Author: Crisitunity

Municipoll for PoliticsPA (PDF) (2/21-23, likely voters, no trendlines):

Bob Casey Jr. (D-inc): 50

Rick Santorum (R): 38

Undecided: 12

Bob Casey Jr. (D-inc): 51

Charlie Dent (R): 32

Undecided: 17

Bob Casey Jr. (D-inc): 48

Jim Gerlach (R): 34

Undecided: 17

(MoE: ±3.8%)

Bob Casey Jr. is one of the Democrats’ lesser worries for 2012, according to one more poll, this one from IVR-based-pollster Municipoll on behalf of news site PoliticsPA. The numbers are quite similar to the Quinnipiac poll a few weeks ago, with Casey sporting a 46/30 favorable here, and leading potential opponents by margins ranging from 12 to 19. (Qpac had him at 44/24 and leading Generic Republican by 10, which is consistent with G.R. usually overperforming specific names by a few points.) Bear in mind that none of these three Republicans seem likely to run… in fact, after a flurry of speculation about potential GOPers in December, I haven’t heard anything in many weeks about who might step up.

If for some reason Rick Santorum gave up his long-shot presidential bid, he’d still find himself pretty unwelcome for a return to the Keystone State, with 39/44 favorables; Charlie Dent and Jim Gerlach’s problem, by contrast, is name rec (they’re at 12/16 and 13/14 respectively). Newly elected GOPers Tom Corbett and Pat Toomey are still enjoying their honeymoons, at 48/31 and 42/35 respectively.

(Bumped – promoted by DavidNYC)

The Census Bureau unleashed population data from five more states today. First off is Alabama, who remained at seven seats (although they were close to losing one). Their target for 2010 is 682,819, up from about 635K in 2000. Most of the action looks to be in the Birmingham area, where suburban AL-06 was the big gainer and urban VRA district AL-07 was the big loser. While the knee-jerk expectation would be that AL-07 would simply extend out into the suburbs to make up that deficit, it’s likelier that the newly-GOP-controlled legislature will try to extend AL-07 to Montgomery or Huntsville (or both) to incorporate the African-American populations there, in order to make it blacker and the state’s other districts safer for white Republican representatives.

Hawaii is pretty drama-free; its new target is 680,151, up from 605K in 2000. With Maui as the fastest growing part of the state, the 2nd will need to give a little population to the 1st, although the boundary movement will happen in the suburban parts of Oahu.

Missouri missed the cut, and needs to lose one of its nine seats. Based on eight seats, its new target is 748,616, up from 622K in 2000. Missouri redistricting isn’t going to go well for Dems (and for Russ Carnahan, in particular) because the three districts with the lowest population are the three districts with Democratic representatives. While MO-01 lost the most population, the VRA will probably keep this in place as a black-majority district for Lacy Clay: the city of St. Louis’s population has shrunk so much (now only 319K) that it only makes up about half a district anymore, and his district already includes the city’s black-majority northern suburbs, so it’s likely to have to move westward into the inner-ring suburbs of St. Louis County or else southward to encompass all of St. Louis city. Either way, that’s coming out of Russ Carnahan’s MO-03, which will also need to give some ground to MO-08 below it.

I think we’ve found the most populous CD in the entire nation: NV-03, with more than a million people (its main rival for that honor, UT-03, didn’t break that mark; see below). Nevada, of course, is moving to four districts, with a target of 675,138 (up only slightly from 666K in 2000, but that was a three-district map). As you might expect, the state has become significantly more Hispanic, with the 1st going from 28% Hispanic in 2000 to 37%, the 2nd from 15% to 20%, and the 3rd from 16% to 23%.

While there had been discussion of Joe Heck’s district expanding outward to take in some of the rural counties, that will barely need to happen. Clark County (where Las Vegas is) has a population of 1,951,269, which is 72.3% of the state’s population (up from 68% in 2000). In other words, with 3/4s of the state’s population in Clark Co., NV-02 can pretty much continue being all of the state except Clark County (although it’ll need to lose its current small portions in Clark Co.), while Clark Co. will be divvied up among three districts instead of two. (Although, considering how empty the cow counties are, that stray 2.7% of the state may still wind up occupying a huge geographical footprint.)

Utah, of course, is also set to gain a seat. Its new four-seat target is 690,971 (the target was 744K in 2000, when it had three seats). The biggest growth was in Salt Lake City’s southern suburbs and also in the Provo area further south, both of which are found in UT-03. Whether the GOP-controlled legislature creates a new seat confined to the SLC area or tries cracking it four ways instead of three will depend on whether they decide to target Jim Matheson (currently the Democrat with the reddest House seat) or concedes a seat to him.

(Bumped – promoted by DavidNYC)

We’ve got three more states’ worth of Census data dump to look at today, and instead of a random collection today, it’s thematically consistent: the three medium-size light-blue states of the west. First off the bat is Colorado, which stays at seven seats; its target population is 718,457, up from an average of about 615K in 2000. (Remember, the “deviation” is how many seats the district will need to gain or shed in order to conform, not a raw number reflecting loss or gain. You can calculate raw gain/loss by working off the 2000 target, if you’re curious.)

The redistricting solution here seems pretty simple: CO-01 (Denver proper) and CO-07 (Denver’s northern suburbs) will need to shift southward to accommodate the large growth in CO-06 (Denver’s southern suburbs), while the rest of the state stayed pretty stable. Interestingly, despite CO-07 lagging the state growth-wise, the state’s strongest Hispanic growth was in CO-07, which since 2000 went from 20% to 28% Hispanic.

Oregon stays at five seats, having just barely missed the cut for #6. Its target population is a beefy 766,215, up from about 684K in 2000.

Several Oregon districts are going to have to shift north, where the state’s growth was centered in Portland’s western suburbs in OR-01. The smallest gains happened in OR-04, which is Eugene and the economically-hard-hit timber country to its south. OR-05, which is sandwiched between the 1st and 4th in the mid-Valley also needs to pick up population; the 5th is the state’s most Hispanic district, going from 10% to 15% Hispanic since 2000.

Finally, here’s Washington, which barely made the cut, and got its tenth seat. Its target is 672,454, up from 655K in 2010. (Interestingly, if you divided Washington by 9, you’d wind up with a lower target than Oregon, at 747,171. There’s a lot more to the reapportionment formula than that sort of purely mechanical calculation, of course, but that ought to raise a few eyebrows in Oregon.)

The two main nodes of growth in Washington are WA-08 (Seattle’s eastern suburbs) and WA-03 (Vancouver, which is really Portland’s northern suburbs). However, there was almost as much growth in WA-04, east of the Cascades, which means that any new configuration is going to have two-and-a-half districts east of the Cascades, with (unlike now) one district traversing the mountains. The 4th is also by far the most Hispanic district in the state, growing from 27% to 34% Hispanic since 2000. One other interesting tidbit: in three of the state’s nine districts (1st, 7th, and 8th, all in the Seattle area) the largest non-white group isn’t African-Americans or Hispanics, but rather Asians.

