LOUISIANA PROGRESS JOURNAL

Special Issue on Redistricting, Spring 2011 - A Project of the Coalition for Louisiana Progress

BETWEEN THE LINES

Redistricting
Louisiana
The 1991”Zorro District”
did not meet constitutional
standards.

Inform Engage Mobilize

www.louisianaprogress.org
Welcome In This Issue
Redistricting shapes the contours of our democracy.
It is the skeleton that all of our government is built 04 Progressive Answers for
around. Yet, the process of redistricting is deeply Louisiana’s Redistricting
flawed, plagued by political maneuvering and the Dilemma
influence of special interests. As our legislators enter
their special session to decide how we will elect our By Ryan Mick, MEd, JD
future representatives, the articles in this special issue
of Louisiana Progress provide in depth analyses of the
pitfalls of redistricting and recommend solutions so
that through this imperfect process, we can arrive at a
redistricting plan that reflects the will of the people of
Louisiana.

At Louisiana Progress, we encourage all citizens to 08 Redistricting Revisited

keep a close eye on the competing redistricting plans By Ryan Mick, MEd, JD
wending their way though the legislature and to ask
their elected representatives to support fair plans that
prioritize the people of Louisiana and their right to
elect officials who represent their concerns. Only
through careful monitoring and zealous advocacy an
we ensure that all of Louisiana’s citizens get what they
deserve---a fair plan where the voice of each voter is
heard and carries equal weight.
15 In Search of Fairness:
For more background on the constitutional and legisla- Assessing Redistricting
tive framework that guides the redistricting process, Proposals
including a discussion of the Voting Rights Act, other
relevant federal statutes, and state law, please visit our By Joshua Stockley, PhD and
website at www.laprogress.org. Dr. John Sutherlin

Editors:
Matt Bailey, Melissa Flournoy, Genevieve Pope

The Louisiana Progress Journal provides a forum

for our authors to express their views on how best to
move Louisiana forward. The opinions expressed in
the articles are those of the authors alone and do not
express the views of the editorial board, Louisiana
Progress, or the other authors.
4 Redistricting in Louisiana Louisiana Progress

Progressive Answers for

Louisiana’s Redistricting Dilemma
First published spring 2010

By Ryan Mick, MEd, JD

“The polarization and poisonous atmosphere

that have infected the House of Representa-
tives for the past two decades or more can be
traced in large part to the manner in which
district lines are drawn in most states.”
– Les Francis, former Executive Director of the
Democratic National Committee

It is difficult to deny that the major population growths

and shifts in our country as well as the tragedy of Hur-
ricane Katrina will result in the loss of a Congressional
seat for Louisiana in the 2010 census process. Not only
has Louisiana lost population, but many residents who
have remained in Louisiana have moved away from
the once densely populated New Orleans region to
other parts of the state. These changes in population no
doubt make Louisiana’s likely redistricting process one
that has the potential to be either highly politicized or
highly progressive and transformative for the better-
ment of all Louisiana. Since the power of the redistrict-
ing process is principally in the hands of Louisiana’s
legislators, it is their opportunity to shine as an exam-
ple to others states or to remain an engine of politick-
ing so reminiscent of prior redistricting efforts.
10 years so that “Representatives [will] be apportioned
among the several States according to their respective
numbers, counting the whole number of persons in
each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” Redistricting,
on the other hand, is the end result of the reapportion-
ment process. The procedure of redistricting allows
states to remap Congressional and state legislative
districts to reflect population changes from the cen-
sus data. States that experience significant population
growth or loss will face the increase or loss in Con-
gressional representation and thus will be required to
redraw their maps to reflect the changes in population

Defining Characteristics of
Reapportionment and Redistricting
To understand redistricting, one must first understand
reapportionment. Reapportionment is the process by
which Congressional seats are redistributed according
to census data. The United States Constitution and the
14th Amendment require that data be collected every
The Practice of Redistricting in
Louisiana
So, how does the practice of redistricting occur in the
Louisiana? Like 27 other states, Louisiana’s legislature
is solely responsible for the redistricting process, which
is loosely defined by state House and Senate rules. As
 Louisiana Progress
one might guess, this system poses conflicts of interest
and provides for very little accountability. What makes
the situation even more corruptible is the fact that the
public knows so little about redistricting and reappor-
tionment.
A relevant, but non-scientific example of this fact
might help explain what I mean: Before drafting this
article, I made conversation with a highly-educated
colleague about the ramifications of redistricting.
Unfortunately, she did not wholly understand the reap-
portionment or redistricting process or why this issue
was significant to her as a citizen of Louisiana. She not
only has a degree in political science, but also holds
highly coveted master’s degree from a major public
policy school. Though she is politically active, it seems
the inner workings of the redistricting process remain
reserved only for those savvy enough to be entrenched
in our state’s politics.
However, to say there is absolutely no accountabil-
ity in Louisiana would be imprecise. Because of the
state’s voting rights history, Louisiana and 15 other
states must have their redistricting maps approved by
the Department of Justice as codified in the Voting
Rights Act. Moreover, the Voting Rights Act requires
that Louisiana also include at least one
majority-minority district within the
state’s redistricting map. While this no
doubt ensures minority voice, it also
further exacerbates the political nature
of redistricting, creating “token districts”
or racial minority “lumping,” where
those responsible for redistricting fit
all minorities into one district without
regard to geography or sensible district
compactness.
Redistricting in Louisiana 5
ing only invites protectionism, gerrymandering, and
political pandering all at the expense of a fair division
of the people of Louisiana.
Concerning gerrymandering, it is evident that in states
where the legislature has control of the redistricting
process there are consistent efforts made to gerryman-
der districts, thereby eliminating districts controlled by
the minority political party. In Georgia, this happened
after Republicans took control of the state government
in 2004. Republicans redrew the 2005 redistricting
completed by a Democratic legislature, which resulted
in the loss of two more Democratic seats in the 2006
midterm elections. Of course, Democrats are not
blameless either: Under the leadership of Steny Hoyer,
Democrats in Maryland used redistricting to oust two
Republicans in 2002.
Louisiana Family Forum’s Redistricting Map is a per-
fect example of gerrymandering and politicking for the
benefit of partisan interests.
Though the gerrymanding and protectionism are
major concerns in providing fair and well-represented
Congressional districts, it is the politics and pandering
that might hurt the public most – and Louisiana is not
immune. Early in 2009, the Louisiana Family Forum,

