Public Confidence in the Redistricting Process

• Published date: 01 December 2016
• Date: 01 December 2016
• Author: Kathryn VanderMolen,Jeffrey Milyo
• DOI: 10.1177/0160323X17690884
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Public Confidence in the

Redistricting Process:

The Role of Independent

Commissions, State

Legislative Polarization,

and Partisan Preferences

Kathryn VanderMolen

1

and Jeffrey Milyo

2

Abstract

This study examines the determinants of public confidence in the honesty and integrity of state

redistricting processes by analyzing responses to the 2011 and 2012 Cooperative Congressional

Election Studies. Individual opinions about the redistricting process are matched to several state

characteristics, including the presence of independent redistricting commissions, state legislative

polarization, and legislative professionalism. Contrary to popular wisdom, the analysis reveals that

neither partisan redistricting procedures nor political polarization reduce confidence in the redistricting

process. Rather, public attitudes are determined more so by distaste for legislative professionalism

and affinity for the party in control of state government.

Keywords

redistricting, polarization, confidence in government

Legislative redistricting is an inflammatory

issue that is often blamed for increasing levels

of partisan polarization—the precursor to leg-

islative gridlock and stalemate that is often

viewed distastefully by citizens (Hibbing and

Theiss-Morse 2002). This article considers the

connection between polarization, redistricting

institutions, and citizens by focusing on the

determinants of public trust in the redistricting

process and testing whether polarized environ-

ments and partisan redistricting procedures

erode citizens’ trust and confidence in the pro-

cess of redistricting. Examining the effects of

polarization as well as the public’s reactions

to the redistricting process has the potential

to inform both the ease with which states

are able to reform redistricting and the

broader role of polarization in evaluations of

political processes.

1

Department of Political Science and International Studies,

University of Tampa, Tampa, FL, USA

2

Department of Economics, University of Missouri,

Columbia, MO, USA

Corresponding Author:

Jeffrey Milyo, Department of Economics, University of

Missouri, 909 University of Avenue, Professional Building,

Columbia, MO 65211, USA.

Email: milyoj@missouri.edu

State and Local GovernmentReview

2016, Vol. 48(4) 236-245

ªThe Author(s) 2017

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0160323X17690884

journals.sagepub.com/home/slg