More over the flip…

Finally, did you know that Census 2010 data, via American FactFinder, is available not only at the congressional district level, but also the legislative district level? Because a) I’m a Washingtonian, and b) I’m a nerd (and c), it’s not that big a project, since Washington doesn’t have separate Senate and House districts), I thought I’d also include Washington broken down by LD, in case you want a finer-grained sort on the state’s population gain. The number of districts will stay at 49, so the new target is 137,236.

What’s that you say? You don’t have the Washington legislative district map committed to memory? And yet you call yourself a Swingnut? Well, here it is. The largest growth came in LDs 2 (eastern Pierce Co.) and 5 (eastern King Co.), which are the most exurban parts of WA-08, as well as 44 (eastern Snohomish Co.: exurban WA-02), and 18 (northern Clark Co.: exurban WA-03). The slowest growth was in LDs 3 (downtown Spokane), 28 (Lakewood and Fort Lewis, south of Tacoma), 32 (Shoreline and Edmonds, north of Seattle), 27 (downtown Tacoma), and 34 (West Seattle). (If you’re wondering what the lean of these districts is, we’ve got that, too.)

Public Policy Polling (2/16-22, Rhode Island voters, no trendlines):

Sheldon Whitehouse (D-inc): 47

Scott Avedisian (R): 37

Undecided: 16

Sheldon Whitehouse (D-inc): 54

Don Carcieri (R): 37

Undecided: 8

Sheldon Whitehouse (D-inc): 43

Don Carcieri (R): 31

Buddy Cianci (I): 22

Undecided: 4

Sheldon Whitehouse (D-inc): 51

Buddy Cianci (R): 35

Undecided: 14

Sheldon Whitehouse (D-inc): 51

John Loughlin (R): 34

Undecided: 15

Sheldon Whitehouse (D-inc): 49

John Robitaille (R): 38

Undecided: 13

Sheldon Whitehouse (D-inc): 44

John Robitaille (R): 28

Buddy Cianci (I): 24

Undecided: 4

(MoE: ±4.2%)

I wasn’t expecting Sheldon Whitehouse to be in any sort of trouble — it is Rhode Island, after all, one of the bluest states in the union — but PPP confirms that, even when throwing ex-Gov. Don Carcieri in the mix. In fact, what may be most interesting here is that Carcieri, maybe contrary to the Beltway CW (which doesn’t seem to look any further than the fact that he’s an ex-Gov.), is the least popular Republican option (down 17, and with 41/49 favorables).

Instead, Warwick mayor and noted moderate/Linc Chafee ally Scott Avedisian fares the best among all GOPers, sporting a 36/17 favorable and keeping it within 10. John Robitaille, who narrowly lost the 2010 gubernatorial race, also seems to have made a good impression on voters (40/25 approvals and down by 11), but he’s made pretty clear that he’d prefer to run for Governor again in 2014 rather than for Senate. (John Loughlin is a former state Rep. who ran unsuccessfully for the RI-01 open seat, and Buddy Cianci is the disgraced, long-ago former mayor of Providence, who, thanks to his roguish charm, seems to still have some bipartisan support.)

Avedisian hasn’t ruled out a bid, but a Roll Call piece today by Steve Peoples getting various GOP possible candidates on the record has him sounding pretty iffy: “it’s something that I at least want to give some thought to.” The article also points out (as we did in our digest earlier today) that Cranston mayor Allen Fung, who presents a similar profile to Avedisian, just took himself out of contention, while state GOP chair Giovanni Cicione is downplaying any previous interest and talking up Avedisian and Carcieri instead. The article finally also mentions former Hasbro CEO Alan Hassenfeld, although from what I’d heard he’d been mostly looking at an indie bid, if anything.

Finally, the real issue that seemed to get Rhode Island chosen as this week’s poll subject is gay marriage, which is currently under legislative consideration. Support overall is 50-41, a pretty impressive showing in a state, that despite its blueness, is still notably older and more Catholic than average. That’s including 65% support among Dems, 73% opposition among the sample’s 15% Republican portion, and 47-45 support among indies.

• AZ-Sen: After some rumors yesterday that she wasn’t getting much traction with her phoning around, DHS Sec./ex-Gov. Janet Napolitano confirmed today that she wasn’t going to run for the open Senate seat in Arizona, preferring to remain in the Obama administration. (Roll Call has a list of some of the weedier Dem possibilities, beyond the top tier of Rep. Gabby Giffords and Phoenix mayor Phil Gordon: Rep. Ed Pastor, Board of Regents vice chair Fred DuVal, former state party chair Don Bivens, 2010 AG candidate Felicia Rotellini, and current state party chair/2010 Treasurer candidate Andrei Cherny.) On the GOP side, Rep. Jeff Flake seems already positioning himself for the general while opening himself up for a challenge from the nutty right, telling the birthers to “accept reality.” Flake also just picked up an endorsement from a similar budget-focused, social-issues-downplaying prominent House member, Paul Ryan.

• IN-Sen: State Treasurer Richard Mourdock, who plans to soon announce his GOP primary challenge to Richard Lugar (with next Tuesday the more-or-less official launch date), leaked a few poll numbers from an internal. He says that “just over half” of GOP primary voters are inclined to re-elect Lugar, while Lugar pulls in only 27% support among self-described tea-partiers. The poll didn’t “include” a head-to-head between Mourdock and Lugar, which I’ll assume means they aren’t reporting results that were pretty heavily in Lugar’s favor, rather than that they just accidentally forgot to poll that particular question. Here’s new one piece of ammo that tea partiers can use against Lugar to make their point that he’s gone Washington, though: a revelation that Lugar stays in a hotel when he visits Indiana (Lugar owns a farm in-state, but conditions there are “rustic”).

• PA-Sen: Quinnipiac is out with another Pennsylvania poll, one that finds Bob Casey Jr. in better shape than their previous poll, where he was in decent shape too. He beats a Generic R 45-35 (up from 43-35 in December), and his approvals are up to 44/24 (from 39/29). Voters approve of Barack Obama (51/44) and Pat Toomey (41/21) as well, in another indication of ebbing anger.

• VA-Sen: Tell the ground crew to break out the tarps, because we’ve got a Kaine delay. Ex-Gov. Tim Kaine, at the top of the Dem establishment’s wish list for the open Senate seat, is announcing that he won’t have anything to announce when he addresses tomorrow’s Jefferson-Jackson Dinner. He still sounds genuinely conflicted; expect an announcement “later in the month or early next month.”

