Google Ads


Site Stats

Redistricting 2010: Who Controls What

by: jeffmd

Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 10:30 AM EST


Sourced partially from StateVote from the National Conference of State Legislatures (PDF). Note that "seats" refers to "projected seats after 2010".

A few notes:

  • Arizona: Uses a bipartisan commission.
  • California: Will be done by commission following passage of Prop 20.
  • Florida: Amendment 6 mandates compactness and community of interest standards.
  • Georgia: Underwent mid-decade redistricting under GOP control.
  • Iowa: Uses a nonpartisan commission, but the legislature has veto power.
  • New Jersey: Uses a bipartisan commission with a 11th wild card member.
  • New York: Control of the State Senate remains uncertain, with three seats still in the balance.
  • North Carolina: Governor Bev Perdue does not have veto power, meaning the GOP controls the entire process.
  • Oregon: Control of the State Senate remains uncertain, with two seats still in the balance.
  • Texas: Underwent mid-decade redistricting under GOP control.
  • Washington: Uses a bipartisan commission. Control of the State Senate remains uncertain, with three seats still in the balance.

Notably, we're not that screwed. Control of the FLOHPA (+MI) set of swing states remains under the GOP trifecta, just as it was in 2000.
jeffmd :: Redistricting 2010: Who Controls What
Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Redistricting 2010: Who Controls What | 72 comments
Correct me if I am wrong here,
but aside from a few districts that were lost that would be very hard to get back (Lincoln Davis' old district, Gene Taylor's old district), a lot of the ones we lost were essentially swing areas. And while it's always possible to take make up a new map so that the new districts are slightly more unfriendly, none of the areas states where we lost a lot of seats--Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, and Virginia--are so naturally turned off by Democrats that it takes something completely unusual for one to get elected there in the first place.

People have criticized me for, in some cases, assuming there were people who were simply willing to vote for Democrats if they were spoken to by a candidate. That might be a tougher thing to believe in some cases, but in a lot of those states, we had a good example of that: Representatives that occupied those seats for at least a few cycles. While taking some of them back will be easier than others, a smart, tough campaign by the person trying to win the seat back should give us, at worst, a fighting chance.

Is that mostly right?

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

FLOHPAMI
... could still hurt us. At least, OHPAMI each losing seats (again) means more Democratic incumbents with nowhere to go. Plus, Republicans just seem a little more vindictive this year. In Michigan, I'm guessing their goals are:

- Make MI-01 a little more Republican (so that a Stupak-like candidate can't win)

- Redraw MI-03,06,07,08 to make it so that Mark Schauer's Battle Creek won't be sufficient to give him a base to run again in 2012

- Screw over either Gary Peters or John Dingell (Peters because he's relatively new and has statewide potential, Dingell because it's Dingell, and they've tried to redistrict him out of his seat before)

There are still opportunities for pick-ups-- no matter what district they put him in, Walberg will always be vulnerable, and I don't think Amash can hold a district with Grand Rapids in it for the long-term-- but if they can keep Schauer, Peters, and a UP Democrat out of Congress, that's going to set us back for a while. It's hard enough already convincing people that Democrats exist outside of metro Detroit.

Peters' statewide potential is questionable
He's already run for governor and AG, never making it past 1% in the former primary and losing to Mike Cox in the latter race.

Think about that. He lost to MIKE COX in a year when Jennifer Granholm was being elected governor by a wide margin.

[ Parent ]
True
But he and Hansen Clarke are the only members of the Michigan House delegation under the age of 70, and Clarke being from Detroit is going to hurt any statewide potential (unfairly, in my opinion). For both governor and US Senate if Carl Levin retires any time soon, Peters is on the short list of candidates by default.

And yeah, he lost to Mike Cox, which hurts, but it was still a close race and it was 8 years ago. Since then, he took out Knollenberg and held down his district as well as anyone could hope for in 2010. Not necessarily the best candidate, but no reason to label him a loser right away.

