Google Ads


Site Stats

Iowa Redistricting: New Maps Are Out

by: DavidNYC

Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 11:42 AM EDT


Iowa's independent redistricting commission released its first drafts of the state's Congressional & legislative maps. (Click the link for all kinds of goodness, including a Google Maps overlay.) The new proposed federal plan - which sees the state dropping from five districts to four - is below (click image for larger size):

I'm cribbing from DCCyclone here:

This map throws together Loebsack and Braley, and also Latham and King, while leaving Boswell alone in his Polk-based district. Loebsack could just move down a few miles from Linn County to Johnson (Iowa City). Latham and King won't be happy, and I bet this map gets rejected for that reason... no way can I imagine the Iowa GOP going along with giving Boswell a free pass while making Latham and King fight it out.

Note that the legislature can reject this map and send the commission back to the drawing board.

UPDATE: Iowa is one of the only states in the nation which keeps all counties whole in redistricting, so that makes presidential results easy to calculate. Here are the new figures by CD (full spreadsheet here):

District Obama McCain Other Kerry Bush Other
IA-01 58.0% 40.1% 1.9% 53.1% 46.1% 0.8%
IA-02 56.6% 41.2% 2.1% 52.5% 46.5% 1.0%
IA-03 51.9% 45.8% 2.3% 47.1% 52.1% 0.8%
IA-04 48.1% 49.8% 2.1% 44.2% 55.0% 0.9%

UPDATE 2: I've added dots on the map to denote current incumbents' homes, taken from here. To match up dots to congressmen (current CD in parens):

Black Hawk: Braley (1)
Linn: Loebsack (2)
Polk: Boswell (3)
Story: Latham (4)
Sac: King (5)
DavidNYC :: Iowa Redistricting: New Maps Are Out
Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Iowa Redistricting: New Maps Are Out | 106 comments
Free pass for Boswell?

Rep. Leonard Boswell's 3rd district would shift from Des Moines and areas east to Des Moines and areas west to the Nebraska border. The Democrat's election could get more difficult because it would include GOP-leaning counties in the southwest corner of the state that currently belong to King.

http://www.rollcall.com/news/n...

where would Christie Vilsack run?
if she does. I get the impression that she wants to primary Boswell.
[ Parent ]
Vilsack
Article says she may run in open second district, which Loebsack may jump to and run as well.
[ Parent ]
Exactly
I don't quite see where anyone's getting the idea that Boswell is benefitting here, other than he wouldn't be running against Latham.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
[ Parent ]
terrible district for Boswell
in my opinion.

Not much for Iowa Democrats to like in this map unless your name is Christie Vilsack.

[ Parent ]
This is almost
a Republican gerrymander to try to make Iowa 2-2.  
[ Parent ]
Agreed
Des Moines to Council Bluffs is probably the most Republican configured district possible involving Polk County.  All the deep red counties are no longer quarantined off in the western district but split between two now like back in the 90s.
[ Parent ]
Agreed
Des Moines to Council Bluffs is probably the most Republican configured district possible involving Polk County.  All the deep red counties are no longer quarantined off in the western district but split between two now like back in the 90s.
[ Parent ]
Maybe I'm crazy
but 2-2 doesn't exactly sound unfair to me, considering Iowa tends to stay pretty close to 50/50 in presidential and gubernatorial elections.
[ Parent ]
shhhhh

[ Parent ]
Technically Iowa, has reliably at that,
given Democrats 52-54% of the vote in Presidential elections over the last 24 years. This map is clever in that it makes two districts that "look" like swing districts, but in reality would be extremely difficult for a Democrat to ever win, while making two districts that "look" fairly Democratic but which could be won more easily by a local Republican than could a Democrat win the western two districts. Iowa Republicans have had an absurd domination of its federal politics over the last 30 years.  
[ Parent ]
Regarding the "two districts that 'look' fairly Democratic"
If Democrats can't win a 56% and 58% Obama district, I'm not quite sure what to say.

http://mypolitikal.com/
[ Parent ]
They weren't able to
win districts in said areas between the 1990s and 2000s. Hell, Jim Leach represented the Quad cities area for decades. Jim Nussle an arch conservative held a northeast Iowa district for a decade and half fairly easily. Republicans have had inordinate success at winning Iowa Congressional elections, even when Democrats put up strong, legitimate challengers.  
[ Parent ]
Well...
There are a few Republicans in 56% Obama districts, but Gerlach is the only one in a 58% Obama district (I'm ignoring the Illinois numbers, since they're inflated).
[ Parent ]
Also IL-10
Held by Bob Dold!, and gave 61% of the vote to Obama, although that may be inflated a point or two by the home-state bounce.