• VT-Sen: He stopped well short of actually announcing anything, but Dem-turned-Republican state Auditor Tom Salmon seems to be moving apace toward an uphill challenge against Bernie Sanders, saying he’ll announce his decision on March 4 or 5. He’s looking more committed in that he’s leaving his day job: he also just announced he won’t run for another term as Auditor.

• WV-Gov: The overcrowded (and likely low-turnout) Democratic primary in West Virginia may be decided by a few thousand votes, so any possible advantage counts here. And here’s one for SoS Natalie Tenannt, the only Dem woman running: she just got the endorsement of EMILY’s List.

• CA-36: The Republicans have managed to scrape up at least one credible candidate for the special election in the dark-blue 36th, where the main battle in the top 2 primary will be fought between Democrats Janice Hahn and Debra Bowen but conceivably he could sneak into the final round if he consolidates all the district’s GOP votes. Mike Webb is City Attorney for Redondo Beach (popu. 63K).

• MN-06, MN-08: This is an interesting possibility for ex-state Sen. Tarryl Clark, who lost last year to Michele Bachmann in the GOP-leaning 6th… although it’s entirely dependent on the redistricting pen. There’s the possibility that her town of St. Cloud (to the west of the Twin Cities) may get appended to the 8th, which starts in the metro area’s northern exurbs and heads up to Duluth. A run against vulnerable GOP frosh Chip Cravaack in a Dem-leaning district in a presidential year would be a much better bet for her. The question would be, though, whether Clark would have much luck in the DFL primary if she has to run against someone from the Iron Range, which tends to be insular-minded and would still be the bulk of the district’s population.

• SD-AL, FL-02: I don’t know how many of you were pining for a 2012 rematch from Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (about which there were some rumors this week), and I really can’t imagine that any of you were hoping for a return engagement from ur-Blue Dog Allen Boyd, but it’s looking like neither one is on track to happen. Both are rumored to be about to take on K Street lobbying jobs instead, which is, of course, not the usual comeback path.  

Here’s a surprise, and not a welcome one… according to The Fix:

New Mexico Democratic Sen. Jeff Bingaman is expected to announce his retirement today, according to a source close to the decision, a move that further complicates his party’s efforts to hold their Senate majority in 2012….

His retirement, however, creates an open seat contest that both national parties will almost certainly target. Democrats should start the race with an edge, however, given President Obama’s 15-point victory margin in the state in 2008.

This comes despite some fundraising activity recently, and a strong showing in a recent PPP poll. That same poll showed Democratic Reps. Martin Heinrich and Ben Ray Lujan beating several Republicans in the event of a Bingaman retirement, so Dems aren’t behind the 8-ball here, but, if this rumor is true, it’s one more plate Patty Murray and the DSCC will have to keep spinning.

UPDATE: Inevitably, we turn to names of potential candidates. In addition to the obvious Heinrich and Lujan, Dave Catanese also cites youngish state Auditor Hector Balderas as a possibility (Balderas issued a statement already, but just to praise Bingaman). Also for the Dems, he reports that ex-LG and 2010 gubernatorial loser Diane Denish is “fully exploring the race” (and given her gubernatorial performance, hopefully those explorations will lead nowhere), as is state USDA Director Terry Brunner. On the GOP side, Rep. Steve Pearce says he’ll “take a serious look” at the race.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Dave Weigel gets some confirmation from ex-Gov. Gary Johnson (the only GOPer to outpoll Heinrich and Lujan according to PPP) that he’s still sticking with the presidential race and not switching to Senate.

Texas has always been, in my mind, the most interesting state for redistricting in 2010, partly because it grew much more than any other state (it gained four seats, while no other state gained more than two), and partly because much of that growth was Hispanic. This sets up a major conflict in the redistricting process: the Republicans, who control the trifecta here, will want to draw as many of those four new seats for themselves as possible, obviously, but the Obama administration’s Dept. of Justice, via the Voting Rights Act, will compel the creation of as many majority-minority seats as possible. Given the numbers that came out today, Texas Republicans may actually feel lucky getting away with two of the four new seats… assuming that’s what they end up with, after the conclusion of the inevitable litigation process that will result.

Texas gained a whopping 4,293,741 people between 2000 and 2010, growing from 20,851,820 to 25,145,561. Of that 4+ million, only about 10% were non-Hispanic whites. The non-Hispanic white population in 2000 was 10,933,313, and in 2010 it’s 11,397,345, a difference of 464,032. Contrast that with the growth in Hispanics, who went from 6,669,616 to 9,460,921, a gain of 2,791,305. Expressed as percentages, Texas now has only a plurality, not a majority, of non-Hispanic whites. They make up 45.3% of the population in 2010, along with 11.5% non-Hispanic blacks, 3.8% non-Hispanic Asians, and 37.6% Hispanics. (In 2000, non-Hispanic whites were 52.4%, along with 11.3% black, 2.7% Asian, and 32% Hispanic. Those don’t add up to 100 because there are also categories for Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, two or more races, and “some other” race.)

With Texas about to expand to 36 seats, that means the target average for each new congressional district will be 698,488. Here’s a chart that looks at each current congressional district, giving old and new populations, the amount gained (or lost), and the “deviation,” which is what we’re calling how many people each district will need to shed (or in a few cases, gain) in order to hit its 2010 target. (In case you’re wondering, yes, the 2000 data is for the post-2004 DeLay-mander configurations of each district.) I’m also including the 2000 and 2008 presidential election results, so you can see which direction the districts are headed (very different, when you contrast the trend in rural east Texas districts with suburbs for the major cities).

