Google Ads


Site Stats

Preview about the redistricting of the 50 states (updated January 31, 2011)

by: abgin

Sun Nov 28, 2010 at 10:47 AM EST


The democrats begin this process with a clear disadvantage from previous redistricting. Following the Cook Partisan Voting Index they are:

194 D+ seats
9 EVEN seats
232 R+ seats

We can not forget it

This diary find to give a preview about what can do the republicans in the redistricting process and about what can be the good ways for the democrats have some success after the current redistricting process.

Update: My first preview was giving - 1 NY, = MO, +3 TX and +1 FL.

abgin :: Preview about the redistricting of the 50 states (updated January 31, 2011)
STATES WITH FULL CONTROL FOR THE REPUBLICANS

I'm not optimistic about this group of states because the republicans never lose a chance for take advantage. The republicans will have full control of the redistricting process in many states, and I will go state by state.

Utah
One new district for the republicans.
UT-02 J Matheson (D) surely will run in a R+20+ the next time and without the current basis what send him to the house now.

Wyoming
No effect.

Oklahoma
OK-02 D Boren (D) surely will run in a R+20+ district. The same than for J Matheson.

Alabama
No chance for B Bright return.

Alaska
The Alaska Redistricting Board (Commission) is in republican hands.
No changes.

Nebraska
NE-02 safer for the republicans. No chance Obama wins again this electoral vote.

Kansas
The Reapportionment Commission is in republican hands.
KS-03 safer for the republicans.

Louisiana
The republicans will have the control of both state chambers thanks to some party switches and cause of this they will have the control of the redistricting process. But Louisiana will lose one seat and can not be LA-02. Then, the republicans will lose one here.
No chance of C Melancon return.

North Dakota
No effect.

Texas
Not gains prospect. I'm habitually optimistic, but here I expect not gains for the democrats. As maximum one if we recover TX-23 and TX-27. If they are not a law requirement of create new VRA districts, the republicans will create no-one. If finally they are 36 districts for Texas, I would expect 7 D+, 3 R+low approximately and 26R+10 or higher, but still the things can be worse. The three "swing" districts would be the successors of TX-28, TX-27 and TX-23. These will be again the districts for fight.
Four new districts for the republicans.
TX-25 L Doggett (D) will run likely in a R+10+ district or (less likely) against one of the neighboring democratic incumbents.
TX-28 H Cuellar (D) can run likely in a R+low district.

South Dakota
No effect.

Tennessee
No chance for L Davis return.
TN-05 J Cooper (D) will run likely in a R+10+ district. The same than L Doggett.

South Carolina
One new district for the republicans.
No chance for J Spratt return.

Georgia
If I'm not wrong the republicans can decrease the percentage of african-americans in GA-02 and GA-12 because they are districts with white majority. That mean these will be new R+ districts.
One new district for the republicans.
No chance for J Marshall return.
GA-02 S Bishop (D) will run likely in a R+10+ district.
GA-12 J Barrow (D) will run likely in a R+10+ district.

Indiana
If the republicans wish they can do all the districts with R+6 rating. If they keep one democratic seat (likely IN-01), they can do all the other districts with R+8 rating. If they keep two democratic seats (likely IN-01 and IN-07), they can do all the other districts with R+10 rating. Looking to the recent history of IN-08 and IN-09 districts, I think they will wish safest seats, then I think they will keep IN-01 and IN-07 as democratic seats.
IN-02 J Donnelly (D) will run for a R+10+ district or will need run a primary against P Visclosky.

North Carolina
It will be not easy for the republicans take advantage of the control of the redistricting process cause of the hability of the democratic candidates for win R+low districts in North Carolina.Still, they can do somethings. They first need to protect their new NC-02 district. Later surely they will find attack NC-11 (the easier tarjet). Later surely they will find attack NC-08, the second easier target. But fortunatelly they can not draw less than four D+ seats and they can not attack enough strongly NC-07 and NC-08 at same time. I expect four D+ districts, what can keep the current incumbents and one R+5 district (approximately). Not easy to leave M McIntyre out of this district without endanger other options.
NC-11 H Shuler (D) will run likely in a R+10+ district.
NC-08 L Kissell (D) will run likely in a R+10+ district.

Florida
The current redistricting of Florida is very pro-republican and the new procedure for redistricting will not change it. All the current swing districts are in republican hands and the legislature (republican majority) will not approve a map what protect not their incumbents in 2012. FL-22 surely will become a R+low district. Florida will have some R+low districts what the democrats can fight.
Two new R+ seats for the republicans.

Ohio
Despite to have the control of the redistricting process, including the trifecta and the Ohio Redistricting Commission what draw the legislative maps (not the congressional), the republicans have not chance of improve in Ohio. They have enough work for keep the incumbents, including their gains of 2010 (5 seats) and surely it will be not possible. At least they will lose one district, and they will leave a lot of swing districts with R+low rating, including OH-01, OH-12 and OH-15.
OH-13 B Sutton (D) surely will get out of the game.
One republican seat will disappear too. Maybe OH-06.

New Hampshire
The republicans have here enough majority for the democratic governor can not veto the new map. No changes.

Pennsylvania
The republicans control here the Pennsylvania Legislative Reapportionment Commission thank to their control of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and they control also the trifecta what must approve the plan. But redistricting Pennsylvania is more difficult than Ohio for the republicans. They have enough work protecting incumbents, and they will have a lot of swing districts with R+low rating. I expect only 4 D+ districts (PA-01, PA-02, PA-13 and PA-14). PA-11, PA-06, PA-07, PA-08 and PA-15 can be R+ low since 2012. And here they are three democratic incumbents in R+ districts. I expect some troubles for one of them.
PA-12 M Critz (D) surely will be without own district and surely will need to run against a republican incumbent, but surely the district will have R+low rating. Then, they are some chance.

Wisconsin
After win full control of the redistricting process, I think the republicans will work for keep their incumbents in 2012. Surely WI-07 will be a R+low district. For it all the republican incumbents will be in swing districts.

Michigan
Again the same history. The republicans have more than enough work keeping their incumbents, and surely MI-06 and MI-11 will up until R+low districts.
MI-09 G Peeters (D) will get out the game. Surely G Peeters will need run against one incumbent, maybe against S Levin.