20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08
[ Parent ]
.
Why does everyone put an exclamation mark after Bob Dold? Obviously I haven't caught on to the joke yet.

21, Conservative Gay Democrat, NM-2 (Childhood) TX-10 (Home) TX-23 (School);   DKos: wwmiv.
[ Parent ]
Simpson's reference.


Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
Really?
I was thinking it was an Arrested Development reference the whole time....like..Steve Holt!...but Bob Dold!.

21,Democrat, NY-02, male
[ Parent ]
No no...
That's Rep. Rush Holt! of New Jersey. RUSH HOLT!

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native
[ Parent ]
also Jim Holt!
of Arkansas.

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 ]
Rush Holt is my rep!
He's great.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
I envy you.
Since I started following politics, my Congressman has gone from Bob Barr to Phil Gingrey to Paul Broun.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
[ Parent ]
I'm sorry to hear that.
Talk about constantly trading down.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
For a long time, it was Rob Andrews
Well-spoken and liked by leadership, but also was pro-Iraq War in 2003.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
Well the Iowa-based political commentary supports me so far......
This from the DSM Register:  http://www.desmoinesregister.c...

People seem to share my view that Boswell has the advantage in the proposed IA-03.

And while there are some smart counter-arguments in the comments in this diary, I stand by my position, I'd rather be Boswell than Latham under this map.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

[ Parent ]
Advantage, probably, but still worse off than before.


Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
[ Parent ]
Sure, but that much was inevitable......
Boswell and Latham both are certain to be worse off under any new map than before.  Latham is going to have to deal with either King or a district with a lot of Democrats who have never seen him on a ballot.  Boswell is going to get more rural conservative counties.  And King can be made worse off, and is just that under this proposed map, because he gets a lot more Democrats.

And Braley and Loebsack (Christie Vilsack's ambitions aside) are going to sit pretty under almost any map.

This is all because the Democrats are in eastern and central Iowa, and Republicans are in western Iowa.  So the eastern Dems are going to be OK under almost any scenario, but the mixed partisan delegation in the central and west are going to sweat.

All those things always were going to be true, and the proposed map simply affirms it.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

[ Parent ]
not against Latham
For Democrats, this has to be one of the worst configurations of a district containing Polk County.

I believe Boswell would more likely than not lose to Latham in this scenario.

[ Parent ]
Ditto
Yep exactly my thoughts
[ Parent ]
Latham
Latham may choose to avoid challenging King in a Republican primary where first past the right wing crazy post wins. He could move to the 3rd and challenge Boswell in a very competitive district. The maps might get reject because the state legislative maps throw a lot of incumbents together.
No question: the legislature will reject
The House doesn't want to see Latham vs. King and the Senate doesn't want to see Braley vs. Loebsack (though Loebsack could quite easily move down to Johnson County and have himself a relatively strong Dem seat).

I'm thinking the legislature will reject any proposal that doesn't create a central district for Latham and Boswell (though one of their homes can be just outside it, but it has to clearly be an Ames/Des Moines seat). Precedent is the commission will get it right on the second or third try (the legislature rejected two maps in 1981, accepted the first one in 1991, and rejected one in 2001).

20 years old, male, GA-12 (home), GA-10 (school); previously lived in CA-29, CA-28, CA-23, IL-06, IL-14, GA-01.

Don't think so....
 I really think that they would reject the map the first time, but the 2nd map would not change that much and still put 2 Republicans together and 2 Democrats together.

This is an Independent Agency.  You are talking like if,  the Legislature are drawing the maps here .

18, Democrat (PA-19)

[ Parent ]
Except
Boswell and Latham live in neighboring counties, Story and Polk. It's a lot easier to draw them together than any other pair of incumbents. It's still very possible one of the incumbents will have to move, but the legislature is likely to prefer a Boswell/Latham matchup to keeping their bases separate. Just based on chance, the next map or the third is likely to consolidate Boswell's and Latham's main areas of strength.

20 years old, male, GA-12 (home), GA-10 (school); previously lived in CA-29, CA-28, CA-23, IL-06, IL-14, GA-01.
[ Parent ]
2nd map could change significantly
No way to be sure about that.
[ Parent ]
they will reject
but probably more because of the impact on their own seats. Lots of House Republican incumbents thrown together; many Senate incumbents would be thrown together too.
[ Parent ]
Looks fair
Latham could obviously move into the 3rd district, it's not it wouldn't be that far.