Legislative Sole-Control of
Redistricting Too Flawed To
Continue
Is the Louisiana legislature the appropri-
ate body to determine its Congressional
and statewide districts? I would argue
that the current system of redistrict- Louisiana Family Forum Redistricting Map
6 Redistricting in Louisiana
a conservative interest group, released a redistricting
plan based on its view of how Louisiana should be
divided.
As Roll Call reports, the “map combines most of the
majority-black 2nd district based in New Orleans with
most the south-central 3rd district, which is currently
represented by Louisiana’s lone House Democrat,
Rep. Charlie Melancon.” On its face, the map appears
acceptable; it fulfills the Voting Rights Act require-
ment of a majority-minority district and acknowledges
the shifts in population caused by Hurricane Katrina.
However, upon further scrutiny, it is easy to see the
politicking of the Louisiana Family Forum. Here’s why:
“Republican Rep. Anh “Joseph” Cao currently holds
the 2nd district seat, but Democrats and most unbi-
ased political observers believe the 64 percent black
district will revert to Democratic control next cycle.”
Simply put, this map combines a prospective Demo-
cratic (and majority-minority) district with the current
Democratic District, thereby eliminating the possibil-
ity of a new Democratic representative for the state of
Louisiana. It is the politicking of interest groups such
as the Louisiana Family Forum that is the most un-
nerving. The organization has a strong voting bloc and
can use this as leverage with a legislature that is solely
in control of redistricting. Basically, fair and proper re-
districting as it stands now in Louisiana is endangered
by the gerrymandering protectionists on one side and
political agendas on another. With this double-edged
sword, isn’t it about time Louisiana embraces a new
system?
Why Should We Reform
Though Louisiana places its redistricting power with
the legislature, other states use varied systems to
remove some of the politicking from the redistricting
process. Across the country, 13 states give redistricting
power to appointed boards or commissions, 8 other
states use such commissions in an advisory or backup
role, and one state grants the power of redistricting to
nonpartisan legislative staff. These changes in the re-
districting are not random, but part of a growing trend
of states removing legislatures from the redistricting
process. “Since 2005, 18 of the 28 states that use only
Louisiana Progress
their legislatures for redistricting have tried to create
independent redistricting commissions or to expand
the duties of existing state commissions (used for other
purposes) to include the task of redistricting.”
Many redistricting reform advocates cite Arizona’s
redistricting reform movement in 2000 as the superior
template. Under Arizona’s new system of redistrict-
ing, a commission is formed by appointments recom-
mended by the judicial appointment boards in the
state. “Commission maps are not subject to review by
the Legislature or veto by the governor, although they
may be challenged in the courts on Voting Rights Act
grounds.” Arizona also has imposed strict rules on the
redistricting commission: the new maps should favor
competitive districts between parties and not consider
places of residence for incumbents or candidates.
Many states are now pursuing alternatives to legisla-
ture-based redistricting. Though Arizona’s model may
appear to be an extreme solution to the problems of
gerrymandering and politicking in the redistricting
process, it no doubt ensures that new district maps
are drawn with the public, not the politician in mind.
So, how can Louisiana move forward with progressive
redistricting reform?
How it Should Be Done in Louisiana
The Public Affairs Research Council (PAR) probably
has the best recommendations for Louisiana with re-
gards to redistricting reform. It outlined these recom-
mendations in a recent report: “Redistricting 2010:
Reforming the Process of Distributing Political Power.”
Recommendations include:
• Assign the task of congressional and legislative
redistricting to an independent commission, whose
powers, duties and redistricting principles are
firmly established in law.
• Require all commission meetings, documents,
communications and work product to be subject to
Louisiana’s open meetings and public records laws,
as well as posted and archived on the commission’s
Web site.
• Begin the assignment of redistricting power imme-
 Louisiana Progress
diately to ensure a ready and able commission for
the next redistricting cycle.
PAR’s recommendations hit our state’s redistricting
problems right on the head in several significant ways.
First, they task a body other than the legislature with
developing a redistricting plan. This works to eliminate
both the gerrymandering and partisan politics that
legislative control of the redistricting process so often
creates.
Second, the recommendations advocate for an open-
door redistricting process. Redistricting is one of the
most important governmental processes in ensuring
the public is well-represented by the best political
minds. On top of this, because the public has such a
limited knowledge of redistricting, there is an even
greater urgency to keep the redistricting process
public; it will no doubt grow public knowledge on this
important issue.
Finally, PAR recommends taking action now so that
Louisiana will be prepared for the upcoming process.
Our redistricting process starts officially after we
receive census data, which can be no later than March
2011. If Louisiana wants to have progressive change in
its redistricting process next year, the legislature needs
to act now.
Conclusion
In researching this article, I came across an Internet
game created by the Annenberg Center entitled “The
Redistricting Game.” In the game you are assigned the
role of the redistricting coordinator for your politi-
cal party and are given a task to redraw your districts
in specific ways: you’re either trying to gain a seat
for your party, preserve incumbents’ seats from both
parties, or create a seat for a new majority-minority
district.
As you play, you’re able to see the griping of repre-
sentatives who may lose their seats and you might be
sent back to redraw the districts if the legislature or
governor does not like how you reapportion districts.
To succeed in pleasing everyone, you typically have
to mangle a Congressional district in such a way that
Redistricting in Louisiana 7
your new districts may stretch across the state, or con-
sist both urban and rural populations, or be comprised
of only one race.
At the final stage of the game, you are asked to com-
plete the redistricting task without regard to the
politicians or political parties. It is at this point that the
game becomes simple. You only need to draw correctly
apportioned districts. In doing so, you act without
interference from the legislature or the governor, and
are able to create districts that properly recognize geo-
graphic and social differences.
The Redistricting Game is both tedious and comical,
seemingly a perfect parallel the politics of redistrict-
ing in America. This comedy is also the tragedy of the
game; redistricting should not be a fit of fancy that
requires plotting and manipulation to win. The true
win for Louisiana is approaching redistricting with a
progressive eye; one that looks beyond political protec-
tionism and party lines, and instead focuses on what
really matters: the people of Louisiana. We shouldn’t be
creating Congressional districts that carve up urban ar-
eas like meat to be served, and we shouldn’t be drawing
districts without regard to the social and geographic
differences in our state.
Will change be easy? Not necessarily. Even if Louisiana
embraces a commission-based redistricting system, it
doesn’t guarantee the commission’s success in avoiding
legal challenges or partisan politics. It is, however, a
giant step in the right direction.
More Info on Redistricting:
• Americans for Redistricting Reform
• The Center for Voting & Democracy
• Brennan Center for Justice
• Redistricting 2010: Reforming the
Process of Distributing Political Power
8 Redistricting in Louisiana
Redistricting Revisited
By Ryan Mick, MEd, JD
A few months ago I penned an article for Louisiana
Progress briefly outlining the redistricting process as
well as some progressive solutions for ensuring that
our own process here in Louisiana is equitable and
forward-thinking. Ultimately, I argued that the Louisi-
ana Legislature should follow the recommendations of
the Public Affairs Research Council (PAR), suggesting
that the legislature create an independent commission
to determine political districts in Louisiana. This, of
course, is not a novel idea to PAR, but a well-thought-
out plan based on the successful implementation of
Louisiana Progress
independent commissions in states like Arizona and
California.
Unfortunately for the citizens of Louisiana, the legis-
lature failed to embrace the suggestions of PAR, and
in some cases, certain legislators even criticized the
concept of independent commissions for Louisiana’s
redistricting process.1 As a result of this failure to
launch, we are faced with the harsh reality of the 2010
1 http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/02/par_says_special_commis-
sion_no.html
 Louisiana Progress
census results; we must lose a Congressional District in
our redistricting process, and we must face this, as well
as multiple other levels of redistricting, at the will of
the legislature. So, where do we go from here?
There are three things we can do at this juncture to at
least venture close to a fair redistricting process:
1. First, we can push our legislative leaders to be
transparent about the redistricting process.
Though redistricting is in the hands of the Louisi-
ana Legislature and not an independent commis-
sion, that does not mean it needs to be a mysteri-
ous process or one riddled with impropriety.
2. Second, we need to be very aware of and cautious
about the creation of any minority-majority Con-
gressional District. Though the Voting Rights Act
requires Louisiana to give a voice to Louisiana’s
Redistricting in Louisiana 9
African American citizens, it does not necessitate
that all African Americans, typically Democratic
voters, be lumped into a single District at the cost
of creating a state with politically, as opposed to
culturally, homogenous Congressional Districts.
3. Finally, we as citizens of Louisiana must continue
to remain steadfast in advocating for legislation
to create an independent commission for redis-
tricting. This is the best step Louisiana can take to
ensure a fair and equitable process of redistricting
for all of Louisiana’s citizens in future redistricting
efforts.
Transparency is Imperative
Louisiana has little time to complete the redistrict-
ing process. In fact, Louisiana has one of the shortest
turnaround times for redistricting out of any state. A
10 Redistricting in Louisiana
special session to adopt redistricting plans will con-
vene March 20 and must end no later than April 13.
With the annual legislative session set to begin April
25, lawmakers will have no time to waste in developing
