Meet the new bogeyman: redistricting

[ProSense]

Devastation: GOP Picks Up 680 State Leg. Seats

By Jeremy P. Jacobs

While the Republican gains in the House and Senate are grabbing the most headlines, the most significant results on Tuesday came in state legislatures where Republicans wiped the floor with Democrats.

Republicans picked up 680 seats in state legislatures, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures -- the most in the modern era. To put that number in perspective: In the 1994 GOP wave, Republicans picked up 472 seats. The previous record was in the post-Watergate election of 1974, when Democrats picked up 628 seats.

The GOP gained majorities in at least 14 state house chambers. They now have unified control -- meaning both chambers -- of 26 state legislatures.

That control is a particularly bad sign for Democrats as they go into the redistricting process. If the GOP is effective in gerrymandering districts in many of these states, it could eventually lead to the GOP actually expanding its majority in 2012.

Republicans now hold the redistricting "trifecta" -- both chambers of the state legislature and the governorship -- in 15 states. They also control the Nebraska governorship and the unicameral legislature, taking the number up to 16. And in North Carolina -- probably the state most gerrymandered to benefit Democrats -- Republicans hold both chambers of the state legislature and the Democratic governor does not have veto power over redistricting proposals.

<...>

The news was not entirely bad for Democrats. They point to their holding on to the redistricting "trifecta" in eight states. (That number jumps to nine if Democrats hold onto the Colorado state House and 10 if you include Rhode Island, which just elected independent Lincoln Chafee as governor). That's more states than the Democrats controlled during the last redistricting battle in 2001.

The GOP holds the redistricting trifecta in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Utah, Texas, Tennessee, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma and Ohio - plus, as noted earlier, Nebraska and North Carolina.

link

No one knows the impact redistricting will have. The variables are:

• Republicans only have the upper hand in 15 states.
  
  
• Democrats have the upper hand in at least eight states (possibly 10)
  
  
• Will the redistricting succeed?
  
  
• Voters Pass Redistricting Reforms in California, Florida and Minnesota

[Peacetrain]

1. So many of us tried to get that message out

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x437727

[ProSense]

4. Why should anyone pay attention to this?

It's better to spend time trying to prove that the President is really a Republican.

[MrsCorleone]

41. No kidding.

What really gets to me is that they're still buying this BS.

[ampad]

8. Too busy trying to teach elected dems a lesson

Throwing temper tantrums and such. Dems who decided not to vote or voted for a republican may have aided in some elected dems losing a job. At the end of the day who gives a damn if they lose a job. Most of them are comfortably wealthy and trust they will have no problem finding new jobs. Makes no damn sense cause in the long run to punish a few many decent will suffer. I find that type of mindset disturbing.

[denimgirly]

2. Wow, seems Dems will need Crazy High #s like 2008 just to have a Bare Minimum Chance in '12

[ProSense]

3. Well

in a Presidential election, there is always crazy high numbers compared to a mid-term.

[flamingdem]

5. add this to Citizens United and the Dems need to go full throttle soon nt

[kick-ass-bob]

6. I know the census data isn't out yet

but are there estimates of which states will gain/lose House seats?

Edit: maybe a bunch of us should change parties to (R) to confuse them when redistricting /crazytalk off ;)

[blue_onyx]

39. Here...

"Eight states are expected to gain House seats, if 2009 Census Bureau estimates hold: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Washington. After last week's elections, Republicans hold the edge in those states, 44 to 24.

Nine states are expected to lose seats: Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Democrats have the edge in those states, 45 to 28."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2010-11-09-redistricting09_ST_N.htm?csp=34news&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed28News+-+On+Politics%29

[FBaggins]

7. Surely "bogeyman" isn't meant to imply that it's really not a big deal?

Republicans only have the upper hand in 15 states. Democrats have the upper hand in at least eight states (possibly 10)


That's not quite true... and really misses the point. Because not all states are equal in size or (more importantly) redistricting potential. We won't exactly make any gains out of redistricting control in MA, now will we? The true catastrophes come when one party has drawn the lines for decades and the other takes total control. We don't have any of those this year.