[ Parent ]
Michigan and Detroit
Michigan's black population loss has been severe.

Is there any precedent for losing a VRA district? Simply merging 13 and 14 might be an option.

[ Parent ]
Suburbs
While Detroit's population loss has been severe, there are still communities that surround Detroit with large African-American populations that are not in the 13th and 14th districts - Pontiac in the 9th, Southfield and Oak Park in the 12th, and Inkster in the 15th - that can be added to these districts to keep them VRA compliant.
[ Parent ]
20 Years
It would take AT LEAST 20 years before Detroit could even conceivably lose its black majority, and that's even with the massive outmigration.  Detroit's not going to lose any black-majority districts any time soon.  Not only that, but African Americans by the droves are settling just outside the city border.

In an unintended consequence, Detroit's decline is actually increasing Democrats chances in Southeast Michigan.  Districts 9, 11, 12, and 15 are all becoming less white.  It's only a matter of time before Republican's are shutout of Metropolitan Detroit districts, altogether.  McCotter nows this more than anyone.

Republicans are quickly coming upon the point of having leveraged their wins as far as they can, here in Michigan, this is especially true in a state who population has stagnated and who's demographics aren't sitting still.

Again, Democrats haven't been in complete control of redistricting since 1961.  In other words, Dems have done quite well in Michigan even when not in control of how the lines are drawn.

[ Parent ]
populations
I'm not talking about population ratios, I mean population totals.

Michigan's 13th is majority black, but it's also likely heavily underpopulated.

Obviously there are VRA lawsuit consequences. But I wonder if they could simply take the 13th and drown it in the surrounding 4 districts, then argue that the population loss makes it acceptable.

[ Parent ]
Huh?
Where did you hear that "Michigan's black population loss has been severe?"  Yes, MI has lost population but I've never heard that it was primarily black people who were leaving.    
[ Parent ]
Michigan's black population
While there hasn't been ANY evidence of a mass migration from Michigan of African Americans, since at least 2005, Census estimates have shown that blacks as a percentage of the population and in raw numbers have dropped slightly, while the state has posted a tiny net gain in population.  So, there is evidence of African Americans, on net, have left Michigan, entirely, but I really think this is just a blip and will reverse when the economy picks back up.
[ Parent ]
might be true
The question is whether it lines up with the census.

http://www.mlive.com/news/detr...

Today, frustrated by plummeting property values and high crime, many diehards have hit their breaking point. Their exodus is consigning borderline neighborhoods to full-blown blight and putting prime residential areas at risk. By some estimates, this year's Census will show a population drop of 150,000 people from the 951,000 people who lived within city limits in 2000. That would be roughly double the population loss in the 1990s, when black, middle-class flight began replacing white flight as the prevailing dynamic.

If Detroit is really under 800k, it doesn't deserve 2 Congressional Districts.

[ Parent ]
Detroit congressional districts
Even if the loss is that much, the current two districts already include small, close-in suburbs.  The only thing I could see happening is that the 13th will be pulled further south along the Detroit River or take in a bit more of Detroit's Westside, and the 14th will be stretched to include a few more western Wayne suburbs.  Detroit ain't losing a congressional district.  Cleveland still has two, and it's a much smaller city.
[ Parent ]
Ok
I could see Michigan losing a small percentage of its black population.  I was thrown off by the assertion that the population loss had been "severe" which I don't believe is true.  
[ Parent ]
I disagree...
about Peters' statewide potential.  Sure, he could be a possibility but I don't see him going anywhere.  He already run for statewide office and lost.  I think Sen. Levin will run again in 2014 so it may be a while before his seat is open.  Who knows who the other Democratic candidates will be 10 years down the road.  

As far as Michigan's redistricting goes, I think it will go from 9-6 Republican to 9-5 Republican.  I don't see the GOP being able to get more than 9 seats without making some Republican districts more competitive for the Dems.  My guess is they put Peters and Levin into the same district.  