24, male, African-American, CA-24, Democrat. Chair of the SSP Black Caucus.
King's out!!!
 Looking at the new maps in Iowa, it looks like it would still have 3 Democratic Reps. And Only One Republican.

The thing that makes it GREAT!!. Is that Rep. Steve King would need to face-off in a primary with the other Republican Congressman!!. And it would be even better to see this racist out of officej!!.  

18, Democrat (PA-19)

I disagree
First of all, this will not be the final proposal. The legislature has nothing to like in this map. And a primary in that 4th District would favor King, who already represents those conservative western counties, not Latham with his base in Ames.

Also, Boswell's 3rd here is a lot more Republican, Des Moines' Democratic edge offset by GOP counties on the Nebraska border.

20 years old, male, GA-12 (home), GA-10 (school); previously lived in CA-29, CA-28, CA-23, IL-06, IL-14, GA-01.

[ Parent ]
Democrats are in good shape.
  I really think this map is a good deal with Democrats. Boswell indeed his district would get more Conservative. He still has and advantage that tilts Democrat overall.  And Putting the NEW District for Boswell . Obama 52.72% vs McCain 47.27%.  So he really needs to work Hard to get re-elected.  The Problem would be when you have a bad year for Democrats and this seat can switch either side in the coming elections.

This map would not change that much at the end

18, Democrat (PA-19)

[ Parent ]
On the other hand
King would be vulnerable in the general under this map, which is not the case under the current map.

26, white male, TX-24, liberal-leaning independent
[ Parent ]
disagree
Only IA-02 is safe for Democrats in this map. Boswell's district includes a lot of Republican territory he hasn't represented and none of the Democratic-leaning counties that border Polk.

IA-01 could be competitive as well.

Democrats aren't going to like Linn (Cedar Rapids) and Johnson (Iowa City) in separate districts.

[ Parent ]
58-40 Obama is as safe as
anything drawn by an independent agency in very competitive Iowa is going to get. Braley and Loebsack (should the latter run in District 2) are in good shape with this map. Boswell would have a hell of a time getting reelected.

But I still don't think the legislature will accept this. Since Republicans don't want a King/Latham primary and the 1st is so Democratic, there is nowhere obvious for Latham to run unless he moves to Boswell's base in Des Moines.

20 years old, male, GA-12 (home), GA-10 (school); previously lived in CA-29, CA-28, CA-23, IL-06, IL-14, GA-01.

[ Parent ]
This map could go 4-0 in a really good year
We have won districts a heck of a lot harsher than 49% McCain. Too bad it will be rejected.  
[ Parent ]
It's everything Blue Virginia wants, and everything we hate
It's pretty, even in size, lines make sense.

And it causes 2 needless primaries and weakens the 5th incumbent with a less friendly district.

REJECT THIS MAP!

26, Male, Democrat, TX-26

LOL!

[ Parent ]
Lines make sense?
It splits most metropolitan areas, and combines Des Moines with rural counties on the Nebraska border.

As far as communities of interest go, it's ridiculous.

[ Parent ]
The legislature readies the toilet flusher...


28, Unenrolled, MA-08
If this were the final proposal
I could actually see this as a 4-0 Democratic map given the right circumstances.  Braley and Loebsack could lock down the first two districts, Boswell wouldn't be any more vulnerable in IA-03 than he is right now, and if Christie Vilsack could be induced to run in IA-04, she'd probably face King in a district swingy enough that she could win it in a Presidential year.

Of course, I don't expect this to be the final map, for precisely this reason.  Republicans would have to be insane to okay this map.

The Crolian Progressive: as great an adventure as ever I heard of...

Comparing new numbers to the old numbers:
Old:
1st: 58 O - 41 M
2nd: 60 O - 39 M
3rd: 54 O - 45 M
4th: 53 O - 46 M
5th: 44 O - 55 M

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
Playing around with Dave's app..
I never came up with many scenarios where King and Latham weren't smashed together. Rs can complain, but I don't see two strong R districts surviving in Iowa.

23, flaming Male, currently in WA-07, raised in UT-02  
there aren't 2 strong R districts in IA now...
Latham's district went 53% Obama in 2008.  CPVI is even.  This new map is probably about as good as it can get for republicans.  IA-04 will be about R+5 and IA-03 will be around R+2 (as opposed to R+9 for IA-05, EVEN for IA-04, and D+1 for IA-03 currently).  Republicans still probably won't got for it due to having King and Latham in the same district, but it's better than a Latham/Boswell Ames/Des Moines district that will be around D+1.
[ Parent ]
Interesting Map
Nobody in the Congressional delegation should like it that much, particularly not Steve King (who can't win any of the districts on this map IMO, and could probably defeat Latham in a primary since it won't be at the same time as the caucuses).  Tom Latham basically gets his 1990s district back, and Boswell gets the 1990s Neal Smith/Greg Ganske map.  Loebsack would jump to the 2nd, so that's basically a wash.

