Pruitt: Rurality and Redistricting
In Rurality and Redistricting: California’s Proposition 50, Rural Identity, and Democratic Legitimacy, Lisa R. Pruitt (University of California, Davis School of Law) explores California’s hyper-partisan redistricting, otherwise known as Proposition 50, through a ruralist critique. The article focuses on the effects in far northern California and situates the measure within a broader national redistricting trend that dilutes rural or urban representation. Pruitt argues for greater protection of rural “communities of interest,” described as a contiguous population sharing common social and economic interests within a district, and thereby providing effective and fair representation.
Pruitt first places Proposition 50 within the growing “urban-rural divide,” explaining that residents in the most northerly districts of California view rural identity as central to their political and social concerns. Pruitt explains that rural identity goes beyond geographic location and reflects shared experiences, values, and a sense that rural communities receive inadequate political attention and resources. The article illustrates these differences through policies pertaining to gray-wolf protections and electric vehicles, which Pruitt argues impose unique consequences on rural communities due to their livelihoods, geographic distances, and infrastructure limitations.
The article then considers the “communities of interest” concept in redistricting law and practice. Pruitt examines redistricting and reapportionment decisions from various jurisdictions, including Colorado, Alaska, and Oregon, that have recognized the distinctions among rural communities. The former First Congressional District of California functioned as a rural community of interest because of shared governance challenges shaped by remoteness, scale, livelihood, and service deficits, yet redistricting there failed to account for these common characteristics. Now, parts of the former First District are tied to urban centers and consequently, urban values and attitudes, rather than the previously shared values that the First District once had, creating concerns that rural residents will receive less effective political representation.
In conclusion, the author argues that fragmenting rural communities through redistricting may weaken the relationship between representatives and their constituents and reinforce rural political alienation. She argues that recognizing rural regions as “communities of interest” can preserve rural representation and support representative and responsive government, especially as the “urban-rural divide” continues to become increasingly significant in the United States.