[ Parent ]
Table is misleading
It makes no sense to say that California's redistricting is in the hands of Democrats when it is actually in the hands of an independent commission.

Also, wouldn't it be useful to highlight the states that are going to gain or lose seats?  Wouldn't those be the most 'critical' ?

he has disclaimers
at the bottom.
[ Parent ]
many D losses over the last 10 years
were in Southern districts. And honestly, if we had kept them, could you honestly see a better map? Oklahoma and Tennessee (especially the rural areas) have slipped away from the Democrats quickly.

It is mostly split government up north, like last time. Although the GOP certainly has an advantage, the idea that they can create a lasting majority is very unlikely.

Here
Here's a chart I found on Politico from the RGA.

http://www.politico.com/static...

It mentions the process each state undergoes during redistricting and a ton of other info.

Errr
RNC not RGA.
[ Parent ]
New Hampshire
I'm fairly sure the legislature had GOP supermajorities now.  So they could override a veto of a redistricting plan.  Of course New Hampshire's two districts have been pretty much unchanged since the 19th century, so I doubt they'd do much there, but they could make themselves a more favorable map on the State level.

28, Unenrolled, MA-08
Not Much To Do in NH
In the massive lower house, most towns of any size elect multiple representatives by slate.

They could muck around with things in the Senate a little but only at the margins. A district with I-93 corridor Boston exurbs is going to favor Republicans. A district in the Upper Valley is going to favor Democrats.

There are two Congressional districts. NH-2 is a little more Dem-friendly than NH-1 and it wouldn't be that hard to make that difference a little more stark, but it's hard to say who that would really benefit. Republicans will hold both next year but for the last four years Democrats held them both.

It's hard for gerrymandering to work especially well with an electorate that veers so dramatically from one election to the next.  

36, M, Democrat, MD-03

[ Parent ]
The NRC Redistricting memo missed that
They did gain super-majority status in both houses ... so they can try to shore up NH-01 if they wished. However, if they made NH-01 even more Republican, then it would be putting NH-02 in even greater danger.  
[ Parent ]
the main gain in NH would be
creating more massive undemocratic multimember districts which were the reason for the massive Republican swing (imagine losing 8 seats in one vote).

Nothing more awesome than the 51% getting all 8 seats and the 49% getting 0 seats because of the party column ballot and the straight-ticket voters, eh.

[ Parent ]
Multimember districts are not undemocratic
In fact, they are necessary for proportional representation.  However, the block voting system, which as you point out is used to elect the NH House, is outrageously undemocratic.
[ Parent ]
Hawaii and Idaho also have commissions.
Maine also has a commission, but legislative approval is needed (similar to Iowa):

Commission proposes a districting plan to the legislature, where it must be approved by a two-thirds vote, followed by the governor's approval. If this fails, the state Supreme Court draws the districts.

http://www.americansforredistr...