But as other commenters have noted, this is going to pass or fail based on the state house and senate map.  There are enough interesting competitive districts here, Republicans should be happy to have a map that isn't likely to be 3-1 against them, and Democrats should be happy to have a map that can defeat Steve King.

From my own experimentation, this is basically the only setup that doesn't pair Council Bluffs and Sioux City in a single large western district, and a map that does that has a decent shot of splitting Polk and Dallas.

Quick PVI calculations
IA-1: D+5 (Unchanged)
IA-2: D+4 (was D+7)
IA+3: R+1 (was D+1)
IA-4: R+4 (IA-5, closest comparison, was R+9)

The old IA-4 is clearly dismembered, but it was an even PVI.

Regardless, the results I would say, assuming no one moves.

Bruce Braley remains safe.  

David Loebsack might be in trouble in a perfect storm.  He only won in 2010 by around 5%, and may well have lost if that election was under these borders.  D+4 is just barely in the range a Republican can hold after all.

Leonard Boswell might also be in trouble.  He has pretty consistently won election by single-digit margins, and his district moving 2% more towards the Republicans will not be a walk in the park.  Still, I don't think he's personally any more endangered than Loebsack.  As an open seat, it would clearly be a toss up however.

Most surprisingly, Steve King is probably in deep shit.  IA-4 is still Republican leaning, but only just barely (seats up to R+6 are pretty routinely winnable by Democrats).  I firmly think that under this configuration his days are numbered.  He probably couldn't lose to Tom Lantham in the primary, given how keyed up the far right are, but he's too conservative to hold onto this district all decade.  

So, it could go anywhere from 1D-3R to 4D.  I suppose it's fair, but the logical Des Moines based seat (a no-brainer based upon communities of interest), leading to a 2-1-1 configuration, probably wouldn't be any less politically contentious.  Would the Republicans have hated one sure thing and one competitive seat more than no sure things and three competitive seats.    

As one of the resident non-Democrats
I would urge the GOP not to reject this map. I would also suggest Latham move to Des Moines.  In fact I think the democrats might reject this in the state senate. Here's my thinking district by district.

1. Steve King picks up Storey county plus several other D counties so his district becomes less GOP.  Yet who cares as his seat is fairly GOP territory.

2. Boswell gets the shaft in this map as seat moves well to the right as it moves to the west.  I personally not even trade Ames (Latham home county of Storey) area for Council Bluff. This district is about as conservative as it can.  Latham needs to move 10 miles south.  Boswell actually moved in 2001 so yet its Iowa and that happens.

3. Braley loses his two best counties (Scott and Clinton) plus he picks up a large new county (Linn) plus several marginal rural counties.  Braley gets a lot of new territory.  I have the old district  at 46.1% Bush in 2004 so politically its a wash.

4. Loesback loses his home county where he basically won this seat in 2006 & 2010.  His seat was 44% in 2004 and now its  46.5%. Mercy what he wanted!!! Its two percent more republican after he won less then that?  Plus he loses his home county which was the also the biggest county he had.  Ouch.  

So I think the D's spin the wheel again on this one.

3.  

I agree with you
This is a pretty good Republican map looking at the CDs.

The Iowa House Republicans will be looking at their own districts, however. I am not sure it's a good map from that perspective. A lot of R incumbents are thrown in with each other.  

[ Parent ]
Could Greg Ganske come back?
That 3rd looks exactly like the district he represented for many years, and he's only 61 and still practicing law in Des Moines, according to Wikipedia. Might be an option for the GOP if Latham decides to run in the 4th, which looks a lot like his 90's district as well.  

20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08
Ganske is a doctor, not a lawyer
He's making too much money doing boob jobs to go back to Congress.
[ Parent ]
Ganske
Wasn't Ganske a plastic surgeon not a lawyer.  He might have trouble winning a primary he was quite moderate.  I think if this plan goes into effect Latham takes a stab at it.  If Harkin was up next year I think Latham and/or King would take the plunge against him.
[ Parent ]
Sorry, that's right
All I saw was "returned to practice" and figured "well, all Congressman are lawyers, so that must be what practice means here." Stupid me.

Latham certainly has intriguing options with this map. He's represented almost all of the new 4th, either in the 90's or now, and could probably win there, but there will be pressure on him to take one for the team and run in the 3rd. I think he could beat Boswell there since the new territory is GOP-friendly and Latham is pretty non-offensive.

