymandering has led to significant
partisan bias in maps. For example, in 2018, Democrats in Wisconsin
won every statewide office and a majority of the statewide vote but,
thanks to gerrymandering, won only 36 of the 99 seats in the state
assembly. The widespread practice has led to a number of challenges
in the federal courts but no definitive court decisions. The last
political gerrymandering case was Rucho v. Common Cause
(2019), in which SCOTUS determined that gerrymandering for party
advantage could not be challenged in federal court, that “partisan
gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach
of the federal courts,” and therefore it had no constitutional
authority to throw out voting maps for being too partisan.
extreme political gerrymandering: a recent term for creating
maps in which candidates from only one ideological wing are elected
and use the party’s control of the process to lock in an outsized
share of seats for an entire decade. Its goal is to lock in control
of all of a state’s electoral districts regardless of its share of
voters. In the wake of the 2020 Census, state legislators crafted a
number of
hyper-partisan and discriminatory gerrymanders. It occurs not in
deeply red or deeply blue states but in battleground states like
Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina and Pennsylvania, that aren’t
starkly clustered but that just happened to be controlled by a
single party at the time of redistricting. The cities in those
states may be fairly to heavily Democratic but they also have a lot
of Democrats in suburbs, college towns and rural areas. Given a
comparatively even spread of Republicans and Democrats, it matters
greatly how new districts are drawn. Extreme political
gerrymandering is closely correlated with single-party control of
the redistricting process. The lasting and harmful effects of
extreme partisan gerrymandering are especially apparent in
traditionally purple states, like North Carolina. At a statewide
level, North Carolina is a robust democracy with highly contested
elections for everything from president to state auditor. But over
the last decade, Republicans secured supermajorities in the state
legislature, as well as a safe, durable 10–3 advantage in the
congressional delegation. Recent studies have found that
gerrymandering, pushed to the limit, could exclude the views of half
the country from the legislative process, radically reshaping the
makeup of Congress and having major implications for the legislation
that could be passed.
racial gerrymandering: sorting voters into districts with a
predominant focus on race. Previously, voters of color were
protected from gerrymandering by the VRA but in the last decade, the
Supreme Court struck down key provisions of the VRA in Shelby v.
Holder (2013) and Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee
(2021). These decisions struck down sections 2 and 5 of the VRA,
allowing states with a history of racially discriminatory maps and
voting rules to implement new voting laws and maps without federal
approval, resulting in new discriminatory practices and restrictive
voting laws across the country. The 2021 redistricting cycle was the
first one without the full protections of the VRA and many states
took advantage of this to implement racially gerrymandered maps.
A state may not use race as the predominant factor in assigning
voters to districts in any federal, state or local electoral maps
unless it has a compelling reason to do so. If the map drawers do
use race without any compelling reason, then the relevant districts
are deemed racially gerrymandered. However, federal law establishes
that to combat racial gerrymandering and to ensure compliance with
the VRA, states may create majority-minority electoral districts.
majority-minority districts: electoral districts in which the
majority of the constituents in the district are racial or ethnic
minorities. The creation of such districts can avoid racial vote
dilution by preventing the submergence of minority voters into the
majority, which can deny minority voters the opportunity to elect a
candidate of their choice. But the establishment of
majority-minority districts can result in packing, which occurs when
a constituency or voting group is placed within a single district,
thereby minimizing its influence in other districts. In 2022, there
were 136 majority-minority districts in the US House (31% of seats)
across 27 states.
[Note: In Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), the Supreme Court
said that only racial gerrymandering, but not political
gerrymandering, may be challenged in federal court. However, since
Black voters overwhelmingly favor Democrats, it may be difficult to
distinguish the roles of race and partisanship in drawing electoral
maps. That may make it possibly for states to defend racially
discriminatory maps on grounds that they were permissibly
discriminating against Democrats rather than impermissibly
discriminating against voters of color.]
d.
In Texas, where the 2011 GOP gerrymander was weakening due to
changes in voting patterns such as suburbs trending Democratic, the
GOP made a strategic decision to focus on maximizing safety for
incumbents rather than expanding their reach. They wiped out most
swing districts in the state, making Republican incumbents harder
for Democrats to defeat, but the number of districts that voted more
for Trump than the national average in 2020 is staying the same. The
new map created by the Texas Legislature following the 2020 Census
is an example of extreme partisan gerrymandering. The map received
an F grade from the Princeton Gerrymandering Project for giving
Republicans a “significant advantage,” as well as an F grade for
geographic features because it contains more county splits and
“non-compact districts” than typical.