The real comparison is that of the 350 or so seats that are subject to partisan redistricting, Republicans will have total control of close to 200 of them while we will control as few as 30. There's no spinning that.

Will the redistricting succeed?

The administration may be able to blunt the worst of it in a couple cases, but in general there's little we can do to stop it.

Voters Pass Redistricting Reforms in California, Florida and Minnesota

The redistricting reform in CA is bad news for us. That is... apart from it being good public policy. We now control all of the levers that would have governed redistricting. CA was also a potential gold silver mine. You may remember that it was a big disappointment in 2001 as a deal was cut to protect incumbents of both parties... so we didn't take advantage of potential gains. This year CA could have been the closest we came to balancing some of the TX damage.

FL is still a question mark... but I can't imagine that the damage there would be too great. Republicans already have pretty favorable lines (how else do you get 2:1 majorities in the state legislature in a roughly 50:50 state?)

The other big question mark it NY. Unless three recounts break our way (and at least one looks bad), republicans will have gained at least a tie in the NY Senate. That removes the second largest number of seats left in the game.

[ProSense]

9. No, it's a big deal. Always is,

but it is not the end of the world.

You cited a bunch of statistics, that's the bogeyman.

It's as if just because there is a potential for redistricting, Dems have definitely lost the majorities for the next decade. Why not give up if it's hopeless?

"The real comparison is that of the 350 or so seats that are subject to partisan redistricting, Republicans will have total control of close to 200 of them while we will control as few as 30. There's no spinning that."

What do you propose? Are you going to throw up this statistic for the next decade?

There are variables. The potential for redistricting alone is not the end of the world. They have to succeed at passing these laws, and there will be objection.

There was redistricting in the 2002-2003, and Democrats still won a majority in 2006.

[FBaggins]

10. Reality is a bogeyman?

Do you know what the word means? It's a fake monster used to scare children into doing what you want.

This isn't a fake monster... it's the real thing. No, it's not an end-of-the-world monster, but it's a really big deal. The difference is that I'm describing what has really happened and you're acting as if it really isn't that substantial.

It is. IMO It's bigger than the loss in the House. Republicans can stop the agenda, but they don't have the power to advance their own onthe national stage. In MANY of these states that isn't the case.

There was redistricting in the 2002-2003, and Democrats still won a majority in 2006.

It was mostly 2001, and we controlled more of redistricting than they did.

It's as if just because there is a potential for redistricting

The "potential"? You know that redistricting isn't an option, right? Or are you saying that if you put five republicans in the room and they draw the lines without any democratic input... they might just forget to draw favorable lines?

Dems have definitely lost the majorities for the next decade

In the House? Certainly not. But in many of these states they have.

They have to succeed at passing these laws, and there will be objection.

Oh? Thank goodness someone will "object"! Now... just let me get out my pocket rule guide and see what force that objection has.... Hmmm... I can't seem to find one. Are you thinking we're going to appeal to their better nature?

No offense intended Pro... but you and a few others spent much of the last year with your heads in the sand pretending that things weren't really that bad... but they were. Don't you think it's a good idea to look around and assess the damage before putting it back in the sand? 2012 Can be a complete reversal of our fortunes... but not if we're fooling ourselves about the difficulties. Right not it LOOKS like we need to win 25 seats to take back the House. The reality is that a dozen or more of the seats we lost will be redrawn into safe districts and a dozen more of our existing districts will evaporate into new republican districts.

We need a plan that wins the effect of about the same 39 seats that republicans needed this time. That means that we need the "wave" to be followed by a wave of our own... not just a good year.

[ProSense]

11. No, reality is not a bogeyman.

Reality is reality. Dems lost big in 2002 at the state and local levels. In 2004:

<...>

Democrats had great success in state legislative races this year, even as they performed poorly in the presidential race and campaigns for Congress. Many Democratic gains came in the heart of Republican territory.

<...>

Overall, Democrats took power in seven legislatures and earned a tie in the Iowa Senate. Republicans won control in four chambers and added legislators in southern states that have been shifting to the party for 20 years.

