“There’s so many options when it comes to privatization. I would have to look at each plan that’s being proposed… but I would certainly consider looking at it.”
Tag: CA-52
SSP Daily Digest: 8/16 (Morning Edition)
California Dreaming – 2010 House Races
With the midterms only 10 months away it is time now to cast our eyes over the biggest state in the country – California.
How will we fare in 2010?
Below the fold for all the details and hey go check out the 2010 Race Tracker Wiki over at Open Congress for all your House, Senate and Gubernatorial needs.
(Cross posted at Daily Kos, MyDD and Open Left)
All of the doom and gloom amongst naysayers about our chances in this years midterms simply does not tally when we drill down into race by race analysis in California.
For a start I think that all 34 Democratic incumbents are as safe as houses – yep including McNerney in the 11th and Sanchez in the 47th.
So what about all 19 Republican held districts?
Here we go:
CA-02 (Herger) – R+11,
Obama/McCain – 42.7/55
Kerry/Bush – 36.6/62
Voter Reg (D/R)- 10/2006 – 33.12/45.09
Voter Reg (D/R)- 10/2009 – 33.81/43.18
House result 2008 (D/R)- 42.1/57.9
Does anyone think we are going to win a R+11 district next year that we don’t already hold?
We don’t even have a candidate yet.
Enough said.
CA-03 (Lundgren) – R+6,
Obama/McCain – 49.2/48.7 (1592 Votes!)
Kerry/Bush – 40.8/58.2
Voter Reg (D/R)- 10/2006 – 36.14/42.70
Voter Reg (D/R)- 10/2009 – 37.73/39.58
House result 2008 (D/R)- 44/49.5
This one is definitely going to be competitive!
Bera led the COH race as at end of September 585K/446K – an impressive effort indeed. With all other Democratic candidates withdrawing and endorsing him and with a rapidly closing Voter reg gap this district will be the scene of a torrid race. Note also that Obama narrowly carried it.
CA-04 (McClintock) – R+10,
Obama/McCain – 43.9/54
Kerry/Bush – 37.4/61.3
Voter Reg (D/R)- 10/2006 – 30.28/47.86
Voter Reg (D/R)- 10/2009 – 31.14/45.83
House result 2008 (D/R)- 49.7/50.3
Does anyone think we are going to win a R+10 district next year that we don’t already hold? Especially as we don’t have a candidate yet and 2006/8 nominee Charlie Brown is definitely not running.
Enough said.
CA-19 (Radanovich OPEN) – R+9,
Obama/McCain – 46/52.1
Kerry/Bush – 37.9/61.1
Voter Reg (D/R)- 10/2006 – 36.09/46.73
Voter Reg (D/R)- 10/2009 – 37.19/43.62
House result 2008 (D/R)- Unopposed
Our candidates are seriously 2nd tier and need to step up massively if this is to be competitive. Do we have a State Rep who can run?
CA-21 (Nunes) – R+13,
Obama/McCain – 42.1/56.3
Kerry/Bush – 33.7/65.4
Voter Reg (D/R)- 10/2006 – 33.84/49.55
Voter Reg (D/R)- 10/2009 – 34.89/46.76
House result 2008 (D/R)- 31.6/68.4
Does anyone think we are going to win a R+13 district next year that we don’t already hold?
We don’t even have a candidate yet.
Enough said.
CA-22 (McCarthy) – R+16,
Obama/McCain – 38.3/59.7
Kerry/Bush – 31/67.9
Voter Reg (D/R)- 10/2006 – 30.06/51.21
Voter Reg (D/R)- 10/2009 – 31.29/48.31
House result 2008 (D/R)- Unopposed
Does anyone think we are going to win a R+16 district next year that we don’t already hold?
We don’t even have a candidate yet.
Enough said.
CA-24 (Gallegly) – R+4,
Obama/McCain – 50.5/47.7
Kerry/Bush – 43.1/55.7
Voter Reg (D/R)- 10/2006 – 34.15/44.12
Voter Reg (D/R)- 10/2009 – 35.83/41.82
House result 2008 (D/R)- 41.8/58.2
This one should be competitive but one of our candidates needs to put the foot down on the fundraising pedal. Is there a top tier candidate out there?
CA-25 (McKeon) – R+6,
Obama/McCain – 49.4/48.3
Kerry/Bush – 39.9/58.8
Voter Reg (D/R)- 10/2006 – 34.52/43.76
Voter Reg (D/R)- 10/2009 – 37.77/39.29
House result 2008 (D/R)- 42.2/57.8
This one too should be competitive but either Conaway fundraises like crazy or we get a better candidate.
CA-26 (Dreier) – R+3,
Obama/McCain – 51/47
Kerry/Bush – 43.7/55.1
Voter Reg (D/R)- 10/2006 – 33.54/44.42
Voter Reg (D/R)- 10/2009 – 35.67/40.50
House result 2008 (D/R)- 40.4/52.7
On paper this should be right up there but is Warner the guy to do it?
If so better start raising the dough.
CA-40 (Royce) – R+8,
Obama/McCain – 46.6/51.1
Kerry/Bush – 38.4/60.2
Voter Reg (D/R)- 10/2006 – 32.04/46.78
Voter Reg (D/R)- 10/2009 – 33.86/42.75
House result 2008 (D/R) – 37.4/62.6
No Candidate no chance. Simple really. Even with a good candidate it is a tough district.
CA-41 (Lewis) – R+10,
Obama/McCain – 43.7/54.2
Kerry/Bush – 36.9/61.8
Voter Reg (D/R)- 10/2006 – 32.18/47.80
Voter Reg (D/R)- 10/2009 – 34.12/44.20
House result 2008 (D/R)- 38.3/61.7
Does anyone think we are going to win a R+10 district next year that we don’t already hold? Only if Lewis bails out owing to ethical “issues”!
Enough said.
CA-42 (Miller) – R+10,
Obama/McCain – 44.9/53.2
Kerry/Bush – 36.9/62
Voter Reg (D/R)- 10/2006 – 28.88/49.79
Voter Reg (D/R)- 10/2009 – 30.56/46.16
House result 2008 (D/R)- 39.8/60.2
Does anyone think we are going to win a R+10 district next year that we don’t already hold?
Enough said.
CA-44 (Calvert) – R+6,
Obama/McCain – 49.5/48.6 (2532 Votes)
Kerry/Bush – 39.9/59
Voter Reg (D/R)- 10/2006 – 31.98/46.89
Voter Reg (D/R)- 10/2009 – 34.63/46.40
House result 2008 (D/R)- 48.8/51.2
Simple equation here. We have the candidate in Hedrick. If he can lift his fundraising game he may make a real of this. Remember he was the guy who delivered that 2008 result above.
CA-45 (Bono Mack) – R+3,
Obama/McCain – 51.5/46.9
Kerry/Bush – 43.1/56
Voter Reg (D/R)- 10/2006 – 35.85/45.53
Voter Reg (D/R)- 10/2009 – 37.81/42.08
House result 2008 (D/R)- 41.7/58.3
Pougnet is the mayor of Palm Springs and this will be a zinger IMHO. His fundraising is going well (347K COH as at end of September) and he obviously has a very high local profile.
CA-46 (Rohrabacher) – R+6,
Obama/McCain – 47.9/49.8
Kerry/Bush – 41.6/56.9
Voter Reg (D/R)- 10/2006 – 30.49/46.84
Voter Reg (D/R)- 10/2009 – 32.02/43.49
House result 2008 (D/R)- 43.1/52.6
No candidate presently this one is at best a long shot.
CA-48 (Campbell) – R+6,
Obama/McCain – 49.3/48.6 (2479 Votes)
Kerry/Bush – 40.4/58.3
Voter Reg (D/R)- 10/2006 – 27.13/49.32
Voter Reg (D/R)- 10/2009 – 29.40/44.77
House result 2008 (D/R)- 40.6/55.7
An intriguing district. Terribly low % of registered Dems and yet Obama won the district. Krom needs to put the foot down with her fundraising (126K COH as at end of September is not great) to make this an outside chance.
CA-49 (Issa) – R+10,
Obama/McCain – 45.1/53
Kerry/Bush – 36.5/62.5
Voter Reg (D/R)- 10/2006 – 28.50/47.96
Voter Reg (D/R)- 10/2009 – 30.94/43.86
House result 2008 (D/R)- 37.5/58.3
Does anyone think we are going to win a R+10 district next year that we don’t already hold?
Enough said.
CA-50 (Bilbray) – R+3,
Obama/McCain – 51.3/47.1
Kerry/Bush – 43.9/55.2
Voter Reg (D/R)- 10/2006 – 29.62/43.64
Voter Reg (D/R)- 10/2009 – 31.40/40.27
House result 2008 (D/R)- 45.2/50.3
We lost our best candidate here (Roberts), Busby is I think flawed and Emblem has yet to make a splash. And yet Obama won the district.
Either Emblem steps up her fundraising or we get a better candidate IMHO.
CA-52 (Hunter) – R+9,
Obama/McCain – 45/53.4
Kerry/Bush – 37.7/61.4
Voter Reg (D/R)- 10/2006 – 29.87/45.66
Voter Reg (D/R)- 10/2009 – 31.41/42.90
House result 2008 (D/R)- 39/56.4
Does anyone think we are going to win a R+9 district next year that we don’t already hold?
We don’t even have a candidate yet.
Enough said.
So in summary:
Competitive race:
CA-03, CA-45
Competitive if fundraising steps up:
CA-44, CA-48
A chance if the candidate steps up their fundraising or we find a more viable candidate:
CA-24, CA-25, CA-26, CA-50
Long shot:
CA-19, CA-40, CA-46
Forget it:
CA-02, CA-04, CA-21, CA-22, CA-41, CA-42, CA-49, CA-52.
Not bad 2 definitely competitive races and two more that could become so if our candidates step up the fundraising. Another 4 as well that could be competitive in the right circumstances. Not bad in an environment that is supposedly toxic for Democrats.
A last word also on the two supposedly vulnerable Democratic Districts:
CA-11 (McNerney) – R+1,
The GOP lost their best candidate when Del Arroz withdrew. If presumptive frontrunner Grape Grower Brad Goehring makes it out of the torrid Primary (7 candidates and counting) he will still remain a 2nd tier candidate, albeit one that can self fund. McNerney will be waiting with his 675K COH as at end of September. Following from an 11 point victory last year and near parity in voter reg (in 2006 there was a 5% GOP edge) McNerney will be just fine.
CA-47 (Sanchez) – D+4,
Does anybody really think that a D+4 District is going to flip in California next year? The Tran/Pham GOP Primary promises to be a zinger and the winner gets to take on an incumbent who got 69% of the vote last year and has 769K COH as at the end of September as well as a 12% party reg gap.
This one ain’t gonna flip.
What say you?
Redistricting California 2010, v2.0: Let Only 6 Republicans Be Safe
Taking into account some suggestions and comments, I made some changes to my previous attempt at redistricting California. I conceded an additional 2 seats to the GOP, which concomitantly makes a number of other seats more strongly Democratic. The additional 2 safe GOP seats are CA-4 and CA-48. Here’s what version 2 looks like, overall:
Statewide Map, Version 2
For comparison, here is Version 1:
Statewide Map, Version 1
Because redistricting diaries often seem to devolve into discussions of the morality of gerrymandering, I will state my thoughts up front in order to try and prevent discussion from thus devolving.
1) In an ideal world, my ideal scenario would be that all Congressional districts in all States would be redistricted by non-partisan commission, so that all districts were fair and no political party was disadvantaged on the national level.
2) We don’t live in an ideal world. If Democrats roll over and play dead during redistricting after the 2010 census, that will do nothing to stop Republicans from gerrymandering every last seat out of states they control, like Georgia, Texas, and Florida. That will result in a national Congressional map unfairly favorable towards Republicans.
3) So Democrats should draw politically favorable maps in states we control. Congressional Redistricting is a blood sport, and unilateral disarmament is not a viable solution. Taking the high road is the Michael Dukakis way, and it is the wrong way.
4) If Democrats draw strong enough maps in states like California that really hurt the GOP, then maybe the GOP will eventually cry uncle.
5) After that, maybe the GOP would agree to adopt a fair national solution in which all states, whether GOP controlled or Dem controlled, drew fair and competitive maps via commission or some other neutral mechanism. That might not happen, but electoral reform of that sort is certainly more likely if we fight back than if we let the GOP roll us.
