In the news

   Obama’s State of the Union speech, tonight at 8 pm. Bobby Jindal is giving the Republican response.

“Fiscal responsibility” summit yesterday at the White House – John McCain raised question about presidential helicopters (cost overruns from $6.1 to $11.2 billion).

NY Times poll shows that 79% of Americans want Republi cans in Congress to work in a bipartisan way with Obama.

Midterm exam

 Midterm next Thursday (3/5) – 12 multiple choice, 2.5 points each (30) – – 4 of 5 IDs, 11 points each (44) 1 essay (26 points)  Will cover readings and lectures through March 3 rd .

Redistricting

  Criteria for redistricting: population equality and race come first and then compactness, contiguity, partisan bias, protect incumbents, geographic boundaries, and respect for existing communities (split municipalities).

redistricting process – state legislatures, the courts, and non-partisan commissions. What data can be used?

Racial Redistricting

 the 1965 Voting Rights Act: access to vote. Mississippi redistricting. The right to a “meaningful vote.” Then

Mobile v. Bolden

(1980) – intent to discriminate, not effect.  The 1982 VRA Amendments reversed the

Mobile

decision. Equal opportunity to elect “candidates of choice.”

Thornburg v. Gingles

(1986), three-prong test for vote dilution.  The 1992 redistricting process: maximize the number of minority-majority districts.

Racial redistricting, cont.

    

Shaw v. Reno

(1993) and progeny. Race cannot be the predominant factor or it triggers strict scrutiny

(Miller v. Johnson,

1996)

.

The question of legal standing and its implications for these cases. Status of racial redistricting today.

Easley v. Cromartie

(2001). 2002 round – tension between VRA and

Shaw

.

Georgia v. Ashcroft

(2003).

LULAC v. Perry

(2006).

Ashcroft

overturned in 2006 in the VRA extension.

Racial representation may also be affected by at-large versus single-member districts.

partisan redistricting. Historical examples.

Veith v. Jubelirer

(2004).

LULAC

again.

•

The 1992 North Carolina House Plan:

Texas’s mid-decade redistricting – carving up Democratic districts.

Money in congressional elections

 How much money?

 Campaign finance law – FECA of 1974,

Buckley v. Valeo.

– Soft money, PACs, independent expenditures, candidate expenditures, leadership PACs.

– McCain/Feingold. Upheld by the Supreme Court in

McConnell v. FEC

(2003). New loophole – 527 groups.

 Money and influencing the legislative process. Untangling the causal web.

The Candidates’ Side of the Story

Strategic Politicians and the Supply Side Theory February 24, 2009 PS 426

The calculus of candidacy

  E (

a

i ) = P i U i - C i Utility of running equals the probability of winning times the benefits of winning, minus the costs. What are the benefits of holding office? The costs? (direct costs and opportunity costs).

 Impact of probability of winning on the type of candidate who will run.

 Progressive ambition.

 Examples.

Strategic politicians and the economy

 Jacobson/Kernell. Disjunction between the macro and micro-level findings on the impact of economic variables on congressional elections. There is a strong relationship at the macro level, but not at the micro level. Sort this out by focusing on the calculations of rational politicians and contributors.

 Strategic politicians and amateurs. The career structure and lateral entry.

Supply-side theory and racial representation

   Impact of the racial composition of the candidate pool in the Democratic primary on the type of candidate who wins.

– – – North Carolina case study: racial motivation of candidates: Willie Riddick and Don Smith.

If the Dem. primary field is all African American candidates, “commonality” candidate wins. If a white candidate runs, “difference” candidate wins. Why?

Role of the case study: discover the causal mechanism.

Impact on racial representation.

Parallel to arguments that the Supreme Court made in

Ashcroft

for influence districts. Here is it white voters who are exerting influence on the type of candidate who wins.

Controlling for alternative explanations

 The ice cream/crime example (need to control for the season).

 Alternative explanations for the nature of racial representation that emerges in the new black majority districts – region, % black, income. Does the supply side theory hold up when considering these alternatives? How best to measure income?

Context of the supply side

 Opportunity Structure – pattern of office holding in a given state or for a given office. The layering of local, state, and federal office. – Open or relatively closed: weak party systems versus party machines.

 Party influence: party has a stake in trying to recruit the best candidates to run for office.

– Direct Recruitment. – negative recruitment.