RECOUNT

+23 new R+ districts
-18 new D+ or EVEN districts

We have the next range for the republican gains after redistricting:
+1 - +2 Utah (1 new and maybe UT-02)
=0 - =0 Wyoming
=0 - +1 Oklahoma (maybe OK-02)
=0 - =0 Alabama
=0 - =0 Alaska
=0 - =0 Nebraska
=0 - =0 Kansas
- 1 - - 1 Louisiana (1 seat less)
=0 - =0 North Dakota
+4 - +6 Texas * (4 new and maybe TX-25 and TX-28)
=0 - =0 South Dakota
=0 - +1 Tennessee (maybe TN-05)
+1 - +1 South Carolina (1 new)
+1 - +3 Georgia (1 new and maybe GA-02 and GA-12)
=0 - +1 Indiana (maybe IN-02)
=0 - +2 North Carolina (maybe NC-08 and NC-11)
+2 - +2 Florida * (2 new seats)
- 1 - - 1 Ohio * (1 seat less and unknown still)
=0 - =0 New Hampshire *
=0 - =0 Pennsylvania * (unknown still)
=0 - =0 Wisconsin * (unknown still)
=0 - =0 Michigan * (unknown still)
-----------
+7 - +17 Total republican gains for these states *

And the range for the democratic gains after redistricting:
- 1 - =0 Utah (maybe UT-02)
=0 - =0 Wyoming
- 1 - =0 Oklahoma (maybe OK-02)
=0 - =0 Alabama
=0 - =0 Alaska
=0 - =0 Nebraska
=0 - =0 Kansas
=0 - =0 Louisiana
=0 - =0 North Dakota
- 2 - =0 Texas * (maybe lose TX-25 and TX-28)
=0 - =0 South Dakota
- 1 - =0 Tennessee (maybe TN-05)
=0 - =0 South Carolina
- 2 - =0 Georgia (maybe GA-02 and GA-12)
- 1 - =0 Indiana (maybe IN-02)
- 2 - =0 North Carolina (maybe NC-08 and NC-11)
=0 - =0 Florida *
- 1 - - 1 Ohio * (1 seat less OH-13)
=0 - =0 New Hampshire *
- 1 - - 1 Pennsylvania * (1 seat less PA-12)
=0 - =0 Wisconsin *
- 1 - - 1 Michigan * (1 seat less MI-09)
-----------
- 13 - - 3 Total democratic gains for these states *

* = For the numbers get more clear I count not the swing districts what the democrats can win in Texas, Florida, Ohio, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan in 2012, despite the republican full control of the redistricting process. The effect of this would be less gains to the republicans and would be less loses for the democrats (maybe some net gain).

STATES WITH BIPARTISAN OR INDEPENDENT COMMISSIONS AND STATES WITH CONTROL OF BOTH PARTIES

COMMISSION

Idaho
No effect.

Montana
No effect.

Arizona
Arizona will win one house seat what can go to the republicans and in change the democrats will find to protect G Giffords in AZ-08 until have a D+ district.
New district for the republicans.

Colorado
Here the republicans have a very weak majority in the state house (32D-33R) but the redistricting is made by a commission where the democrats can have the control thanks to the three members appointed by the governor, who has veto power. As minimum I think the democrats can be successful going to the court with a 3D-3R-1S map what gives EVEN rate to the current CO-03. Nothing for lose here.

Iowa
Iowa will lose one seat. IA-03 and IA-04 can merge in one house seat what can be very close to EVEN rating. I give not L Boswell as sure loser.

New Jersey
The state will lose one house seat and the first candidate can be NJ-03 if they are not open seats, but maybe some republican representative challenge R Menendez. In change of lose one seat, the republicans can find NJ-02 become R+ if this district disappear not. The commission in this state is keeping one of the most pro-republican maps in all the bluest states.

Maine
Maybe ME-02 becomes a little safer.

Washington
Here will be a new district what can go to the democratic hands, while WA-08 and WA-03 can be R+low districts, and I hope WA-02 become too a little safer.

California
At least, protecting incumbents, CA-11 should become a D+ district.

Hawaii
No effect.

RECOUNT

=0 new R+ districts
- 1 new D+ or EVEN districts

We have the next range for the republican gains after redistricting:
=0 - =0 Idaho
=0 - =0 Montana
+1 - +1 Arizona * (1 new seat)
- 1 - =0 Colorado * (maybe lose CO-03)
- 1 - =0 Iowa (maybe lose the current IA-04)
- 1 - - 1 New Jersey * (1 seat less)
=0 - =0 Maine
=0 - =0 Washington *
=0 - =0 California *
=0 - =0 Hawaii
----------
- 2 - =0 Total republican gains for these states *

And the range for the democratic gains after redistricting:
=0 - =0 Idaho
=0 - =0 Montana
=0 - =0 Arizona *
=0 - +1 Colorado * (maybe win CO-03
- 1 - =0 Iowa (maybe lose the current IA-03)
=0 - =0 New Jersey *
=0 - =0 Maine
+1 - +1 Washington * (1 new seat)
=0 - =0 California *
=0 - =0 Hawaii
-----------
=0 - +2 Total democratic gains for these states *

* = For the numbers get more clear I count not the swing districts what the democrats can win in Arizona, Colorado, New Jersey, Washington and California in 2012. Again, the effect of this would be less gains to the republicans and would be less loses for the democrats (maybe some net gain).

Some people think this system is the right procedure, but the republicans take advantage from here because these commissions are keeping some pro-republican maps and contribute to keep the republican advantage what the republicans take in other states.

In the R+ states working with commissions, the democrats only have 2 hispanic representatives in hispanic majority districts, 3 black representatives in black districts, and 4 white representatives in white districts (3 of them jews). It seems like only they are democrats from these minorities.

While, in the EVEN or D+ states working with commissions, the republicans have 40 representatives.

CONTROL OF BOTH PARTIES

Kentucky
No important changes. The republicans will block every improvement for the democratic representatives.

Mississippi
No changes. No chance for T Childers or G Taylor return.

Missouri
Missouri will lose one seat and that will give troubles to both parties. I think the most likely scenario can be a merge of MO-03 (D+7 R Carnahan) and MO-02 (R+9 T Akin) in a EVEN district. Other option would be a merge of MO-05 (D+10 E Cleaver and MO-06 (R+7 S Graves), but I think the democrats will dislike to lose the balance between St Louis and Kansas City and the republicans will dislike leave some democratic votes to MO-04 endangering a second seat or give to the new merging seat a D+ rate.

Virginia
The democrats will find to protect VA-11 and the republicans some of their districts. Still this state will have some swing district with R+low rating.

Nevada
Nevada will have a new district. Surely NV-03 will be a R+low district while the new district will be a D+low.

Minnesota
I think the republicans can find MN-03 and MN-08 become R+ while the democrats can find MN-01 and MN-07 become D+.

New Mexico
No changes.

Oregon
I think the democrats can be able for make safer OR-04 and OR-05. I would like to see a 5-0 map here and I think it would be possible. Despite the tie in the state house, the republicans have a very weak prospect because if the state legislature fail drawing the maps, the Secretary of State (democrat) would draw the maps of the state house and the state senate seats.

Connecticut
The current map only need a little mix of the current CT-05 and CT-01. A bipartisan commission will draw the paps what need the approval of 2/3 of both chambers. The republicans have now just the minimum for be over 1/3 in both chambers.

New York
The first goal for the democrats must be up to D+5+ level NY-02, NY-27, NY-01 and NY-23. NY-25 surely will be the first district what get out the game. The democratic votes of Syracuse can help making safer the NY-23. Still I think the democrats must find more here. I think the democratic members of the legislature must find the republicans lose a second seat. I would select NY-13, but if they are some trouble about Staten Island, the next option would be NY-03. This still would leave 6 R+low swing districts in New York. This is little improvement. I think the little advantage of the republicans in the state senate will not be enough for stop these improvements and maybe more.

