Manipulating the Lines

Abstract: The redistricting process in the United States of America has been viewed as an unfair, manipulative procedure of drawing redistricting lines to benefit the politicians in power. In an attempt to stop this by creating a more transparent and improved redistricting process, certain states have implemented redistricting commissions for both state legislative and congressional redistricting. This study will analyze the six congressional redistricting commissions and attempt to see if the structure of the commissions plays an essential role in its ability to succeed. Of the six commissions, Arizona was the only state that failed to meet these expectations and was accused of gerrymandering, which has inspired this comparative analysis of Arizona, the deviant case. By using Hague & Harrop’s structural approach, this research essay will explore variables such as the commission’s size, how the commission members are selected, their time frame for creating a redistricting plan, what party affiliation has the majority in that state, if the commission is bi/nonpartisan and if it is independent or politician based, in order to evaluate if there are any significant patterns or interesting differences between the commissions that are successful and Arizona’s redistricting commission.