Now, on to the substance:
Political Impact
The bottom line is that under this map or something similar, California’s Congressional delegation would have many more Democrats and many fewer Republicans. Overall there are now 42 seats classified as Safely Democratic, 4 Lean Democratic. Under this map California would likely send delegation with 46-49 Democrats and 6-9 Republicans to Congress. Currently, California’s Congressional delegation is 33D – 19R, so that is a substantial improvement.
If a handful of GOP incumbents are able to hold on in districts that voted in the mid-50s for Obama, it is possible the number of Democrats could be a bit lower than 46. But even in a very large GOP wave election, the number of Democratic seats would be unlikely to fall much below 42-46, because the vast majority of seats are at least D+10 or very close to it, which is more than high enough to withstand a 1994 or 2006 sized wave election.
| Version 1 | Change | Version 2 | |
| Dem | 39 | +3 | 42 |
| Lean Dem | 5 | -1 | 4 |
| Swing | 5 | -2 | 3 |
| GOP | 4 | +2 | 6 |
Below, I analyze the districts that change from my previous version.
Northern California
In Northern California, CA-4 is conceded to the GOP. In exchange CA-3 becomes more strongly Democratic and CA-10 much less gerrymandered. Indirectly, this also filters all the way down to San Bernadino County to help make CA-29 and CA-45 a bit more Democratic.
Northern California, Version 2 map
Districts Altered:
| Incumbent: | ?Wally Herger? (R), ?Tom McClintock? (R) |
| Previous District PVI: | R+11 |
| District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 39% Obama, R+14 |
| District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 40% Obama, R+13. |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 72% White |
| District 1.0 Demographics: | 78% White |
| District 2.0 Demographics: | 77% White |
CA-2 shifts a bit northwards from version 1, getting rid of El Dorado and Amador Counties to move into Nevada County and take in more of the Sacramento suburbs in Placer County. This might make the district about 1 point more Democratic.
| Incumbent: | Dan Lungren (R) |
| Previous District PVI: | R+6 |
| District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 57% Obama, D+4 |
| District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 61% Obama, D+8 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 65% White |
| District 1.0 Demographics: | 56% White |
| District version 2.0 Demographics: | 45% White |
CA-3 is reworked thoroughly from the previous version. In my previous version, GOP incumbent Dan Lungren was in trouble. In this new version, he is pretty much doomed if he runs in this district. Only 250,000 people in this district remain in Sacramento County, mostly in competitive northern suburbs, with a mix of Obama and McCain precincts. On top of those people, all of Solano County (except for a thin sparsely populated strip of CA-10) and West Sacramento are tacked on, turning a lean Democratic district into a solidly Democratic district.
| Incumbent: | ?Dan Lungren? (R), ?George Radanovich? (R), ?Tom McLintock? (R) |
| Previous District PVI: | R+10 |
| District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 53% Obama, D+0 |
| District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 41% Obama, R+12 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 79% White |
| District 1.0 Demographics: | 57% White |
| District 2.0 Demographics: | 78% White |
The flip side of making CA-3 more Democratic is making CA-4 more Republican. The new CA-4 is a suburban swing district no more. It is now a solidly GOP district, combining suburban parts of Placer County with the Sierra Nevadas (minus Lake Tahoe) and strongly GOP north Fresno. 1/10 of the district is also made up of some particularly strong GOP precincts in Sacramento County, most of which are already in the current CA-4. GOP incumbents Dan Lungren, George Radanovich, and Tom McClintock would all have a reason to run here, making for a potential 3-way GOP primary, as substantial amounts of territory each has previously represented is included in this district.
| Incumbent: | George Miller (D) |
| Previous District PVI: | D+19 |
| District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 63% Obama, D+10 |
| District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 65% Obama, D+12 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 39% White, 27% Latino |
| District 1.0 Demographics: | 50% White, 31% Latino |
| District 2.0 Demographics: | 50% White, 28% Latino |
CA-7 gives up Antioch in order to pick up Berkeley. In order to keep Richmond contiguous with Oakland while also enabling CA-7 to add Berkeley, there is a thin coastal strip of CA-9 running through Berkeley as well. George Miller should have no difficulties in Berkeley, and when Miller retires, another strong Democrat should do fine in this district as well. Disproportionately few votes in this district are actually cast in San Joaquin county due to the high Latino population there. So the potential problem of someone from Berkeley winning a Democratic primary but then losing a general election (which applied to my previous version of CA-10) ought to be reduced in this modified version of CA-7.
| Incumbent: | John Garamendi (D) |
| Previous District PVI: | D+11 |
| District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 63% Obama, D+10 |
| District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 64% Obama, D+11 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 56% White |
| New District Demographics: | 46% White |
CA-10 is not the monster that the previous district was. The entire Sierra Nevadas section of the district is gone in version 2, and that population is instead picked up in Sacramento County (which now makes up about 4/7 of the district). The Sacramento section looks on its face like it would be Republican because there are large swaths of rural areas in the south-east of the county. But actually most of the population is in relatively Democratic suburban areas (like Elk Grove), and CA-10’s section of Sacramento County voted similarly to the county as a whole. Berkeley is also traded to CA-7 in exchange for Antioch. That makes CA-10 a little less Democratic than it would be, but only by a few points because Antioch is pretty strongly Democratic as well (65% for Obama). This also has negates the chance that someone from Berkeley with limited appeal in the Sacramento suburbs will be a future Democratic nominee in CA-10.
Southern California
An additional district in Southern California is conceded to the GOP (CA-48), in exchange for strengthening a couple of relatively weak Swing/Lean Democratic districts, and reducing gerrymandering in Orange County.
Southern California, Version 2 map
South-East LA & Orange County, Version 2 map
Districts Altered
| Incumbent: | ?Kevin McCarthy? (R), ?Devin Nunes? (R), ?George Radanovich? (R) |
| Previous District PVI: | R+16 |
| District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 32% Obama, R+21 |
| District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 32% Obama, R+21 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 57% White, 49% Latino |
| District 1.0 Demographics: | 62% White, 24% Latino |
| District 2.0 Demographics: | 62% White, 26% Latino |
Because CA-4 does not pick up the lake Tahoe area from CA-10, it has to make up population by pushing down on CA-22 into Fresno. This means that CA-22 also has some more population (114,000) to make up. It does so by crossing into San Bernadino County and relieving Adam Schiff of the most heavily Republican precincts around Barstow and Hesperia. So while the political makeup of CA-22 does not really change, it helps make CA-29 more Democratic, and indirectly helps to make CA-41 and CA-45 more Democratic.
| Incumbent: | Adam Schiff (D) |
| Previous District PVI: | D+14 |
| District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 61% Obama, D+8 |
| District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 63% Obama, D+10 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 42% White, 26% Asian, 26% Latino |
| District 1.0 Demographics: | 46% White, 7% Asian, 33% Latino |
| District 2.0 Demographics: | 45% White, 8% Asian, 34% Latino |
As mentioned above, CA-29 sheds some heavily GOP areas to the 22nd district. To equalize the population, CA-29 adds Upland, which has some Democratic precincts to go with its Republican ones, and GOP Yucca Valley and Twenty Nine Palms. Though these areas are still generally GOP, they are a bit less Republican than the areas he loses. I also noticed that there were two prisons with combined populations of about 25,000 people in the middle of the desert/hills of rural San Bernadino county. I was sure to add those to CA-29, serving to increases the relative proportion of the vote cast in the heavily Democratic LA County part of the 29th. So Adam Schiff’s district becomes a bit more Democratic by picking up some relatively less GOP precincts and by adding some prisoners. I thought about putting Lake Tahoe in the 29th district, but didn’t in the end.
| Incumbent: | ?Ed Royce? (R), ?John Campbell? (R) |
| Previous District PVI: | R+8 |
| District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 52% Obama, R+1 |
| District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 57% Obama, D+4 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 42% White, 18% Asian, 34% Latino |
| District 1.0 Demographics: | 43% White, 15% Asian, 35% Latino |
| District 2.0 Demographics: | 46% White, 16% Asian, 32% Latino |
CA-40 is now entirely within Orange County, and, like the rest of the districts in Orange County (except CA-47) is remodeled from version 1.0. This is probably just about the most Democratic district that can be made in Orange County without taking substantively from CA-47. It combines progressive and Democratic leaning Laguna beach with Costa Mesa, Irvine, and some Obama voting areas (with lots of apartments, which presumably explains their Democratic trend) around Laguna Woods/Aliso Viejo. This part of the district is 57% white, and makes up half of the district. The rest of the district (35% white) pecks around the fringes of CA-47, picking up Democratic leaning precincts in parts of Tustin, Anaheim, Fullerton, and Placentia. Effective mobilization of young and minority voters would be key to any potential pickup of this district for Democrats. Another note is that if the Asian American voters I picked up turn out to be disproportionately Vietnamese, that would also make this district marginally more Republican.
| Incumbent: | Jerry Lewis (R) |
| Previous District PVI: | R+10 |
| District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 53% Obama, D+0 |
| District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 58% Obama, D+5 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 55% White, 6% Black, 33% Latino |
| District 1.0 Demographics: | 40% White, 11% Black, 39% Latino |
| District 2.0 Demographics: | 33% White, 11% Black, 45% Latino |
CA-41 becomes substantially more Republican and less white than the previous version. It gives up its more rural areas of San Bernadino County (and its prisons) and is pulled westward towards Los Angeles. As the white population declines and the Latino population increases, both Black and Latino voters become a substantially greater proportion of the electorate. Only 50,000 people in the district now live in non-urbanized areas now (in the mountains just to the East of San Bernadino). I would guess this district voted about 58% for Obama, though it is possible that it is even more Democratic than that. The city of San Bernadino, for example, voted 66% for Obama.
| Incumbent: | Joe Baca (Blue Dog D) |
| Previous District PVI: | D+13 |
| District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 63% Obama, D+10 |
| District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 63% Obama, D+10 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 17% White, 65% Latino |
| District 1.0 Demographics: | 23% White, 62% Latino |
| District 2.0 Demographics: | 22% White, 63% Latino |
From version 1, CA-43 shifts further to the West, adding Chino and Montclair. The Latino majority actually slightly increases in the process. Joe Baca would have no trouble running here, and he would probably have little difficulty in CA-41 either if he preferred to run there.
| Incumbent: | ?Ken Calvert?, ?Mary Bono? (R) |
| Previous District PVI: | R+6 |
| District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 41% Obama, R+12 |
| District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 41% Obama, R+12 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 44% White, 42% Latino |
| District 1.0 Demographics: | 60% White, 25% Latino |
| District 2.0 Demographics: | 62% White, 26% Latino |
Version 2 of CA-44 is no different politically than version 1.0 (though possibly it is more like R+11 now). But geographically, it shifts further into Riverside County, adding much of Mary Bono’s GOP base areas, and even picks up a small section of San Bernadino County. This district would likely result in an interesting primary between Mary Bono (who is probably seen as too moderate to go unchallenged in a GOP primary) and Ken Calvert (who is reportedly being investigated by the FBI). Perhaps (I am only half kidding here) Doug Hoffman would run here as well, providing a true Conservative alternative…
| Incumbent: | Mary Bono (R) |
| Previous District PVI: | R+3 |
| District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 55% Obama, D+2 |
| District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 61% Obama, D+8 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 42% White, 45% Latino |
| District 1.0 Demographics: | 35% White, 51% Latino |
| District 2.0 Demographics: | 34% White, 52% Latino |
CA-45 becomes more Democratic than in version 1 by exchanging white GOP areas for Lake Tahoe. I would have liked to expand the Latino majority in this district, but was not really possible without reducing the Hispanic percentage in other Latino majority districts like CA-42 and CA-51. It was also tough to find somewhere suitable to put Lake Tahoe – I didn’t want to waste a lot of Democratic votes, but there were not many non-majority minority and non-Republican districts in Southern California that could easily extend northwards through Inyo and Mono Counties. The Inyo/Mono/Alpine/Lake Tahoe portion of the district voted 64% for Obama, while the rest (which is 57% Latino) voted about 60% for Obama. Mary Bono would be more likely to try her luck in a GOP primary in CA-44 than to fight a losing battle here.