their proposal for review by the United States Depart-
ment of Justice, the next logical step for Louisiana in
the redistricting process.
Most are familiar with the old adage, “haste makes
waste.” A tight turnaround for Louisiana could mean
that redistricting will come and go before the citizens
of the state have an opportunity to learn about the
process and make their opinions known. Now, to be
fair, the Louisiana House of Representatives has made
some efforts to engage the public in the redistrict-
ing process. As of this moment, they have not only
launched a website with information about Louisiana
redistricting,2 but they have also gone on a self-pro-
claimed “road show” across the state to hear feedback
from the citizenry about what redistricting should
look like in Louisiana. What did they hear in these
feedback sessions? Namely, residents have expressed a
common philosophy: they want compact districts that
2 http://house.louisiana.gov/h_redistricting2011/
Change in population by Congressional District based
on 2010 Census data.
Louisiana Progress
are geographically, if not culturally, homogeneous. 3
This, of course, is not an unreasonable request. In fact,
geographically compact, culturally homogeneous dis-
tricts are the ideal of any redistricting process accord-
ing to leading thought on redistricting reform.
Why then, if it is the will of the people and the most
logical of potential outcomes, are such districts so
rare in legislatively controlled redistricting processes?
Simply put, creating these types of districts makes our
political leaders vulnerable in the newly created dis-
tricts. What politician would support modifying her
own district in a way that would require her to raise
more political capital and run a much harder campaign
without any guarantee of winning? As a politician, it is
simpler to support protective districts in a quiet special
session of the legislature than to unabashedly support
reform in a public forum.
It is because of this that we need to be extra vigilant
with our leaders and that this process needs to be fully
transparent and well-documented to the public. It is
only then that we can hold our leaders accountable for
their decisions.
Giving the Minority a Real Voice
When creating new Congressional Districts, Louisiana,
as a Southern state, is held to an extra obligation. That
obligation, the Voting Rights Act, requires the legisla-
ture to draw Louisiana’s Congressional Districts in a
way that gives African Americans a fair opportunity
to be represented in their government. In the past,
this mandate has taken shape in Louisiana through
creating minority-majority districts, where one Con-
gressional District in Louisiana contains primarily
African American voters who then tend to elect an
African American candidate. This district is currently
the Louisiana Second Congressional District, which
contained 60-65% African American voters before the
devastation of Hurricane Katrina. This minority-ma-
jority District made sense in that 2000 census results
showed that 25-30% of all Louisiana minority voters
lived in Orleans Parish, which is where the Second
District is primarily located.
3 http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/02/local_residents_ask_for_com-
pac.html
 Louisiana Progress
As evidenced by the 2010 census data, Hurricane Ka-
trina has changed this reality for Louisiana. Now, East
Baton Rouge Parish has the largest population of any
Parish in Louisiana, outnumbering Orleans and Jeffer-
son from pre-Katrina years. Even more notable is that
East Baton Rouge Parish rivals Orleans Parish for the
greatest number of African American residents. This
great migration from the New Orleans region after
Hurricane Katrina has created a quandary for Louisi-
ana legislators when it comes to redistricting. There
is now no single significant concentration of African
Americans around which to draw a minority-majority
district in Louisiana.
What does this mean for African Americans in Loui-
siana? Basically, two options are available. First, the
legislature could take a bar-bell approach. Under this
approach, the Legislature would create a District that
resembles a bar-bell of sorts: two large sections of
African American residents in East Baton Rouge and
Orleans Parishes with a narrow section connecting
the two along the I-10 corridor. This approach, how-
ever, is unlikely pass muster under Justice Department
scrutiny because this type of District has already been
considered and rejected by the United States Supreme
Court. In the early 1990s, North Carolina tried the
bar-bell approach using two African American popu-
lation centers to create a minority-majority district.
The Supreme Court in Shaw v. Hunt found that this
bar-bell shape was so unusual that it violated the Equal
Protection Clause of the Constitution.
While one cannot assume outright that a bar-bell
would fail in Louisiana, there is a second option legis-
lators can take. Instead of creating one minority-ma-
jority district, the legislature could instead create two
minority-influence districts. Under this approach, the
legislature would create two Congressional Districts
based on the target population size of approximately
750,000; one in and around Orleans Parish and one
in and around East Baton Rouge Parish. Both areas
contain large enough African American populations to
create slim majorities or close-to majorities of African
Americans in each district.
Why is this a viable option? Simply, neither the fed-
Redistricting in Louisiana 11
eral government nor the Voting Rights Act has ever
required that Southern states create “supermajorities”
of minority voters in any minority-majority district.
Creating two minority-influence districts would still
satisfy the Voting Rights Act by giving African Ameri-
can voters an opportunity to be represented in the
government; only this time, they would have that op-
portunity in not one, but two districts. This, of course,
is only fair; Louisiana’s population is about one-third
African American. Is it not reasonable that one-third
of Louisiana’s Congressional Districts should also be
represented by minorities?
Body Districts Ideal Population
Congress 6 755,562
House of Reps 105 43,174
Senate 39 116,240
B.E.S.E. 8 566,671
P.S.C. 5 906,674
Supreme Court 7 647,624
Ideal populations for each of bodies where the
Legislature must redraw district lines in 2011.
Not only does the two-district solution make sense
given the significant minority population of Louisiana,
but the two separate minority-influence districts is
also the culturally sensible decision. The problems and
issues of those in Baton Rouge are very different from
the concerns of those in New Orleans. Why should
such dynamically different places have to share a rep-
resentative simply because they are centers of African
American population?
Unfortunately, the prevailing view expressed through
recent redistricting proposals tends to be that a modi-
fied bar-bell approach will do the trick for Louisi-
ana. Even though Louisiana’s citizens have argued
for culturally homogeneous grouping, the legislature
seems poised to approve a district map that lumps the
majority of African Americans into one geographically
incompact district. As citizens of Louisiana, we need
to advocate for a two district approach when it comes
12 Redistricting in Louisiana
to representation of African American citizens and we
need challenge our legislators’ proposals that advocate
for anything resembling a bar-bell approach. The best
solution for Louisiana is a district map with Congres-
sional Districts that reflect the culture and geography
of the state. Simply lumping together minorities for
the sake of passing Justice Department scrutiny is
not an acceptable answer for something that will af-
fect Louisiana citizens for the next decade and likely
beyond.
Steadfast Advocacy
Though an independent commission for redistrict-
ing in Louisiana will not exist during this redistricting
cycle, it is not off the table forever. Indeed, the nation-
al push for independent commissions for redistricting
grows stronger with each passing year. Even as recent-
ly as February of this year, Governor Andrew Cuomo
of New York introduced a bill in the New York State
Legislature that would move the task of redistricting
from the legislature’s hands to those of an independent
commission.4 Not only is legislation being introduced
to move to independent commissions, but public opin-
ion is growing to support this reform. A recent survey
of citizens in Massachusetts showed that over 60% of
voters supported the idea of independent redistrict-
ing commissions over the more traditional legislative
approach.5
Unfortunately for Louisiana, we do not have much
advocacy for an independent redistricting commis-
sion outside of PAR, and no organization has surveyed
the public to see whether an independent commission
is the will of the people. As a result, the next steps
for Louisiana are first to educate the public about the
importance of independent commissions in the redis-
tricting process and second to find out the will of the
people on this issue. Only then can advocates for an
independent redistricting commission in Louisiana
will have the mandate to go to the Legislature and ask
for change of the current system.
4 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/nyregion/18redistrict.html
5 http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/x1260130195/Poll-shows-Massa-
chusetts-residents-back-independent-redistricting-commission
Louisiana Progress
Final Thoughts
Reflecting on this entire process made me think back
to a time not long ago when Americans were asked
to switch to digital television. Millions upon mil-
lions of dollars were spent on educating the public
through letters and television commercials. Even more
money was spent on providing vouchers for Ameri-
cans to go and prepare themselves for this transition.
What puzzles me is that here we are, on the precipice
of democratic change in Louisiana, yet the best our
legislative body can do is a “redistricting road show”
and a website. When we were required to change our
television sets, our government reacted with extensive
measures to inform and provide for the public. Now
that we are required to change our legislative districts,
our sense of what political grouping we belong to, our
government has provided very little information and
even fewer resources.
This whole process raises questions about the priorities
of our legislators, as well as the priorities of the elec-
torate. Demand change. Contact your representative
in the Louisiana House of Representatives and ask for
more transparency. Ask for leadership when it comes
to drawing the lines for Louisiana’s minority voters.
And ask for reform of future redistricting processes. It
is only then that we will be taking a firm step forward
for a more progressive Louisiana.
About the Author
Ryan Mick is a Louisiana educator. He
holds a Master’s Degree in Research from
Ohio University and a law degree from
The George Washington University. Prior
to teaching, he worked for the Redistrict-
ing Reform Project, a partnership of the
Campaign Legal Center and the Council for
Excellence in Government.
 Louisiana Progress Redistricting in Louisiana 13