Thoughts...
CA- independent commission could really jumble things up...I doubt the partisan makeup of the delegation changes much but some R and D incumbents could be drawn into same district or hostile territory.
WA- probably Reichert gets a friendlier district with the more Dem portions going to a new Dem leaning suburban seat. +1 Dem
NV- Hecks district becomes more REP and DEM areas carved to make new left leaning suburban district for a 2-2 delegation split. +1 Dem
TX - GOP kinda restricted in that there are no more vulnerable Dems to go after and at least one new minority district needs added.  Look for REPs to shore up GOP incumbents and try and take 3 of the 4 new seats.  The best they can hope for is +2 GOP and the have a very endangered incumbent in the Ortiz seat.
IA- plan could be vetoed by legislature.  Look for GOP to vote against any plan that is not a 2-2 split of the delegation.  I think Latham gets drawn in with Boswell and Boswell retires.  Latham lives in Ames directly north of Des Moines. -1 Dem potentially
IL- I think Schilling will be odd man out and Walsh and Dold may end up with more Dems in their district.  -1 GOP at least
IN- GOP go after Donnelly. -1 Dem
OH- be hard for GOP to cut two DEM seats they were just too successful in picking up everything they could.  I would suspect they go after Sutton and split her district among surrounding Dems.  The other seat to go will almost have to be a GOP seat.  1 Dem 1 GOP
MI - shore up GOP incumbents and get rid of Dingell or Peters. If they get overly bullish they may try and give Peters more REPs in district and get rid of Dingells seat for a plus one.  -1 Dem for sure
NC - GOP will shore up Ellmers and go after McIntyre, Kissell and maybe Schuler.  Around +2 GOP
SC - pack every Dem in Clyburns seat and try and add one more GOP seat.  +1 GOP if it works.
FL not so sure of impact of amendment 6.  Is being challenged in court and may not stand.  Hard to draw compact districts that are also VRA districts for Brown and Hastings.  GOP would like to add both new districts to their side but that would be tough.  They may be better shoring up incumbents and adding one new to each side.
PA- Critz prob gone.  Holden gets a Dem district shoring up GOP incumbents surrounding him. -1 DEM at least
NY- each side prob loses an incumbent. Owens maybe for Dems and also an upstate GOPer. 1 REP 1DEM
UT add another REP seat and try and defeat Matheson. +1 GOP and maybe -1 DEM
LA- GOP is gonna have to lose a seat -1 GOP
MO- be a fight over which seat goes Hartzler-R or Carnahan-D
MN- Bachmann will be given a friendly district to continue in.  Cravaack will have tough time holding a NE iron range district.  Peterson district on the other hand goes GOP when he steps down and changes to lines of Walz district could hurt his chances.
MA- one Dem goes -1 DEM
NJ - not sure what happens
How can you be so sure of any of this?
In North Carolina, for instance, are the maps now drawn so that McIntyre, Kissell and Schuler are in districts that are overly friendly to Democrats? And if the population growth is in the metro areas of the state, which are trending blue (although to what degree, it's unclear), how can the Republicans be rigged so that they manage to not only drawn these guys into inhospitable districts but also give themselves a shot at another one?

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
well
Schuler holds an R district that got away.

Kissell holds a carefully crafted district that dips a toe into Charlotte to cover the outside Republican counties. R+2.

McIntyre holds a district that dips into Fayetville. R+5, but he isn't beatable.

Mel Watt holds a mess of a district, D+16, that runs from Charlotte to Greensboro.

Brad Miller holds a district that runs from Raleigh to the rest of Greensboro. D+5

David Price holds a Durham/Orange county Chapel Hill district. D+8, and rapidly growing.

Butterfield holds a D+9 majority black district.

[ Parent ]
Okay,
and there are ways to figure the map to make at least two of the three pretty vulnerable?

I find all of this fascinating, if a bit confusing, because I am not sure of the specific of each state. That's why I ask so many questions.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
And, by pure coincidence
State Sen. Brad Miller was Chairman of the Redistricting Committee in 2001-02.
[ Parent ]
Nailed Nevada...
Most likely this is what will happen. Heck will get a more GOP friendly NV-03, and NV-04 will be a more Dem leaning seat. The only question now is who NV-04 will specifically be designed for. If it's Barbara Buckley (former Assembly Speaker), she will probably get a seat that straddles both sides of The 15 (since she lives on The West Side). But if it's John Oceguera (new Assembly Speaker), he will probably get a mostly East Side/Southeast seat that just scoops the more Dem friendly areas of Silverado Ranch and Henderson (he lives a couple miles from me).