District	Rep.	2000 total	2010 total	Total change	Deviation	2000 election	2008 election
TX-01	Gohmert (R)	651,652	723,464	71,812	24,976	33/68	31/69
TX-02	Poe (R)	651,605	782,375	130,770	83,887	37/63	40/60
TX-03	Johnson, S. (R)	651,782	842,449	190,667	143,961	30/70	42/57
TX-04	Hall (R)	651,500	846,142	194,642	147,654	34/66	30/69
TX-05	Hensarling (R)	651,919	725,642	73,723	27,154	34/66	36/63
TX-06	Barton (R)	651,691	809,095	157,404	110,607	34/66	40/60
TX-07	Culberson (R)	651,682	780,611	128,929	82,123	31/69	41/58
TX-08	Brady (R)	651,755	833,770	182,015	135,282	31/69	26/74
TX-09	Green, A. (D)	651,086	733,796	82,710	35,308	69/31	77/23
TX-10	McCaul (R)	651,523	981,367	329,844	282,879	34/67	44/55
TX-11	Conaway (R)	651,590	710,682	59,092	12,194	25/75	24/76
TX-12	Granger (R)	651,770	831,100	179,330	132,612	36/64	36/63
TX-13	Thornberry (R)	651,665	672,781	21,116	(25,707)	26/74	23/77
TX-14	Paul (R)	651,837	779,704	127,867	81,216	36/64	33/66
TX-15	Hinojosa (D)	651,580	787,124	135,544	88,636	54/46	60/40
TX-16	Reyes (D)	652,363	757,427	105,064	58,939	59/41	66/34
TX-17	Flores (R)	651,509	760,042	108,533	61,554	32/68	32/67
TX-18	Jackson-Lee (D)	651,789	720,991	69,202	22,503	72/28	77/22
TX-19	Neugebauer (R)	651,610	698,137	46,527	(351)	25/75	27/72
TX-20	Gonzalez (D)	651,603	711,705	60,102	13,217	58/42	63/36
TX-21	Smith (R)	651,930	856,954	205,024	158,466	31/69	41/58
TX-22	Olson (R)	651,657	910,877	259,220	212,389	33/67	41/58
TX-23	Canseco (R)	651,149	847,651	196,502	149,163	47/54	51/48
TX-24	Marchant (R)	651,137	792,319	141,182	93,831	32/68	44/55
TX-25	Doggett (D)	651,477	814,381	162,904	115,893	47/53	59/40
TX-26	Burgess (R)	651,858	915,137	263,279	216,649	38/62	41/58
TX-27	Farenthold (R)	651,843	741,993	90,150	43,505	50/50	53/46
TX-28	Cuellar (D)	651,259	851,824	200,565	153,336	50/50	56/44
TX-29	Green, G. (D)	651,405	677,032	25,627	(21,456)	57/43	62/38
TX-30	Johnson, E. (D)	652,261	706,469	54,208	7,981	74/26	82/18
TX-31	Carter (R)	651,868	902,101	250,233	203,613	32/69	42/58
TX-32	Sessions (R)	650,555	640,419	(10,136)	(58,069)	36/64	46/53

Now let’s turn to the changes in racial composition in each district. The Hispanic population increased in all of Texas’s 32 districts, with the smallest increase being 35,816 (in TX-32 in north Dallas, the only district which lost population overall – I’m not quite sure why this district lost population, other than the fact that it’s fairly dense, and boxed in by other urban districts, so it’s unable to sprawl in any direction). Eight districts gained more than 100,000 Hispanics each, with the biggest gain in the Laredo-based TX-28, gaining 166,375. The second biggest gain was 159,747 in TX-10, the wormlike district that links Houston’s western suburbs with Austin’s eastern suburbs and which gained a whole lot of everybody of all races. TX-10 is also more remarkable in that the Hispanic share of the total population nearly went up 10%, from 19% to 29% (by contrast, in TX-28, the Hispanic share barely increased, seeing as how they’re already the vast majority there).

These two existing districts point to where two of the new VRA districts are likeliest to pop up: the Rio Grande Valley, and the Houston area. (A new Hispanic-majority Houston seat would probably be located in the downtown and western parts of town, pushing TX-07 and then TX-10 further west.) The third possibility is a Dallas area Hispanic-majority seat, which might be anchored in downtown and western Dallas but wander further west to grab areas near DFW airport and maybe even in Fort Worth. The GOP, I’m sure, would prefer to try to limit the number of VRA seats to two, but it may be a difficult balancing act; in particular, it’ll be hard to avoid having a new VRA seat pop up in the Rio Grande Valley (thanks to huge growth in TX-15 and TX-23, too) if they’re going to try to reconstruct a more Republican-favorable TX-27 in order to protect unexpected new member Blake Farenthold (maybe linking Corpus Christi with Victoria instead of Brownsville, for instance).

District	2000 white	White %	2010 white	White %	% change	2000 Hispanic	Hispanic %	2010 Hispanic	Hispanic %	% change
TX-01	485,238	74.5	514,939	71.2	-3.2	59,688	9.2	109,499	15.1	6.0
TX-02	462,830	71.0	493,830	63.1	-7.9	82,578	12.7	176,196	22.5	9.8
TX-03	467,828	71.8	539,627	64.1	-7.7	111,121	17.0	186,890	22.2	5.1
TX-04	540,477	83.0	666,802	78.8	-4.2	50,410	7.7	110,993	13.1	5.4
TX-05	505,283	77.5	523,328	72.1	-5.4	83,113	12.7	157,037	21.6	8.9
TX-06	477,168	73.2	537,602	66.4	-6.8	103,380	15.9	185,397	22.9	7.0
TX-07	505,703	77.6	529,586	67.8	-9.8	117,392	18.0	198,587	25.4	7.4
TX-08	553,472	84.9	686,659	82.4	-2.6	58,820	9.0	128,027	15.4	6.3
TX-09	213,041	32.7	240,882	32.8	1.1	213,195	32.7	310,931	42.4	9.6
TX-10	490,353	75.3	676,833	69.0	-6.3	122,894	18.9	282,641	28.8	9.9
TX-11	523,788	80.4	577,078	81.2	0.8	192,811	29.6	257,633	36.3	6.7
TX-12	505,402	77.5	635,292	76.4	-1.1	154,032	23.6	239,268	28.8	5.2
TX-13	526,737	80.8	544,719	81.0	0.2	114,488	17.6	157,732	23.4	5.9
TX-14	491,492	75.4	588,513	75.5	0.1	162,778	25.0	226,440	29.0	4.1
TX-15	504,686	77.5	674,927	85.7	8.3	506,447	77.7	649,297	82.5	4.8
TX-16	483,295	74.1	620,074	81.9	7.8	507,249	77.8	617,465	81.5	3.8
TX-17	512,489	78.7	585,982	77.1	-1.6	100,241	15.4	157,049	20.7	5.3
TX-18	240,569	36.9	281,511	39.0	2.1	231,548	35.5	313,533	43.5	8.0
TX-19	502,156	77.1	549,589	78.7	1.7	188,932	29.0	235,973	33.8	4.8
TX-20	425,519	65.3	500,530	70.3	5.0	437,800	67.2	509,208	71.5	4.4
TX-21	531,029	81.5	680,337	79.4	-2.1	138,599	21.3	240,713	28.1	6.8
TX-22	464,216	71.2	557,629	61.2	-10.0	132,379	20.3	244,900	26.9	6.6
TX-23	467,321	71.8	672,404	79.3	7.6	423,648	65.1	562,913	66.4	1.3
TX-24	476,428	73.2	488,398	61.6	-11.5	116,586	17.9	214,851	27.1	9.2
TX-25	439,574	67.5	584,962	71.8	4.3	220,942	33.9	315,776	38.8	4.9
TX-26	474,910	72.9	652,345	71.3	-1.6	93,451	14.3	193,973	21.2	6.9
TX-27	495,162	76.0	623,615	84.0	8.1	443,919	68.1	543,306	73.2	5.1
TX-28	518,245	79.6	748,669	87.9	8.3	505,754	77.7	672,129	78.9	1.2
TX-29	357,764	54.9	398,350	58.8	3.9	430,980	66.2	514,861	76.0	9.9
TX-30	238,931	36.6	256,028	36.2	-0.4	223,200	34.2	280,508	39.7	5.5
TX-31	477,328	73.2	647,694	71.8	-1.4	106,121	16.3	195,753	21.7	5.4
TX-32	439,551	67.6	422,818	66.0	-1.5	235,626	36.2	271,442	42.4	6.2