RECOUNT

- 2 new R+ districts
=0 new D+ or EVEN districts

We have the next range for the republican gains after redistricting:
=0 - =0 Kentucky
=0 - =0 Mississippi
- 1 - =0 Missouri
=0 - =0 Virginia *
=0 - =0 Nevada *
=0 - =0 Minnesota *
=0 - =0 New Mexico *
=0 - =0 Oregon
=0 - =0 Connecticut
- 2 - - 2 New York (2 seats less)*
----------
- 3 - - 2 Total republican gains for these states *

And the range for the democratic gains after redistricting:
=0 - =0 Kentucky
=0 - =0 Mississippi
- 1 - =0 Missouri
=0 - =0 Virginia *
+1 - +1 Nevada (1 new seat)*
=0 - =0 Minnesota *
=0 - =0 New Mexico *
=0 - =0 Oregon
=0 - =0 Connecticut
=0 - =0 New York *
-----------
=0 - +1 Total democratic gains for these states *

* = For the numbers get more clear I count not the swing districts what the democrats can win in Virginia, Nevada, Minnesota, New Mexico and New York in 2012. Again, the effect of this would be less gains to the republicans and would be less loses for the democrats (maybe some net gain).

This would be the recount until now:

+21 new R+ house seats
- 19 new D+ or EVEN house seats

(+2,+15) range for republican gains *
(- 13,=0) range for democratic gains *

* = This include not many swing districts in republican hands in many states (emphasized with *) what the democrats can fight. But the big majority of these districts would be R+(low) districts. That mean the republicans have advantage here. NH-01, NH-02 and CO-03 are the alone republican districts in all these 42 states what surely would be EVEN or D+. The republicans have low chance of make these districts R+, then these districts should be obvious targets for the democrats in 2012 since now.

STATES WITH FULL CONTROL FOR THE DEMOCRATS

Well, from this group must come the improvements what balance the improvents what will give to the republicans the full control in other states.

Arkansas
(Updated) The democrats have the control of the Board of Apportionment (Commission) what decide about the maps what draw the legislature, what have democratic majorities in both chambers. The best for keep the democratic congressional delegation from Arkansas in the long-term would be to have a black district protected by the VRA, but under the current laws this seems not possible. I would like some change in the laws for can do it, because surely this is the last chance for do a black district in Arkansas protected by the VRA. If the democrats from this state make not this, the republicans will have a 4-0 map in the first chance what they have. My point would be create a black district what would be D+, keep a R+5 district for M Ross, and leave two R+20 for the republicans. Aproximately.

West Virginia
I think the democrats will find to protect N Rahall WV-03 but I doubt if they can do a D+ district here.

Delaware
No effect.

Illinois
Illinois will lose a house seat too. The democrats from Illinois have the chance of put to every republican incumbent running in a D+5+ district for 2012. I wish they do it. The redistricting in Illinois is key in this cycle.

Maryland
I think the democrats from Maryland will make MD-01 and MD-06 D+5+ districts, winning two seats for the democratic side. The democrats of the rest of the country need it.

Rhode Island
No effect.

Massachusetts
MA-?? ? This state will lose one district after the redistricting and I hope the new districts become a little safer for the democratic incumbents.

Vermont
No effect.

RECOUNT

-4 new R+ districts
+2 new D+ or EVEN districts

We have the next range for the republican gains after redistricting:
- 1 - =0 Arkansas (maybe AR-02)
=0 - =0 West Virginia
=0 - =0 Delaware
- 11 - - 1 Illinois
- 2 - =0 Maryland
=0 - =0 Rhode Island
=0 - =0 Massachusetts
=0 - =0 Vermont
----------
- 14 - - 1 Total republican gains for these states *

And the range for the democratic gains after redistricting:
=0 - +1 Arkansas (maybe AR-02)
=0 - =0 West Virginia
=0 - =0 Delaware
=0 - +10 Illinois
=0 - +2 Maryland
=0 - =0 Rhode Island
- 1 - - 1 Massachusetts
=0 - =0 Vermont
-----------
- 1 - +12 Total democratic gains for these states *

* = For the numbers get more clear I count not the swing districts what the democrats can win in 2012. They are not in this group of states.

This would be the total recount without include the effect of a gerrymander redistricting of Illinois:

+17 new R+ house seats
- 17 new D+ or EVEN house seats

182 D+ seats
4 EVEN seats (maybe IA-03/04, MO-02/03, CO-03 and NH-01)
249 R+ seats

(- 2,+14) range for republican gains *
(- 14,+2) range for democratic gains *

This would be the total recount including the effect of a gerrymander redistricting of Illinois:

+10 new R+ house seats
- 10 new D+ or EVEN house seats

189 D+ seats
4 EVEN seat (maybe IA-03/04, MO-02/03, CO-03 and NH-01)
242 R+ seats

(- 12,+14) range for republican gains *
(- 14,+12) range for democratic gains *

* = This include not many swing districts in republican hands in many states (emphasized with *) what the democrats can fight. But except NH-01 and NH-02, all the other seats would be R+(low) districts. That mean the republicans have advantage here.

Gerrymander Illinois (and Maryland) can be the alone way for keep the current number of D+ seats in the US House and for balance the likely republican gains what the redistricting process in other states will give to them.

RESUME

Republican safe gains = 10
UT-04 (new)
TX-33 (new)
TX-34 (new)
TX-35 (new)
TX-36 (new)
SC-07 (new)
GA-14 (new)
AZ-09 (new)
FL-26 (new)
FL-27 (new)

Republican safe loses what can not be democratic gains = 6
LA-?? (disappear)
OH-06 (disappear)
NJ-03 (disappear)
NY-25 (disappear)
NY-13 (disappear)
IL-19 (disappear)

Democratic seats what can be republican gains as consecuence of important changes in the redistricting process = 10
TX-25 L Doggett (D) as R+10+
TN-05 J Cooper (D) as R+10+
GA-02 S Bishop (D) as R+10+
GA-12 J Barrow (D) as R+10+
NC-08 L Kissell (D) as R+10+
IN-02 J Donnelly (D) as R+10+
UT-02 J Matheson (D) as R+20+
OK-02 D Boren (D) as R+20+
NC-11 H Shuler (D) as R+10+
TX-28 H Cuellar (D) as R+low

In the middle = 2
IA-03/04
MO-02/03

Republican seats what can be democratic gains as consecuence of important changes in the redistricting process = 14
MD-01 as D+5+
MD-06 as D+5+
AR-02 as D+5+ I would wish black majority
IL-15 as D+5+
IL-18 as D+5+
IL-16 as D+5+
IL-08 as D+5+
IL-11 as D+5+
IL-13 as D+5+
IL-14 as D+5+
IL-06 as D+5+
CO-03 as EVEN
IL-17 as D+5+
IL-10 as D+5+

The effect of include not the gerrymander redistricting of Illinois would be to quit this 10 districts of this group or at least some of them.

Democratic safe loses what can not be republican gains = 4
OH-13 B Sutton (D) (disappear)
PA-12 M Critz (D) (disappear)
MI-09 G Peeters (D) (disappear)
MA-?? (disappear)

Democratic safe gains = 2
WA-10 (new)
NV-04 (new)

In this resume is not included the fight in other districts. The democrats can have 6 R+ district what can be safer (NC-07, PA-04, PA-17, KY-06, WV-03 and AR-04). The republicans would have only three EVEN or D+ (CO-03, NH-01, and NH-02) and they will have many R+low districts what can be vulnerable but where they will have advantage.