ABOUT LOUISIANA PROGRESS

The Louisiana Progress Journal is a project of the Co-
alition for Louisiana Progress, a nonprofit organization KEEP UP WITH
that connects citizens across all political parties, races,
and religions to develop, advocate for, and implement LOUISIANA
innovative, effective, and practical solutions to the
policy challenges that continue to shackle Louisiana to
the past.
PROGRESS
We engage individuals, communities and organiza- Like us on Facebook
tions, building a formidable network of community
leaders, advocates, activists, and policymakers who, Follow @LAProgress on Twitter
working together, solve the state's most difficult and
pervasive problems and improve the quality of life for Become a member and support
all people of the state.
our efforts to change the
Louisiana Progress invites you to join us. Please visit direction of Louisiana!
our website www.louisianaprogress.org to learn more,
sign up to receive updates on our work, and donate. www.louisianaprogress.org
We can achieve our goals only though the generosity of
our supporters.
14 Redistricting in Louisiana Louisiana Progress

In Search of Fairness:
Assessing Redistricting Proposals
By Joshua Stockley, PhD and Dr. John Sutherlin

The process of reapportionment and redistricting may be the most important procedural aspect of the American
political system, but it is arguably the least understood by the public. Reapportionment is the process following
the decennial census to align changes in state populations with Congressional representation. For most of the
history of the US, that process was faithfully conducted. However, redistricting, or the redrawing of political dis-
tricts within a state, occurred infrequently until the 1960s (Bullock). Many states simply did not redistrict unless
it was absolutely necessary, and, when they did, they utilized capricious methods that had the effect of depriving
populations of fair and equal representation.

Louisiana reached a high-point for Congressional representation in 1912 when it was assigned eight districts.
But, since 1982, there has been a slow regression. The State lost a congressional district after the 1980 census,
and, in 2011, Louisiana was one of eight states that lost a Congressional district due to little or no population
growth (See Figure 1). What sets Louisiana apart from the other states losing Congressional districts is that it
will be asked to redistrict and preserve a majority-minority district at the epicenter of where Hurricane Katrina
impacted the state (See Figure 2).

The population loss is not restricted to

Orleans Parish. Parishes as different as
Bienville, East Carroll, Cameron, and St.
Bernard all experienced significant popu-
lation losses. On the other hand, East
Baton Rouge, Lafayette and St. Tammany
Parish all gained population.

This means that Louisiana must increase

the size of each Congressional district
by approximately 117,000 while keeping
its majority-minority district (unless it
wants to incur a legal challenge by the
Justice Department on retrogression). In
2000, Louisiana’s Congressional Districts
met the Justice Department’s districting
criteria and fashioned districts within
0.04 percent, or 240 people, of the ideal
Figure 1: 2010 Congressional Reapportionment population of 638,425 people.
 Louisiana Progress Redistricting in Louisiana 15

Figure 2: Hurricane Katrina’s impact on population

Redistricting Louisiana during this reapportionment cycle will be tougher. Among the many challenges include
Congressional District 2, which encompasses a large number of minority neighborhoods in New Orleans deci-
mated by Hurricane Katrina. Orleans Parish alone lost more than 140,000 people; 120,000 were African Ameri-
can. District 2 must not only find another 105,000 people to meet new redistricting requirements and concomi-
tant ideal populations, but do so without significantly upsetting the racial percentages of the old district.