20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08

[ Parent ]
I've seen better maps here
this plan by silver spring is the best plan for Iowa I've seen. It makes one district out of metro Des Moines instead of splitting it in 4.

26, male, Dem, NJ-12
Story went 8K
for the President in 2008. Pow. county went 2K for McCain.  To me its a no brainer.  Latham has a home there and he does well enough for Storey county but its still got a lot of D's.  Council Bluff will be better for him.  
[ Parent ]
That seems like a very serviceable map
The problem is that the population deviation seems to be quite a bit higher than that of the current plan - and tweaking population with an Iowa map is a pain in the ass. But even so, the deviation is only 1,500, so maybe that would pass muster.
[ Parent ]
not possible
if the first map is rejected, the rules say population variance must be smaller in the second map.
[ Parent ]
Hah, really?
That seriously limits options, then, since the variance is VERY small in this map.

By the way, for the first map, is there a maximum variance allowed?

[ Parent ]
correction
Bleeding Heartland user ragbrai08 notes, "The second map must have a lower variance with one exception -- if compactness goes haywire. I think that's likely to happen here."

I did not realize that exception was in the code. In 2001 the second map had smaller population variance.

The Legislative Services Agency's report on today's plan lays out requirements of the code:

Iowa Code section 42.4 prescribes, in subsections 1 through 8, that the following redistricting standards be used in the preparation of redistricting plans:
1. Districts shall be established on the basis of population. The districts shall each have a population as nearly equal as practicable to the ideal population. A Congressional district shall not vary from the ideal population by more than 1 percent. Districts shall not vary in population from the ideal population for a State Senatorial or State Representative district by an average of more than 1 percent. A Senate or House district shall not have a population which exceeds that of any other Senate or House district by more than 5 percent. The burden of proof rests with the General Assembly to justify the selection of any district in a plan which deviates from the ideal population for that district by more than 1 percent.
2. Within the population variance limitations of the first standard, and to the extent possible, the number of counties and cities divided among more than one district shall be as small as possible. When there is a choice between dividing local political subdivisions, the more populous subdivisions shall be divided before the less populous, except when a county line divides a city.
3. Districts shall be composed of convenient contiguous territory.
4. Districts shall be reasonably compact in form, to the extent consistent with the first three standards. In general, reasonably compact districts are those which are square, rectangular, or hexagonal in shape, and not irregularly shaped, to the extent permitted by natural or political boundaries. Methods for determining compactness are provided by law and include a length-width compactness test and a perimeter compactness test.
5. A district shall not be drawn for the purpose of favoring a political party, incumbent legislator or member of Congress, or other person or group, or for the purpose of augmenting or diluting the voting strength of a language or racial minority group. In establishing districts, no use shall be made of any of the following data:
a. Addresses of incumbent legislators or members of Congress.
b. Political affiliations of registered voters.
c. Previous election results.
d. Demographic information, other than population head counts, except as required by the Constitution and the laws of the United States.

6. Each Representative district shall be wholly included within a single Senatorial district and, so far as possible, each Representative and each Senatorial district shall be included within a single Congressional district. However, the standards described above shall take precedence where a conflict arises between those standards and the requirement, so far as possible, of including a Senatorial or Representative district within a single Congressional district.

7. The new districting plan shall not be used prior to the primary election of 2012. If a vacancy in a district occurs at a time where a special election is required to fill a term prior to January 2013, the present Congressional, Senatorial, and House district plans as described in the 2011 Iowa Code shall be used.

8. Each bill embodying a plan shall include provisions for election of senators to the general assemblies which take office in 2013 and 2015, which shall be in conformity with Article Ill, section 6, of the Constitution of the State of Iowa.

The variance here is way, way less than 1 percent. Hundreds of maps would meet that requirement.

[ Parent ]
One sticky fact
IA-01 has 761,548 people, -41 from ideal
IA-02 has 761,624 people, +35 from ideal
IA-03 has 761,612 people, +23 from ideal
IA-04 has 761,571 people, -18 from ideal
If this plan is rejected the new plan has to have LESS deviation then the above numbers and CANNOT spilt county lines.  I don't know if that's even possibly and if it is it won't be compact. So I think a compact central Iowa district might now be off the table or it would have been drawn in first place.
It's ridiculous
That county lines can't be split to meet population requirements when necessary.  
[ Parent ]
but it's not necessary

[ Parent ]
it must be possible
but probably there aren't too many options. The Legislative Services Agency knows there's a decent chance the first map will be rejected (happened in 1981 and 2001) and knows they must have smaller population variance in the second plan.
[ Parent ]
Are the three maps stand alone or
can legislators reject one but okay the other two?
[ Parent ]
Nope
It's take it or leave it as a package
[ Parent ]
Thanks and
I am clueless on the senate and house maps.  So I have  no idea what local reactions on those are.  I don't think any of the congressman are happy with this map but there are pluses and minuses for all them.  Boswell got the worse partisan change but no Latham.  As noted Latham & Boswell moved in 2001.  I think Leach moved in 2001 as well?  Can't recall.