MARYLAND
(Updated) An example of 8-0 map from my previous diaries:

Maryland 8-0 II

CD1: (Blue) Frank Kratovil (D)
- D+6 Obama 59% McCain 39%
- Include all of Kent, Queen Anne's, Caroline and Talbot counties.
- Include part of Baltimore, Anne Arundel and Prince George's counties and part of Baltimore city.
- White 65% Black 26%
- Deviation of population: +6012

CD2: (Green) Dutch Ruppersberger (D)
- D+7 Obama 60% McCain 39%
- Include part of Harford, Baltimore, Carrol, Howard, Montgomery and Prince George's counties.
- White 50% Black 26% Hisp 15%
- Deviation of population: -4800

CD3: (Purple) John Sarbanes (D)
- D+7 Obama 60% McCain 39%
- Include part of Harford, Baltimore, Howard counties and part of Baltimore city.
- White 64% Black 25% Asian 6%
- Deviation of population: -2980

CD4: (Red) Donna Edwards (D)
- D+17 Obama 70% McCain 29%
- Include part of Prince George's and Anne Arundel counties.
- Black 50% White 42%
- Deviation of population: +3968

CD5: (Yellow) Steny Hoyer (D)
- D+6 Obama 59% McCain 40%
- Include all of Charles, Calvert, St-Mary's, Dorchester, Wicomico, Somerset and Worcester counties.
- Include part Prince George's and Anne Arundel counties.
- White 63% Black 30%
- Deviation of population: +3283

CD6: (Greenish blue) Roscoe Bartlett (R)
- D+7 Obama 60% McCain 39%
- Include part of Carroll, Frederick and Montgomery counties.
- White 61% Black 14% Hisp 13% Asian 10%
- Deviation of population: -1859

CD7: (Gray) Elijah Cummings (D)
- D+16 Obama 69% McCain 30%
- Include all of Cecil county.
- Include part of Harford and Baltimore counties and part of Baltimore city.
- Black 50% White 44%
- Deviation of population: +1739

CD8: (Lilac) Chris Van Hollen (D)
- D+7 Obama 60% McCain 38%
- Include all of Garrett, Allegany and Washington counties.
- Include part of Frederick and Montgomery counties.
- White 73% Black 9% Hisp 8% Asian 8%
- Deviation of population: -5366

ARKANSAS
(Updated) With Illinois and Maryland, Arkansas can be the third state where the democrats can win some seat redrawing current districts thanks to the redistricting process. Arkansas has chance of create a D+ district, and if they are some change in the laws, has chance of create a black district for the future with the protection of the VRA despite the republicans can have a majority.

David has not still political data for this state, but yes demographic data, and I have a draft what shows so close areas with the higher percentage of black population. I wish publish it here for the people can see one area with the population of a US House district with over the 50% of black population in Arkansas. Surely we would down some point connecting all the terrytories but I think it is available to do a district with 48-49% black and a little less white population in Arkansas if they are some change in the current law for can divide the counties in different districts.

This is the draft:

Photobucket

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

A few comments
I'm not sure much will be done with KS-3 and NE-2, as there isn't a whole lot they can actually do.

GA-2: Bishop's seat won't be made more Republican, as that would probably endanger Austin Scott in GA-8.

GA-12: There might be a fight put up over this one, because it does connect Black voters in this part of Georgia, even while being majority White. When the Republicans redistricting mid-decade, they drew the district in this current form. I don't know what will happen this time, but it could stay.

TN-5: They can't mess with Cooper's seat, unless they want to divide up Nashville and possibly make TN-6 more competitive.

Arkansas: They don't permit county splitting and there isn't enough Black population there to sustain a VRA seat. The Democrats still control the trifecta and they aren't going to give that much territory to Republicans.

What I think will happen is that Jefferson County will move to AR-1 to make it more Democratic, which will make AR-4 more Republican (since Mike Ross will probably run for Governor in 2014). AR-2 will stay more or less the same, because Pulaski County makes it winnable for Democrats.


24, male, African-American, CA-24, Democrat. Chair of the SSP Black Caucus.


Illinois
It's impossible to throw 10 republican incumbents into d+5 districts due to the VRA. And also, the PVI's are messed in Illinois due to Obama.

[ Parent ]
There also may have to be 5 VRA districts in Chicago
due to the increase in the hispanic population.

[ Parent ]
The hispanic districts habitually are not a big trouble

since the point of find the limits.

[ Parent ]
Well

I'm not sure about this. I will find the limits with David's application. But after prove in New York, and draw more than 20 districts in California, this would be my first stimation. I think if the minimum is not D+5 would be D+4.

[ Parent ]
D+4
I think D+4's in Illinois would be very much winnable to republicans due to the inflated PVI's and their organization in the suburbs.

[ Parent ]
In a 18-0 map for Illinois

The suburbs would be as divided as the city (between a lot of districts) and many districts would have a decent percentage of non-white population. Every republican incumbent would be in a very different district, and sometimes you would find two of them.

That in a year with Obama running for president. I think the republicans would suffer a lot in D+5 districts like the necessary for do a 18-0 map. Of course, in a bad year some district can be winnable for the republicans. They win LA-02 in 2008, but I think the districts would be a lot more difficult than the current districts for them.


[ Parent ]
Democrats won't draw an 18-0 map in Illinois
It'd be a disaster.

Democrats in Maryland, on the other hand, are emboldened by the resounding failure of Republicans to do anything but edge out Rep. Kratovil in Republican-friendly MD-01 and simultaneously pissed off about losing MD-01 and 62 other House seats. If Annapolis draws an 8-0 map, I'll be surprised but not shocked.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native


[ Parent ]
IL will probably be something like 11-7D
And Maryland 7-1D.  

[ Parent ]
That's my guess
I'm starting to suspect Annapolis will break the Eastern Shore, stuff the upper/inner portion of it into MD-06, and extend MD-08 up to absorb Frederick along with southern Frederick and Washington counties. Shift some stuff around in central and southern Maryland (probably involving the significant expansion of MD-01 territory in Anne Arundel County and possibly south into Calvert County, perhaps even west into Prince George's County) and give Rep. Kratovil the keys to an MD-01 consisting of a lean Democratic slice of the Western Shore and a swingish third or so of the Eastern Shore.

I hope they go whole hog and draw that brutal 8-0, but I suspect they'll settle for throwing Rep. Bartlett and Rep.-elect Harris into a primary.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native


[ Parent ]
Here's how I see it
MD-01 loses its Baltimore/Annapolis suburbs and instead searches for Democratic precincts now in MD-06 and includes most of Frederick county(including the city).  This will be ugly, but necessary to retaliate for Republicans will do in Indiana and North Carolina.  

[ Parent ]
Woof...
That would be one hideous district. Not sure it's practical just because of the space between Frederick and Elkton, if the idea is to maximize Democratic vote share.

I drew a rough-and-tumble map up just now taking the opposite approach:

MD-01 is 56% Obama, 42% McCain, and contains Stevensville, where Rep. Kratovil lives.

MD-02 is 62% Obama, 36% McCain.

MD-03 is 61% Obama, 37% McCain, and I believe it draws out Rep. Sarbanes, but frankly he should move across town to where the bulk of his district is anyway.

MD-04 is a VRA district (54% black, 16% Latino, 22% white) and is 86% Obama, 13% McCain.

MD-05 is 64% Obama, 35% McCain.

MD-06 is 34% Obama, 64% McCain, acting as the only Republican vote sink in the state.