Nationwide, Democrats added more than 60 legislative seats, reversing the 2002 results that gave Republicans more state legislators than Democrats for the first time in a half century.

Democratic state legislators now outnumber Republicans by two: 3,658 to 3,656. A pair of undecided races could leave it tied.

link

[FBaggins]

13. Once again... Redistricting was in 2001

And we had more control over it than they did.

The only place where the 2002 races had a redistricting impact was TX where DeLay re-redistricted (arguably fraudulently).

[ProSense]

16. "And we had more control over it than they did."

Yet Republicans made historic gains in 2002.

From the article about the 2004 elections: "Many Democratic gains came in the heart of Republican territory."

Statistics show the potential for redistrticing, it doesn't indicate how people will vote.

[FBaggins]

17. You're acting as if "redistricting" is a constant, unchanging factor.

It's like the people who say "well... the party in power almost always loses seats in a midterm" - as if 20 seats and 65 seats are really the same thing. Hey... a loss is a loss... what's the difference?

You're also acting as if I'm saying that redistricting is the only factor in an election (when I've clearly said otherwise)

You can have total redistricting control over a state and get little to no benefit because you also had control ten years ago and the lines are already favorable. You can control MORE seats but make FEWER gains if the ones they control are in the right places.

We drew more lines than they did in the last redistricting, but they were very fortunate to control a few areas for the first time in a long while. We also had a MUCH smaller advantage.

This time is entirely different. They've gained an overwhelming redistricting advantage AND many of the states they've gained were previously under our control.

[ProSense]

19. No, you're

acting as if redistricting is the end. It's a potential that could materialize, but doesn't guarantee anything.

[FBaggins]

22. Who said it was the end?

My target was retaking the House in two years - and I outlined what that would take. How could that be spin as "acting as it it's the end"??? I'm just analyzing exactly what it will take.

It's a potential that could materialize

So your head IS back in the sand, eh? No point in discussing it until it actually happens, eh?

For the record... the tea party crowd got stated on their 2010 plans like 15seconds after they lost. When do we wake up?

[ProSense]

25. "My target was retaking the House in two years...

...and I outlined what that would take."

And my point is that there is a potential that Democrats can in fact do that.


"So your head IS back in the sand, eh?"

What's your point: to prove that point is wrong?

[FBaggins]

38. My "point" (as always) is to bring the conversation back to reality.

It's really pretty simple. Democrats will control redistricting in only seven states:

Arkansas
Connecticut
Illinois
Maryland
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
West Virginia

There isn't much that can be done in Arkansas (only four districts). We might be able to draw a second reasonably-safe seat there, but it would be at the expense of making two of the seats safe for republicans. +1

Connecticut? Already discussed. We control redistricting, but the result is still one fewer Democrat. -1

Illinois - I mentioned on your IL thread. This is our best shot at hitting back. We should be able to get rid of one Republican and switch at least one more seat back to D. Two or even three are possible if the CBC plays along. +2 or +3

Maryland - Not much room to work here since Republicans only hold two seats. The 6th can't be touched, but the 1st could be redeemed by nibbling a bit more off of Sarbanes' district. +1

Massachusetts and Rhode Island - Pretty much the same story as CT. No gains are possible and either of them may lose a seat. -1

West Virginia - We should be able take back the 1st district with a decent candidate and by making Capito's district that much safer. +1


So our best-case scenario from the states we control in redistricting is a net pickup of about three seats?

Texas will offset that by itself.

[suston96]

12. More salt in this wound.....Constitutional Amendments...

Yes, the more state legislatures they have the easier it would be to ratify a (US) constitutional amendment.

I am thinking about a balanced budget amendment - that would kill future spendthrift administrations and congresses.

[Onlooker]

14. Florida voters passed a law making redistricting fairer

Although at least vulnerable Democrat is protesting, I think objectively speaking this law is a progressive move forward since the current system tends to penalize minorities.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/11/03/1906956/us-reps-challenge-flas-redistricting.html

ORLANDO, Fla. -- Two members of Congress on Wednesday challenged a new amendment to the Florida Constitution that sets rules for drawing congressional districts in Florida, just hours after it was approved by voters.