I would take this map out of fear of getting worse

[ Parent ]
yes, Leach moved
His district had always included the Quad Cities area (Scott County) before 2001. He was stuck on unfamiliar, much more Dem-leaning turf.
[ Parent ]
Mixed bag
I think all 4 districts are winnable for either party but 1 & 2 definitely favor the Dems and 4 the GOP while 3 is more a tossup.  Leach was thrown in with Nussle but moved to the open 2nd and won although losing his Scott Co base is a major factor in his 2006 loss. Boswell was drawn into to deep red 5th and moved to the 3rd Des Moines based district reconfigured and left open by Ganske-R. Latham actually didn't move do to redistricting, his home in Alexander was in the newly drawn 4th but he later moved to Ames also in the 4th to be closer to grandiose or something like that I recall.  I could totally see him moving to Ankeny in Polk or Waukee in Dallas and challenging Boswell. Loebsack obviously moves into the 2nd.  The big fear is the legislators have no real say about what they dislike about the General Assembly or Congressional and the next lines could be worse in their minds so it's a gamble to reject.
[ Parent ]
Latham
Meant Latham moved to Ames to be closer to the grandchildren or something like that (iPhone spell check made it grandiose)
[ Parent ]
the cliche around here
is that the state legislators will vote based on what the map does to their own districts, not the Congressional districts. There are some interesting potential matchups between incumbent House Republicans. What I don't know is how easy it would be for some of those people to move to a nearby district lacking an incumbent.
[ Parent ]
Exactly
The problem is this is like a game of three dimensional chess.  You will have a few incumbent on incumbent primaries and general elections but many of these folks will move to a new district if possible or retire or try for a senate seat if in the house or take a step down to the house if in the senate. We also don't know how many senate seats will have elections. Normally 25 but if there end up being two members in the same district in any of the other 25 that were up in 2010 then a special election for the remaining two years is called.  
[ Parent ]
Thanks for the Iowa insights Hawkeye & DesM.
If you guys recall my early comments on Iowa's current map.  I think I called it a D gerrymander and then modified to say the lines favored the D's. I wonder if you recall why I thought it was bad for the GOP 2001-2010.

Its the reason I looked for only way thing when this map came out and that was the Western border of Iowa.  If King's district included all of the western border the map would be put the GOP at a disadvantage.  This map splits the western border at Council bluffs (I don't try to spell Pott....... county) and also puts Storey county in Kings seat. The only way this map could be better for the GOP is if Grundy and Butler was in CD1 or CD2.

I don't think the GOP can do better then this map.  


[ Parent ]
Actually
I think there are lots of options. David Wasserman challenged people to see how low they could get the variance using the DMR tool - someone got it down to just 2!
[ Parent ]
Yeah
I remember that too. I think they were pretty sprawling and crazy looking though.  
[ Parent ]
Which is why that rule is so stupid
It ends up forcing more splitting of Communities of Interest by limiting greatly what can be drawn. I had a map that created a central Des Moines and it's immediate suburbs district, a Western Iowa district, and two Eastern Iowa districts with only partially splitting two counties in the whole state, and those being two very small, rural counties split down the middle at that.
[ Parent ]
I don't disagree
But those are the rules in Iowa and have been for 30+ years.
[ Parent ]
they can't be too crazy-looking
There is something in the code about districts being "convenient contiguous territory," so no octopus arms or things like that.
[ Parent ]
What constitutes crazy?
I would argue that Latham's current tornado shaped district that has both Allamakee and Warren in it and the old coat hanger shaped Lighfoot/Boswell district were pretty crazy from a compactness or community of interest perspective and they passed muster.
[ Parent ]
How stupid
I get that they wanted to go for a four corners map, which makes sense to me for independence and for a rectangle shaped state.  But the fact that they strictly follow county lines makes the map look dumb and it needlessly throws incumbents together.  It'd be one thing if screwing over incumbents was meant for a grander government purpose like making the maps more representative of the populace, but they do it because they are dumb asses who make themselves strictly follow county lines.  