MD-07 is a VRA district (53% black, 32% white) and is 79% Obama, 20% McCain.

MD-08 is 64% Obama, 35% McCain, and I'm not sure if it draws out Rep. Van Hollen but as with Sarbanes, he can easily move just a short distance and hold the seat if residency is an issue.

Using 2008 population estimates, deviancy per district is under ±2,000.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native


[ Parent ]
Color codes...
MD-01 is blue, MD-02 is green, MD-03 is purple, MD-04 is red, MD-05 is yellow, MD-06 is teal, MD-07 is grey, MD-08 is slate.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native

[ Parent ]
Thanks

It is very interesting your comment about Arkansas. My next question would be... It is possible to change this law for do a VRA district in Arkansas? This only favore to the republicans. A D+ black district in Arkansas would be really good, because the republicans would not be able for destroy it despite having the majority. If not, we will see a 4-0 republican map for Arkansas in the first chance. The current map was a 3-1 for the democrats, now it is necessary to down to a 2-2 map, and if it is possible with a VRA protected district.

KS-03, NE-02 and TN-05 can be republican. I think they will not lose the chance of do it. If they need to divide Nashville who can stop to them? No-one. I think we can forget these districts because will be at least R+10.

And about GA-02 and GA-12 I think the same. Only will survive if these districts have some VRA protection, but the percentage of white people is over 50% in both districts.


[ Parent ]
I wish not give ideas to the republicans

and I wish not tell the ways for do it, but with the current TN-09 as D+23 the can up all their other districts some points over R+10. We must know it and be ready for see it.

[ Parent ]
KS-03
Barring a major re-design, you can't make KS-03 all that much more Republican without damaging the re-election prospects of Lynn Jenkins in KS-02, which completely surrounds KS-03.

Even with Johnny Longtorso's massive gerrymander, the average turned out to be R+7 or R+8 for the districts. KS-03 will continue to remain the most Democratic district in the state, but they can probably get it from R+3 to R+5 or R+6 without seriously endangering Jenkins.

Kansan by birth, Californian by choice, and Gay by the grace of God.


[ Parent ]
Of course they need to re-desing the map

The republicans need to touch more than one district, but they would have not high trouble for do it.

[ Parent ]
A couple of things:
NC-11: How do you propose to get Shuler out of his current district? Asheville is anchored in the district and won't be removed without endangering McHenry.

Arkansas: We don't need a black majority district in Arkansas. What we need is to draw a district along the Mississippi River Border as our one Democratic district and extend that to Pine Bluff.

IL: Don't forget about the PVI & Obama. Your D+5 districts are like D+1.

TN-05: How exactly are you going to split up Nashville? I'll post a map with the Partisan Data later, but TN Republicans will be trying to shore up Fincher, Black, and the Republican who won in TN-04. (can't think of his name) They will also move Lincoln Davis's home to TN-03. (very easy to do)

GA-02: This might be made a black majority district after the census. If they are trying to protect Austin Scott, they can move black precincts and some white (and more conservative) precincts pretty easily in this state.

UT-02: I really don't imagine Matheson is going to be in more trouble than he is now.

Pennsylvania: There has got to be a 5th Democratic district (Probably Holden)

28, Liberal Democrat, CA-26


I agree on Matheson.
They already gerrymandered him and he survived ever since.  They'll probably give up, cede Salt Lake City to him, and make a safe GOP district when they get apportioned another seat.  That will also allow him to move his voting record a little to the left.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!


[ Parent ]
my point

NC-11: I think H Shuler will not get out of his district, but I mean his district will be a R+10+ district after the redistricting.

Arkansas: The advantage of have a black district would be the VRA protection when the republicans have a majority. If not the republicans will do a 4-0 when they can.

Illinois: Then, do you think Illinois is a D+4 state?. I think not. But if Obama is a strong factor in Illinois, he will be again in the top of the ticket in 2012 help for the new map of Illinois.

TN-05: I wish not tell the way for do it, but they can, because I would be able to draw a map like I'm telling. The republicans are not silly, and I think they will not lose the chance of improve in Tennessee. They can change strongly the map.

GA-02: I see not the republicans losing a district without reason for it. Only if the district is protected by the VRA.

UT-02: The republicans know what the alone democrat with some chance of win statewide is J Matheson, and if many democrats are able of primary their old senators and send them home, then it is logical to think what they will find send home J Matheson definitely. And they have the chance of do it.


[ Parent ]
How is Matheson a threat?
A Democrat can't win statewide in Utah (even the son of a former UT governor) in this time and they probably know that Matheson won't leave his seat for fear the Dems will lose it (which they most likely will).

Also, they ALREADY tried to gerrymander him out of existence and they failed.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!


[ Parent ]
a threat for the republicans

because he is able for win in a R+15 district, and the entire state is only five points worse. That mean J Matheson can win statewide in a democratic year, if the office is open.

[ Parent ]
Tell that to Dick Stallings and Larry Larocco
who both did well in their ID House seats, and bombed statewide in the D years of '92 and '08.

[ Parent ]
J Matheson can be stronger

and more for a gubernatorial race. Stallings and LaRocco bid for the senate.

[ Parent ]
It is highly unlikely
that you could draw a VRA district in Arkansas without violating Shaw v. Reno and producing a racial gerrymander.  

[ Parent ]
If not

Still they are the chance of do a D+ seat without the VRA protection, but the republicans will destroy it when they can.

[ Parent ]
I Think You Are Underestimating
Geography, tradition, and status quo preferences. Members of Congress pretty much never want their lines changed, even if you are swapping out partisans (they know they can win under the old lines, whereas there's more uncertainty with new people, even if they are of the same party), a lot of legislators make ambitious plans with existing lines in mind, and of course there are lots of people in a state who are used to existing districts representing something. With those things in mind I think you are too quick to see the end of, say, Dan Boren's or Jim Cooper's districts.

Still, your larger point is of course generally on target - so the Democrats need to get every possible seat they can out of NY, IL, and MD. And if they can find some more in unexpected places (WV or AR, for example), they need to take action for what's likely to happen in much of the rest of the country.


In the diary

In the diary I tell what OK-02 and TN-05 will change for become more republican friendly, but I tell not Dan Boren or Jim Cooper will lose. I mean they will be in higher danger.

In New York I take a model of minimum improvents for the democrats, while for IL, MD WV and AR I find a model of maximum improvements, giving not as sure the gains in MD or IL. If you see I give ranges for the gains or loses of both parties. This is because I leave for many seats a doubt. As example you can see for Illinois what I give a range for the democratic gains between 0 and +10.


[ Parent ]
Whenever I try
to redistrict AZ with one new district, what keeps happening is I get a new Republican district that takes in the Phoenix north of the Phoenix Mountain preserve, Scottsdale, Fountain Hills (Schweikert lives here, but it would be a lot of new territory so he might still run in the Tempe-based district), and Peoria in the west valley. While this means that AZ-09 (not that it'd be numbered that) would be a Republican district, it would also move AZ-03 and AZ-05 a few ticks to the left.

AZ-03 would already be losing its most conservative precincts (though it would pick up AZ-02's portions of Phoenix south of Sunnyslope Mountain, which would help), and in turn pick up some middle class Hispanic and what passes for white liberal precincts in central Phoenix from AZ-04. Ben Quayle, already a noted underperformer, would really struggle here, and would either flee north to the 9th (leaving a maybe 45% Obama district or so open) or instead invite a top-shelf challenger. Either way, that would make AZ-03 one of the better pick-up opportunities in the country, especially since Obama's 2008 performance in Arizona wasn't too far off from a low water mark for Democrats.