[Cosmocat]

15. The got all the BIG states ...

except Cali ...

That the Ds control a distant raw number of states is all fine and well, but the Rs have a MASSIVE edge in total districts that will be set ...

Just horrifically bad timing for this to happen ...

I held out hope with the competitive governors races in Fl and Ohio, that would be a SMALL firewall here (being in Pa, I know Onorato was drawing dead0, but of course we lost our D ohio governor and Sink didn't get over the hump in Fl ... THANK THE STARS Witman could not buy Cali ...


The Rs are facing diminishing returns based on demographics over time, but they get to continue to firewall it after their edge in 2000 now, with an even bigger margin this time ...

[ProSense]

18. They didn't get

California, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland: Democratic Governors and state legislatures.

New York has a Democratic Governor and the legislature is pending. Democrats control the House (2 to 1) and Republicans have a one seat advantage in the Senate.

Washington has a Democratic Governor, state legistlature control pending, Democrats leading.


Republicans have Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, Arizona, Indiana, Wisconsin and Tennessee


North Carolina is split, Democratic Governor, Republican legislature.

Minnesota is split, Democratic Governor, Republican legislature

Colorado is split, Democratic Governor and Senate Republicans control only the CO House (by one seat).

Missouri is split, Democratic Governor, Republican legislature.

New Jersey is split, Republican Governor, Democratic legislature.

Virginia is split, Democrats control only the VA Senate.

source


Edited to correct Missouri.

[FBaggins]

21. You expect many redistricting gains in CT and MA, do you?

I've got news for you. No matter who controls redistricting, one Democrat in MA is going to lose his seat.

North Carolina is split, Democratic Governor, Republican legislature.

And the governor plays no role in redistricting in NC.

Virginia is split, Democrats control only the VA Senate.

Virginia is unlikely to be able to redistrict before the 2011 election (they couldn't last time either). So we don't know yet what the balance will be. My hope is that republicans will make enough unpopular moves in DC that the "wave" is over by next Fall.

New York has a Democratic Governor and the legislature is pending. Democrats control the House (2 to 1) and Republicans have a one seat advantage in the Senate.

This is out best shot at cutting some losses. But we have to win all three of the currently uncalled races.

Missouri is split, Republican Governor, Democratic legislature.

The legislature draws the maps and the gov has only veto power. The best outcome in such situations is usually a plan that protect the current incumbents. Unfortunately... there are far more repbulican incumbents in the legislature than there were a week ago. That's good news for Russ Carnahan in the 3rd (who just narrowly held his district)... it will probably get a bit safer. But it also means that the new R in the 4th will also get a safer seat (moving more democrats into the 5th).

The worst case scenario? The gov's only role is the potential veto... and republicans have almost veto-proof majorities. I think that two D votes in the House is all it would take.

[ProSense]

24. What the hell are you talking about?

The list has nothing to do with redistricting expectations.

"I've got news for you. No matter who controls redistricting, one Democrat in MA is going to lose his seat."

Cool, you can see into the future.

"And the governor plays no role in redistricting in NC."

"The legislature draws the maps and the gov has only veto power. "

If they can veto, isn't that a role?

[FBaggins]

27. "Cool, you can see into the future"

Feel free to look into your own crystal ball and tell me what you see. We hold every House seat in the state. If there's one fewer seat in 2012... can we keep the same number we have now? :)

If they can veto, isn't that a role?

That's two different states. In NC the gov plays no role at all. In Missouri he doesn't participate in DRAWING the lines (in some states, the gov has a representative on the team that draws the lines), but he CAN veto the final plan.

The list has nothing to do with redistricting expectations.

Did I stumble onto the wrong thread by mistake? :-)

[ProSense]

29. Will the seat go to a Republican?

No? I did not know that NC's governor couldn't veto.

"In Missouri he doesn't participate in DRAWING the lines (in some states, the gov has a representative on the team that draws the lines), but he CAN veto the final plan."

The fact is that there are variables, and no one knows how redistricting will play out in any state.