Yes, Virginia, there ARE progressives in Nevada!
24, gay male, Democrat, NV-03 (or 04?)
[ Parent ]
New York:
I've found the best maps work by getting rid of Chris Gibson's new district, (I'm still stunned that Murphy, who seemed like he was in such good shape, lost by double digits), and combining parts of Carolyn McCarthy and and Gary Ackerman's districts. I found ways to make both Bishop's and Israel's districts more Democratic in this setup. Plus both Ackerman and McCarthy would be nearly 70. One of them could painlessly agree to hang up the saddle and retire. Gibson's district is absorbed by Hayworth, Tonka, and Owens, leaving him screwed three ways from Sunday.  
[ Parent ]
Ah, the good ole day.
I remember when we all enjoys Panic! At Tedisco back in the good ole days of 2009. Too bad Tedisco didn't pull a Hoffman.

20, Male, Democrat, CA-44 (home) CA-12 (college)
[ Parent ]
Panic! at Tedisco
is still the best diary entry title to date.

23, dude, gay, IL-13
[ Parent ]
NY-1 & 2 (Long Island districts)
If Steve Israel becomes head of the DCCC it will be real interesting to see what he pushes the NYS legislature to draw for him.

There is no way to make NY-1 more Dem without make NY-02 more GOP. if Altschuler keeps his lead Isreal would have him on one end of his distric and King on the other.

Would be interesting to see if the new head of the DCCC would be willing to put his own seat at risk to help the Dems pick one up.

Fight global warming & help disaster relief efforts by raising money for Music for Relief when you search the web! Click here for more info:
http://searchmfr.swagbucks.com...

I don't see
how Bishop's district is that Republican if, in a big year for the Republicans, he's barely defeated, if he's defeated at all. If anything, doesn't that show the district is at worst a wash, or at best getting slightly more Democratic?

Now, I'm sorry if this is a dumb question, but if both of the seats New York is expected to lose are taken from upstate, why does Israel's district have to change at all? Is that the way it usually happens, or can they theoretically redraw the map affecting upstate districts and leaving the downstate ones alone?

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
All lines have to move somewhat to account for population changes
Israel's district used to be a lot more GOP friendly. It is Rick Lazio's old district. Isreal only won in 2000 with 48% of the vote because the GOP field was split.

When the lines were redrawn 10 yrs ago NY-2 was made more Dem to protect him, King's district was made more GOP and McCarthy's district was moved farther south to make it more Dem.


Fight global warming & help disaster relief efforts by raising money for Music for Relief when you search the web! Click here for more info:
http://searchmfr.swagbucks.com...

[ Parent ]
I made NY-01 4 points
more Democratic, (to 55-44 Obama), without adjusting the needle in NY-02 at all.  
[ Parent ]
The NYS Senate
which will be GOP controlled most likely, won't allow both districts to be taken from upstate (their power base). 2 of the Dems on LI/Queens will probably get combined along with whatever magic they want to work upstate. The two close calls in NY 1 and 25 will have a huge impact I'm thinking on what will happen.  
[ Parent ]
isn't the total going to be 32-30 with
the 32nd Republican being a registered Democrat?

I'm sure Grisanti could be #31 for a session or two

[ Parent ]
Yes but some of the 30 Dems are also iffy...
Kennedy broke with Dems to give GOP control of the the Niagra County Legislature. Also Diaz & Kruger cant fully be trusted not to break ranks with Dems.

Last time NYS redrew with a split Dems drew the Assembly, GOP drew the Senate and they comprimized on the Congressional districts.

Bottom line is dont count on Silver and the Assembly to stick their neck out for the Dems in the Senate or Congress and the GOP Senators will only care about protecting their fragile majority.

Fight global warming & help disaster relief efforts by raising money for Music for Relief when you search the web! Click here for more info:
http://searchmfr.swagbucks.com...

[ Parent ]
It's not about party - It's about regional power.
Grisanti needs to vote with the GOP.  It's a dealbreaker.  The only way the Republicans can maintain power is if they get to draw boundaries in the state senate.  It's HEAVILY gerrymandered and the GOP is counting on incumbent protection.  

If Grisanti (or anyone else) bolts to the Democrats there essentially is no senate GOP.  