Louisiana has the historical distinction of having

created a majority-minority district in a fashion that
produced bad results. In 1991, Louisiana created a
“Zorro” district that violated almost every federal law
and intent of the Supreme Court by placing communi-
ties in a district where the only commonality was race
(see Figure 3). The Supreme Court rejected this ap-
proach through numerous cases; Shaw v. Reno (1993)
is but one example.

Louisiana has been under a pre-clearance order since

August 7, 1965 because of the Voting Rights Acts; re-
issued recently towards the end of 2010. According
to Louisiana law, three pre-clearance conditions are
required to be met: respecting municipal boundaries;
respecting precinct or political sub-division boundar-
ies; and preserving cores of prior districts. Also, per
state and federal law, Louisiana has to rely upon voting
tabulation districts (i.e., precincts) and census blocks Figure 3: The 1991 “Zorro District”
16 Redistricting in Louisiana Louisiana Progress

to fashion Congressional Districts.
Outside of the U.S. Constitution, the Voting Rights
Act, and Public Law, each state is allowed to have its
own set of criteria for determining how to proceed.
Louisiana must follow its own guidelines stipulated in
the State Constitution and the Revised Statutes. Alas,
federal and state legal requirements are just the begin-
ning.
Gerrymandering
Gerrymandering is the process where political districts
are created to give one group an advantage over an-
other. A study by Gelman and King (1994) found that
regardless of attempts by one party to create redistrict-
ing advantages, the net result over time is to “change an
existing huge bias in favor of one party to a small bias
in favor of the other.” That is, most attempts to gerry-
mandering have long term consequences opposite the
redistricters’ original intent.
Today, gerrymandering and redistricting are synony-
mous in the minds of many voters. This is a fallacy.
As long as the process is not biased too heavily against
one group then there is no predicament. Nevertheless,
there are a number of unfair tactics that citizens
should be on guard against.
it eliminates the potential for the group to win or influ-
ence the outcome in other districts.
A third unfair tactic is called ‘stacking.’ Stacking is a
technique to concentrate low-income, poorly educated
minority citizens in the same district with high in-
come, better educated whites to create the illusion of a
majority-minority district. Voter turnout generally is
affected by the voter’s level of income and education.
While the district appears to be a majority-minority
district, in reality a white candidate has a better chance
to win because lower voter turnout is anticipated
among the minority group.
The last unfair tactic often employed is ‘incumbency
gerrymandering,’ where groups that support a par-
ticular incumbent are removed from a district. This
technique is most commonly used to disadvantage in-
cumbents of the opposing party, however it can also be
employed to remove incumbents of the majority party.
Factions within a majority party, especially in states
where a single party dominates state politics, may at-
tempt to use the process to unseat an incumbent who
is deemed ‘too moderate,’ is not favored by the party
establishment, or ‘does not support X, Y or Z program’
desired by more prominent elected officials in the state.

Unfair Techniques
One unfair tactic is to ‘crack’ the opposition
(ethnic, racial or partisan) by dividing a previ-
ously discrete population into separate districts
in order to weaken its voting power. This makes
sure that the group that has been cracked, al-
though significant, is unable to reach a majority
in any single district. The Voting Rights Act in
many ways attempts to eliminate the cracking of
African-Americans.