[dsc]

30. what the poster said was that a MA Democrat will lose a seat

which is true. My guess is that it likely will go to a GOP person since most redistricting in states which gained seats is controlled by the GOP. But I don't know for sure. As to the rest of what I said, I stand by it. NC will be a disaster and the GOP has complete control of it. We lost at most one seat on election day (Ethridge is down by around a thousand votes). If he loses our current delegation is 7 D 6 R. Dems are Shuler, Miller, Price, McIntyre, Watt, Butterfield, and Kissel. Reps are Jones, Foxx, Ellmers, Coble, Myrick, and McHenry. They will want to shore up Ellmers' district probably using some of Jones' voters to do so. They will make Shuler's district more GOP and likely do the same to McIntyre's. The can easily flip both of those as well as Kissel's if they choose to do so. That changes 7D 6R into 4D and 9R with a relatively unambissious mapping. An ambissious one would go after one of Miller and Price.

[FBaggins]

32. Probably.

but it will be down in TX.

I did not know that NC's governor couldn't veto.

No problem. Hey... I've lived here for seven years and I didn't know until a few months ago when I was first told that our Senate majority was in danger and that yes it was a BIG deal.

The fact is that there are variables, and no one knows how redistricting will play out in any state.

Let's put it this way. A week ago we had something like a 2% chance of picking up seats in the House. Would it have been reasonable to say "there are variables and nobody knows how it will play out"? Sure (in fact, many did), but that didn't change what was BY FAR the most likely outcome.

The real unknown in redistricting is whether (and where) republicans will shoot for incumbent protection or let it ride and attempt to pick up new seats. It will almost certainly be a bit of both. They picked up 4-5 seats in PA (along with total redistricting control)... and PA is going to lose a seat this cycle. They're going to be lucky if they can draw the lines to protect those new seats and maybe make us eat the lost seat. If they try to reach for a new pickup... it could cost them 3-4 of the new freshmen if we have even a decent year.

[dsc]

28. He is referring to the fact MA will lose a seat via redistricting

since we have all 10 seats that seat, of necessity, will be a Democratic one. It didn't take an ability to see into the future it took an ability to know what one was talking about. On edit, not only did the poster above you not say that NC governor can veto maps, it was Missouri's that the poster said could, she can't veto maps.

http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/8561684/

The state constitution and other law give the Legislature the power to draw the boundaries for all 170 General Assembly seats and the 13 U.S. House districts. The governor — Democrat Gov. Beverly Perdue — can't veto the maps, giving legislative leaders complete power to draw the maps. Legal precedent gives lawmakers the right to draw maps to help protect incumbents and for political benefit.

[Cosmocat]

36. Look ...

I am as sensitive to the MSM bad news for Ds crape and Ds being droopy dog defeatists as much as anyone ...

But, there is no way to soft sell that the good guys lost the battle this time in a BIG way in terms of redistricting ...

I mean, you might be able to cherry pick some good news here or there, but for every bit of good news we have to hand our hats on, there is half a dozen bad things about redistricting that came with the zombie invasion on Tuesday ...

[BzaDem]

20. However, I read somewhere that the number of seats in states Republicans completely control

redistricting in is something like three times what Democrats control redistricting in, even after taking into account the states that passed redistricting reform commissions such as CA and FL.

I think it was something like 180 for Republicans vs. 60 for Democrats.

[FBaggins]

23. It got worse after that number.

It looks like we lost control of the NY redistricting (accounting for roughly half of those 60) and republicans picked up another handful elsewhere.

I should point out that NY isn't a lost cause yet. There are three senate races still too close to call. We would retain redistricting power if we won all three of those close races.

It should also be pointed out that losing TOTAL control doesn't mean that we won't have ANY control. We still have a superior position and the republicans have four new seats (possibly five) that they won by VERY narrow margins. New york is going to lose two House seats in redistricting. They could still both by republicans... but it could have been much better.

[11 Bravo]

26. Spot on! Redistricting has kind of stayed under the radar, but ...

the fact that these bastards may be able to complete the same kind of institutionalized Gerrymandering that DeLay accomplished in Texas, only on a national scale, scares the ever-loving shit out of me!