The Campaign Legal Center estimates the map is “more skewed than 78%
of past maps” it has analyzed. In 2020, Trump won 52.1% of the vote
in Texas. Yet experts predict that Republicans will likely control
63%-66% of the state’s seats in the US House the new map. The map
also reduces the number of “highly competitive seats” from 6 to 1.
Observers have argued that the new Texas map
does not fairly reflect the demographics of the state’s
residents and the correlations between race and party in Texas
elections take that strategy of political discrimination perilously
close to
racial discrimination. While white people make up only 40% of
the Texas population, they will likely represent 60% of the state’s
House districts. Hispanic advocacy organizations have filed two
lawsuits to contest the new map, and the DOJ has challenged the new
map, arguing it violates the Voting Rights Act by diluting the
voting power of African American and Latino voters in Texas.
A. voter registration: All states except North Dakota require voters to
register before voting in an election. Most states allow voter registration
by mail. Dates, residency requirements and other details vary by state. The
Texas requirements can be found
here.
B. election day in-person voting: Voting online is not yet allowed in
the US. Voters who vote on election day must do so in person.
Every state (and some localities) has its own hours and required
locations (polling places) for voting, and the type of identification a
voter is allowed to bring. The Texas requirements can be found
here.
C. early in-person voting: a system or practice by which votes are cast
ahead of election day. Most states allow voters to vote in person during a
designated early voting period, without requiring an excuse. In some states,
voters may need to request an absentee ballot to be able to vote early. The
details vary from state to state. The Texas requirements can be found
here.
D. absentee voting or voting by mail: allows voters to vote before
election day by mail or drop box. Although every state has absentee voting,
deadlines and rules on who can take part vary. In most states, voters need
to request an absentee ballot to vote in each election. In some states,
voters may qualify to receive absentee ballots permanently. State laws vary
greatly. The Texas requirements can be found
here.
IV. Ballot Rules
A. types of ballots
party
column
lists all candidates of a party under the party name
also called
Indiana ballot
more straight ticket voting
voting for candidates who are all from the same party
office block
lists all candidates for an office under the office
also called
Massachusetts ballot
more split ticket voting
voting for candidates of different parties for various offices in the same election
hybrid ballot
B. access
independent candidate: petition signed by 1% of number of voters in last governor election
petition signers must be registered voters who did not vote in a primary
write-in candidates: must declare candidacy for votes to count
C. minor parties
between 5% and 19% of vote for statewide office
must hold nominating conventions, but not primary elections
if slip below 5% for statewide office, lose ballot status
V. Modern Campaigns
A. old system
1. local campaigns, limited statewide media
2. tell each county what they want to hear,
tailor message to each venue
B. new system
1.
mass media, same message
2. speak in
sound bites
3.
campaign ads
a. feel good spots: associate the candidate with good times
(family eating together, sun coming up), good times for this state or
country are ahead with this candidate in office
b. sainthood: present candidate with his family, ideal father,
little league coach, creating the perfect candidate
c. good old boy: Voters identify with the candidate as being one
of them. Create a link between candidate and average people. One version
is to have average citizens talking in campaign ads about the candidate,
not famous people, politicians or celebrities. Other version is when you
make candidate seem a little bit more common, to identify them as
someone like them, someone who really cares about people.
d. NOOTs (No One's Opposed To This): The candidate takes a
courageous stand on an issue (broad not detailed because that's when you
start getting opposition). Looks into the camera and tells us he's
against crime, in favor of making schools better. (Nobody is against
these things.)
e. basher spots: negative campaigning
C. role of consultants
1. sell candidate as a product, package the candidate
2. image and message, not the issues
D. role of the PAC
1. political action committee: common term for a committee set up to raise
and spend money to elect and defeat candidates
2. most PACs represent ideological, business or labor interests
3. can’t buy an election
4. can buy access
5. late train financing: post election fund-raising especially if PAC supported loser