| Incumbent: | Laura Richardson (D) |
| Previous District PVI: | D+26 |
| District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 64% Obama, D+11 |
| District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 67% Obama, D+14 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 13% White, 22% Black, 13% Asian, 48% Latino |
| District 1.0 Demographics: | 31% White, 18% Black, 11% Asian, 36% Latino |
| District 2.0 Demographics: | 31% White, 19% Black, 11% Asian, 38% Latino |
For version 2 of CA-37, I managed to knock the black population up a notch to 19%, by running through a different section of Long Beach. 37% of the district (Fountain Valley, Seal Beach, Huntington Beach) is in Orange County and voted for McCain 54-46. But that Orange County section is overwhelmed by the LA County portion, which includes Compton (96% for Obama), areas of LA nearby, and part of Long Beach. The overall Obama percentage goes up to 67%, partly because it actually gets more Democratic, but also because I think I originally slightly underestimated how Democratic this district was. The vote around Compton is really overwhelming – though it might be less so with Obama not on the ballot, this seat still should be very safe.
| Incumbent: | Dana Rohrabacher (R) |
| Previous District PVI: | R+3 |
| District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 60% Obama, D+7 |
| District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 61% Obama, D+8 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 59% White, 18% Asian, 18% Latino |
| District 1.0 Demographics: | 50% White, 10% Asian, 29% Latino |
| District 2.0 Demographics: | 37% White, 22% Asian, 30% Latino |
Only 30% of CA-46 is in Orange County now, but it does get substantially more Democratic (relative to version 1) because the areas of Orange County that are retained (chiefly the area around Westminster) are relatively Republican, while some of the areas of Orange County in version 1.0 (particularly Costa Mesa and Laguna Woods) voted for Obama. Those Democratic Orange County areas are donated to CA-40. Some of the areas in LA County that are added to CA-46 are only relatively weakly Democratic as well, and there are even a few McCain precincts in the LA county part of the district. It would be easy to make this district more Democratic by switching around some precincts with the neighboring 37th and 39th districts, but I didn’t do so in order to keep the minority populations well up in those VRA districts. This district makes much more sense geographically than the elongated snake in version 1.
| Incumbent: | ?John Campbell? (R) ?Ed Royce? (R) |
| Previous District PVI: | R+6 |
| District 1.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 52% Obama, R+1 |
| District 2.0 estimated Obama/McCain: | 42% Obama, R+11 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 61% White, 17% Asian, 18% Latino |
| District 1.0 Demographics: | 44% White, 19% Asian, 29% Latino |
| District 2.0 Demographics: | 71% White, 11% Asian, 13% Latino |
In Version 2.0, CA-48 is conceded to the GOP, becoming a thoroughly Republican district entirely contained within Orange County. It is just about the most heavily GOP district that could be created entirely within Orange County. In the northwest, the district starts in GOP north Fullerton. It takes in all of heavily GOP, high turnout Yorba Linda. More of the same as it heads through heavily GOP areas of Tustin and Anaheim. It heads east to pick up more GOP areas surrounding the 40th district, including Mission Viejo, Santa Margarita, and Laguna Niguel. It then turns back to the North-West, through a thin coastal strip of Laguna Beach (hopefully not picking up too many Democrats), and ends by adding Newport Beach. By taking in so many GOP voters, it is possible to make the remaining Orange County districts both more Democratic and more compact. It also allows the 44th District to move into Riverside and San Bernadino counties, making other seats in the inland empire more Democratic.
I also made some minor alterations in the distribution of the Latino districts in LA in order to make the Latino percentages high in each, but that doesn’t alter their political status (safely Democratic).
Redistricting California 2010: Let Only 4 Republicans Be Safe
I decided to try my hand at redistricting California’s Congressional districts for 2010-2012, using Dave’s Redistricting App. After playing around with it a bit, here’s what the map I came up with looks like overall:
Here’s the 2008 Obama/McCain vote in California, on the precinct level:
Read on for a detailed analysis and breakdown:
California redistricting after the 2010 census presents a great opportunity for Democrats. In 2000, a bipartisan incumbent protection map was drawn, which very effectively protected all incumbents – both Democrats and Republicans. In fact, since that map was drawn, only 1 seat has changed hands. That was CA-11, lost by Richard Pombo to Jerry McNerney in 2006. With time, as California has continued to become more strongly Democratic, the Congressional map has effectively turned into a GOP gerrymander.
My goal was to make as many seats as possible that voted about 63% for Obama, while making as many of the rest of the remaining seats as possible at least competitive and winnable for Democrats, and conceding as few seats as possible to the GOP. My vote estimates are not exact (I did not add up all the precincts), but should generally be accurate, and any errors should be small enough to not really effect the overall partisan status of each district. My vote percentages take into account only Democratic and Republican votes, disregarding 3rd party votes which do not alter the outcome – so 63% for Obama necessarily means 37% for McCain as well. However, if CA 3rd party voters cast votes for major party candidates in Congressional races, on net it should probably help Democrats – a majority of 3rd Party votes in California were cast for Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney. I also assumed that California will keep 53 districts, though it is possible that California will lose one (or who knows, even gain, if the census count is high).
In theory, it would be possible to redistrict California so that every Congressional district voted for Obama. But that would require either a bit more gerrymandering than I was willing to contemplate (like running a district from downtown San Francisco to Shasta County), or would require weakening some Democratic seats to the point that they might actually become winnable for Republicans. So instead I settled on trying to create the maximum number of seats with a PVI at or near about D+10. If a Democratic incumbent in a seat which is about D+10 loses their seat to a Republican, they probably deserve to lose it – corruption, scandal, $100,000 in the freezer, and we are probably better off without them. But even if the GOP did manage to momentarily pick up a D+10 district, Democrats would have an excellent chance of picking it back up in the next cycle. Other than scandal, it would take a truly formidable national GOP wave, greater than that of 1994 or 2006, to lose more than a handful of D+10 seats. And in that case, the GOP would control Congress regardless of what happens in California.
I also made a statewide precinct map showing the Obama/McCain vote in 2008 on the precinct level. It is not entirely complete, because no votes were cast in some irredeemably rural “precincts” and some precincts have changed. But for the most part it should get the job done in the areas where we have to worry about looking below the county level. I could have never done Southern California in particular without this. There are 8 shades of blue and red, equally incremented by 6.25 points each, so that for example, the lightest blue means that Obama won the precinct with 50-56.25% of the vote, while the darkest blue precincts voted 93.75-100% for Obama. There’s also a bigger version of the same map if you want to a more zoomed in view (big image, you were warned).
In addition, here’s the 2008 Obama/McCain vote with the size of each precinct adjusted in proportion to the actual number of votes cast in the precinct, rather than its geographical size. With the caveat that this slightly understates Republican strength because the few counties missing in the previous map voted for McCain, this is in one sense a more true depiction of the the Presidential vote in California. It also really brings home what a great proportion of the vote was cast in the LA and Bay areas. There are really not that many substantial clusters of red precincts that cannot be overwhelmed with surrounding blue areas. While in the geographic precinct map, it looks like McCain won some substantial areas, the reality is that he won in very few places – McCain only won in the most sparsely populated areas of the state and in select CA suburbs and exurbs. (Click here for a zoomed in version of the same map).
I’d also recommend anyone interested in California redistricting read Silver Spring’s earlier work on redistricting California, (which gave me some of the ideas that went into this map), which drew a map with 44 Democratic, 7 GOP, and 2 swing seats while increasing Latino and Asian American opportunity districts and generally respecting community/political boundaries. But I wanted to see if I could push the map further, conceding fewer GOP seats and further increasing Hispanic and Asian American representation, without endangering any existing Democratic incumbents.
The future political shape of California
California voted 61% for Obama to 37% for McCain. Disregarding 3rd party votes, Obama got 62% to McCain’s 38%. Obama also managed to narrowly win 8 of 19 GOP held districts which had been gerrymandered to be safe GOP, proving by example that there are potential progressive gains to be made in California.
Because California is unlikely to become much more Republican over the next 10 years, the likelihood that an aggressive redistricting plan will backfire, like the 2000 GOP gerrymander of Pennsylvania, is minimal. The chief reason for this is that California is a Majority Minority state in which the white population will to continue to decline as a share of the population. Yet white voters made up 63% of the electorate in California in 2008 even though they only make up 42% of the population. Simply put, as time passes, the electorate in California will continue to become less white, and more racially representative of the population as a whole. So there are really only two ways that the GOP can gain any ground (or avoid losing it) in California – they must either suddenly start getting support from minority voters, or they must start receiving levels of white support that they only now really get in parts of the South and a few other places. Given the GOP trend on issues like the confirmation of Sonia Sotamayor, it seems unlikely that the GOP can possibly pick up any meaningful sort of ground among minoritiesby 2020, assuming that the GOP does not suddenly transform into a very different party.
According to exit polls, the 2008 vote in California broke down by race as follows. White and black voters exceeded their share of the population, while the percentage of the electorate that was Asian American or Hispanic was only half the percentage of the population that was Asian American or Hispanic.
| % of Electorate | Obama | McCain | Effective Obama Support | |
| White | 63.0% | 52.0% | 46.0% | 53.1% |
| African American | 10.0% | 94.0% | 5.0% | 94.9% |
| Latino | 18.0% | 74.0% | 23.0% | 76.3% |
| Asian | 6.0% | 64.0% | 35.0% | 64.6% |
| Other | 3.0% | 55.0% | 41.0% | 57.3% |
| Total | 62.3% |
Now, what would the 2008 vote in California have looked like if the electorate had the same racial breakdown as the population as a whole? Assuming that each racial group gave the same % to Obama, he would have done 3 points better (7 on net). And that even includes cutting the African American percentage of the electorate by nearly HALF. This is what the future of the California electorate looks like, and it looks hopeless for Republicans.
| % of Population | Obama | McCain | Effective Obama Support | |
| White | 42.0% | 52.0% | 46.0% | 53.1% |
| African American | 5.9% | 94.0% | 5.0% | 94.9% |
| Latino | 36.6% | 74.0% | 23.0% | 76.3% |
| Asian | 12.2% | 64.0% | 35.0% | 64.6% |
| Other | 3.3% | 55.0% | 41.0% | 57.3% |
| Total | 65.6% |
So what if the GOP were able to get a massive swing of white voters? With the 2008 electorate, McCain would have had to win white voters 2 to 1 to have pulled even in California (much less win it). In fact, he lost white voters 52-46. With the future electorate, things are naturally even bleaker for the GOP. In fact, with an electorate that looked like California’s population (the future electorate that CA is trending towards), Obama could have lost white voters 53-45 and still done better than he actually did in 2008.
| % of Population | Obama | McCain | Effective Obama Support | |
| White | 42.0% | 45.0% | 53.0% | 45.9% |
| African American | 5.9% | 94.0% | 5.0% | 94.9% |
| Latino | 36.6% | 74.0% | 23.0% | 76.3% |
| Asian | 12.2% | 64.0% | 35.0% | 64.6% |
| Other | 3.3% | 55.0% | 41.0% | 57.3% |
| Total | 62.6% |
It would obviously take much more for Republicans to even come close to winning Statewide elections. In fact, for McCain to have won California without making gains with minorities and with the 2008 electorate, he would have needed to win white voters 66-32. If the electorate had broken down by race the same way as the population, he would have had to win white voters 83-15. And that only just barely gets a narrow GOP win.
Coming close to winning statewide elections is precisely what it would take for the GOP to start putting more than a handful of the D+10 seats in any danger at all. There’s just flat out no way that they can do that in California without appealing to a meaningful number of progressive voters in the Bay Area and in Los Angeles. And frankly, if the GOP starts appealing in places like Los Angeles and the Bay Area, then they will have rejected most of what they currently stand for and progressive Democrats will have already won (or failed spectacularly to the point of creating a GOP wave far exceeding 1994 or 2006). It would be foolishly Rovian to claim that is impossible, but it is a very high bar to hurdle, especially because the national GOP is so deeply averse to even the facade of quasi-moderation of exhibited by Republicans like Schwarzenegger, Crist, and Snowe.
Political Impact
The political impact of this map would be to increase the number of Democrats in Congress from California. Barring major scandal, California should have an approximately 40-13 Democratic delegation (including all 33 current Democratic incumbents). That’s likely to be at least 44-9. And in a best case scenario, in which all the swing seats turn blue, California even has a chance to send an overwhelming 49-4 Democratic delegation to Washington. Moreover, most of the new Democrats elected would likely be reasonably progressive Democrats.