[ProSense]

31. Texas:

For State’s G.O.P., Now Flush, Risks on the Horizon

By Ross Ramsey

It’s been more than 25 years since either party had a supermajority in the Texas House, but the Republicans are on the lip of it.

<...>

The most optimistic forecasters hoped that this year, when Mr. Obama’s stratospheric disapproval rating in Texas sent Republicans flocking to the polls, the G.O.P. would get back to that 2002 high-water mark. They blew right past it, taking 22 seats held by Democrats and getting within spitting distance of one more. Even if a recount in that race goes the incumbent Democrat’s way, the new breakdown will be 99 Republicans and 51 Democrats — one vote short of two-thirds. The last time either party had such an overwhelming advantage was 1984, when Democrats had 111 members.

Tuesday’s results will color the issues expected to dominate the session: budget and redistricting. Conversations about new taxes, fees and other revenue streams that might help balance the budget could be stifled. The Republicans are positioned to draw redder political maps, based on something closer to their current numbers than to the near-even split in the lower chamber two years ago. And it will be easier for proponents of nativist immigration legislation to win passage of bills that have been blocked in previous years.

The election moved the pendulum to the right, shifting the ground under Speaker Joe Straus, Republican of San Antonio, and possibly removing a moderate check on the Senate. In 2009, the House locked over voter ID legislation that had been passed by the Senate. The change in the House probably makes that sort of tempering effect impossible this time.

That’s where the risk lies for the Republicans. Budget cuts are sometimes more popular in theory than in practice, and the state’s shortfall is too big to manage with trimming — it will require hacking and slashing to make things balance. Drawing maps for a Republican majority won’t be difficult, but it will be difficult to assure all 99 incumbents that their spots are safe. And (this is one the Democrats nurture, but have never been able to back up with actual results) the immigration and related issues could motivate Hispanics in Texas, who don’t vote in proportion to their numbers in the adult population.

more

[ladywnch]

33. ok, how many of those states did they already 'own'.... I know

they redistricted TX to their benefit after the last census......PA and OH are a bit of a concern...WI and MN too but the others have long been rethug strongholds so there's no real loss there.

[dsc]

34. NC is also a pretty big problem

Dems have owned redistricting here forever and we are currently at least 7-6 in Dems favor. We could be 8-5 if Ethridge wins the recount though I don't think he will. They can, with very little work gain two seats Kissel and McIntyre. The can also gain Shuler pretty easily though that would take a bit more work. If they decide to be real ambitious they can go after 4 seats but I don't think they will try to be that ambitious.

[FBaggins]

35. Some of those "strongholds" really weren't at the state level.

GA for instance has been a pretty reliable red state for presidential elections, but we had total redistricting control ten years ago. Neither house was a pickup for them this year (or the gov of course), but their control is "new" since the last time lines were drawn for federal elections (some of the state legislative districts were redrawn later on court order).

Indiana is new, as is Michigan,

You may think of Alabama and North Carolina as "long been rethug strongholds" - but this is actually the first time we haven't controlled them since the 1800s.

You're right about TX... they squeezed all the blood out of that turnip last time around (picking up six seats). All else being equal, you wouldn't expect much. Unfortunately, the state is expected to pick up as many as four new seats. So it's a bigger turnip.

[old mark]

37. This election gave the GOP near total control of Pennsylvania for at least 4 years...

they will certainly do their best - worst - to make it difficult for Democrats to make any gains in my state.
We have become a red state overnight, even though there are over 1 million more Democrats here.

mark

[Cosmocat]

40. Honestly ...

at the micro level the state already was red ... They have had a long standing bizarrely big majority in the senate, and it took the BO wave to get Ds up by one in the house ... It was going going to flip back this election either way ...

It was the biggest wave the Rs have had in a long time, and Toomey barely got past Sestak ... After three state level races where Ds won by REALLY big margins ... If 2012 turns out like any other reelection campaign for a sitting president after a major mid tern turnout for the out of office party, the state SHOULD go for BO, and you will see some pushback in state houses ...

Pa already is pretty much THE example of some of the most criminally gerrymandered districts in the country, having Corbett and both chambers pretty much just assures they keep what they already had ...