Unfortunately, for some reason, while American Factfinder has “Hispanic or Latino by Race” available for entire states, the only data it currently has available at the CD level is the less precise “Race and Hispanic or Latino.” While that seems like a minor semantic distinction, this means there’s no way to parse out non-Hispanic white (and non-Hispanic black, etc.) for CDs. Bear in mind that “Hispanic,” for Census purposes, isn’t a race unto itself, but a box that gets checked in addition to race. So, while most people who check “Some other race” are Hispanic, not all Hispanics identify as “Some other race;” in fact, more than half of Hispanics identify as “white” (with most of the rest as “some other”) instead. This makes a big difference, in making the sample look whiter than it actually is (at least if one defines “white” in the narrow non-Hispanic sense). At the state level, in 2010, Texas appears as 70.4% white, 11.8% black, and 3.8% Asian in this format, in addition to 37.6% Hispanic. (Considering that adds up to 124%, it’s very confusing. Here, it’s also confusing because it makes districts with an already-large Hispanic majority look like they got even whiter, at the same time as they gained more Hispanics.) So, I’d focus more on the Hispanic column than on the white column in this table, and maybe I’ll revisit this when we get data on non-Hispanic whites.

More data over the flip…

Finally, here are tables for the African-American and Asian populations for each congressional district. While African-American growth is fairly slow (though seemingly faster than growth in non-Hispanic whites), the Asian growth in Texas is just as fast-paced as Hispanic growth (if not faster, in certain suburban districts).

District	2000 black	Black %	2010 black	Black %	% change	2000 Asian	Asian %	2010 Asian	Asian %	% change
TX-01	120,705	18.5	127,714	17.7	-0.9	3,256	0.5	6,487	0.9	0.4
TX-02	124,420	19.1	168,647	21.6	2.5	16,395	2.5	26,501	3.4	0.9
TX-03	59,496	9.1	97,376	11.6	2.4	54,246	8.3	102,783	12.2	3.9
TX-04	67,155	10.3	87,583	10.4	0.1	4,300	0.7	17,420	2.1	1.4
TX-05	80,743	12.4	100,881	13.9	1.5	10,365	1.6	14,086	1.9	0.3
TX-06	83,081	12.7	134,647	16.6	3.9	21,819	3.3	32,795	4.1	0.8
TX-07	36,603	5.6	78,428	10.0	4.4	44,670	6.9	79,224	10.1	3.3
TX-08	56,930	8.7	65,401	7.8	-0.9	5,098	0.8	11,934	1.4	0.6
TX-09	244,295	37.5	262,525	35.8	-1.7	69,533	10.7	79,853	10.9	0.2
TX-10	59,420	9.1	111,799	11.4	2.3	25,383	3.9	57,124	5.8	1.9
TX-11	26,925	4.1	28,410	4.0	-0.1	3,527	0.5	5,222	0.7	0.2
TX-12	36,133	5.5	56,115	6.8	1.2	14,963	2.3	24,464	2.9	0.6
TX-13	36,690	5.6	39,620	5.9	0.3	7,762	1.2	11,586	1.7	0.5
TX-14	63,978	9.8	71,281	9.1	-0.7	10,962	1.7	27,358	3.5	1.8
TX-15	12,020	1.8	12,169	1.5	-0.3	3,588	0.6	6,854	0.9	0.3
TX-16	20,477	3.1	24,499	3.2	0.1	6,946	1.1	8,205	1.1	0.0
TX-17	67,278	10.3	74,834	9.8	-0.5	9,434	1.4	15,071	2.0	0.5
TX-18	263,106	40.4	265,109	36.8	-3.6	21,547	3.3	24,340	3.4	0.1
TX-19	35,845	5.5	39,777	5.7	0.2	5,521	0.8	8,840	1.3	0.5
TX-20	43,738	6.7	51,563	7.2	0.5	9,964	1.5	13,859	1.9	0.4
TX-21	41,027	6.3	57,403	6.7	0.4	16,805	2.6	32,375	3.8	1.2
TX-22	61,165	9.4	129,682	14.2	4.8	50,695	7.8	115,594	12.7	4.9
TX-23	18,617	2.9	29,870	3.5	0.7	6,650	1.0	16,040	1.9	0.9
TX-24	63,194	9.7	117,088	14.8	5.1	39,716	6.1	75,088	9.4	3.3
TX-25	63,750	9.8	64,042	7.9	-1.9	12,146	1.9	18,460	2.3	0.4
TX-26	100,881	15.5	122,856	13.4	-2.1	14,125	2.2	35,991	3.9	1.7
TX-27	17,084	2.6	17,385	2.3	-0.3	5,091	0.8	8,837	1.2	0.4
TX-28	8,178	1.3	13,116	1.5	0.2	3,179	0.5	6,502	0.8	0.3
TX-29	65,414	10.0	68,630	10.1	0.1	8,492	1.3	7,826	1.2	-0.1
TX-30	271,812	41.7	293,203	41.5	-0.2	8,552	1.3	8,848	1.3	0.0
TX-31	84,561	13.0	113,076	12.5	-0.5	14,275	2.2	31,047	3.4	1.2
TX-32	50,833	7.8	54,869	8.6	0.8	26,923	4.1	33,982	5.3	1.2

The four states this week for the Census 2010 data dump are Illinois, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Texas. South Dakota has only one congressional district and Texas I’m reserving for its own special in-depth post which will look at changes in racial composition in each district over the decade (and Texas isn’t out yet today, so it’s a moot point), so here are just Illinois and Oklahoma. The Illinois target (based on the drop to 18 seats) is 712,813. (Check out the depopulation on Chicago’s South Side in IL-01 and IL-02. Bobby Rush and Jesse Jackson Jr.’s districts already include small amounts of suburbs, but they’re going to need to take on significantly more.)