The drawing of a Congressional map along these lines would also have the effect of neutering the net national partisan impact of Republican gerrymanders in states like Florida and Texas. While my personal preference would be to have all districts drawn by a non-partisan commission, it is no good if only Democrats do that in states where Democrats will control redistricting, while the GOP goes on a gerrymandering binge in states expected to gain seats like Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Utah. But with an aggressive redrawing of the lines California, Democrats can in one fell swoop come close to making sure that redistricting will not be a net negative on the national level. By carefully drawing the seats so that newly Democratic districts have strong progressive bases in areas like Los Angeles and the Bay Area, we can also increase the likelihood that better Democrats will be elected from those districts.
| Dem | 39 |
| Lean Dem | 5 |
| Swing | 5 |
| GOP | 4 |
Safe Democratic seats
I classify 39 seats as reasonably safe Democratic seats. All of these districts voted 60%+ for Obama (D+7), and 28 of them voted 63%+ for Obama (D+10).
Lean Democratic seats
There are 5 Lean Democratic seats (3, 20, 42, 45, 50). The 20th is already in Democratic hands (and could probably be made safer pretty easily), and there would be a very good chance of picking up the other 4 seats in 2012, especially if Obama again does well in California. These seats all voted 55-58% for Obama and are likely to become more Democratic – 3 of them are new majority Latino seats, and the others have substantial minority populations whose turnout should gradually rise).
Swing Seats
These are seats that voted from 51% to 53% for Obama (4, 40, 41, 44, 48, 49). 40, 41, and 48 all have white populations that make up less than 50% of the district’s population, and should continue to become more Democratic as minority turnout increases. There is no guarantee that Democrats will necessarily be able to pick up all (or any) of these seats, but strong candidates ought to be able to run competitive races and win in these districts.
GOP Seats
Finally, there are 4 safe GOP seats. These all voted about 32-41% for Obama and are designed to be completely unwinnable for Democrats. These districts all serve to suck in the maximum number of Republicans possible, making surrounding districts more Democratic.
In retrospect, if I were to redraw the map, I might consider conceding one more safe GOP seat in the Orange County/Riverside/San Bernadino area. If the most heavily GOP areas remaining were combined into one more district, it would be pretty easy to make a number of swing/lean Dem seats a bit more Democratic.
The Voting Rights Act
I endeavored to follow the requirements of the Voting Rights Act in full, and tried to even go a bit beyond its strict requirements. From the districts drawn in 2000, I managed to substantially increase minority voting strength for both Latinos and Asian Americans, while maintaining effective black control or at least substantial influence over 4 districts. :
| District Type | # of Districts | % of Districts | % of Population |
| Majority White | 19 | 35.8% | 42.3% |
| Plurality White | 11 | 20.8% | 42.3% |
| Total White | 30 | 56.6% | 42.3% |
| Majority Latino | 15 | 28.3% | 36.6% |
| Plurality Latino | 1 | 1.9% | 36.6% |
| Total Latino | 16 | 30.2% | 36.6% |
| Plurality Asian | 3 | 5.7% | 12.5% |
| Effective Black | 4 | 7.5% | 6.7% |
Increase Latino voting strength
5 new Majority Latino seats are added. They are the the 18th, 21st, 25th, 42nd, and 45th. CA-32 also changes to an Asian plurality district, which is offset by the change of CA-26 to a Latino majority district. Factors such as how complete the census count of Latinos is and how concentrated Latino population growth actually is will have a big effect on the actual location and shapes of these districts, but in reality it ought to be possible to add a number of new Latino majority districts.
Increase Asian American voting strength
The 12th, 15th, and 32nd districts become Asian American plurality districts. Although Asians are not a homogeneous group politically or ethnically, and although Californians have sometimes elected Asian Americans in districts without a particularly large Asian community (like Doris Matsui in Sacramento), Asian voters will now have more of a guarantee that they can elect candidates of their choice.
Maintain African American voting strength
I tried to maintain African American voting strength as much as I could, but trends are working against the maintanance of the existing 4 districts which are effectively controlled by African American voters (CA-9, CA-33, CA-35, CA-37). Particularly in the 3 LA districts, Latino population growth is gradually overwhelming the African American population, particularly in CA-35. Additionally, population growth has not kept up with the state average in these districts, meaning that they will need to expand – and there are really no more concentrations of black voters nearby that can be added to the 3 districts. On the basis of population, one could probably justify merging the African American areas of the 3 existing districts into two districts with higher African American populations, but I did not do this in order to try and protect all incumbents. If a merger of these districts does not happen in 2010, the voters may well make it happen anyway, making a merger in 2020 a near certainty. But despite these difficulties, I managed to actually slightly increase the black population % in CA-9 and CA-33. In CA-35 and 37, the African American percentage drops, but the main threat to effective black control of these districts (Latino voters) are decreased as a share of the population. By making these districts more white and more Republican, Maxine Waters and Laura Richardson are probably actually safer, because the main threat to their incumbancy is a primary challenge from a Latino Democrat. While one could arge that this disenfranchises Latinos, there is really no other way to maintain black VRA districts that I can see, and the Latinos removed from CA-35 and CA-37 help make it possible to create other Latino majority districts in the LA area.
Breakdown of the Districts
Finally, let’s look at the new districts themselves, in aggregate and individually. Because I de-packed many overly Democratic districts, the average and median district becomes more Republican, while a greater number of districts become Democratic.
| District | New Dist Est. Obama% | Old Dist Obama % | Change in Obama % | Designation | VRA Status | Region |
| 1 | 63 | 67 | -4 | Dem | Majority White | Northern California |
| 2 | 39 | 44 | -5 | GOP | Majority White | Northern California |
| 3 | 57 | 50 | 7 | Lean Dem | Majority White | Northern California |
| 4 | 53 | 45 | 8 | Swing | Majority White | Northern California |
| 5 | 62 | 71 | -9 | Dem | Plurality White | Northern California |
| 6 | 72 | 78 | -6 | Dem | Majority White | Northern California |
| 7 | 63 | 73 | -10 | Dem | Majority White | Bay Area |
| 8 | 81 | 87 | -6 | Dem | Majority White | Bay Area |
| 9 | 83 | 90 | -7 | Dem | Effective Black | Bay Area |
| 10 | 63 | 66 | -3 | Dem | Majority White | Bay Area |
| 11 | 61 | 55 | 6 | Dem | Plurality White | Bay Area |
| 12 | 79 | 76 | 3 | Dem | Plurality Asian | Bay Area |
| 13 | 64 | 76 | -12 | Dem | Plurality White | Bay Area |
| 14 | 73 | 75 | -2 | Dem | Majority White | Bay Area |
| 15 | 69 | 70 | -1 | Dem | Plurality Asian | Bay Area |
| 16 | 66 | 71 | -5 | Dem | Plurality Latino | Bay Area |
| 17 | 65 | 74 | -9 | Dem | Majority White | Central California |
| 18 | 60 | 60 | 0 | Dem | Majority Latino | Central California |
| 19 | 63 | 47 | 16 | Dem | Plurality White | Bay Area |
| 20 | 56 | 61 | -5 | Lean Dem | Majority Latino | Central California |
| 21 | 67 | 43 | 24 | Dem | Majority Latino | Central California |
| 22 | 32 | 39 | -7 | GOP | Majority White | Central California |
| 23 | 62 | 67 | -5 | Dem | Majority White | Central California |
| 24 | 63 | 51 | 12 | Dem | Majority White | Greater LA |
| 25 | 65 | 51 | 14 | Dem | Majority Latino | Greater LA |
| 26 | 62 | 52 | 10 | Dem | Majority Latino | Greater LA |
| 27 | 62 | 68 | -6 | Dem | Plurality White | Greater LA |
| 28 | 76 | 78 | -2 | Dem | Majority Latino | Greater LA |
| 29 | 61 | 69 | -8 | Dem | Plurality White | Greater LA |
| 30 | 64 | 72 | -8 | Dem | Majority White | Greater LA |
| 31 | 73 | 82 | -9 | Dem | Majority Latino | Greater LA |
| 32 | 63 | 70 | -7 | Dem | Plurality Asian | Greater LA |
| 33 | 94 | 88 | 6 | Dem | Effective Black | Greater LA |
| 34 | 65 | 76 | -11 | Dem | Majority Latino | Greater LA |
| 35 | 76 | 86 | -10 | Dem | Effective Black | Greater LA |
| 36 | 64 | 66 | -2 | Dem | Plurality White | Greater LA |
| 37 | 64 | 81 | -17 | Dem | Effective Black | Greater LA |
| 38 | 63 | 73 | -10 | Dem | Majority Latino | Greater LA |
| 39 | 62 | 67 | -5 | Dem | Majority Latino | Greater LA |
| 40 | 52 | 48 | 4 | Swing | Plurality White | Greater LA |
| 41 | 53 | 45 | 8 | Swing | Plurality White | Greater LA |
| 42 | 58 | 46 | 12 | Lean Dem | Majority Latino | Greater LA |
| 43 | 63 | 69 | -6 | Dem | Majority Latino | Greater LA |
| 44 | 41 | 50 | -9 | GOP | Majority White | Greater LA |
| 45 | 55 | 52 | 3 | Lean Dem | Majority Latino | Greater LA |
| 46 | 60 | 49 | 11 | Dem | Majority White | Greater LA |
| 47 | 60 | 61 | -1 | Dem | Majority Latino | Greater LA |
| 48 | 52 | 50 | 2 | Swing | Plurality White | Greater LA |
| 49 | 51 | 46 | 5 | Swing | Majority White | San Diego |
| 50 | 57 | 52 | 5 | Lean Dem | Majority White | San Diego |
| 51 | 62 | 64 | -2 | Dem | Majority Latino | San Diego |
| 52 | 38 | 46 | -8 | GOP | Majority White | San Diego |
| 53 | 63 | 70 | -7 | Dem | Plurality White | San Diego |
| Average | 62.17 | 63.37 | -1 | |||
| Median | 63.00 | 66.88 | -4 |
Northern California
I defined the Northern California region as pretty much everything from Sacramento northwards. It includes 6 districts. 4 Should be Democratic, while CA-2 is Republican and CA-4 is a swing district. This is the whitest part of the State, and therefore probably the part of the State where there is the greatest potential for the GOP to make gains (even if it seems improbable at best that they will make much headway in liberal areas like Sonoma County). For that reason I decided not get too overly aggressive here. It would be possible to avoid conceding a GOP district in the far North-East, but unless you did something like draw a tentacle from Nancy Pelosi’s district up into rural GOP areas, it would be very hard to then also avoid creating a strong or leaning GOP district in the Sierra Nevada’s East and South-East of Sacramento. So I didn’t even try. Instead, I took advantage of the opportunity to move Nancy Pelosi’s district north without endangering the 1st or 6th districts, giving her Marin County across the Golden Gate bridge, which, as we will see, makes it possible to squeeze a great deal out of the Eastern side of the San Francisco Bay.
Northern California
Sacramento Area
San Francisco Bay Area
Every single seat based in the San Francisco Bay area is safely Democratic. A number of these districts also extend outwards to the east, in order to avoid wasting too many votes in ultra-Demacratic districts. But many districts remain entirely within the Bay area, and if one were willing to draw pinwheels flowing out from San Francisco and the San Mateo Peninsula to places like Bakersfield, Fresno, and Barstow, you could pretty easily squeeze out another one or two utterly safe Democratic districts.
Northern Bay Area
Southern Bay Area
Central California
Given the GOP lean of much of this region, having only 1 GOP district is not bad. Latino voting strength is greatly increased in this area. Although it might not be at all certain that all of the Latino districts will immediately have an effective Latino voting majority, they will with time. This is the most obviously gerrymandered part of the state, but that is necessary in order to increase Latino voting strength and to increase Democratic strength in less heavily Latino areas. The actual lines in this area will be greatly affected by the actual distribution of Latino population growth within counties.
Central Coast
Central Valley
LA Area
I am using a broad definition of the LA area, including areas beyond the city of Los Angeles proper, including Orange, Riverside, San Bernadino, and Ventura counties. In this area, and especially in LA County, some of the districts are better thought of as general ideas than specific exact proposals. I am fairly certain that someone who knows the area better than I do could draw the urban lines a bit more sensibly while maintaining or increasing all the political benefits and fully complying with the Voting Rights Act (a major cause of strange district shapes). Additionally, the 2008 Population Estimates are only available on the County level – so the actual population will be distributed somewhat differently than in the lines I drew. The exact lines should not be taken too literally, but it should be possible to draw roughly similar districts with the same basic demographic and political results. I may have mistakenly drawn some Democratic incumbents’ houses out of their district, but in reality that would probably be easy to avoid, if it matters. The greater LA area also has the greatest concentration of minorities in California.
