Redistricting and Black Political Mobilization: Implications from the 2018 and 2022 Midterm Elections

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1 In line 35, what theory are you referring to when you write "such theory"?

2 In the introduction, briefly explain how will examine the questions (what methods, data, etc.)

3 Early in the paper (maybe in the literature review), explain some history of voting discrimination that resulted in the drawing of districts with the intention of electing Black and Latino representatives.  This may be unnecessary but will be useful for readers who are unfamiliar with redistricting issues.

4 For the information in lines 255 and 256, include a qualitative table that shows the African American populations in CBC-represented districts and the margins of victory for the candidates.  The quantitative analysis is very useful, but this will provide even more support for your findings.  Did the vote margins change for Black representatives when the Black populations increased?  If not, your hypothesis is supported.  Just a suggestion.

5 In the summary and conclusions section, refer to the literature mentioned in the literature review.  Was any of this confirmed by the findings?

6 I don't see a clear answer to the first research question [How did redistricting affect Black political mobilization in the 36 2022 midterm election?] in the summary and conclusions questions.  Maybe, I'm overlooking something.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments, please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

In some cases, wording and sentence structure can be improved. I have mentioned particular issues in my Comments and Suggestions to the Authors.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments, please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This version of the manuscript is much improved over the original. I still question some of the authors' methodology. However, my concerns are not serious enough to prevent the manuscript from being published.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Writing quality is better than it was in the original version.

Author Response

1. We have revised the methodology and findings sections of the manuscript to provide more precision about the variables and the results of the study.  Our changes are highlighted within the article.  We clarified the variable names that conform to journal standards and eliminated the underscores to enhance readability.
2. We also made minor changes in terms of writing to further strengthen the article. We have highlighted those changes throughout the document.