I mean, who even drew the county lines of IA?  Were any of them female?  Why should we give them any say on what our congressional districts look like?  Aren't they all long dead by now?  (Here's the grand conspiracy to prevent IA from ever electing a woman to Congress.)

Yup, Iowa is officially my least favorite state for redistricting.  They have all these rules so that they can look above the redistricting fray and they still come out with something that looks like gerrymandered crap drawn by sadists.

hate to break the news to you
This map is probably better for Christie Vilsack than for anyone else. So say what you want about the Legislative Services Agency, but they clearly weren't trying to stop a woman from getting elected to Congress.

If it were up to me I'd reduce the number of Iowa counties and make other changes too.

[ Parent ]
Don't know bout that...
Although I don't think anything about the original layout of the counties or the current redistricting rules adopted in the 70s is inherently anti-female, I don't think this map is necessarily good for Chistie Vilsack. More likely then not three of the four districts will have an incumbent Dem running in them and the fourth is the most Republican and she has no base there.  If Loebsack doesnt move and run in district 2 then yeah Christie moves back to Mt Pleasant and is the favorite.  But...mark my word if this is the map Loebsack runs there and the DCCC and state party support him. Christie could run for the 3rd but two or three potential problems exist. One Boswell seems intent on running and this more conservative district would be even harder for her to win in a primary and general if she won the primary. Also Latham may move and run here meaning she has to take on two incumbents.
[ Parent ]
I love this map
Everyone here seems to hate it, which makes me sad, but people, this is a 2-0-2 map! That deathmatches Rep. Steve King and Rep. Backbencher McGee! And leaves an open seat for Tenth Lady Christie Vilsack! And doesn't redistrict anyone in with Rep. Boswell!

What's not to love, exactly? Even rdelbov likes it!

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

lady V needs to get going
as Boswell is running hard and had Pelosi in town this month.

There are a lot of representatives & state senators tossed into the same seats.  That's the only uncertainty but I think this bill might pass

[ Parent ]
Do you know if they have to accept them as a package deal?
If not, I can maybe see them saying, "Okay, fine, we'll take the federal map, but we want a do-over on the other two."

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native
[ Parent ]
It is a package
It's take it or leave it package of maps
[ Parent ]
Ah, okay
Probably not gonna fly then.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native
[ Parent ]
package deal
They can't accept this map of CDs without accepting the state House and Senate maps as well.
[ Parent ]
she would run in IA-02
She's from Mount Pleasant, and that district is open. Sure, Loebsack will probably move to Iowa City, but if this map holds Vilsack has a much better chance of going to Congress from IA-02.

She would have no chance of carrying an IA-03 that looks like this.

[ Parent ]
oops
my bad.  I guess conventional wisdom is that Loesback moves back to district?  I thought she would a Boswell replacement.  

Has Iowa ever had a female congressman?  Thinking and no one comes to mind.  

My sense has been that Iowa democrats are kinda close knit group.  A primary like this would be a big deal.  

[ Parent ]
No
I believe Iowa and Mississippi are the only states never to have a female governor, senator, or congressperson
[ Parent ]
correct
which would probably help her in a Dem primary. The way IA-02 is now drawn, whoever wins the primary would be strongly favored to win the general.
[ Parent ]
Vermont and Delaware have also never sent a woman to Congress
though both have had female Governors.

And North Dakota has never elected a woman to Congress, though they have sent one: Jocelyn Burdick was appointed after her husband died.

[ Parent ]
Tenth Lady
Hysterical. And only on SSP!

I wonder what Bill Clinton thinks about being Fifth Gentleman?

20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08

[ Parent ]
State Senate
Just a cursory look at the Iowa Senate (I haven't crunched and political numbers but just looking at who ended up in what district and what that likelymeans-I am former Iowa resident of 3 counties 1977-2004).
Note, all even numbered districts are up for a 4 term next year.  Any odd numbered districts that end up with more then one incumbent or end up open will have an election for a 2 year term (in the incumbent on incumbent districts if one incumbent withdraws and the other is only in the first two years of the term then that member automatically gets the district until 2014). GOP needs two more seats for control.
These members would be safe til 2014:
3-Andersen R
5-Beall D
7-Bertrand R
11-Houser R
13-Sorenson R
15-Black D
17-Hatch D
19-Whitver R
23-Quirmbach D
27-Ragan D
31-Dotzler D
33-Hogg D
35-Horn D
37-Dvorsky D
39-Greiner R
41-Chelgren R
43-Bolkcom D
45-Seng D
47-Smith R
49-Open would be a special election unless Bowman D moves into it. He lives slightly north is in midterm and is paired against a fellow Dem now