That is the chief reason why I was more willing to draw some districts that were only lean Democratic or swing seats – because of their high but still relatively low turnout Latino and Asian American populations, many districts are safe bets to become more Democratic as that turnout increases. So even if these seats do not all flip Democratic in 2012, there is a great chance that they will flip some time between 2014 and 2020. Still, you can make a good argument for either conceding another seat to the GOP (or sending another district or 2 deep into the heart of LA), and if I were redrawing the map I would probably concede a third safe GOP seat in the Orange/Riverside/Burnadino area in order to make the surrounding districts more Democratic. But the overall point is that there is no reason for any district in LA County to be Republican, and from LA County, a number of districts can be safely extended outwards to make even more Democratic seats. It also ought to be possible to create more Latino majority seats and an Asian American plurality seat.
Southern California
Northern LA area
Southern LA area
Eastern LA area
San Diego
Last but not least, the San Diego area. Democrats currently hold only 2 of 5 seats in this area, while Obama won 54-44. With the exception of CA-51, the minority population in San Diego is relatively small. But even without relying on votes from Los Angeles, it should be possible to make 3 fairly strong Democratic districts, one heavily GOP district, and a swing district out of this area.
Breakdown of the Districts
And now to all 53 of the individual districts, one by one.
| Incumbent: | Mike Thompson (Blue Dog D) v. Wally Herger (R) |
| Previous District PVI: | D+13 |
| New District estimated Obama/McCain: | 60% Obama, D+7 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 63% White |
| New District Demographics: | 66% White |
CA-1 pairs Napa Blue dog Mike Thompson with Butte County (which narrowly voted for Obama) Republican Wally Herger. The district basically consists of Napa, Yolo, Colusa, Sutter, ande Butte counties, along with the section of Sonoma County previously in CA-1. Those areas combined voted 60% for Obama, and that is the basic partisan orientation of this district. If that’s not Democratic enough, it could easily be made stronger by trading some Sonoma area territory with CA-6. Some relatively unpopulated parts of Yolo and Sutter Counties are cut out to provide a path for CA-4 to connect Yolo and Placer counties, and the city of Marysville in Yuba County is thrown in to equalize the population.
In the event that Herger decided to actually run in this district, he would almost certainly lose. Half of the districts population lives in Napa, Yolo, and Sonoma counties, and would vote heavily for Thomson. In the other half of the district, Herger might win, but would have a lot of trouble winning by enough to offset the heavily Democratic Napa/Yolo/Sonoma margin. It is also easier to imagine Thomson appealing to voters in Butte County than it is to imagine Herger appealing to San Francisco Bay area liberals.
But more than likely this is a moot point, because Herger would almost certainly take one look at CA-1 and opt to run in CA-2 instead, which includes a lot of his rural GOP base areas.
| Incumbent: | ?Wally Herger? (R), ?Tom McClintock? (R) |
| Previous District PVI: | R+11 |
| New District estimated Obama/McCain: | 39% Obama, R+14 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 72% White |
| New District Demographics: | 78% White |
CA-2 serves to pack as many rural Northern California Republicans as possible into one district. It is the whitest district in California, and is very strongly Republican. CA-2 includes compact rural counties in Northern California, and snakes down through Placer, El Dorado, and Amador counties to pick up rural/exurban GOP areas, leaving closer in Sacramento suburbs in Placer County to CA-4, and leaving the more Democratic Lake Tahoe area to CA-10.
As discussed with CA-1, Wally Herger would probably run in this district, even though he lives in the new CA-1. Tom McClintock would also probably want prefer to run in this district than in a swing district, even though he lives in the new CA-5. In the event of a primary between Herger and McClintock, Herger would probably prevail because slightly more of the new CA-2 comes from Herger’s old district than from the old CA-4, and Herger has longer standing actual ties to the area than McClintock.
| Incumbent: | Dan Lungren (R) |
| Previous District PVI: | R+6 |
| New District estimated Obama/McCain: | 57% Obama, D+4 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 65% White |
| New District Demographics: | 56% White |
CA-3 is now entirely within Sacramento County, and is substantially more Democratic than the old CA-3, which voted narrowly for Obama. There is a delicate balancing act here between hurting Lungren and keeping Matsui secure. It would be possible to make CA-3 even more Democratic, but not without dragging CA-5 under roughly D+10, which I wanted to avoid. It is not a complete certainty that Lungren would lose in this district, but it is a certainly that he would face very competitive elections every 2 years until he does.
| Incumbent: | None |
| Previous District PVI: | R+10 |
| New District estimated Obama/McCain: | 53% Obama, D+0 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 79% White |
| New District Demographics: | 57% White |
The new CA-4 is a bona fide suburban swing district, combining 99% of Democratic Solano County (4/7 of the district) with GOP leaning Sacramento Suburban part of Placer county, and sparsely populated areas in between to connect them. There is no real incumbent in this district, but Charlie Brown would be well positioned to win here. This district is much less Republican than the old version, which he only barely lost in 2008. If not, a Democrat from Solano County would have a good chance of winning here. The only potential hitch is the fast pace of growth in Placer County. If that tends to increase GOP margins, this district will become more Republican with time. On the other hand, if the Sacramento suburbs liberalize as they grow, this district will stay roughly even or move slightly more Democratic. It would be pretty easy to make this district more Democratic by extending it further into the Bay Area, but I kept it more compact and suburban based.
| Incumbent: | Doris Matsui (D) |
| Previous District PVI: | D+15 |
| New District estimated Obama/McCain: | 62% Obama, D+9 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 39% White |
| New District Demographics: | 46% White |
CA-5 becomes more Republican, but not Republican enough to put Doris Matsui in any realistic danger. It now crosses over (barely) into Yolo County to pick up West Sacramento, but otherwise is based very much in Sacramento proper.
| Incumbent: | Lynn Woolsey (D) |
| Previous District PVI: | D+23 |
| New District estimated Obama/McCain: | 72% Obama, D+19 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 70% White |
| New District Demographics: | 71% White |
CA-6 ditches highly progressive Marin County to pick up less-progressive-but-still-progressive areas further North along the coast. Lynn Woolsey still has absolutely nothing to worry about, and could easily take on some more GOP turf or donate some heavily Democratic areas to CA-1. Alternatively, CA-2 could be sucked into CA-6/Marin and become a swing or Democratic district rather than being conceded to the GOP, but that would make it much more difficult to make CA-4 a swing district, and much more difficult to turn CA-10 into a Democratic district with a strong base in the Sierra Nevadas, and would also necessitate some more county splitting.
| Incumbent: | George Miller (D) |
| Previous District PVI: | D+19 |
| New District estimated Obama/McCain: | 63% Obama, D+10 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 39% White, 27% Latino |
| New District Demographics: | 50% White, 31% Latino |
CA-7 moves out of Solano County, and into San Joaquin where it picks up Lodi, Tracy, and Manteca (most of the county other than Stockton). The district also cedes areas around Richmond to CA-10 and CA-9, resulting in a more Republican District. My intention was to bring it down to about D+10, but it could be a couple points off in either direction. If it is too Republican, it would be very easy to fix that and make this district more Democratic. CA-7 isn’t D+19 any more, but it does not really need to be. Long time incumbent George Miller, who has been in Congress since 1974, will not be in any danger of suddenly now losing his seat simply becase it becomes a bit less Democratic.
| Incumbent: | Nancy Pelosi (D) |
| Previous District PVI: | D+35 |
| New District estimated Obama/McCain: | 81% Obama, D+28 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 45% White, 30% Asian |
| New District Demographics: | 61% White, 18% Asian |
Nancy Pelosi’s CA-8 plays a very important but subtle role in this overall map. By crossing the Golden Gate Bridge and taking in Marin County, her district becomes slightly less Democratic. But that’s not the main point. By taking in Marin County, it allows CA-6 to push northwards, and just as importantly, it sucks CA-12 into San Francisco (making it Asian plurality in the process), and sucks all the districts to the South-East of it towards San Francisco. This dominoes through the districts and ultimately provides the impetus to pull more Republican districts in the Central Valley further in towards areas like Santa Cruz, San Jose, and Alameda.
| Incumbent: | Barbara Lee (D) |
| Previous District PVI: | D+37 |
| New District estimated Obama/McCain: | 83% Obama, D+30 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 36% White, 20% Black, 17% Asian, 23% Latino |
| New District Demographics: | 37% White, 22% Black, 16% Asian, 21% Latino |
The percentage of African Americans in Barbara Lee’s new 9th District is not just maintained, but actually increased, even while the district becomes a little bit less Democratic. I did this by trading ultra-liberal but predominantly white areas of her district (principally Berkeley) for predominantly white liberal areas in Contra Costa County, along with Richmond, which has a fairly high black population. So the district now consists of Oakland, Richmond, and areas of Contra Costa county like Orinda, Walnut Creek, and Pleasantville.
| Incumbent: | ?John Garamendi? (D) |
| Previous District PVI: | D+11 |
| New District estimated Obama/McCain: | 63% Obama, D+10 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 56% White |
| New District Demographics: | 60% White |
This new version of CA-10 is rather different from the previous CA-10, and is drawn under the assumption that John Garamendi wins the CA-10 special election. This district is probably the most bizarrely shaped of all the districts I drew, but it makes sense, at least from the perspective of drawing a distrcit that would be good for Garamendi. Republican George Radanovich also lives here (in Mariposa), but he wouldn’t have much chance if he ran in this district.
Nearly 4/7 of the population of CA-10 live in Contra Costa or Alameda Counties, and those areas are all very heavily Democratic (Berkeley – where Garamendi went to college, El Cerrito, San Pablo, Pinole). From there, it snakes through sparsely populated parts of Solano, Amador, and Sacramento counties, picking up Garamendi’s home along the way. Then it enters the Sierra Nevada mountain range through Calaveras county, where Garamendi was born and has a ranch. It picks up Republican leaning areas near Yosemite National Park (Garamendi was Deputy Secretary of the Interior), and picks up a mixture of Rural Republicans and more liberal Lake Tahoe/ski areas up and down the Nevada border, stretching from Inyo County in the south to Nevada County in the north. I have to say, I was sorely tempted to cross into Fresno and Tulare counties to pick up Sequoia and King’s Canyon National park, and into San Bernadino to take in all of Death Valley, but I restrained myself.
Alpine, Calaveras, Inyo, Mariposa, Mono, Nevada, and Toulumne counties collectively voted McCain 52% to Obama 48%. If you assume that liberal areas around Lake Tahoe (parts of Placer and El Dorado counties) roughly cancel out extraneous GOP areas, and that the Contra Costa/Alameda county parts of the district voted about 75% for Obama, then you end up with a district that voted about 63% for Obama, litte changed from the current partisan stance of CA-10. And there we have it – a district that takes care of some hard to deal with GOP areas in the Sierras, avoids wasting Democratic votes along the Nevada border on a GOP district, that opens up space in eastern Contra Costa County for CA-7 to dilute GOP votes in San Joaquin county, and that John Garamendi should be able to effectively represent despite the district’s bizarre geographic shape, given his background. Whew!