A second unfair tactic is ‘packing.’ This tech-

nique is used when a district is too large to crack.
Here, efforts are made to over-concentrate as
many members of a particular group (ethnic, ra-
cial or partisan) in one large district. While this
ensures the group’s representation in one district, Figure 4: Louisiana Family Forum Redistricting Map
Louisiana Progress Redistricting in Louisiana 17
Assessing the Louisiana Family
Assessment Criteria Forum’s Plan
Different groups will propose diverse redistricting
The Louisiana Family Forum (LFF) is a conservative-
plans for Louisiana, dividing up Congressional
leaning interest group that is “committed to defending
districts in many ways. With an overabundance
faith, freedom and the traditional family.” In 2010 it
of redistricting plans, concerned citizens and pub-
unveiled what it claimed was a “non-partisan proposal”
lic officials have the daunting task of determin-
for redistricting; however, this plan has several major
ing what plans are suitable, feasible, and realistic,
deficiencies and is not-so-non-partisan (See Figure 4).
while ensuring that the chosen plan complies with
federal and state laws.
1. Does it conform to federal and state law?
Not met.
The following rubric is recommended to deter-
mine the merits of any plan:
The LFF plan eliminates Louisiana’s only majority-
minority district, which absolutely violates the
1. Does it conform to federal and state law?
Voting Rights Act. States governed by the Voting
Rights Act are not allowed to dilute or weaken the
2. Does it unfairly treat a particular
political power of any previously discriminated
Congressman?
group. This plan utilizes the unfair redistricting
tactic of “cracking,” in this case, dividing African
3. Does it offer a comparative advantage to one
Americans into surrounding districts in order to
party or group over another party or group?
weaken their political power.
4. Can it be done with the census numbers?
2. Does it meet the five principles?
Not met.
5. Is it bi-partisan?
a. A minority district will first be drawn in accor-
Political realities being what they are, a sixth
dance with the Voting Rights Act and current fed-
element must be added to this rubric if the re-
eral law. Not met. This plan eliminates the major-
districting plan has any feasible chance of being
ity-minority Second District and, thereby, violates
adopted by the Louisiana legislature:
the Voting Rights Act. As presently constructed,
67% of the present-day Second District is African
6. Does it meet the five established principles of
American; the newly proposed Second District ap-
Louisiana’s Congressional delegation?
pears, at best, to be 50% African American.
a. A minority district will first be drawn in
accordance with the Voting Rights Act and
b. Two northern vertically oriented districts above
current federal law.
Interstate 10. Met. The LFF plan preserves two
b. Two northern vertically oriented districts
northern vertically oriented districts above Inter-
above Interstate 10.
state 10.
c. A district centered on Baton Rouge.
d. A New Orleans suburb coastal district.
c. A district centered on Baton Rouge. Met. This
e. A Lake Charles-Lafayette coastal district.
plan creates a proposed Sixth District centered on
Baton Rouge.
Concerned citizens and public officials would be
well advised to apply these criteria to any
redistricting plan.
18 Redistricting in Louisiana
d. A New Orleans suburb coastal district. Met.
The plan places the suburbs of New Orleans and
the eastern-half of the present-day Third District
into a proposed Second District.
e. A Lake Charles-Lafayette coastal district. Met.
The LFF plan places Lake Charles and Lafayette in
the same district, a proposed Third District.
3. Does it unfairly treat any Congressman? Not met.
The LFF plan eliminates much of Representative
Cedric Richmond’s present day Second District
and places him into a district with Representative
Jeff Landry, treating both Congressmen unfairly.
4. Does it offer a comparative advantage to one
party or group over another party or group? Not
met. This plan attempts to eliminate Louisiana’s
only Democratic district. Despite claiming to be
“non-partisan,” the plan creates the opportunity
for Republicans to be favored in all six of Louisi-
ana’s Congressional districts. This plan also places
whites in a comparative advantage over African
Americans.
5. Can it be done with the census numbers? Not met.
First, the LFF plan is drawn with 2007 population
estimates, well-below and significantly different
from 2010 census results. Consequently, the LFF
plan creates a proposed Second District failing to
account for the population loss of 140,000 people
(120,000 African Americans) in Orleans Parish.
Second, the LFF plan creates four districts with
717,000 people and two districts with 714,000
people. This exceeds the population deviation
presently allowed for by the Supreme Court.
6. Is it bi-partisan? Not met. This plan ‘cracks’ the
only majority-minority district in the state, which
is also the only Democratic district in the state, an
obvious example of partisan gerrymandering. This
plan further fails to recognize historical congres-
sional boundaries and disintegrates historical com-
munities of interest.
Louisiana Progress
Assessing Joe Harrison’s Coastal Plan
State Representative Joe Harrison, Republican-District
51, has proposed a redistricting plan dubbed the
“Coastal Plan” (See Figure 5). This plan centers on
the creation of one congressional district, a proposed
Third District that encompasses all of Louisiana’s
parishes bordering the Gulf of Mexico. The attractive-
ness of this plan is that it allows one Congressman to
represent the concerns and issues of coastal Louisiana,
concerns and issues that are especially unique to this
district – coastal erosion, offshore drilling, and the
seafood industry. Nevertheless, this district would
present an enormous logistical challenge.
Could one Congressman have effectively dealt with
hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Ivan, and Gustav and the
BP Deepwater Horizon disaster? This would be a
daunting task to ask of even one governor, who has
more resources and personnel at his disposal than any
Congressman. A coastal district also poses a repre-
sentational dilemma. Would it be more effective for
Louisiana to have two Congressmen or one Congress-
man directly representing the issues of coastal erosion,
offshore drilling, and the seafood industry in Wash-
ington D.C.? Generally speaking, two voices are more
powerful than one.
1. Does it conform to federal and state law? Not met.
Harrison’s Coastal Plan violates federal law. His
proposal includes population deviations of 2.53%,
2.13%, and 2.08%. The Supreme Court, under the
“one man, one vote” principle articulated in Baker
v. Carr, dictates districts with less than a 0.04%
deviation from the ideal population. Under the
2010 parish-level census numbers, the proposed
Third District exceeds the mandated ideal popula-
tion and percent deviation allowed by the courts.
A coastal district would be too big. The proposed
Second District appears to violate the legal prin-
ciples of compactness, bizarre shape, and race as
the predominant factor articulated in Shaw v. Reno
and Miller v. Johnson.
2. Does it meet the five principles? Not met.
 Louisiana Progress
a. A minority district will first be drawn in ac-
cordance with the Voting Rights Act and current
federal law. Not met. The Coastal Plan first draws
a coastal district and then draws the Second Dis-
trict. The proposed Second District, in zigzagging
through East Baton Rouge Parish, appears to vio-