AZ-05 would also move also shift to the left a few points by losing its northern flank (I think Obama won AZ-05 south of the Salt River, which is the Scottsdale-Tempe border). It would have to pick up a couple hundred thousand people from AZ-06. The western portions of AZ-06, however, are actually rather swingy, containing "silicon desert" Chandler and western Mesa, along with heavily Hispanic downtown Mesa. Schweikert might run down here (even though he lives in Fountain Hills), but it would probably be a close race in a district pretty close to 50-50.  

22, Democrat, AZ-01
Peace. Love. Gabby.


I tried to think like a non-partisan commissioner
and started in a corner-the SE corner.

Cochise/Santa /Pima is about 300K short of two seats.  You sneak through Pinal and basically follow the current route into Tolleson.  The 7th ditches Yuma county.

The nonpartisan folks have to decide to adjust the partisan/hispanic balances in the 7th & 8th.  I suspect they don't.  If they leave Yuma in the 7th you could create a Pinal centered seat with the three rural counties east of it plus Apache & part of Navajo county.  This would be the new seat while the GOP freshman from Yavapai county takes in the new territory plus Cococino & the rest of Navojo county.

Linking Sun city and Navajo reservation does not make sense.  Perhaps this arrangement works better?  

My little examination  of non partisan redistricting boards of WA NJ AZ from 2000 shows a pattern of incumbent protection.  They don't rock boats.  

I do note that Pinal county with over 350K should have a congressional seat that it dominates or nearly dominates.  Yet for some odd reason it is sliced and diced three ways in the 2002 redistricting.  



[ Parent ]
Ehh, you're on the right track
To an alternate AZ-09 I suppose, but I also think you're making some odd assumptions. Flagstaff to Sun City and White Mountains into all of Pinal sort of sounds like the wet dream of Republican gerrymanders, and doesn't really respect communities of interest, which are at the center of Arizona redistricting (not incumbent protection like some other states)

There is actually a lot of precedent for Yavapai and Mohave County being together in same district. And all things considered, Yavapai County makes a lot more sense with Mohave County than with the rest of AZ-01; it's quite a bit whiter, more urban, older and much more evangelical than anything that you'll find in the rest of its district. However, the freshman in AZ-01 lives in Flagstaff, and also, linking Flagstaff and the Rez with Lake Havasu and especially Sun City doesn't seem even slightly realistic, when there are other communities that are similarly rural and AI-heavy to the south. Instead, I actually think that your idea only comes to fruition if Yuma County is split off from the 7th. Colorado River Counties + Yavapai County (maybe minus Sedona and the Verde Valley) + West Valley exburbs, is actually rather plausible. This would mean though that AZ-01 (already the smallest district in the state population-wise), needs to find a ton more rural voters. It might have to take in much more of Pinal County. The alternate (which would make more sense from a rural voter pov) would be to move Cochise County into AZ-01 (because Pinal County isn't all that rural anymore) and leave most of Pinal for the 7th and 8th.

The "slicing and dicing" of Pinal County makes a lot sense actually, at least it did in 2000. Remember, in Arizona redistricting, communities of interest trump city and county lines. The parts in AZ-01 were mostly rural and small towns (at the time), anchored by (then) agriculturally-driven towns like Casa Grande and Florence. The parts of AZ-06 like Apache Junction and San Tan Heights were already exburban in character (not to mention rather LDS). The parts of AZ-07 were (at the time) sparsely population and made up of agricultural areas mostly populated by Hispanics and American Indians.

Here's the problem going forward; Pinal County has changed incredibly in the last ten years. The portions in AZ-01 have grown the least dramatically, but there has still been a fair bit of exburban development, especially along the I-10 corridor on the western part of its share of the county. In the ideal world, most of those need to come out (or AZ-01 needs to take in more of Pinal County so that these exburbs form a cohesive part of the community). AZ-06's portion has had dramatic growth, but it's more of the same. These towns and developments tend to be closely linked with Maricopa County communities like Gilbert and east Mesa anyway. Eastern Mesa-Gilbert-San Tan Heights-Apache Jct. etc. actually makes a lot more sense from a community of interest point of view than just the Maricopa County portions of AZ-06 if the Pinal County portions end up in another district, which is actually another reason why I think a Maricopa County-based AZ-09 makes sense, since it would push AZ-06 out deeper into Pinal County, which would be a more elegant solution I think than linking those towns up with the White Mountains.

This is getting wordy so I should stop, but I do really need to point out the big problem with the current AZ-07, and why the idea that AZ-07 should follow its current route to Tolleson as you put it is sort of bizarre. This part of Pinal County has changed the most dramatically, as as this exburban hell-hole has popped up there, making the region much whiter. Getting AZ-07 the hell out of western Pinal County is actually probably going to be one of the first priorities for the commission, because AZ-07 probably wouldn't pass preclearance as long as that's attached. My understanding of the situation in 2000 was that a second Hispanic-majority district wasn't strictly required by the justice department, but this de facto coaltion district (registered Hispanics plus White libs in Tucson make up over 50% of the voters) was drawn because the commissioners
thought that it would make the most sense. This time, I'm sure there will be a push to make sure that Hispanics get to select their representative of their choosing, especially after the close call with Ruthie Mac.

One more thing, I really have to push back on the presumption that the commissioners aren't going to "rock the boat" as you call it and only drawn incumbent protection maps. This just doesn't sink up at all with what happened in AZ in 2000. Commissioners are not allowed by law to consider the homebases of sitting representatives when designing this map. Sure, there weren't any great waves made in congressional delegation, but that was in part because we gained 2 seats and in part because everyone lived in the same place. In the state legislature, however, the changes that were made to previous districts were absolutely devastating to the status quo, and several representatives were left with nowhere to run or having to introduce themselves to a lot of new voters. So, I disagree, I think that the commissioners will have no fears about rocking the boat, I don't think that they'll care that Ben Quayle and Paul Gosar live in the most liberal parts of their districts and might be left with no good options next cycle; its not their job to care.

22, Democrat, AZ-01
Peace. Love. Gabby.


[ Parent ]
Thanks for your insights into AZ
lots of good stuff--where to start.

1. The two seat new seats in 2000 did not overly disturb incumbents.  In fact Kolbe lost most of his liberal Pima county precincts.  #8 was taylor made for him if he was a different sort of republican.  The biggest changes in the map were in Bob Stump's district and he was slanted for retirement in 2002.  The other democrat incumbent plus the GOP incumbents should have seats for life if they had run decent campaigns.  So with two new seats the lines were pretty incumbent friendly.

2. I see Pinal county a little clearer now just not sure the strange assortment of people who live there is enough of a reason to split the county three ways.  if the board wanted a fair fight districtPinal plus Gila-Graham-Greenlee plus the two Native American counties plus Flagstaff area would be a fair fight seat. Congressman Gosar actually lives in Flagstaff.  Who knows commissions can be unpredicable

3.  In 2000 WA & NJ commissions did not dealt with seat gains or losses so incumbents were locked in place.  In 2010 WA apparently will deal with an extra seat while NJ loses a seat


[ Parent ]
Different commissions have different mandates
For example, the NJ commission is expressly political.  