As a more compact alternative to this, instead of reaching all the way to Berkeley, the district could combine the Sierras with a different and nearer Democratic area, such as the city of San Joaquin. But then this district would not include Garamendi’s home, would be only weakly Democratic rather than safe, would be less progressive, and would really be more like a reconfigured 19th than the 10th.
| Incumbent: | Jerry McNerney (D) |
| Previous District PVI: | R+1 |
| New District estimated Obama/McCain: | 61% Obama, D+8 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 51% White, 26% Latino |
| New District Demographics: | 45% White, 27% Latino |
CA-11 is altered significantly to make it more Democratic. It now takes in all of the city of Stockton, in exchange for which it gives up some relatively conservative areas to CA-7. It also expands a bit more in Alameda County, taking on Livermore as well as a bit of territory from Pete Stark and Barbara Lee. The end result is a much safer district for McNerney. I guesstimate that it voted roughly 61% for Obama, but that could be off by a few percentage points. If it is too Republican, that is easy to fix.
| Incumbent: | Jackie Speier (D) |
| Previous District PVI: | D+23 |
| New District estimated Obama/McCain: | 79% Obama, D+26 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 45% White, 31% Asian |
| New District Demographics: | 35% White, 38% Asian |
CA-12 moves further into San Francisco to accomadate Pelosi’s shift into Marin County. In the process, it turns into a district with a slight Asian American plurality.
| Incumbent: | Pete Stark (D) |
| Previous District PVI: | D+22 |
| New District estimated Obama/McCain: | 64% Obama, D+11 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 29% White, 35% Asian, 23% Latino |
| New District Demographics: | 37% White, 26% Asian, 28% Latino |
CA-13 is still primarily based in Alameda County, where 2/3 of the district is located, retaining Pete Stark’s home town of Fremont, along with Union City, Newark, and most of Hayward. It then crosses through unpopulated mountains to the east and reappears on the outskirts of Modesto, where it basically picks up the parts of Stanislaus County that were formerly in the 19th district. The end result is a district which is still strongly Democratic, but not packed as full of progressive Alameda County voters as before.
| Incumbent: | Anna Eshoo (D) |
| Previous District PVI: | D+21 |
| New District estimated Obama/McCain: | 73% Obama, D+20 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 53% White, 21% Asian, 19% Latino |
| New District Demographics: | 52% White, 22% Asian, 20% Latino |
Like CA-12 before it, CA-14 is sucked towards San Francisco because of CA-8’s trip across the Golden Gate Bridge. In San Mateo County, it adds San Carlos, Foster City, and San Mateo. Saratoga in Santa Cruz County along with CA-14’s old section of Santa Cruz County are removed. This has no real political impact, and CA-14 remains a veritable Democratic fortress.
| Incumbent: | Mike Honda (D) |
| Previous District PVI: | D+15 |
| New District estimated Obama/McCain: | 69% Obama, D+16 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 39% White, 36% Asian |
| New District Demographics: | 35% White, 39% Asian |
Moving parts of CA-9 and CA-13 out of Alameda County has left some people there that need to go somewhere. They go into Mike Honda’s 15th district, which is now up to 39% Asian American. No real partisan effect, except CA-15 may get a bit more Democratic.
| Incumbent: | Zoe Lofgren (D) |
| Previous District PVI: | D+16 |
| New District estimated Obama/McCain: | 66% Obama, D+13 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 28% White, 26% Asian, 40% Latino |
| New District Demographics: | 29% White, 19% Asian, 45% Latino |
60% of CA-16 remains within Santa Clara County. To get to the rest of the district, it crosses the mountains and ends up in Stanislaus County, where it takes in the city of Modesto. strengthening the Latino plurality in the process. This only makes the district 3 or 4 points more Republican, and Zoe Lofgren has nothing to worry about.
| Incumbent: | Sam Farr (D) |
| Previous District PVI: | D+19 |
| New District estimated Obama/McCain: | 65% Obama, D+12 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 41% White, 48% Latino |
| New District Demographics: | 60% White, 19% Latino |
Sam Farr’s district becomes much whiter than before, principally because it gives up predominantly Latino areas inland (Salinas, Hollister, Watsonville) to the 21st district in order to help give that district a strong Latino majority. In exchange, Farr adds the rest of Santa Cruz county (except for Watsonville), parts of Santa Clara county (Saratoga, Campbell, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno), as well as some conservative inland areas in San Luis Obispo and Kern counties. But 78% of the population lives in Monterrey, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz counties, all of which are strongly Democratic, so Farr’s district remains strongly Democaratic even while becoming much whiter. As a rough estimate, this district probably voted about 65% for Obama.
| Incumbent: | Dennis Cardoza (Blue Dog D) |
| Previous District PVI: | D+4 |
| New District estimated Obama/McCain: | 60% Obama, D+7 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 32% White, 50% Latino |
| New District Demographics: | 28% White, 52% Latino |
In order to keep CA-18 majority Latino while also making CA-21 and CA-19 into 70% Latino districts, CA-18 dumps its sections of Stanislaus and San Joaquin counties. Instead, it takes in all of Merced county, then runs south through Madera County and then into Fresno, where it takes just about every precinct in the city that voted for Obama. This makes the district a couple of percentage points less white and more Latino, which also makes it a few points more Democratic.
| Incumbent: | None |
| Previous District PVI: | R+9 |
| New District estimated Obama/McCain: | 63% Obama, D+10 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 52% White, 5% Asian, 36% Latino |
| New District Demographics: | 47% White, 16% Asian, 30% Latino |
This new CA-19 is the prime beneficiary of Nancy Pelosi’s shift northwards. It is radically different from the old CA-19, and shares no constituents with it at all. Whereas the old version was safely GOP, the new one is safely Democratic. 5/7 of the district is in San Jose, and it is an effective certainty that this district will elect another progressive San Jose Democrat. The other 200,000 people are mostly white Republicans in the Central Valey, running through farmland to pick up as many GOP voters as possible in the Visalia/Hanford/Tulare area. It is a measure of just how large the Latino population is now in the Central Valley that even though these 200,000 people are the least Latino leftover areas from after making 2 70% Latino districts, 40% of the people here are still Latino, and only 50% are white. In the end, near 70% support from Santa Clara county combined with 40% support from the Central Valley should end up with a district that voted about 63% for Obama.
| Incumbent: | Jim Costa (Blue Dog D) |
| Previous District PVI: | D+5 |
| New District estimated Obama/McCain: | 56% Obama, D+3 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 17% White, 68% Latino |
| New District Demographics: | 21% White, 70% Latino |
If it is possible for a district that is 70% Latino to vote Republican, it will be this new, more rural version of CA-20 that leads the way. The cities of Fresno and Bakersfield are cut out entirely, and the district becomes focused on the small towns and farms of the Central Valley.
Jim Costa should be well positioned to win in this district even if it is not as immediately Democratic as one might wish, because of his background in farming, and because he has previously represented much of it. I am guessing that this district voted about 56% for Obama, but that could be way off in either direction. If it is too Republican, it should be fairly easy to make it more Democratic by rearraning the division of territory amongst the 18th, 20th, and 21st districts (the Central Valley Latino districts, possibly returning Bakersfield or Fresno). Regardless of how Democratic this district is now, over time it will steadily become more Democratic as Latinos gradually come to make up a share of the electorate closer to their share of the population. Who knows, eventually this district might elect a latter day Cesar Chavez.
| Incumbent: | None |
| Previous District PVI: | R+13 |
| New District estimated Obama/McCain: | 67% Obama, D+14 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 40% White, 49% Latino |
| New District Demographics: | 20% White, 70% Latino |
This new CA-21 has absolutely nothing in common with the old CA-21. It is mainly carved out of the old CA-17 and CA-20. It is fully 70% Latino, which might be high enough for Latino voters to actually have effective control over the district. A number of the white voters in urban Bakersfield and in the Salinas area are Democrats, which should make this district solidly Democratic and progressive. I estimate that it voted about 67% for Obama, but there is a high margin of error to that estimate, and much depends on exactly how high Latino turnout in this district will be.
| Incumbent: | ?Kevin McCarthy? (R), ?Devin Nunes? (R), ?George Radanovich? (R) |
| Previous District PVI: | R+16 |
| New District estimated Obama/McCain: | 32% Obama, R+21 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 57% White, 49% Latino |
| New District Demographics: | 62% White, 30% Latino |
This new CA-22 is a dumping ground for Republicans from Fresno to Bakersfield and everywhere in between. About 1/7 of this district is carved from the old 19th, 1/3 from the old 21st, and half from the old 22nd. It should have voted somewhere in the low 30s for Obama. This is the only solidly Republican district left in the Central Valley, and it is very, very solid. Even so, it is only 62% white!!! This district should make for an interesting GOP primary, as fully 3 GOP Reps have the potential to run in this ultra-GOP district.
| Incumbent: | Lois Capps (D) |
| Previous District PVI: | D+12 |
| New District estimated Obama/McCain: | 62% Obama, D+9 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 43% White, 47% Latino |
| New District Demographics: | 51% White, 39% Latino |
CA-23 is no longer confined entirely to the coast, and now includes the entirety of Santa Barbara county. In San Luis Obispo county, it retains the same areas along the coast, but now takes in all of the city of San Luis Obispo. That shouldn’t hurt her, because essentially every precinct in the city voted for Obama. It still extends into Ventura County, but no longer picks up all of Oxnard. This makes CA-23 slightly less Democratic, but not by enough to endanger Lois Capps.
| Incumbent: | Elton Gallegly (R) |
| Previous District PVI: | R+4 |
| New District estimated Obama/McCain: | 63% Obama, D+10 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 64% White, 26% Latino |
| New District Demographics: | 62% White, 25% Latino |
The racial demographics of CA-24 remain virtually the same. But politically, it is a district transformed. 38% of the population is now in LA County, and in liberal parts of LA County – Malibu, Santa Monica, and some other parts of West LA. It should now be about 63% Obama, give or take a percentage point. Elton Gallegly, who does not even live in the district any more, would have a tough time in this new iteration, if he bothered even running.
| Incumbent: | ?Howard McKeon? (R), ?Howard Berman? |
| Previous District PVI: | R+6 |
| New District estimated Obama/McCain: | 65% Obama, D+12 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 44% White, 38% Latino |
| New District Demographics: | 29% White, 55% Latino |
CA-25 contracts entirely within LA County, and becomes much more Democratic. It is transformed into a 55% Latino Majority district, composed mainly of Lancaster, Palmdale, and areas around San Fernando taken from both the old 27th and 28th districts. Santa Clarita, where McKeon lives, is cut out of the district. For that reason, it is probably more likely that McKeon would run in the 27th, if he runs at all. Howard Berman (D) could also potentially opt to run in either the 25th or the 28th, both of which contain substantial chunks of his old district (but he’ll probably prefer the more strongly Democratic 28th). The 25th district is strongly Democratic, probably somewhere in the mid-60s for Obama.
| Incumbent: | ?David Dreier? (R) |
| Previous District PVI: | R+3 |
| New District estimated Obama/McCain: | 62% Obama, D+9 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 44% White, 30% Latino |
| New District Demographics: | 18% White, 63% Latino |
David Dreier doesn’t really have anywhere to run, as fully 7 districts now include pieces of his old district. His best shot would probably actually be CA-40. The district numbered 26, which includes Dreier’s home in San Dimas, turns into a district with a strong 63% Latino majority. Only GOP leaning Glendora and San Dimas are retained from the old 26th, while predominantly Latino areas like West Covina, La Puente, El Monte, and Irwindale are added from the old 32nd and 38th districts. It probably voted somewhere in the general range of about 62% for Obama, which ought to be enough to doom Dreier here.
| Incumbent: | Brad Sherman (D) v. Howard McKeon (R) |
| Previous District PVI: | D+13 |
| New District estimated Obama/McCain: | 62% Obama, D+9 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 38% White, 43% Latino |
| New District Demographics: | 48% White, 35% Latino |
The new 27th district adds Santa Clarita, where Howard McKeon lives, and which makes up 2/7 of the new district. To try and avoid making the 27th too Republican, I tried to get rid of the relatively less Democratic parts of his old district in exchange, keeping the more Democratic areas around Northridge. This causes the 27th to become less Democratic, but not much. Sherman should be strongly favored to take out McKeon in this district. It would also be easy to make this district a bit more Democratic if necessary.
| Incumbent: | Howard Berman (D) |
| Previous District PVI: | D+23 |
| New District estimated Obama/McCain: | 76% Obama, D+23 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 30% White, 59% Latino |
| New District Demographics: | 27% White, 55% Latino |
The new 28th district shifts a bit to the south, picking up part of Burbank and some Latino areas to the east of Hollywood from the 31st district. I’ll just say that it in partisan terms it remains about the same as it is, and may even have become more Demacratic. The 28th should have voted about 76% for Obama – the least Democratic precincts in the district (in Burbank) still voted 65% for Obama! So if any other districts nearby need to become more Democratic, the 28th could be modified to lend a hand without breaking a sweat.