In case you were wondering about population growth in the few Illinois districts where the state’s growth was concentrated, much of that growth is Hispanic. For instance, IL-08 went from 11% Hispanic in 2000 to 17% Hispanic in 2010. IL-11 went from 7% to 11% Hispanic. IL-13 went from 5% to 11% Hispanic, while IL-14 went from 18% to 25% Hispanic. (Perhaps not coincidentally, we lost seats in three of these districts, as turnout in 2010 was much whiter and older than in 2008.)

Oklahoma (which stays at 5, and where the growth has been remarkably consistent across CD boundaries) has a target of 750,270.

• AZ-Sen: A GOP polling firm, Summit Consulting, is out with a poll that gives Maricopa Co. Sheriff Joe Arpaio the lead in the nascent Republican field to replace the retiring Jon Kyl. Arpaio is at 21, with Rep. Jeff Flake and ex-Rep J.D. Hayworth both at 17, ex-Rep. John Shadegg at 12, and Rep. Ben Quayle at 6. An Arpaio-free version found Flake at 22, Hayworth at 20, and Shadegg (who has made clear that he’s not running) at 17. Although this poll wasn’t announced as being on anyone’s behalf, there’s an important caveat: Summit is raising money for Arpaio’s re-election campaign as Sheriff. This seems a consistent pattern for Arpaio over the years: float his name for higher office, rake in contributions, apply those toward his next Sheriff campaign, rinse and repeat. Meanwhile, although previous reports had had him unlikely to run for Senate, Rep. Trent Franks from current AZ-02 is now on the record as “exploring that option.”

• ME-Sen: Here’s an amusing tidbit about Andrew Ian Dodge, now running a tea party challenge of sorts to Olympia Snowe: he’s the subject of some suspicion in certain right-wing circles on account of his British background (which may explain why he cheekily showed up with his birth certificate at his campaign launch). Prime evidence for this strange line of attack is a comment he posted to a blog several years ago where he copped to being a Lord of the Manor in Gorleston, Suffolk. (Politico’s Dave Catanese titled his article on this “Snowe challenger is a British Lord…” which isn’t quite right. “Lord of the Manor” isn’t part of the peerage system (which just plain old “Lord” would be), but just a weird holdover from the feudal system of property rights, an indicator that someone in his family owned property there long ago). (One other thing I noted, though, thanks to the magic of Wikipedia: Gorleston is actually in Norfolk, not Suffolk. WHAT ELSE IS ANDREW IAN DODGE LYING ABOUT!!!!11!!!?!)

• NE-Sen: We’ve mentioned state Sen. Deb Fischer before as a potential dark-horse candidate on the Republican side in Nebraska, and now she seems to be stepping things up, at least to the extent of contacting Roll Call and letting them know that she’s interested. She represents the empty north-central part of the state, and could stand out as an interesting third-wheel in a Jon Bruning/Don Stenberg rumble by being the only rural and female candidate.

• NM-Sen: PPP finally released the GOP primary portion of last week’s New Mexico Senate poll, and… common theme in a lot of their polls… find the most electable candidate for the general losing the GOP primary because of various apostasies. Libertarian-flavored ex-Gov. Gary Johnson trails ex-Rep. Heather Wilson in a hypothetical 3-way, 35-27, with Rep. Steve Pearce at 17, Matt Chandler and Dianna Duran both at 6, and John Sanchez at 4. (Not that it matters, since Johnson has confirmed he’s sticking with his long-shot presidential bid. In fact, unless Jeff Bingaman unexpectedly retires, I’d be surprised if any of these GOPers bothers to get in.)

• NV-Sen: Rep. Dean Heller is out with an internal poll that has him way ahead of John Ensign in the GOP primary, and, accordingly, he seems to be accelerating his plans to run. The poll gives Heller a 53-38 lead in a head-to-head, and also sees him winning a 5-car pileup: it’s Heller 39, Ensign 23, Danny Tarkanian 17, Sharron Angle 14, and John Chachas 3. Faced with the possibility of a much harder race against Heller than Ensign, possible Dem candidate Rep. Shelley Berkley is saying that it wouldn’t dissuade her if Heller were the nominee, but she’s continuing to “seriously look at” the race but is also in “no rush” to decide. You know who is in a rush, though? The DSCC. Jon Ralston says they’re already talking to Democratic SoS Ross Miller too, in case they need a Plan B.

• TX-Sen: Hmm, here’s an interesting place for a Senate scoop to come from: the student newspaper at Claremont McKenna College in California. CMC alum Rep. David Dreier is the linchpin in this game of telephone: he told them that a fellow alum is indeed running for the Senate, and by process of elimination, that would point to former Dallas mayor Tom Leppert, considered a likely candidate on the GOP side. Leppert, however, wouldn’t confirm to the student paper that he was running.

• UT-Sen: Another Dan Jones poll in Utah takes a look at the Senate race, and this one isn’t as weird as the last one (which included Jon Huntsman, who seems, to my eyes, to be running for Vice-President instead): it’s a straightforward poll of Orrin Hatch vs. Jason Chaffetz (although it’s still a poll of all Utah residents). At any rate, Hatch leads Chaffetz 44-34; among self-identified Republicans, Hatch actually does better, 51-35 (although trailing among “very conservative” voters). Of course, there are various ways this primary might still not happen; Chaffetz could break 60% at the state GOP convention, or Hatch could (a la Bob Bennett) finish third at the convention behind Chaffetz and a teabagger to be named later. Asked for comment, Chaffetz only said he’s a “definite maybe” about the race, and may choose to stay in the House.

• VA-Sen: We might have an answer pretty soon on whether Tim Kaine plans to run for the Senate, now that Jim Webb is out. He reportedly will consult with Barack Obama on the matter in the next couple days (gee, I wonder what Obama will suggest?), and Kaine also has announced plans to speak at the state’s Jefferson-Jackson Dinner this weekend, which seems like a place to make a ‘yes’ announcement (as it would be kind of a buzzkill to go there and tell everyone ‘no’). There are also rumors… poorly sourced ones at that, so don’t get your hopes too high… out there of a GOP-sponsored poll showing not just Kaine but also Tom Perriello leading George Allen, so keep your ears to the ground for more on that.

• MT-Gov: Add one more state Senator to the mix in the Montana gubernatorial race, this time on the Dem side. Larry Jent says he’d like to run statewide, and it’ll probably be for governor. (He’d join other current or former state Sens. Dave Wanzenried on the Dem side, and Corey Stapleton and Ken Miller for the GOP.)

• LA-03, LA-07: Two Louisiana papers have had articles in the last few days on Louisiana redistricting and its likeliest casualty, new Rep. Jeff Landry, who was elected with tea party rather than establishment backing and, accordingly, doesn’t have much of a leg to stand on when the establishment draws the maps in the coming months. It’s looking likelier that a map more favorable to the more senior (and tighter with leadership) Rep. Charles Boustany will be the result. The state’s redistricting special session of the legislature will be held Mar. 20.