[ Parent ]
Yeah
I think the fact that there were no major incumbent shake-ups at the congressional level has more to do with the vision that the commission had for what the state needed than a deliberate effort to tip-toe around incumbents. Arizona needed a rural district, as a disproportionate amount of electoral influence was packed within Maricopa County. Stump would have had a conflict had he not retired, but I don't think that they would have gone in a different route if he hadn't, because they weren't supposed to consider where incumbents live. They also determined (rather openly) that the state needed at least the opportunity to elect at least two Hispanic representatives (note the subtle distinction from the VRA mandates), so that spurred the split that created AZ-04 & AZ-07. Since Hispanics/white libs weren't part of anyone's base except for Pastor's, that choice was non-controversial too. However, there were big changes to the state legislature, where the number of seats stayed static at 30. A seat that typically elected White Dems in Pima County got sucked up into the Maricopa County suburbs and several representatives saw their bases torn in half or the careful gerrymanders put right again. There is no reason to assume that the 2010 congressional map will be incumbent friendly, as by law (and I can't repeat this enough), commissioners aren't suppose to consider who the incumbents are or where they live.

Most of Pinal + eastern portions of AZ-01 might not be bad a solution, since parts of Pinal are still rather agricultural and overall the county is less White than Yavapai (especially if you exclude the AZ-06 neighborhood. It wouldn't be a bad solution and might be inevitable, but it seems like more of the better of several imperfect options at best? It would be a lot easier to deal with if Arizona were still on tap for 10 districts...

But also like andgarden said above me Arizona =/= NJ & WA. Different laws and different priorities will be in play.  

22, Democrat, AZ-01
Peace. Love. Gabby.


[ Parent ]
I have a cousin who lives in Maricopa, Ariz.
Very, very conservative. One of the most conservative people I know. Awfully nice, though. How can somebody that nice be so far to the right?

I'm guessing that, as the diarist suggested, Rep. Giffords will be given a safer seat, Rep. Grijalva will be given a bit safer seat as well, and a new Republican district will be drawn in south-central Arizona.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native


[ Parent ]
Maricopa County or Maricopa City?
Either way, I believe you, haha. As far as southern AZ redistricting, well, I doubt that the seats will get much worse for Dems. If Grijalva ditches Yuma County (I'm taking it as a matter of course that the he loses the city of Maricopa), then he'll have to pick up a bunch of Hispanics in western Phoenix and the West Valley suburbs, which will make him safer. There's also a good chance that Grijalva sheds some or all of his white liberal neighborhoods in Tucson (as someone mentioned a few posts up, these were in Jim Kolbe's district in the 1990s). The University of Arizona itself and neighborhoods like Sam Hughes and Ironhorse would make lots of sense in AZ-08 from a community of interest point of view, and incidentally help move the district a few ticks to the left.

22, Democrat, AZ-01
Peace. Love. Gabby.


[ Parent ]
Perhaps someone knows
and where to begin.  I understand that Arkansas has a limitation in its state constitution that forbids the splitting of county lines for drawing of congressional districts.  This law predates Baker V Carr.  In 2000 the state of Arkansas actually passed two redistricting bills.  The current one which does not split lines and another one that split 4 county lines to equl out the population.  As it happened no one sued and AR has a deviation of 7K or a bit over 1% among its 4 districts.

I don't pretend to be an expert on AR poliitcs-I do live next door to the state.  There is a coalition of conservative sorts who more or run things in the house & senate.  With term limits there is huge turnover in the houses there so you don't have permanment rule but rather permanment interests in the house & senate (rural V urban or business/labor or Agriculture/environment).  Ross in AR4 is certainly close to house/senate and the Gov.  His seat is underpopulated and everything to his NW is GOP oriented.  I suspect he picks up democratic area from the Delta part of AR1. Ross won 58% against an underfunded and third tier foe in 2010.  I don't have  him down as wanting more GOP voters.

Sorry for the side trip.  Michigan also has a state law forbidding the crossing of county lines & city lines to draw congressional or legislative districts for that matter except to meet population standards.  That's why you have nice smooth lines in Michigan's congressional districts -compare them to PA or Ohio.  

Is anyone aware of any other state limitations of a similar fashion?


Regarding Arkansas,
Ross is going to need to win his district only one more time if he intends to run for Governor of Arkansas. This is the last time that the Democrats will be able to draw a map; maybe they make Crawford's district more Democratic, and hope Ross can win one more time?


28, Liberal Democrat, CA-26

[ Parent ]
Last time?
2010 does not a trend make.  A lot of Dem voters there vote like nonpartisans, i.e. voting in line with the political environment.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!


[ Parent ]
It's obvious what the trend is, just like in any other Southern state.
You have to have a good candidate to win. I don't expect Arkansas to have another Democrat in the House after Mike Ross until Tim Griffin retires.

28, Liberal Democrat, CA-26

[ Parent ]
After this wave

It is so easy assume what the democrats will have many troubles for have again the necessary majorities for have a full control of the redistricting process in Arkansas.

[ Parent ]
Your comment is very interesting

About the laws for redistricting Arkansas. My wish would be a VRA district, but if I understand well, would not be possible to change the current laws for can do a VRA district since the basis of my draft. What is your opinion? It would be possible a change in law?

It would be interesting to have some gains from the redistricting of Arkansas. My first stimation about a good redistricting for Arkansas would be:

AR-02 as D+? district (so close to the draft what I show).
AR-04 as R+5 district for M Ross (aproximately).
AR-01 as R+20 district (aproximately).
AR-03 as R+20 district (aproximately).

I will find it when the redistricting application have political data for Arkansas.  


[ Parent ]
There is political data on the SoS website I believe...
There aren't that many whites in Arkansas that voted for Obama (which is what PVI is based on) so there can probably be only one Democratic seat under your scenario.  

28, Liberal Democrat, CA-26

[ Parent ]
Yes, the democratic seat would be AR-02

AR-04 would keep the current status improving a little. M Ross seems able for win a R+5 district without troubles despite the district suffer some changes.

If I have time maybe I look these data.

Thanks.


[ Parent ]
I have a number fof issues with this.
1. Lloyd Doggett was already gerrymandered where he is to comply with the Supreme Court's ruling on Delaymandering.  His district under the original plan comprised of what the legislature derisively called the "fajita strip", but that was thrown out for violating compactness rules and they drew him where he is today.

2. It's impossible to do away with Jim Cooper without doing a dummymander that will backfire on them.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!


How do you propose they put Doggett in a R+10 district??
It's impossible unless you want to make McCaul, Smith, and Carter in danger by splitting Austin up four ways (even five!). Even then, I doubt you could even make it R+3. More likely, Doggett will run in a D+15 district by forcing the vast majority of precincts in Austin into one compact district, shoring up McCaul and Carter's rapidly-growing district forever.

As for Andre Carson's district, Mitch Daniels already said he doesn't want to be too hyper partisan in drawing Indiana's districts. If they split up IN-07, they'll likely dummymander the entire Southern part of the state. More likely, they'll shore up Carson, throw South Bend into IN-01 and take out Donnelly (like you said), and shore up IN-08 and IN-09. The latter part is more difficult than you think.