| Incumbent: | Adam Schiff (D) |
| Previous District PVI: | D+14 |
| New District estimated Obama/McCain: | 61% Obama, D+8 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 42% White, 26% Asian, 26% Latino |
| New District Demographics: | 46% White, 7% Asian, 33% Latino |
Adam Schiff’s 29th district takes on the role of diluting GOP votes in San Bernadino County. The San Bernadino portion of the 29th takes in vast expanses of San Bernadino County taken from the former 25th and 41st districts, including Hesperia, Victorville, and Barstow, which make up just under half the population of the district. In The LA County portion, heavily Democratic areas around Pasadena are combine with strongly Democratic areas around Schiff’s home in Burbank to make this district Democratic – the parts of his old district that he gives up are the relatively more GOP parts. Even given that the San Bernadino part of the district voted for McCain by several points, the LA County part (especially Pasadena) is strongly enough Democratic that the district overall voted about 61% for Obama.
| Incumbent: | Henry Waxman (D) |
| Previous District PVI: | D+18 |
| New District estimated Obama/McCain: | 64% Obama, D+11 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 75% White |
| New District Demographics: | 68% White |
The white voters in Henry Waxman’s district are liberal enough that redistricting Waxman’s district to make it more Republican actuall actually ends up making it less white. The base of Waxman’s district remains in Beverly Hills/West Hollywood, and then snakes up through the hills towards Ventura County. It crosses over, taking in Simi Valley, Moorpark, and some smaller areas surrounding. In sum, the Ventura component of the district makes up a third of the total population. Waxman remains very much safe.
| Incumbent: | Xavier Becerra (D) |
| Previous District PVI: | D+29 |
| New District estimated Obama/McCain: | 73% Obama, D+20 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 12% White, 68% Latino |
| New District Demographics: | 20% White, 62% Latino |
CA-31 becomes less overwhelmingly Democratic and less overwhelmingly Latino by giving up some Latinos (indirectly to the 25th) to turn that district into a Latino majority district. In exchange, Nevertheless, it retains a very strong Latino majority (62%). Becerra picks up some less Democratic (but not really GOP) areas in Glendale and La Canada Flintridge from the old 26th and 29th districts. These new areas only make up 1/4 of the district, which remains heavily Democratic. It should be something like 73% for Obama now, which could easily be off a couple points depending on Latino turnout. Not that it matters – Becerra is utterly safe.
| Incumbent: | Judy Chu (D) |
| Previous District PVI: | D+15 |
| New District estimated Obama/McCain: | 63% Obama, D+10 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 12% White, 20% Asian, 65% Latino |
| New District Demographics: | 24% White, 44% Asian, 28% Latino |
CA-32 is transformed from a Latino majority district into a strong Asian-American plurality district (with Dreier’s 26th becoming a Latino majority district to offset the change). I will say up front that Asian Americans are not a monolithic group, and I have no real idea how the “Asian” population breaks down. I just tried to make the district as “Asian” as possible. The best I could figure out how to do while keeping it relatively compact was 44%. With an earlier version I was able to get the Asian population higher, but that district was a true monstrosity, stretching here and there all over the place and even had a tentacle reaching into Irvine in Orange County.
The district is substantially reworked, combining areas within the old 32nd with areas from the 26th, 29th, 38th, and 43rd. It includes in the north/west Sierra Madre, Monrovia, Arcadia, San Marino, South Pasadena, Temple City, Gabriel, Alhambra, Monterey Park, and Rosemead. Then it crosses through Whittier and La Habra Heights to pick up substantial Asian populations in Diamond Bar and Walnut. This district is definitely Democratic – it contains only a few McCain precincts – but it is hard to say how much without actually taking the time to calculate partisanship on the precinct level, because it takes from so many different old districts and I don’t know much about the voting patterns or turnout of Asian Americans in this area. I’d guesstimate it is in the low 60s for Obama, but someone that knows the area could probably make a better estimate.
| Incumbent: | Diane Watson (D) |
| Previous District PVI: | D+35 |
| New District estimated Obama/McCain: | 94% Obama, D+41 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 21% White, 27% Black, 13% Asian, 37% Latino |
| New District Demographics: | 10% White, 29% Black, 11% Asian, 47% Latino |
In order to try and keep the African American percentage in this district relatively high, I cut out some white areas of the district and added some Black/Latino areas. CA-35 has a lot of precincts that voted near unanimously for Obama, and becomes even more Democratic than it already was.
| Incumbent: | Lucille Roybal-Allard (D) |
| Previous District PVI: | D+22 |
| New District estimated Obama/McCain: | 65% Obama, D+12 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 8% White, 81% Latino |
| New District Demographics: | 21% White, 65% Latino |
In order to increase Latino voting power in other districts while simultaneously diluting GOP votes, this district shifts, while retaining its base in the general area of Vernon. From Vernon/Maywood, the 34th now stretches east through Downey, La Mirada, and then into Orange County, where it adds Fullerton. The Orange County portion makes up only 20% of the district, which is now only 65% Latino. Even given low turnout in Latino LA County areas relative to in Fullerton, this district probably also voted about 65% for Obama – and that will go up with time as Latino turnout gradually increases.
| Incumbent: | Maxine Waters (D) |
| Previous District PVI: | D+31 |
| New District estimated Obama/McCain: | 76% Obama, D+23 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 10% White, 28% Black, 6% Asian, 54% Latino |
| New District Demographics: | 17% White, 26% Black, 11% Asian, 43% Latino |
What to do with the McCain precincts in South-West LA County around Palos Verdes/Rolling Hills? Why, give them to Maxine Waters, of course! Doing this makes it possible to preserve African American voting strength (by decreasing the Latino percentage) and dilute GOP votes all at once. So this district becomes substantially more White, Asian, and GOP, without becoming much less Black. It is brought down to about 76% for Obama.
| Incumbent: | Jane Harman (Blue Dog D) |
| Previous District PVI: | D+12 |
| New District estimated Obama/McCain: | 64% Obama, D+11 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 44% White, 15% Asian, 33% Latino |
| New District Demographics: | 44% White, 16% Asian, 33% Latino |
There are no real changes to Harman’s district, I only altered a tiny fraction of the district in the North. At most this might make CA-36 1 point more Republican, with emphasis on “might.”
| Incumbent: | Laura Richardson (D) |
| Previous District PVI: | D+26 |
| New District estimated Obama/McCain: | 64% Obama, D+12 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 13% White, 22% Black, 13% Asian, 48% Latino |
| New District Demographics: | 31% White, 18% Black, 11% Asian, 36% Latino |
The 26th district is altered to become less overwhelmingly Democratic. In LA County, the 37th retains Compton and its immediate environs, then approaches the county line through Long Beach. It extends in Orange County through inland parts of Seal Beach, Huntington Beach, Westminster, and Fountain Valley, up until it reaches the Santa Ana river. 40% of the district is in Orange County, while 60% is in LA county. Although the OC part voted for McCain, the LA part, rooted around Compton, is enough to make the district about a 64% Obama district that preserves African American political influence.
| Incumbent: | Grace Napolitano (D) |
| Previous District PVI: | D+10 |
| New District estimated Obama/McCain: | 63% Obama, D+10 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 10% White, 76% Latino |
| New District Demographics: | 28% White, 58% Latino |
The 38th district has to change a good deal in order to accomodate the transition of CA-32 to an Asian plurality district. It sits south of the 32nd, following it as it loops around from the Pico Rivera area through La Habra and Brea in Orange County, and through Chino Hills in San Bernadino County in order to cross back into LA and get to Pomona. At Pomona, it expands further North and West into predominantly white areas (like Claremont) that voted for Obama. The Latino percentage drops more than one might like, but Latinos still make up a strong 58% majority of the district that will be a dominant political force, and with time that majority will increase. The drop also enables the 26th to have a strong 63% Latino majority. This district definitely gets more Republican, but I am not sure precisely how much. I estimate it is something close to D+10 now.
| Incumbent: | Linda Sanchez (D) |
| Previous District PVI: | D+9 |
| New District estimated Obama/McCain: | 62% Obama, D+9 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 18% White, 65% Latino |
| New District Demographics: | 20% White, 63% Latino |
CA-39 now extends into Orange County, where it picks up 3/7 of the district in the Buena Park/Anaheim area. But the section of Orange County that is added is 40% Latino, 20% Asian, and voted for Obama. The area of LA County retained, which stretches all the way to Southgate, is heavily Latino and heavily Democratic. So the change should have relatively little political effect, with the district becoming maybe a few points more GOP friendly. Linda Sanchez’s district also now borders with her sister’s district (CA-47).
| Incumbent: | ?Ed Royce? (R), ?John Campbell? (R) ?David Dreier? (R) |
| Previous District PVI: | R+8 |
| New District estimated Obama/McCain: | 52% Obama, R+1 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 42% White, 18% Asian, 34% Latino |
| New District Demographics: | 43% White, 15% Asian, 35% Latino |
The new CA-40 retains only a small portion of its old constituents around Anaheim. CA-40 has a very sinuous shape because it is an attempt to hobble together one last winnable Democratic district out of the leftovers from neighboring districts with inflexible shapes (because they are majority minority or are made as heavily GOP as possible). From Irvine, the 40th reaches north through Anaheim, and then through a verynarrow strip of Yorba Linda to cross into San Bernadino County, where it includes Chino, Montclair, and Upland. Most precincts in this district voted for Obama, although not by huge margins. Areas of Democratic strength are Irvine, Anaheim, and Montclair. Areas of GOP strength are included as well, including Upland and Lake Forest at the far Northern and Southern edges of the distict. This district is more a swing district than a Democratic district, but with its large minority population it can probably be expected to continue trending Democratic. Theoretically this is Ed Royce’s district, but he does not live in it any more, and as mentioned earlier it is very different. It bears more in common with the 48th, and GOPer John Campbell lives in this district (in Irvine). But Campbell might rather try his luck in the new 48th or attempt to prevail in a GOP primary in the 44th rather than run here.
| Incumbent: | Jerry Lewis (R) |
| Previous District PVI: | R+10 |
| New District estimated Obama/McCain: | 53% Obama, D+0 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 55% White, 6% Black, 33% Latino |
| New District Demographics: | 40% White, 11% Black, 39% Latino |
CA-41 contracts entirely within San Bernadino County due to population growth. At first blush, this might seem to be a good thing for Jerry Lewis, because the San Bernadino portion of his district voted more strongly for McCain than the Riverside county portion. But within San Bernadino county, there are some substantial shifts. Conservative areas around Hesperia are shorn off and given to the Pasadena-Burbank based 29th district, and the 41st expands into strongly Democratic San Bernadino city (about half of the district’s population), taking most of the city except the heavily Latino south-west of the city, which remains in the 43rd to maintain the Latino percentage in CA-43 high.
This causes the white population percentage of the district to plummet 15 points to 40%, with about equal parts of the drop made up for with increased Black and Latino populations. Moreover the white voters in the district become more progressive as the population center shifts towards the City of San Bernadino. In the short term, the doubling of the African American population is more politically significant than the Latino increase, because of higher turnout and greater Democratic support than Latinos. But over the long term, the Latino population is likely to drive a continuing Democratic trend as turnout increases. It is at least conceivable that Lewis could survive in the short term in this district, but if he does, he’ll have great difficulty continuing to hold it. But this district is more a swing district than a Democratic district, and probably gave Obama about 53%, which could be off by a few points either way. This district would have a good chance of electing a progressive San Bernadino Democrat, especially after a few more years of Latino population growth.
| Incumbent: | None |
| Previous District PVI: | R+10 |
| New District estimated Obama/McCain: | 58% Obama, D+5 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 48% White, 2% Black, 17% Asian, 29% Latino |
| New District Demographics: | 32% White, 7% Black, 6% Asian, 51% Latino |
CA-42 disappears from Orange County and reappears in Riverside County. This district consists of the city of Riverside, Perris and parts of Corona and Moreno Valley. This new district has nothing in common with the old 42nd, and most of the district is carved out of the Riverside County portion of the old CA-44. It also has no real incumbent (Ken Calvert lives in Corona, but would almost certainly much prefer to run in the heavily GOP 44th, where he would be well positioned to win the GOP primary).
| Incumbent: | Joe Baca (Blue Dog D) |
| Previous District PVI: | D+13 |
| New District estimated Obama/McCain: | 63% Obama, D+10 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 17% White, 65% Latino |
| New District Demographics: | 23% White, 62% Latino |
CA-44 shifts slightly to the west, away from the city of San Bernadino and into Rancho Cucamonga, making it just slightly more Republican. But Baca is in no trouble, and his district retains a strong Latino majority.