Skelos is not going to let that happen.  Even though he is from Long Island, he knows how he is going to maintain a majority.

[ Parent ]
Will be interesting to see the final results...
We're screwed in The South... But then again, we should probably get used to that.

The Northeast may actually see some improvement from 2001, since Dems have more of an upper hand in Connecticut and have more say in New Jersey.

The Midwest looks nasty, but then again it also did in 2001.

The West looks pretty good for us. Again, we'll probably pick up a seat in Nevada, as we're gaining a seat. Brewer & Co. can't do any damage in Arizona. Dems have more say in Colorado and Oregon. And under Prop 11 and Prop 20, we may actually see better California seats emerge under the redistricting commissions.

Yes, Virginia, there ARE progressives in Nevada!
24, gay male, Democrat, NV-03 (or 04?)

Which states in the South are we screwed in?
There's a big difference between Georgia, Virginia, and North Carolina and some of the others. Even if you think demographic trends will favor us less slowly than I do, I don't see how it's so awful for the long term.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
"more of a say in NJ?"
It's a commission, and it was incumbent protection in the House last time.  Our problem in NJ is that (1)  A seat is going (2) The population growth is in the big Republican counties (Monmouth/Ocean).  We just went from 8D-5R to 7D-6R, and I think 6-6 is where it's going to be.  If we try to get 7-5, we're going to have more than 1 seat that is risky with the population gains in the South.  Pallone had to be scared that he needed Plainfield and Middlesex Co. to win this time;  usually that was gravy and he could run up margins in Monmouth that just weren't there this year.  And that was against a crazy TeaPartier!  Rothman and Pascrell might have a had time both staying safe as their districts are going to have to expand, if not merge.

I fear that we're going to lose some in the NJ Senate and Assembly, because basically the tiebreaker just green-lighted (lit?) the Democratic map last time, so it doesn't get any better than the lines we had the past 10 years.  D

[ Parent ]
New Jersey
If Adler had won, I believe they would have found a way to stretch his district to Trenton or something.

As it stands, though, only Andrews, Holt, Payne, and Sires are definitely safe. The other 3 dems are not.

Keep in mind Sires is probably going to get enough hispanic territory to hit 50%.

[ Parent ]
Holt
I don't think Holt is safe.  He very well could be subject to a squeeze play between Pallone moved a bit west and someone like Lance moving down from the north.  He could very well be thrown into a fair fight district with Lance.

Anyway it's difficulty to speculate since no one knows what the independent member of the commission would do.

[ Parent ]
Well
The problem is Trenton. Holt wins in some of the left leaning Mercer county towns, loses in some of the more right leaning towns elsewhere, and swaps whomever he faces in Trenton.

I guess it depends where the population loss is. I've heard its in North Jersey.

[ Parent ]
Also in south Jersey
NJ 1 and NJ 2.
[ Parent ]
Rothman as well
he has his seat for life in any conceivable district that includes Teaneck/Englewood and neither has most of Paterson nor goes as far north into Bergen as Ridgewood or Emerson.

(scurries off to Dave's app to check, remembers it doesn't have partisan data for NJ, says to heck with it and why not calculate it myself, just for this district, you know?)

überliberal Democrat, male, OH-12 (college), NJ-09 ("home"), Mets, Jets

[ Parent ]
NJ
There's no reason to believe that a Democratic seat will go any more than a Republican seat at this point.  LoBiondo could very well be moved into Ocean County from the south, and Smith and Runyan could lose a chunk of the western part of their districts to Andrews and Holt and take in more of Ocean and Monmouth.  

If I were the Democrats, and wanted to impress the appointed tiebreaker, I might throw Holt and Lance into a fair fight district, with a slight Democratic lean, rather than throwing two Republicans together.  They could beef up Pallone by giving him the eastern Middlesex County portion of Holt's district, and a few of the eastern Mercer towns from Smith's district.