late the requirements outlined in Shaw v. Reno and
Miller v. Johnson that guide the interpretation and
implementation of the Voting Rights Act.
3. Does it unfairly treat any Congressman? Met, in
b. Two northern vertically oriented districts above
Interstate 10. Met. The Coastal Plan preserves two
northern vertically oriented districts above Inter-
state 10.
c. A district centered on Baton Rouge. Met. The
Coastal Plan preserves a district centered on Baton
Rouge.
d. A New Orleans suburb coastal district. Met.
The Coastal Plan takes the southern suburbs of
New Orleans and places them into a coastal dis-
trict, the proposed Third District.
4. Does it offer a comparative advantage to one party
5. Can it be done with the census numbers? Not met.
6. Is it bi-partisan? Not met. This plan is a sponsored
Figure 5: Joe Harrison’s Coastal District Proposal
Redistricting in Louisiana 19
e. A Lake Charles-Lafayette coastal district. Not
met. In the Coastal Plan, Calcasieu Parish and
Lafayette Parish are split between the proposed
Third and proposed Sixth District. The proposed
Sixth District places Lake Charles in a district with
Shreveport. Representative Harrison does not con-
sider Calcasieu Parish a coastal parish and does not
consider Lake Charles a coastal community.
part. The concept of fairness is elusive and difficult
to objectively determine, but at least two challenges
arise in Harrison’s Coastal Plan. First, it creates
three districts over 250 miles long, a daunting
length of territory for a Congressman in Louisiana.
As presently constructed, this forces Congressmen
John Fleming and Rodney Alexander to represent
and traverse large swaths of territory. Second,
it presently places 480,000 people of the present
Third District into a newly proposed Third District
versus 370,000 people from the present Seventh
District into a newly proposed Third District.
The Coastal Plan disproportionately favors Con-
gressman Jeff Landry over Congressman Charles
Boustany. This is an example of the unfair tactic
‘incumbent gerrymandering.’
or group over another party or group? Met. The
Coastal Plan does not appear to overtly favor one
political party over another political party.
The Coastal Plan is created with 2008 population
estimates, which underestimates the population
loss of Orleans Parish. The proposed Second Dis-
trict does not have enough people; the proposed
Third District has too many people. As presently
constructed, the percent deviation from the ideal
population of the Costal Plan exceeds the deviation
allowed by the Supreme Court.
by a Republican and has been endorsed by Repub-
lican Congressman Jeff Landry.
20 Redistricting in Louisiana
Assessing the Swing State’s Plan
Swing State Project is a liberal-leaning internet site
dedicated to reporting on campaigns and elections
across the nation. A Louisiana redistricting plan ap-
peared on Swing State Project in July 2009. This plan
attempts to create a three Republican-three Democrat
delegation; however, this plan has several major defi-
ciencies.
1. Does it conform to federal and state law? Not
met. In an attempt to create two majority-minority
districts, several legal principles outlined in Shaw
v. Reno and Miller v. Johnson are blatantly violated.
The proposed Fourth District (see figure 6) and
proposed Second District (see figure 7) are not
compact, have bizarre shapes, and have been cre-
ated predominantly with race in mind. The pro-
posed Fourth District is highly reminiscent of the
“Zorro” district created by the state legislature and
overturned by the courts in the 1990s.
2. Does it meet the five principles? Not met.
a. A minority district will first be drawn in accor-
dance with the Voting Rights Act and current fed-
eral law. Not met. This plan preserves the majori-
ty-minority Second District; however, as presently
Figure 6: The Fourth District proposed on Swing State
snakes along the Mississippi River, and has been create
predominately with race in mind.
Louisiana Progress
constructed it does not meet the condition ideal
population of 755,562. The proposed Fourth Dis-
trict violates the legal requirement of compactness,
bizarre shape, and race as a predominant factor
outlined in Shaw v. Reno and Miller v. Johnson that
guide the interpretation and implementation of the
Voting Rights Act.
b. Two northern vertically oriented districts above
Interstate 10. Not met. This plan creates three
districts, dividing Shreveport into two districts
and Monroe into two districts and, simultaneously,
places these two divided cities into two shared con-
gressional districts.
c. A district centered on Baton Rouge. Not met.
This plan divides Baton Rouge into two districts.
d. A New Orleans suburb coastal district. Met.
The plan places the suburbs of New Orleans into a
suburb coastal district reminiscent of the present-
day Third District.
e. A Lake Charles-Lafayette coastal district. Not
met. Lafayette Parish is split between a proposed
Third and Sixth District.
Does it unfairly treat any Congressman? Not
met. The plan gives no consideration to historical
Figure 7: The Second District proposed on Swing State
wraps around Louisiana’s northern & eastern borders.
 Louisiana Progress Redistricting in Louisiana 21
district alignments and would pit Congressman Assessing the Red Racing Horses’
Cedric Richmond versus Congressman Bill Cassidy
in the proposed Second District and Congress-
Northern District Plan
man Rodney Alexander versus Congressman John Red Racing Horses is a conservative-leaning internet
Fleming in the proposed Fifth District. site dedicated to covering campaigns and elections
across the nation. On February 2, 2011, two redis-
3. Does it offer a comparative advantage to one party tricting plans for Louisiana appeared on Red Rac-
or group over another party or group? Not met. ing Horses – a southern district plan and a northern
This plan overtly attempts to create three Demo- district plan. The southern district plan is very similar
cratic districts and three Republican districts. In to Representative Harrison’s Coastal Plan that has been
an attempt to create partisan balance, this plan assessed above. The second plan is a northern district
divides many parishes and several major cities into plan, an inverse of Representative Harrison’s Coastal
different districts. Plan (See Figure 7).
4. Can it be done with the census numbers? Not met. 1. Does it conform to federal and state law? Not met.
While the actual population statistics of the pro- The proposed Second District in the northern
posed districts are not provided, the districts do district plan appears to violate legal principles ar-
not appear to have identical populations and the ticulated in Shaw v. Reno and Miller v. Johnson by
proposal violates the legal principle of “one man, having the proposed Second district dividing river
one vote.” This is most evident with the proposed parishes from New Orleans to Baton Rouge. East
Second District, which lost 140,000 residents. Baton Rouge Parish is divided into two districts
and cuts off the western portion of the proposed
5. Is the plan bi-partisan? Not met. The plan is Sixth District.
sponsored by a liberal website. This plan is simply
not realistic and lacks any sensitivity to the political 2. Does it meet the five principles? Not met.
climate of the state.
a. A minority district will first be drawn
in accordance with the Voting Rights Act
and current federal law. Met, in part. The
proposed Second District in this plan does
appear to be drawn first and maintains a
majority-minority district, but is problemati-
cally constructed.