• NY-15: While there’s still plenty of time left for him to reverse course and announce his retirement (hint, hint), Charles Rangel yesterday announced that he’s filing for re-election in 2012 to a 22nd term.

• NY-26: While they’ve been downplaying their chances for success in the R+6 26th, local Dems are hard at work looking for a candidate. It’s hard to tell who’s on the short list right now, though: one list featured Erie Co. Comptroller Mark Poloncarz, Erie Co. Clerk Kathy Hochul, and Amherst town board member Mark Manna (the only one who actually lives in the district), but doesn’t seem to feature oft-mentioned Kathy Konst. Another insider mentions two possible Dems Republican candidates from the private sector: Dan Humiston and Chris Jacobs. There’s one familiar face you can scratch off the Dem list, though: 2008 candidate Jon Powers says he’s not looking to be considered.

• WA-02: Snohomish Co. Councilor and narrow 2010 loser John Koster is “weighing” another run against Rick Larsen, although he’s waiting to see what the 2nd looks like after redistricting. The 2nd (currently D+3) needs to lose population, but it could become swingier if the losses come around Everett, or become bluer if the losses come in eastern Snohomish County.

• Chicago mayor: One more new poll to report in Chicago, another one from We Ask America (on behalf of the Chicago Retail Merchants Association). It has the highest Rahm Emanuel number yet, at 58. Gery Chico is 2nd at 24, Miguel del Valle at 10, and Carol Moseley Braun at 6. The poll was in the field on Sunday, the same day that Moseley Braun, apparently by way of referring to The Producers, compared Emanuel to Hitler, so the impact of her latest gaffe may not even have impacted on this sample. (Given the current trajectory of her poll numbers, she may actually receive a negative number of votes at the actual election on Feb. 22.)

• Special elections: There are not one but two special elections for vacant state Senate seats in California tonight, although neither one should offer much drama thanks to their strong partisan leans. The one you’re probably already aware of is SD-28 in the LA’s South Bay suburbs (overlapping much of CA-36), where Democratic ex-Assemblyman Ted Lieu is likely to fill the seat left by the death of Jenny Oropeza. He faces seven other candidates, so he might not break 50%, requiring a runoff then. The other race is in SD-17, centered on Lancaster in the high desert north of LA, where Republican Sharon Runner is expected to beat the only other candidate, Democrat Darren Parker. (Runner is trying to take over the seat from her husband George Runner, who vacated to join the state Board of Equalization.)

• Nebraska: Believe it or not, there are multiple interesting things afoot in Nebraska. Most significantly, the proposal to switch Nebraska to a winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes (instead of allotting some by CD, which allowed Barack Obama to sneak away with 1 Omaha-area EV) is entering committee; it’s expected to be easily approved by the ostensibly nonpartisan but Republican-controlled unicameral legislature. There are also competing bills in the legislature on changing the size of said legislature, one to reduce it from 49 to 45, the other to expand it to 50 (neither one is expected to go anywhere, though). Also, Nebraska just picked its nine members for its redistricting commission; there will be five Republicans and four Dems on the (again, ostensibly nonpartisan) body.

• WATN?: Ex-Rep. Mike Arcuri, who lost in NY-24 in November, is now working in the private sector at a major law firm in Syracuse. It may be a tea leaf that he might be interested in another run that he’s staying in the area instead of heading for the more lucrative world of K St., or it might be nothing. At any rate, he’s doing better for himself than Republican 2006 CA-47 loser Tan Nguyen, who just got sentenced to one year and one day in federal prison for obstruction of justice related to charges of voter fraud, for sending out flyers intended to suppress the district’s Latino vote.

• Polltopia: If you think that polling was way screwier than usual over the 2010 cycle, or that it was better than ever, you’re both wrong. It was pretty much the same as always, according to Mark Blumenthal. According to a study by National Council on Public Polls, the average candidate error in 2010 was 2.1%, very comparable to other midterm elections. (The accuracy seems to improve in presidential years, perhaps thanks to more frequent polling.) Interestingly, though, even though the error rate didn’t change much, there were many more polls (25% this cycle, compared with 11% in 2006) conducted in the last week before the election with results that fell outside the margin of error (cough Rasmussen cough). They found that live interview polls (2.4%) did slightly better than autodialed polls (2.6%), but, surprisingly, polls conducted over the internet (mostly just YouGov) did the best with a 1.7% error rate.

• AZ-Sen, AZ-06: Rep. Jeff Flake, who announced his bid today, had to wait only a few hours before getting a valuable (for the GOP primary, at least) endorsement from the Club for Growth; he’s a natural fit for them, given his draconian budgetary views and laissez-faire social views. Even before Flake had announced, his potentially strongest rival for the GOP nod, ex-Rep. John Shadegg had announced that he wasn’t going to run. Shadegg’s AZ-03 replacement, Rep. Ben Quayle confirmed that he won’t be running either. The same goes for another Republican freshman, Rep. David Schweikert (that article also helpfully points out that famous Arizona residents Meghan McCain and Bristol Palin, who’ve both accomplished so much in the social media sphere in their short lives, are both too young to run for Senate). Former NFL player Kurt Warner has also taken himself out of consideration.

Buried in a Roll Call article on the whip race to replace Jon Kyl are a few more interesting bits: Trent Franks is “not expected” to run, while state Senate president and prime mover behind SB 1070 Russell Pearce is “out,” but “plans to run” for AZ-06, being vacated by Flake. There’s not much to report on the Dem side today, but there are further reports that ex-Gov., and current DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano (who didn’t poll well against Kyl according to PPP a few weeks ago, although they didn’t test her against Flake) has been calling around to gauge her support.

• CT-Sen: Ex-SoS Susan Bysiewicz rolled out her own long list of endorsements from local Dems, in response to a list unveiled several weeks ago by primary rival Chris Murphy. While Murphy’s list was heavy on the 5th District, naturally, Bysiewicz’s list is heavy on the 2nd District (which is interesting, as it may be an indication that Rep. Joe Courtney has decided against running… or it may be a preventative shot across Courtney’s bow). Bysiewicz is from Middletown, which is in the 2nd although kind of on its periphery. In terms of the Republican field, there was a straw poll taken of state Tea Party Patriots members this weekend. Given the sample size of 54 and the self-selecting nature of the nuttiest of the nuttiest, it’s barely worth mentioning, but they found Linda McMahon only barely winning with 15 votes, compared to Peter Schiff’s 14. Rob Simmons and Tom Foley each got 6, with state Sen. Scott Frantz at 5 and Danbury mayor Mark Boughton at 4.

