Princeton Gerrymandering Project

Princeton Gerrymandering Project
Name	Princeton Gerrymandering Project
Formation	2017
Headquarters	Princeton, New Jersey
Founder	Alan S. T. Smith
Parent organization	Princeton University

Princeton Gerrymandering Project The Princeton Gerrymandering Project is a research initiative housed at Princeton University focused on the analysis of redistricting, electoral maps, and partisan representation. The initiative brings together scholars from Princeton School of Public and International Affairs, Department of Politics (Princeton University), and the Computer Science Department at Princeton University to provide empirical studies and legal support related to legislative and congressional districting. It engages with policymakers, litigants, and the public through reports, expert testimony, and software tools.

History

The project began amid heightened national attention following the 2010 and 2012 redistricting cycles and the 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder. Founding participants included faculty who had previously worked on cases such as Whitford v. Gill, Gill v. Whitford, and analyses cited in filings for Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. Early collaborators drew on methodologies developed in work associated with Brennan Center for Justice, Bipartisan Policy Center, and litigation before the United States Supreme Court. Over time the initiative expanded links to scholars who had contributed to debates surrounding Rucho v. Common Cause and state-level disputes like League of Women Voters of North Carolina v. North Carolina.

Mission and Activities

The mission emphasizes rigorous quantitative analysis to inform disputes involving the Voting Rights Act of 1965, claims under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution regarding associational harms, and partisan fairness in light of decisions by the United States Supreme Court of the United States. Activities include publishing technical reports, offering expert declarations in litigation such as Common Cause v. Rucho, and providing testimony before state legislatures like the New Jersey Legislature. The project also participates in public education initiatives alongside organizations such as Brennan Center for Justice, FairVote, and the American Civil Liberties Union.

Research and Methods

Researchers employ statistical techniques drawn from work by scholars linked to Stanford University, Harvard University, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Methods include ensemble analysis inspired by models used in cases like League of Women Voters v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and computational geometry approaches informed by research from Carnegie Mellon University and University of California, Berkeley. The team uses software environments comparable to those developed at Center for Geometry and Topology labs and tools similar to packages presented at the Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. Analytic focus includes measures referenced in literature connected to Harvard Law Review, Yale Law Journal, and empirical studies published through collaborations with the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Major Projects and Cases

The initiative contributed analyses and declarations in notable matters including filings related to Rucho v. Common Cause, state redistricting litigation in North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and amicus briefs in disputes before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Collaborations have intersected with efforts by litigants represented by firms such as ACLU, Public Interest Law Center, and WilmerHale in challenges tied to the North Carolina State Board of Elections and maps used in 2016 United States House of Representatives elections. The project’s datasets and codebases have been cited by expert witnesses who previously testified in cases like Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.

Impact and Criticism

Supporters point to influence on judicial understanding of map-drawing techniques, citing contributions to debates informed by scholarship from Columbia Law School, Stanford Law School, and NYU School of Law. Critics have questioned the role of academic projects in adversarial litigation, referencing discussions in forums connected to Federalist Society events and commentary in outlets such as The Atlantic and The New York Times. Some state officials and partisan actors compared methodological assumptions to those debated during proceedings before the Supreme Court of the United States and at legislative hearings in state capitols like Raleigh, North Carolina and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Partnerships and Funding

The project partners with academic centers and civic organizations including the Brennan Center for Justice, Princeton School of Public and International Affairs, and research groups at Harvard University and Stanford University. Funding sources have included university allocations and grants from foundations that support election-related research, similar to those given by entities such as the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and the MacArthur Foundation. Financial relationships and disclosures have been discussed in contexts with organizations like The Rockefeller Foundation and in reporting by outlets affiliated with ProPublica.

Category:Princeton University Category:Redistricting in the United States