[ Parent ]
i actually think
The 5th doesn't represent anyone or anything cohesive (P'Burg/Sussex/Northern Bergen?!), and there's no reason that it shouldn't be eliminated and everything south of it shifts up to absorb it.  Garrett would have to play with Rodney in the 11th (call it the new 5th, renumber Albio to 11th) or Lance in the 7th.  1 and 2 expand northward to deal with growth in 3/4/12...I can't run the app at work but I want to play around when I get home.  I think Cherry Hill's going to have to go to 1 anyway, so Adler probably wasn't in a great position even if he survived (plus he would have been the frosh in an 8/5 delegation losing a seat).
[ Parent ]
Yeah
Can't run it here either.  Agree on Cherry Hill.  Runyan should be the one who gets squeezed, but the only way I could see that happening is to throw him in with Andrews.  But Norcross would never let that district be put in any jeopardy.  
[ Parent ]
the ONLY thing I see saving Runyan
Is the fact that there's no Ocean Rep. right now.  Smith's a Mercer guy and he's not going to move his base (which is actually in Virginia).  Wherever the majority of Ocean goes, I think Runyan will follow.  If he has to move to Lacey, he'll do it.  Tell me a Philadelphia Eagle doesn't have a house on LBI already anyway...Even if Gilmore wants to get his own guy in, it will be more difficult if Runyan is visible and deferential to him for the next year and a half.

I remember Norcross used to only want NJ-1 so he could move potential threats to it.  He always had a frosty relationship with Andrews, which is why he basically said "Take this seat, get out of my local face..."

[ Parent ]
5th
The 5th seems like the general 'leftover territory' district after the drew the rest of them.

If there is one district that is just a jumbled mess, it's the 6th.

If we are going to see a showdown, I think its between Frelinghuysen and one of the guys bordering him.

[ Parent ]
5th
The 5th seems like the general 'leftover territory' district after the drew the rest of them.

If there is one district that is just a jumbled mess, it's the 6th.

If we are going to see a showdown, I think its between Frelinghuysen and one of the guys bordering him.

[ Parent ]
Sorry about that...
I forgot about NJ's commission.

Yes, Virginia, there ARE progressives in Nevada!
24, gay male, Democrat, NV-03 (or 04?)
[ Parent ]
Washington state senate not in the balance
Its going to stay Dem, only thing unknown is the precise margin.

WA-07, 34 years old
Yep
Depending on whether Randy Gordon pulls it out in the 41st legislative district, Democrats will have lost three or four seats, leaving Democrats with 27/28 seats and Republicans with 21/22 seats. It's spectacular that there was talk of Democrats losing control of the State House. The primary results should have easily ruled that out, and in the end, Democrats easily retained control- it looks like it's going to be 56/57-41/42, depending on Morrell's seat in the 25th.

Radical or something, WA-07
[ Parent ]
Louisiana could change
There are rumors in Republican circles of a few party switchers in the next few weeks that would change the House to Republican control.  
I doubt national Democrats
have hopes of anything from Louisiana other than Richmond keeping a winnable seat.

I guess the interesting thing would be which of the six Republican districts they decided to carve up.  That seat then travels to Greater Houston and represents the Louisianans who've moved there the past couple of years.  :-)

[ Parent ]
They can't
Fuck with the partisan breakup too much since it is VRA, but they can keep it VRA and still fuck Richmond by bringing it up to Baton Rouge and including Michael Jackson's district (the guy who ran as an indy and elected Bill Cassidy).  
[ Parent ]
As
long as we keep a D seat I could care less.  

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  
[ Parent ]
Including the black independent
I think the point was that he might be strong enough to split that vote so that a Republican actually does win -- like Djou in Hawaii.
[ Parent ]
Rep. Walker Hines switches from D to R, FLIPS the State House
And here is the switch here: http://www.nola.com/politics/i...

"State Rep. Walker Hines of New Orleans announced today that he is switching his party affiliation from Democrat to Republican, making the GOP the majority party in a legislative chamber for the first time in modern Louisiana history."