• FL-Sen, FL-13: Like I’ve said before, don’t count out Republican Rep. Vern Buchanan for the Senate; the owner of numerous car dealerships is sitting on a big campaign account, has wealthy friends, and can self-fund too. And now he’s publicly saying he’s “not ruling it out.”

• MO-Sen: Over the weekend in Joplin was the first public joint appearance between the two announced GOP candidates so far, Sarah Steelman and Ed Martin. While they superficially only attacked Claire McCaskill, Martin sneaked in some anti-Steelman attacks by implication, saying that he’ll support “tort reform every time” and “take on the public sector unions.” (While Steelman has the support of the DC-based tea party astroturfers, the local teabaggers are skeptical of her insufficient purity on those two issues.)

• NV-Sen: Given behavior lately that might charitably be described as “erratic,” I’ve pretty much given up on trying to figure out Sharron Angle’s plans (her travel schedule seems to take her mostly to early presidential states these days, in case you had any doubts about the scope of her delusions of grandeur). But now she’s talking about Nevada Senate again, saying that she’d like to talk to John Ensign before deciding whether or not to challenge him in the primary.

• NY-Sen: As she becomes better-known to New Yorkers, Kirsten Gillibrand’s numbers keep going up. Siena’s newest poll finds her at 57/18 favorables, with a 52% re-elect (including even a plurality among Republicans). Liz Benjamin also notes that two Republican 2010 Gillibrand challengers – Joe DioGuardi (whom Gillibrand flatted) and David Malpass (whom DioGuardi beat in the GOP primary) – are both still considering the race. Ex-LG “Batshit Besty” McCaughey (who once ran for governor on the Liberal Party line) was also down in DC this past weekend, once again relishing her role as healthcare fabricator-in-chief at the loonier-than-thou CPAC conference – and also possibly trying to raise her profile for a potential run (something we noted a couple of weeks ago). Bring it on!

• OH-Sen: Newly elected state Treasurer Josh Mandel got some buzz at some point last month, and here’s some more for him: the Plain Dealer, in a longer piece wondering why the Republican field (in what could be a pickup opportunity with the right candidate) isn’t taking shape at all, points to him as a possible alternative in the face of disinterest from the A-list. Lt. Gov. Mary Taylor seems to be working on building her portfolio (taking over the state Dept. of Insurance), suggesting a plate too full for a Senate bid, while Reps. Jim Jordan and Steve LaTourette are enjoying their newfound majority. Mandel seems to have the best fundraising chops of anyone beyond that initial top tier.

• VA-Sen, VA-01: Here’s one more Republican name to add to the list in Virginia, and it’s kind of an unexpected one, in that usually low-profile guys with safe red districts in the House tend to stay where they are. The 1st’s Rob Wittman is saying he’s “considering” the race, along with the requisite “never say never.”

• WI-Gov: The AFL-CIO is already weighing into Wisconsin, even though the next gubernatorial election is three and three-quarters years away. In response to Scott Walker’s ham-fisted attempt to limit collective bargaining rights for most state employees, the union is taking to the airwaves with TV spots. Obviously, the target isn’t the next election but swinging public opinion against the members of the state legislature, who’ll have the final say on the matter. (As a more general question, though, I’ve gotta wonder if we’ll see much more of this type of issue advertising in off-years in the future, as we move more and more into “permanent campaign” mode and the ground needs to be seeded for the on-years.)

• WV-Gov: With Saturday’s filing deadline come and gone, we have an official list of all the candidates in the gubernatorial special election, and with 14 names total, it’s a doozy. Not much in the way of surprises, though; the only person expected to run who, in the end, didn’t seems to be Dem state Sen. Brooks McCabe. For the Democrats, it’s acting Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin, state Sen. Jeff Kessler, SoS Natalie Tennant, state Treasurer John Perdue, state House speaker Rick Thompson, and some dude Arne Moltis. For the Republicans, it’s ex-SoS Betty Ireland, Putnam Co.  Prosecutor Mark Sorsaia, state Sen. Clark Barnes, state Del. Mitch Carmichael, ex-state Del. Larry Faircloth, and some dudes Bill Maloney, Cliff Ellis, and Ralph William Clark.  National Journal’s Sean Sullivan makes a good observation that in fields this crowded and in a state without runoffs, ballot position (which studies have shown can add 1-3% to a candidate’s vote) may actually wind up making the difference here. The positions were determined by random draw; for the Dems, Tomblin is at the top while co-frontrunner Tennant is at the bottom. For the GOP, Ireland is 7 out of 8, while Maloney is listed first.

• CA-36: LA city councilor Janice Hahn keeps rolling out more endorsements in her attempt to get an early lock-down on the Dem nomination in the special election. Three big ones: two very relevant to California (new Assembly speaker John Perez, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein), one, um, not so much (Dick Gephardt).

• NY-10: Gov. Andrew Cuomo just tapped Democratic Assemblyman Darryl Towns to be the state’s new Homes and Community Renewal agency. Ordinarily, a special election in the remarkably-blue AD-54 would be too far in the weeds even for us, but you may recognize his name: he’s the son of long-time Rep. Ed Towns. The 76-year-old Towns is routinely viewed as a candidate for retirement (and his son a likely replacement), so this move is a puzzle: is it a sign that the elder Towns isn’t going anywhere (perhaps permanently fastened to his House seat by all the moss growing there), or perhaps a way for the younger Towns to burnish his credentials a bit and differentiate him a bit from his somnolent dad?

• NY-26: One more name to strike off the Republican list in the 26th (not that I’d known he’d been on the list): Assemblyman Dan Burling said he wouldn’t run, and threw his support behind fellow Assembly member Jane Corwin for the nomination.

• Redistricting: This local news piece on redistricting in Indiana exposes the most mind-numbing and tedious part of the process, one that gets easily overlooked: the process of turning census data into precinct data, seeing as how precincts exist in their own little world apart from blocks and tracts. Even though Indiana was one of the earliest to receive their data, this data-cleaning process is expected to take several weeks before the legislature can even begin tackling the numbers. Also, Indiana is one of the states that will allow citizens to get their hands on the data to try making their own maps… but because of licensing issues of some sort, they won’t be making the data available online. If you’re in-state, you can drop into one of a number of stations they’ll be setting up around the state where you can tinker with the data in person, though.

• Site news: DavidNYC here. I’m back from my vacation and I’ve had the chance to read through all of the comments (every last one) in the post where I announced our impending move to Daily Kos. While many of my replies are “thank yous” for the very kind expressions of support you offered, I also did my best to answer specific questions where I could. Rest assured that this won’t be the last I’ll have to say on the subject before we make the changeover. I’ll also take this opportunity to encourage you to create an account over at Daily Kos if you don’t have one already, and to play around with the new site (DK4 just launched this past weeked). (D)