The Evolution of Substantive and Descriptive Representation, 1974-2004

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

2. Georgia’s Gerrymander 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: • It abandoned a previous, “relatively mechanical” retrogression test based on electability; • It did so in favor of an amorphous concept of substantive representation that will be difficult to administer; and • 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. Measuring Descriptive Representation P* High Polarization % BVAP 0 50 100

9. Measuring Descriptive Representation P* High Polarization % BVAP 0 50 100 Minority Control No Minority Control

10. Electability: Low Polarization

11. Measuring Descriptive Representation P* High Polarization % BVAP 0 50 100 Minority Control No Minority Control P* Low Polarization % BVAP 0 50 100

12. Measuring Descriptive Representation P* High Polarization % BVAP 0 50 100 Minority Control No Minority Control P* Low Polarization % BVAP 0 50 100 Coali- tional

13. Measuring Descriptive Representation P* High Polarization % BVAP 0 50 100 Minority Control No Minority Control P* PS Low Polarization % BVAP 0 50 100 Coali- tional Unsafe Control

14. Measuring Descriptive Representation P* High Polarization % BVAP 0 50 100 Minority Control No Minority Control P* PS PP Low Polarization % BVAP 0 50 100 Coali- tional Unsafe Control Safe Control Packing

15. Measuring Descriptive Representation P* High Polarization % BVAP 0 50 100 Minority Control No Minority Control PI P* PS PP Low Polarization % BVAP 0 50 100 Coali- tional Unsafe Control Safe Control Packing No Minority Control Influence

16. Measuring Descriptive Representation P* High Polarization % BVAP 0 50 100 Minority Control No Minority Control PI P* PS PP Low Polarization % BVAP 0 50 100 Coali- tional Unsafe Control Safe Control Packing No Minority Control 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. Ashcroft & Substantive Representation Descriptive Pareto Frontier Substantive

21. Ashcroft & Substantive Representation Descriptive Pareto Frontier SQ Substantive

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

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

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

25. 1 2 3 4 Ashcroft & Substantive Representation Descriptive Pareto Frontier SQ X P Substantive 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. White Dem. Black Dem. South Carolina State House Rep.

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

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. White Dems White Dems Black Dems Probability Probability Republicans Black Dems Republicans Black Dems White Dems Black Dems Republicans Probability Probability 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. Black Dem. White Dem. Rep.