b. Two northern vertically oriented districts

above Interstate 10. Not met. The central
intent of the northern district plan is place
Monroe and Shreveport within one horizon-
tal district.

c. A district centered on Baton Rouge. Not

met. The proposed Sixth District uses Baton
Rouge as a population base, but stretches
wildly west and northwest all the way to
Natchitoches and incorporates parts of the
current Fifth and Fourth District.
Figure 8: Red Racing Horses’ Northern District Plan
22 Redistricting in Louisiana
d. A New Orleans suburb coastal district. Met.
The northern district plan takes the suburbs of
New Orleans and places them into one of two
coastal districts.
e. A Lake Charles-Lafayette coastal district. Met.
The northern district plan places Lake Charles and
Lafayette into the same district, a proposed Fourth
District.
3. Does it unfairly treat any Congressman? Not met.
This plan places Congressmen John Fleming and
Rodney Alexander within the same district, retain-
ing more of Congressman Fleming’s population
base then Congressman Alexander’s population
base. Congressman Alexander, Louisiana’s senior
Congressman, is unfairly treated in this plan.
4. Does it offer a comparative advantage to one party
or group over another party or group? Met. The
northern district plan does not appear to favor one
political party or group over another political party
or group.
5. Can it be done with the census numbers? Not met.
The northern district plan is not created with 2010
census numbers and underestimates the popula-
tion loss that occurred in Orleans Parish. The
proposed Second district in this plan does not have
enough people.
6. Is it bi-partisan? Not met. This plan is sponsored
by a conservative website.
Louisiana Progress
Conclusion
With so many plans being produced, it is no wonder
that citizens (and even public officials) may get con-
fused or fatigued by the redistricting process. Yet,
when these plans are analyzed according to the criteria
presented above, their relative merits are overshad-
owed by legal requirements from both the federal and
state government as well as the principles put forward
by Louisiana’s congressional delegation.
Citizens are well-advised to be aware of both the
formal legal requirement s and informal, unfair tactics-
--indeed all of the proposed plans discussed in this
article utilize unfair tactics to some extent. Such a
careful analysis is crucial to ensuring that Louisiana
ends up with a fair redistricting plan.
About the Authors
Dr. Stockley is Assistant Professor of
Political Science at the University of
Louisiana at Monroe, a regular columnist for
the Monroe News Star, and co-host of the
weekly radio talk show, Political
Incorrectness. He holds a Ph.D. from the
University of Oklahoma.
Dr. Sutherlin is an Assistant Professor of
Political Science and Co-Director of the
Social Science Research Laboratory at the
University of Louisiana at Monroe.
 Louisiana Progress Redistricting in Louisiana 23
Bibliography districting Law 2010. Washington, DC: NCSL.
Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel.
Books 2010. Redistricting: The Legal Requirements. OLRGC
Bullock, Charles S. 2010. Redistricting: The Most (John Fellows).
Political Activity in America. Lanham: Rowman & U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. Strength in Numbers: Your
Littlefield Publishers. Guide to the Census 2010 Redistricting Data from the
Burke, Christopher M. 1999. The Appearance of Equal- US Census Bureau. Redistricting Data Office, HQ –
ity: Racial Gerrymandering, Redistricting, and the 8HO19.
Supreme Court. Westport (CN): Greenwood Press.
Epstein, Lee and Thomas Walker. 2011. Constitutional Journal Articles
Law for a Changing America: Institutional Powers and Abramowitz, Alan. 1983. “Partisan Redistricting and
Constraints. Washington D.C.: CQ Press. the 1982 Congressional Elections,” Journal of Politics
_____. 2010. Constitutional Law for a Changing 45(3):767-770.
America: Rights, Liberties, and Justice. Washington Engstrom, Richard L. and John K. Wildgen. 1977.
D.C.: CQ Press. “Pruning Thorns from the Thicket: An Empirical Test
Light, Steven Andrew. 2010. The Law is Good: The of the Existence of Racial Gerrymandering,” Legislative
Voting Rights Act, Redistricting and Black Regime Studies Quarterly 2(4):465-479.
Politics. Durham: Carolina Academic Press. Epstein, David et al. 2007. “Estimating the Effect of
Mann, Robert. 1996. The Walls of Jericho. New York: Redistricting on Minority Substantive Representation,”
Harcourt Brace. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 23(2):499-
Meese III, Edwin, Matthew Spalding, and David Forte. 518.
2005. The Heritage Guide to the Constitution. Wash- Gelman, Andrew and Gary King. 1994. “Enhancing
ington D.C.: Regnery Publishing. Democracy through Legislative Redistricting,” Ameri-
Steed, Robert P., Laurence W. Moreland, and Tod A. can Political Science Review 88(3):541-559.
Baker. 1997. Southern Parties and Elections: Studies in Hill, Kevin A. 1995. “Does the Creation of Major-
Regional Political Change. Tuscaloosa: University of ity Black Districts Aid Republicans? An Analysis of
Alabama Press. the 1992 Congressional Elections in Eight Southern
Winburn, Jonathan. 2008. The Realities of Redistrict- States,” The Journal of Politics 57(2):384-401.
ing. Lanham: Lexington Books. Johnston, R.J., 1982. “Redistricting by Independent
Yarbrough, Tinsley E. 2002. Race and Redistricting: Commissions: A Perspective from Britain,” Annals of
The Shaw-Cromartie Cases. Lawrence: University Press the Association of American Geographers 72(4): 457-
of Kansas. 470.
Lublin, David. 1999. “Racial Redistricting and African-
Reports American Representation: A Critique of ‘Do Majority-
Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Minority Districts Maximize Substantive Black Rep-
School of Law. 2010. A Citizen’s Guide to Redistricting. resentation in Congress?” American Political Science
Prepared by Justin Levitt. Review 93(1):183-186.
The Campaign Legal Center, The Center for Excellence Lyons, Michael and Peter F. Galderisi. 1995. “Incum-
in Government and League of Women Voters. 2006. bency, Reapportionment, and U. S. House Redistrict-
Building a National Redistricting Reform Movement. ing,” Political Research Quarterly 48(4):857-871.
Salt Lake City: Redistricting Conference Report. McKee, Seth C. 2008. “The Effects of Redistricting on
Eagleton Institute of Politics. 2010. Reading Between Voting Behavior in Incumbent U.S House Elections,
the Lines: Congressional and State Legislative Redis- 1992-1994,” Political Research Quarterly 61(1):122-
tricting their Reform in Iowa, Arizona, and California 133.
and Ideas for Change in New Jersey. Prepared by Ben- Shotts, Kenneth W. 2002. “Gerrymandering, Legisla-
jamin Bricker at Rutgers University. tive Composition, and National Policy Outcomes,”
National Conference of State Legislatures. 2009. Re- American Journal of Political Science 46(2):398-414.
24 Redistricting in Louisiana
Tolbert, Charles M., et al. 2003. “Social Justice, and
Congressional Redistricting: The Case of Louisiana’s
Fourth District in the 1990s,” Social Justice 30(4):91-
107.
Court Cases
Allen v. State Board of Elections, 393 U.S. 544 (1969)
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962)
Bartlett v. Strickland, 566 U.S. (2009)
Beer v. United States, 425 U.S. 130 (1976)
Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996)
Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549 (1946)
Luther v. Bolden, 48 U.S. 1 (1849)
Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995)
Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board (Bossier I), 520
U.S. 471 (1997)
Shaw v. Reno (Shaw I), 509 U.S. 630 (1993)
Shaw v. Hunt (Shaw II), 517 U.S. 899 (1996)
Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986)
United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737 (1995)
Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964)
Newspapers
Miller, Sean J. 2009. “Louisiana redistricting worries
potential Republican candidates for House seat,” The
Hill. 10 December.
Dubos, Clay. 2010. “Louisiana May Lose a Congressio-
nal Seat to Reappointment,” The Gambit New Orleans.
5 October.
Deslatte, Melinda. 2010. “Census Data Shows La. Los-
ing a Congressional Seat,” The Beaumont Enterprise.
21 December.
Shuler, Marsha. 2011. “House panel adopts redistrict-
ing rules,” The Advocate, Capitol News Bureau. 19
January.
Aoidh, Mac. 2011. “Redistricting: Keep Acadiana Area
Together,” The Hayride. 30 January.
Hasten, Mike. 2011. “Jindal sits on the sidelines on
redistricting,” The New Star. 20 January.
Maginnis, John. 2011. “Lost District is not Katrina`s
Fault,” Baton Rouge Business Report. 1 February.
Stonecipher, Elliot. 2009. “Top Five Reasons Reappor-
tionment and Redistricting Will Be Hard.” The Dead
Pelican. 9 October.
Thomas, Nathan. 2011. “Inside Louisiana’s Redistrict-
ing Battle.” Democratic Legislative Campaign Commit-
tee. 18 January.
Louisiana Progress
Whatley, Mike. 2009. “Louisiana Redistricting: An
Ugly Post-Katrina Partisan Mess (The Complete
Analysis).” Rose Institute of State and Local Govern-
ment. 24 November.
Miller, Sean J. 2009. “Louisiana Redistricting Worries
Potential Republican Candidates for House Seat.” The
Hill. 10 December.
Alford, Jeremy. 2005. “Population Loss Alters Louisi-
ana Politics.” The New York Times. 4 October.
Web Sources
State of Louisiana, House of Representatives, “Legal
Requirements for Redistricting in Louisiana,” accessed
at http://house.louisiana.gov/h_redistricting2011/
Legal%Requirements-Redistricting_power_point.pdf.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census – Apportionment
Data, accessed at http://2010.census.gov/2010census/
data/apportionment-data.php.
Trende, Sean. “A Preview of 2012 Redistricting.” http://
www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/11/11/a_pre-
view_of_2012_redistricing
2009. “Redistricting 2011: Florida and Louisiana.
Swing State Project. 23 March. < http://www.swing-
stateproject.com/diary/4629/>
2010. “Live Blogging the Mid-Terms.” The Economist.
2 November. http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ-
racyinamerica/2010/11/election_night>
Lafayette Chamber of Commerce. http://lafchamber.
org/newsarchive/bRedistricting-Keep-Acadiana-Area-
Together
The Independent. http://www.theind.com/lead-
news/7565-getting-shored-up
The Daily Comet. http://www.dailycomet.com/ar-
ticle/20101226/ARTICLES/101229635?p=1&tc=pg&t
c=ar
Houma Today. http://www.houmatoday.com/
article/20110206/ARTICLES/110209555/1211/
news01?p=1&tc=pg&tc=ar
2010. “Fixing Prison-Based Gerrymandering After
the 2010 Census: Louisiana.” Prisoners of the Census.
March. http://www.prisonersofthecensus.org/50states/
LA.html