[ Parent ]
So we get to redraw CT, which is nice.
And of course Illinois.  

CA and WA using commissions is a real bummer, given that we only get ME, IA, AZ, and kinda-sorta-maybe Florida in return.  The Florida initiative is not strong enough to prevent a clever GOP gerrymander, if it even holds up in court.

We lose strong gerrymanders in NC and IN, and Rs get to redo their strong gerrymanders in OHPAMI.  We also fail to gain control in Minnesota, Oregon, and New York, and lose any influence in Wisconsin.

We gain influence in New Jersey and Virginia, and lose influence in Mississippi and Oklahoma.

It's definitely bad compared to what we held just a month ago, but it's not that bad compared to what we held ten years ago.  We picked up CT and IL, lost NC and IN, lost all influence in Wisconsin, and gained influence in New Jersey and Virginia.  The real story is in what didn't change: FLOHPAMINY.  Each of those represents three or four seats we could have drawn at D+3 that will now be drawn at R+3.  

Redistricting isn't going to dig us deeper into the minority: the chambers that actually changed hands compared to 2000 are mostly a wash.  But the lack of improvement in FLOHPAMINY means we're going to be struggling uphill to get back into the majority, like we did in 2006, rather than snapping right back into it, as the GOP did in 2010.

And it means we'll be struggling to win in R-leaning neighborhoods, as we did in 2006, because all the D-leaning neighborhoods will have been drawn into super-safe Democrat containment zones.  That means some fairly disappointing political rhetoric is headed our way, all other factors being equal.

That sucks.  

28, gay guy, Democrat, CA-08

No where to go but up in Florida.
The Democrats have hit the floor with the 19-6 GOP house delegation. Even under the best gerrymander I can't see the Republicans holding that edge. It will be hard enough for them to prevent a democratic district from being formed in central florida and even harder for them to save the dem trending GOP held seats in Sfla. There also gonna take some hits in the state chambers but I imagine they still easily keep a majority of seats in both chambers gerrymandered. The St. pete/tampa area is also a small wildcard as Don Youngs seat is broken up oddly and could become more dem friendly.  

CO-02 (college)/FL-15 (home).  
FYI
Jeff you got a mention on the Political Wire.  

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  
How much damage can they do
in Wisconsin?

holding pattern.
There's no way the GOP can 6-2 that map.

I expect nothing much more than territory swap to protect Duffy and Ribble.

[ Parent ]
Something
Here is just something I want people to realize:

Michigan Democrats haven't fully controlled redistricting since 1961.  You heard me correctly, 1961.

So, yeah, things really aren't that sucky when you put it into context.

MI redistricting history
Michigan Democrats haven't fully controlled redistricting since 1961.

For additional context, that was under a previous constitution, when state legislative districts were not even at issue.

[Source -- a history of Michigan article mentioned that there was one per county, and the population difference between Oakland and some UP counties was a driving force behind the 1963 Constitution.  Looking at the actual Constitution, it doesn't look quite that bad, but it indeed didn't seem to have any provisions for redistricting as the population changed.  For the state House, reapportionment between counties was automatic, and splits within counties were controlled by the county rather than the state.  I'm not sure how well this was followed in practice.]

[ Parent ]
Redistricting 2010: Who Controls What | 72 comments

Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

About the Site

Publisher: DavidNYC

Senior Editor: James L.

Senior Editor: Crisitunity

Contributing Editor: Jeffmd

Search the SSP archives:

Sign up to receive a daily e-mail whenever the SSP is updated:

SSP Resources

Presidential Vote by CD

SSP Document Collection

Race Tracker Wiki

Dave's Redistricting App

Blogroll

Daily Kos Elections
DemConWatch
Five Thirty Eight
Governing
Hotline On Call
Political Wire
Pollster.com
Prop*50
Public Policy Polling
The Thicket
Powered by: SoapBlox