These districts are definitely up and my rating:
2 Feenstra R Safe
4 open R leaning
6 Kettering R Safe
8 Gronstal D competitive
10 open R favored
12 Ernst R safe
14 McKinley R favored
16 Dearden D Safe
18 open D Safe
20 Zaun R Safe
22 open R favored
24 Behn R favored
26 Bartz R and Wilhelm D competitive
28 open competitive (Schoenjahn D could run here)
30 Danielson D competitive
32 Schoenjahn D competitive (Dix R could run here and be favored)
34 Dandekar D competitive
36 Sodders D leaning
38 Kapucian R favored
40 Reilly D competitve
42 Fraise D favored
44 Courtney D leaning
46 Hammerlinck R and Hahn R leaning
48 open competitive
50 Jochum D Safe

May have election if more then one incumbent contests district:
1 Kibbie D and Johnson R (R favored, if Kibbie D retires no election)
9 Boettger R and Seymour R (R safe Boettger keeps til 2014 if Seymour retires
21 McCoy D and Ward R (R leaning district but McCoy gets it til 2014 if Ward doesn't run)
25 Dix R and Bacon R (R favored, if Dix runs in district 32 then Bacon keeps seat til 2014)
29 Hancock D and Bowman D (D leaning if Hancock D steps down
Bowman keeps til 2014 or Bowman could move into the 49th)


hey hawkeye77
I would encourage you to post these preliminary assessments as a user diary at Bleeding Heartland.

I haven't crunched numbers, but I spent a while last night looking at the Senate districts.

Annoying that the three weakest newly-elected GOP senators remain in odd-numbered districts, so won't be up in a presidential year: Sorenson, Bertrand, and Chelgren.

I believe Kibbie will retire.

I worry about the Bartz/Wilhelm matchup because Decorah is not in the district.

Don't know what will happen to Mike Gronstal, but no matter which map gets adopted, his district is going to look pretty much the same. Council Bluffs' population is very close to the ideal population for an Iowa Senate district.

I would think Dandekar's district is R leaning, but she has always gotten a decent GOP crossover vote.

Glad to hear you see Sodders' district as D leaning, because that's one I think Republicans will work hard for.

Reilly will have the fight of his political life. Agree with you that it's a competitive district--probably better for him than if he had to run in the one he's in now.

I would think Bowman moving into the 49th is more likely than Hancock retiring, but that is just my guess.

Ward has had some health issues in the past couple of years, but I don't know if they are serious enough to prompt her to retire.

Bacon will be thrown to the wolves for Dix, who is the darling of Iowans for Tax Relief and possibly a future Senate Republican leader.  

[ Parent ]
Pretty great map
if you like swing state stuff.

Latham should run against King, because he gets a district he can hold easily for a decade.  Ay other district, and he has a tough race in 2012, and 2016, at minimum if he wins.

If Latham doesn't run against King, Vilsack should move to that district, as she would be universally supported if she did, and would be able to face extremist King in a district where many people currently aren't familar with him.

One Likely D, one lean D, one micro-lean D, one lean R.  Very sensible and fair map.  Obviously a D gerrymander would be better, but the best Dem hope, Latham and King in the same district, comes true.

No doubt it will be rejected because these days partisanship is so polarized, if one side accepts the other will reject it for only that reason, hoping what is behind door #2 is better.

If redistricting went like this around the country, we'd have a better country.

It would be great
to see King bumped off.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
King won't be bumped
because Latham will move to IA-03. I think this map gives Republicans a great chance at 2-2.
[ Parent ]
Agreed
Besides Polk and maybe Warren all other counties in this new third are Republican. Polk isn't even strongly Dem anymore with tons of GOP voters in Ankeny, Urbandale, Clive, WDSM. Fast growing Dallas which Latham represents in Republican. I think people seriously overestimate Boswell's rural appeal too.  Latham seed corn is well known and his ag credentials are well known.  Most these counties were comfortable voting for Steve King the past tens years I doubt in a Boswell/Latham fight they will go with the Dem.  Boswell would have to clean house in Polk to have a chance and he isn't exactly a dynamo or beloved by progressives.
[ Parent ]
Not sure about that
I think the NRCC is going to be extremely wary of letting Rep. Steve King keep the Republican nomination in a much swingier district than his current blood-red perch. I don't know that they'll want Rep. Latham to relocate.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native
[ Parent ]
Iowa Redistricting: New Maps Are Out | 106 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