A Bonus Seat for the Ocean State?

February 9, 2022

 

By: Peter Quinn

It would probably surprise most Americans that tiny Rhode Island, the smallest U.S. state by area, has been afforded at least two members of the House of Representatives since the 1790s. The census reapportionment process has been very kind to the state as of late, resulting in the state retaining its current two seats for the last ten censuses, losing a third seat during the Great Depression. This is especially stark when compared to Delaware, with only about 100,000 fewer people than Rhode Island but bereft of multiple Representatives throughout its history other than from 1813-23.

In the run-up to the 2020 Census, however, Rhode Islanders began to worry that their population growth was not keeping pace with other states, or at least not enough to guarantee the continued existence of its second seat. With the state controlled by Democrats, including the holders of both House seats, a potentially ugly fight was brewing that would determine who would become the standard-bearer when the two districts consolidated.

A seat loss was expected not only based on the low projected population growth, but also on Rhode Island’s position on the “most overrepresented states” list, or more precisely, the ranking of average population per seat, after the 2010 count. At roughly 527,000 people per representative, Rhode Island had the lowest count of any state for the last census; no other state fell below 600,000 people per representative except for perennially underpopulated Wyoming. If there were any state ripe to have its congressional delegation busted down to size in 2020, it was a state 180,000 people per representative below the nationwide average.

Imagine the shock in Rhode Island’s politics when the 2020 Census data was released in April 2021 and miraculously left the state’s two-person delegation intact. Against all odds, the state’s population growth of 4.26% had apparently been just enough to allow it to hang on to its second district. This was despite the nation-at-large’s population growth of 7.35%—chalk it up to the complex process the Census uses for reapportionment, involving what it terms “priority values.” Rhode Island’s Secretary of State credited the state government’s community advocacy geared toward counting as many people as possible in the state ahead of the census, as opposed to the half-hearted efforts of other states like Texas.

Suddenly, the state’s process for redrawing its district lines became much more important. With the expected single district in reapportionment, the process would have been moot. While neither existing district is ultra-competitive, the Second District is at least theoretically swingable, with a Cook Partisan Voter Index of +4 for Democrats. This would certainly make the redistricting process of interest to the party, as it seeks to protect the seats it holds heading into what is expected to be a tough election cycle.

So, how does Rhode Island redistrict its federal House seats? The only clear mention of these seats in the state’s election code is simply a list of which towns fall in which district from the 2012 election going forward. One redistricting website indicates that a commission drew these lines in 2012. The particulars of this (and current) commissions suggest that the state legislature has traditionally exercised its redistricting power by creating an advisory commission yet retaining the power to do what it wants, solely and on its own prerogative.

In April 2021, the legislature fleshed out the process a bit more. Specifically, it created an 18-person commission to draw the lines for both federal and state districts, with the appointments parceled out to each chamber and party and including both legislators and members of the public. The commission is given standards and timelines to inform their work (SCOTUS-approved population variances, compactness and contiguity, etc.).

It would appear that the new commission is largely in line with modern procedures for redistricting. However, the commission’s appointments create a 14-4 majority of seats for the political party that controls the chambers of the state legislature. Additionally, it does not create meaningful opportunities for public input other than a requirement that the commission make its software available on the internet. And finally, the commission merely produces a proposed bill to the state legislature, with no provision for whether or how the legislature would adopt it. All this adds up to a conclusion that the commission is largely a front for an essentially partisan, elite-driven redistricting process.

Progressive activists in the state would seem to agree. Specifically, their grievances seem to stem not only from the process being elite-driven, but also from the lack of representation of “progressive voices” and “diverse voices” on the commission. Aside from public comments, which are likely to take place fully online amid the COVID-19 pandemic, activists have few avenues to influence the process.

Given the state’s surprising retention of a second House seat, it seems Democratic party leaders in Rhode Island are now loathe to turn the process over to groups it cannot exert full control over. And if demographic trends continue, Rhode Island will need another miracle to keep its second seat after the 2030 Census—this federal redistricting may be its last for a while. Thus, the “surprise” second district is likely to remain in Democratic hands, if the state legislature’s handpicked commission has anything to say about it. And as we’ve seen in the aftermath of the 2020 congressional elections, one seat can prove decisive for partisan control.

So, who knows? Perhaps Rhode Island’s miraculous second House seat will have a major impact on which party controls the House in 2022—or beyond.