Redistricting 2010: Who Controls What

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

A few notes:

  • Arizona: Uses a bipartisan commission.

  • California: Will be done by commission following passage of Prop 20.

  • Florida: Amendment 6 mandates compactness and community of interest standards.

  • Georgia: Underwent mid-decade redistricting under GOP control.

  • Iowa: Uses a nonpartisan commission, but the legislature has veto power.

  • New Jersey: Uses a bipartisan commission with a 11th wild card member.

  • New York: Control of the State Senate remains uncertain, with three seats still in the balance.

  • North Carolina: Governor Bev Perdue does not have veto power, meaning the GOP controls the entire process.

  • Oregon: Control of the State Senate remains uncertain, with two seats still in the balance.

  • Texas: Underwent mid-decade redistricting under GOP control.

  • Washington: Uses a bipartisan commission. Control of the State Senate remains uncertain, with three seats still in the balance.

Notably, we’re not that screwed. Control of the FLOHPA (+MI) set of swing states remains under the GOP trifecta, just as it was in 2000.

72 thoughts on “Redistricting 2010: Who Controls What”

  1. but aside from a few districts that were lost that would be very hard to get back (Lincoln Davis’ old district, Gene Taylor’s old district), a lot of the ones we lost were essentially swing areas. And while it’s always possible to take make up a new map so that the new districts are slightly more unfriendly, none of the areas states where we lost a lot of seats–Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, and Virginia–are so naturally turned off by Democrats that it takes something completely unusual for one to get elected there in the first place.

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

    Is that mostly right?

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

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

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

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

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

  3. It makes no sense to say that California’s redistricting is in the hands of Democrats when it is actually in the hands of an independent commission.

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

  4. were in Southern districts. And honestly, if we had kept them, could you honestly see a better map? Oklahoma and Tennessee (especially the rural areas) have slipped away from the Democrats quickly.

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

  5. I’m fairly sure the legislature had GOP supermajorities now.  So they could override a veto of a redistricting plan.  Of course New Hampshire’s two districts have been pretty much unchanged since the 19th century, so I doubt they’d do much there, but they could make themselves a more favorable map on the State level.

  6. Maine also has a commission, but legislative approval is needed (similar to Iowa):

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


  7. CA- independent commission could really jumble things up…I doubt the partisan makeup of the delegation changes much but some R and D incumbents could be drawn into same district or hostile territory.

    WA- probably Reichert gets a friendlier district with the more Dem portions going to a new Dem leaning suburban seat. +1 Dem

    NV- Hecks district becomes more REP and DEM areas carved to make new left leaning suburban district for a 2-2 delegation split. +1 Dem

    TX – GOP kinda restricted in that there are no more vulnerable Dems to go after and at least one new minority district needs added.  Look for REPs to shore up GOP incumbents and try and take 3 of the 4 new seats.  The best they can hope for is +2 GOP and the have a very endangered incumbent in the Ortiz seat.

    IA- plan could be vetoed by legislature.  Look for GOP to vote against any plan that is not a 2-2 split of the delegation.  I think Latham gets drawn in with Boswell and Boswell retires.  Latham lives in Ames directly north of Des Moines. -1 Dem potentially

    IL- I think Schilling will be odd man out and Walsh and Dold may end up with more Dems in their district.  -1 GOP at least

    IN- GOP go after Donnelly. -1 Dem

    OH- be hard for GOP to cut two DEM seats they were just too successful in picking up everything they could.  I would suspect they go after Sutton and split her district among surrounding Dems.  The other seat to go will almost have to be a GOP seat.  1 Dem 1 GOP

    MI – shore up GOP incumbents and get rid of Dingell or Peters. If they get overly bullish they may try and give Peters more REPs in district and get rid of Dingells seat for a plus one.  -1 Dem for sure

    NC – GOP will shore up Ellmers and go after McIntyre, Kissell and maybe Schuler.  Around +2 GOP

    SC – pack every Dem in Clyburns seat and try and add one more GOP seat.  +1 GOP if it works.

    FL not so sure of impact of amendment 6.  Is being challenged in court and may not stand.  Hard to draw compact districts that are also VRA districts for Brown and Hastings.  GOP would like to add both new districts to their side but that would be tough.  They may be better shoring up incumbents and adding one new to each side.

    PA- Critz prob gone.  Holden gets a Dem district shoring up GOP incumbents surrounding him. -1 DEM at least

    NY- each side prob loses an incumbent. Owens maybe for Dems and also an upstate GOPer. 1 REP 1DEM

    UT add another REP seat and try and defeat Matheson. +1 GOP and maybe -1 DEM

    LA- GOP is gonna have to lose a seat -1 GOP

    MO- be a fight over which seat goes Hartzler-R or Carnahan-D

    MN- Bachmann will be given a friendly district to continue in.  Cravaack will have tough time holding a NE iron range district.  Peterson district on the other hand goes GOP when he steps down and changes to lines of Walz district could hurt his chances.

    MA- one Dem goes -1 DEM

    NJ – not sure what happens

  8. If Steve Israel becomes head of the DCCC it will be real interesting to see what he pushes the NYS legislature to draw for him.

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

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

  9. We’re screwed in The South… But then again, we should probably get used to that.

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

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

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

  10. And of course Illinois.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

    That sucks.  

  11. The Democrats have hit the floor with the 19-6 GOP house delegation. Even under the best gerrymander I can’t see the Republicans holding that edge. It will be hard enough for them to prevent a democratic district from being formed in central florida and even harder for them to save the dem trending GOP held seats in Sfla. There also gonna take some hits in the state chambers but I imagine they still easily keep a majority of seats in both chambers gerrymandered. The St. pete/tampa area is also a small wildcard as Don Youngs seat is broken up oddly and could become more dem friendly.  

  12. Here is just something I want people to realize:

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

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

Comments are closed.