Snow: Legislative Failure
by Nathanael Snow, Ph.D.
People respond to incentives. Governor Mike Braun has called a special session of Indiana’s legislature for the purpose of redrawing Congressional District lines. Indiana voters ask Braun why he cares so much. What’s in it for him?
And then let the legislators ask the same question. A legislature is supposed to be the arena of political compromise. A state representative from the Indianapolis region may desire to see an increase in infrastructure spending as the roads bear more traffic but needs the vote of a representative from a rural area that would like to see better access to emergency healthcare. They can vote for each other’s bills (logrolling) or put both line items into the same bill (pork barrel spending), but in Indiana they have to balance the budget (thankfully), so something, somewhere has to be cut. Perhaps they gang up and reduce expenditures on state parks. Deals must be brokered. Tradeoffs must be considered.
Even in a supermajority state like Indiana legislators belonging to the majority party will occasionally need something from a member of the minority party. Not every issue is divided on party lines. And occasionally the majority party needs the participation of several or all of the minority representatives. What can they possibly offer? Perhaps, among the bargaining chips available, the majority party can agree to draw Congressional District lines in a way that affords the minority party some seats in the House of Representatives.
After all, in a supermajority state, why wouldn’t the majority party always draw the lines in such a way as to completely shut the minority party out of Congress? Why is there ever any minority representation in the House of Representatives from supermajority states? Beyond offering these seats as a bargaining chip in other legislative negotiations I can think of a few other possible reasons.
First, perhaps the legislature realizes it faces a challenge of legitimacy if it appears to be completely foreclosing on minority voter’s representation at the Federal level. Even majority party owners might consider this a breach of democratic principles. Democracy is, at its root, governance by discussion. Shutting some voices out of that discussion would breed resentment and potential political challenges in the future.
Second, Indiana receives Federal funds for several purposes. Minority party Congressional Representatives have some say about how much Indiana might receive for those purposes. To protect access to Federal funds the state legislature may afford the minority party some representation at the Federal level. This is Federalism in action, an important factor among the checks and balances that disciplines the behavior of elected officials.
Third, keeping a few minority seats does not really cost the majority party anything, so the relative cost of drawing in a few minority districts is low. Similarly, if there is no minority representation it will increase the contention in primary elections. No elected official wants to face a primary battle.
Each of these is also a reason not to hold a special session to redraw district lines. If the legislature gives in to Braun, who appears to be answering to other captains at the Federal level, it will cede its authority and relevance in state governance to the executive. This is legislative failure that robs voters and citizens of their voice in politics.
Nathanael Snow, an adjunct scholar of the Indiana Policy Review Foundation, is Assistant Teaching Professor of Economics at Ball State University and Affiliated Scholar with the Institute for the Study of Political Economy. He researches the constitution of informal social groups the political economy of Archbishop Richard Whately, and the economic history of the abolition of slavery.
Comments...