As for California, it's not incumbent protection, but instead it's fairer districts. That said, CA-11 WILL become more Democrat friendly because right now it was created to piece together all Republican parts on the Bay Area. No way will it be the same later. I also have to think fairer districts means fewer districts for Republicans in SoCal outside of Orange and San Diego Counties. I think we'll see a lot of D+1 or D+2 districts, especially out of the ones held by Dreier, Bilbray, and maybe Rohrabacher.  

NY-14, DC-AL (college) Distraught Mets fan


I propose not

I preview the republicans will find gerrymander TX-25. Just I think they will take the way for do it. These republican congressmen can get in trouble if you think in the four districts only, but not if you think in an overall map.

In Indiana, I think IN-01 and IN-07 will continue as democratic districts, because the overall map would give weak districts for the republicans if they gerrymander more. I think we agree about this.

About California, I hope you be right, but I'm not very optimistic. It is difficult to preview what will be the result of the work of a commission without unclear goals. I give a sure a (little) improvement in CA-11, currently R+1, but I'm not sure about more improvements.


[ Parent ]
CA11
CA11 will be forced out of the SF Bay Area because the population growth there is less than state average.  I think that it is likely to become San Joaquin County, gaining the Democratic areas now in CA18.  Some area out of the county will also be included.  If this area is in Contra Costa County, D will gain. If it goes south within the valley, the areas will likely be swing or R.

A key loss for the D's is the dismemberment of the gerrymandered CD18 and CD20.  Possibly a VRA Hispanic district could be constructed, as at present CA20 is.

A VRA Hispanic could be constructed with Fresno City and central Bakersfield, as CD20 is, or creating a new focus with central Fresno City, Merced city, and Modesto City, in which case the present incumbents of CD18 and CD20 would have a fight in the primary.

Joe Cooper


[ Parent ]
About CA-11 I think not the same

The commission can not do it if they wish not leave J McNerney out his district.  

[ Parent ]
CA-11
I did it on DRA, San Joaquin almost has enough population for its own CD and would only need a small sliver of territory outside of it, barely enough to make a difference except in a 2006 PA-08 scenario (where Fitzpatrick narrowly won Bucks County which was like 90%+ of the district, but Murphy won the small slices of Montgomery and Philly). In the end, because the addition of Stockton cancels out the loss of the Bay Area, it probably wouldn't change much PVI-wise.

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/


[ Parent ]
Here is a partisan precinct map of Nashville, TN
It's very hard to mix and match precincts (Half of them have changed since 2000) so the ones I missed are white:

Photobucket

28, Liberal Democrat, CA-26


Thanks by the map

It is interesting. Unfortunately to have high differences between precints make easier to endanger J Cooper.

[ Parent ]
Is redistricting really going to be this bad for Dems?
I dont see how Republicans could draw an R+10 district for Lloyd Doggett given that Austin has so much Democratic territory and this would greatly endanger McCaul and other Republicans in the area.  What they will probably do is give him all of Austin in order to protect Mike McCaul.

I dont see how Republicans could make OK-02 much worse for Dan Boren, given that his district is already one of the most Republican in state at the Presidential level.

With Utah, I think they will probably just conceed SLC to Matheson and draw three safe districts for Republicans.  Matheson can probably win any district that has a significant portion of SLC in it.    


maybe

I think they can do it. OK-02, UT-02 and OK-05 are the most democratic seats in both states. In the other side you have OK-03 (R+24) and UT-03 (R+26). Maybe you think R+15 is enough bad for J Matheson and D Boren but surely the republicans from both states will not think the same. They have full power for redistricting and they have nothing more to do.

Ibout TX-25, I wish not tell the ways for do it, the republicans must find it, but I preview they will do it. In 2002 they fail, but now I think surely will not fail again.


[ Parent ]
Those Austin votes will have to go somewhere
And wherever they go will probably be a Democratic pickup.  

[ Parent ]
Not necessarily

Only if the current law leaves not divide it.

[ Parent ]
I guess they could crack it six ways to Sunday
But that's begging for a dummymander. Austin's too big and too blue. As it stands, they're in big trouble with TX-10 if you take the long view.

Also, while TX-25 isn't currently majority-minority, there is a theoretical majority-minority district compactly within Travis County, which, if they relinquish TX-25 to the Dems would likely be realized (I just drew a potential TX-25 in a compact eastern Travis County that was 47% White, 35% Hispanic, 12% Black, and more delicate gerrymandering could probably yield something more minority-heavy than that while still staying relatively compact. Obama got 73% of the vote in that district incidentally, so that's tons and tons of Dems to try and hide elsewhere). In any event, Democratic and Hispanic groups could try to sue over that if the community is cracked.

22, Democrat, AZ-01
Peace. Love. Gabby.


[ Parent ]
I think the republicans will not concede it

I think they will follow their interest for win more seats.

[ Parent ]
If they pursue a map like that...
Texas will be the most epic dummymander in U.S. history by the end of the decade, considering the Latino population growth rate.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native

[ Parent ]
I agree, but

but surely the republican people reject not a strong gerrymander, like reject not in 2003, and this would be not a trouble for them.

[ Parent ]
I agree
I think Reps. Doggett, Boren, and Matheson will be fine. If he's given Salt Lake City and maybe part of blueing Salt Lake County, Matheson will probably ease a bit to the left. Statewide he would go nowhere; by voting more in line with his party, he could be rewarded, but he'll only shift left if he feels safe. Boren will go on being the most conservative of Democrats. Doggett is perfectly happy in liberal Austin, and I don't see much the GOP can do about it.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native

[ Parent ]
The republicans can give you some bad surprise

You must be ready for it.

[ Parent ]
Bobby Bright, Defier of PVIs
If Bobby Bright can win the current AL-02, which is R+16 and the most heavily Republican seat in southern Alabama, there's not much they can do to make it more Republican without endangering their nearby seats, which are the Mobile-based R+14 AL-01 and the largely rural R+8 AL-03. There just aren't enough Republicans to make all of those seats tilt further to the right, even if the majority-black AL-07 soaks up as much of the black vote as it can.

And remember, Bobby Bright could easily run in AL-03 (at least as it's currently designed) since it has a big chunk of Montgomery in it, where he is still popular and well-known from his time as mayor. Despite being a native, his strength is overstated in the heavily-Republican Wiregrass Region that makes up most of rural AL-02. Furthermore, the incumbent in AL-03, Mike Rogers, is weak (witness his 4% McCain underperformance against Some Dude Josh Segall in 2008).

That said, a major redesign that unpacks some strength from AL-04 and AL-06, which are R+26 and R+29, respectively, might help them shore up these districts. Of course, a design like that might easily fall afoul of the VRA. There's the added factor that Alabama's black population is right on the cusp of where it needs to be to require a second majority-black (and therefore Democrat-heavy) district.  

Kansan by birth, Californian by choice, and Gay by the grace of God.


The republicans from Alabama have not other work

The alone work of the republicans from Alabama in the redistricting process is to keep safe all their incumbents. If after a redistricting process in a state like Alabama with a black district what they can not touch, they can not keep all their current incumbents, is because they are totally silly. And I think not they are silly. I think they can, and I expect they will do. I want not it, but I think we will see it.

[ Parent ]

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

SSP Resources

Blogroll

Powered by: SoapBlox