| Incumbent: | ?Ken Calvert? (R) ?Darrell Issa? (R), ?Gary Miller? (R) |
| Previous District PVI: | R+6 |
| New District estimated Obama/McCain: | 41% Obama, R+12 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 44% White, 42% Latino |
| New District Demographics: | 60% White, 25% Latino |
CA-44 is another one of the few, the proud, the California GOP districts. It combines McCain’s best parts of Orange County (stretching through the North-East of OC, from eastern Anaheim to San Clemente) with some more GOP areas in Riverside County – Norco, part of Corona, Lake Elsinore, and Hemet.
| Incumbent: | Mary Bono (R) |
| Previous District PVI: | R+3 |
| New District estimated Obama/McCain: | 55% Obama, D+2 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 42% White, 45% Latino |
| New District Demographics: | 35% White, 51% Latino |
CA-45 has to contract due to population growth. It does this by giving up GOP Hemet, while keeping Moreno Valley. This makes a district that Obama won as it was just a bit more Democratic, making it just a bit more difficult for Mary Bono to survive here and actually more sensible geographically as well. CA-45 now has a slight Latino majority, which should continue to make CA-45 more Democratic. Bono faces the choice of struggling to hold on in an increasingly Democratic district, retiring and moving to Florida, or losing the GOP primary in CA-52.
| Incumbent: | Dana Rohrabacher (R) |
| Previous District PVI: | R+3 |
| New District estimated Obama/McCain: | 60% Obama, D+7 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 59% White, 18% Asian, 18% Latino |
| New District Demographics: | 50% White, 10% Asian, 29% Latino |
CA-46 is changed dramatically. The LA County part of the district is altered to become much more Democratic, while the Orange County bit stays pretty competitive. Just under half of the population in CA-46 is now in Los Angeles County, now taking in most of Long Beach. In Orange County, CA-46 stretches along the coast until it gets to Newport Beach and then inland to Aliso Viejo/Laguna Niguel/Laguna Hills, where it most of the districts’ Orange County population base now lives. CA-37 has more of Rohrabacher’s old constituents, but he does not have any chance at winning there, and he does not have much chance of continuing to win in this new 46th district either.
| Incumbent: | Loretta Sanchez (Blue Dog D) |
| Previous District PVI: | D+4 |
| New District estimated Obama/McCain: | 60% Obama, D+7 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 12% White, 16% Asian, 69% Latino |
| New District Demographics: | 15% White, 15% Asian, 65% Latino |
CA-47 changes little from the existing district, only really changing by adding all of Santa Anna. It becomes slightly less Latino and a bit more white, but only about a point more Republican. CA-47 is now the only district contained entirely within Orange County.
| Incumbent: | ?John Campbell? (R) |
| Previous District PVI: | R+6 |
| New District estimated Obama/McCain: | 52% Obama, R+1 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 61% White, 17% Asian, 18% Latino |
| New District Demographics: | 44% White, 19% Asian, 29% Latino |
CA-48 is something of a gerrymandered monstrosity, stretching thinly all the way from Santa Margarita in the eastern part of Orange County all the way to South-Central LA around Lynwood. 4/7 of the population is in Orange County, and that part of the district is demographically quite similar to the current 48th but a bit more Republican. The rest of the district, in LA County, is only 23% white, is carved mostly out of the old 39th, and is strongly Democratic. The result is a swing district that probably voted for Obama, but not by that much.
| Incumbent: | ?Darrell Issa? (R) |
| Previous District PVI: | R+10 |
| New District estimated Obama/McCain: | 51% Obama, R+2 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 52% White, 35% Latino |
| New District Demographics: | 54% White, 34% Latino |
CA-49 is an attempt to squeeze one last winnable district out of San Diego County, after drawing 3 safely Democratic districts (CA-50, CA-51, and CA-53), and one extremely Republican district (CA-52). It is Darrell Issa’s district, but because substantial portions of the heavily GOP 52nd come from his old district, there is a good chance he would run there instead – where he would be in a good position to beat Duncan Hunter the younger in a GOP primary. The vast majority of the population is based in San Diego County, including Carlsbad, Vista, and Oceanside. Parts of Encinitas and Escondido are also included. To the north, all of Camp Pendleton is included, and then CA-49 crosses into Orange County, picking up competitive to Democratic leaning areas along a sliver of the coast, running up to Laguna Beach (only 10% of the district is in Orange County, though). This district is something of a hedge – if the swing to Obama in the San Diego area was merely a one time event, especially around Camp Pendleton (a one time Iraq War effect?), this district will likely stay Republican. But if it is a continuing trend, Democrats will have a good shot at picking this district up.
| Incumbent: | ?Brian Bilbray? (R) |
| Previous District PVI: | R+3 |
| New District estimated Obama/McCain: | 57% Obama, D+4 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 60% White, 22% Latino |
| New District Demographics: | 61% White, 15% Latino |
All but a small portion of CA-50 is dragged within the city limits of San Diego (with the remainder in the Democratic Del Mar/Solana Beach/Encinitas area). The most Republican parts of the district are excised and donated to CA-52, while some relatively swingy areas in the north go to the 49th. Given the close races Bilbray has run in the past, a strong Democratic candidate should have a very good chance of defeating him in this district.
| Incumbent: | Bob Filner (D) |
| Previous District PVI: | D+8 |
| New District estimated Obama/McCain: | 62% Obama, D+9 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 17% White, 60% Latino |
| New District Demographics: | 18% White, 58% Latino |
CA-51 stays basically the same, but becomes marginally more Republican as it adds population (although the PVI gets more Democratic, the Obama vote decreases because there was a large swing to Obama from Bush). Filner will have no difficulty here against the GOP. It’s possible he might one day face a Latino primary challenger, but this is after all a Latino majority district.
| Incumbent: | ?Duncan Hunter Jr?, (R) ?Darrell Issa?, (R) ?Brian Bilbray? (R) |
| Previous District PVI: | R+9 |
| New District estimated Obama/McCain: | 38% Obama, R+15 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 63% White, 22% Latino |
| New District Demographics: | 73% White, 17% Latino |
The new CA-52 is 2/3 in San Diego county and 1/3 in South-West Riverside County. It takes the most heavily Republican precincts it can find in the area, resulting in a very very conservative district. The question is not whether it will elect a Republican, but which Republican will win the GOP primary – it takes GOP heavy parts from CA-45, CA-49, CA-50, and CA-52. It may well actually be even more Republican than I estimated it was (38% Obama).
| Incumbent: | Susan Davis (D) |
| Previous District PVI: | D+14 |
| New District estimated Obama/McCain: | 63% Obama, D+10 |
| Current District 2008 (Est.) Demographics: | 51% White, 30% Latino |
| New District Demographics: | 46% White, 35% Latino |
CA-53 stretches to the east, adding competitive areas from CA-52, so that CA-50 can stretch down further into Democratic San Diego. It becomes a bit more Republican in order to make CA-50 a bit more Democratic.
That’s all, folks!
If you liked this diary, do me a favor and contact your Representative and Senators and tell them to support strong Health Care Reform. A strong public option, no trigger, no opt-in, no opt-out. Strong subsidies to make the mandate affordable, open the exchange to everyone, and for crying out loud there’s no reason we should have to wait all the way until 2013 to have it go into effect!
GOOD Congressional challengers on FISA: The List
In the last couple days, there have been several posts across the blogosphere citing what various candidates running for Congress have said on FISA and retroactive immunity for the telecoms. But so far, it’s been all over the map. I’ll try to corral all their statements into this diary, so you can see who the “good guys” are.
First, let’s start off with the current House and Senate members who voted against this bill. They do deserve credit, as it’s their jobs on the line.
Follow me below the fold to see the dozens of Democratic challengers who are standing up for the Constitution, and are against this FISA bill and retroactive immunity.
Now, not all of these statements were made this past week. Some came from 2007, and others came around February when this issue was last up in the air. But hey, they’re on record. So here goes, alphabetically by district. If you know of a candidate who HAS spoken out against retroactive immunity and the FISA bill, please let me know in the comments, and please include the link where we can read their statement, and I’ll update the diary accordingly.
House candidates
AZ-01: Howard Shanker
It was Ben Franklin who said that “any man who is willing to sacrifice essential liberties for the sake of security deserves, neither.” We seem to have a country full of people who are willing to sacrifice essential liberties for the sake of an empty promise of security. As a free country, founded on concepts like justice and liberty, the de-evolution of our free society should not be tolerated by any people of conscience.
CA-04: Charlie Brown (seriously, read his entire diary, it’s excellent)
I flew missions that monitored electronic communications around the world-often with Soviet MIGs flying off my wing and hoping I’d make a wrong turn. Our standing order was “if you even suspect you are collecting data on an American citizen, you are to cease immediately, flag the tape, and bring it to a supervisor.” We knew failure to comply would yield serious consequences-the kind that can end your career, or worse, land you in jail.
In short, professional, accurate intelligence collection guidelines were used to protect America “from all enemies, foreign and domestic,” without also undermining the very freedoms we were protecting.
….
But this debate isn’t just about security; it’s about accountability. As an officer who was both involved in these programs and held personally accountable for my actions in the name of defending America, I have a problem with giving a few well-connected, well-healed companies who knowingly usurp the law a free pass.
….
And when I see companies acting “in the interest of national security” held to a lower standard of accountability than the dedicated professionals charged with our nation’s defense, silence is not an option.
And to those few companies seeking immunity for breaking the law despite the best of intentions—might I offer a few comforting words on behalf of all who serve, and all who have borne the responsibilities of safeguarding our great nation…freedom isn’t free.
CA-26: Russ Warner
Going back to FISA, we need to protect our Constitutional rights while keeping the American people safe. These are not mutually exclusive.
Russ Warner: FISA expansion of power so Bush can spy on Americans without warrants (with acquiescence of Congress): Yay or nay?
Nay.
CA-44: Bill Hedrick
Members of Congress take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. So do members of the Executive and Judiciary Branches. Unlike the Bush Administration, however, I will do all in my power to uphold and defend the Constitution, particularly regarding the protections and inalienable rights of all humanity it guarantees to the American people.
We live in an unsafe world. We need to ensure we take all necessary and legal steps to safeguard our country and its citizens. Our Constitution provides for checks and balances against government intrusiveness infringing upon fundamental rights of speech, religion, privacy, unlawful search and seizure, etc. It is ironic that the most efficient way to ensure perfect safety is by discarding these fundamental rights. In fact, some of the most repressive governments today (North Korea, anyone?) rule over some of the safest countries – at least when it comes to walking the streets at night.
Unfortunately, the Bush administration has ignored the Constitutions checks and balances. Instead it has created its own Rule of Law. The Bush Administration has suspended habeas corpus, sanctioned torture and illegal spying on Americans and created an extralegal detention center in Guantanamo. This arrogance continues even though the American people and many of our leading jurists and representatives have stated they want our Constitution followed in the manner envisioned by our Founding Fathers and confirmed by all subsequent administrations except the current one.
In the past the United States has ensured that those persons on its soil or under its jurisdiction or power are treated with the same dignity and respect as American citizens. This is based on that marvelous statement in the Declaration of Independence, [w]e hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights. These inalienable rights are not limited to one gender, one party or one nationality. While we cannot always influence other governments to respect these rights we can guarantee them whenever they involve those on our soil or under our jurisdiction or power.
Therefore, it is ironic that the Bush Administration, which denounces the human rights record of the Cuban government, echoes that record by claiming the Guantanamo detainees are not subject to American due process in legal proceedings precisely because they are housed in Cuba even though they are under American jurisdiction and power. How long will it be before the current infringement of inalienable rights on our own soil, which now consists of illegal spying on Americans, escalates to suspension of Habeas Corpus or even torture against Americans?
No one not the President, not the Vice President, not members of the Cabinet is above the law, nor should any governmental branch be allowed to discard Constitutional guarantees. When I become your congressional representative I will do more than merely recite my constitutional oath of office as a rite of passage. I will act upon that oath and support and defend the Constitution. I will act to restore the constitutional balance between inalienable rights and safety. As Americans we will be free . . . we will be safe . . . and we will not participate in violations of those inalienable rights guaranteed to all by our Constitution.
CA-46: Debbie Cook
Our nation was founded on a system of checks and balances. Unfortunately, the checks and balances in the Constitution and the freedoms Americans hold dear have been slowly eroding. Finally, last week the Supreme Court drew a line in the sand and restored habeas corpus, one of the Constitution’s most basic and essential protections against government abuse.
Some in Congress wish to eliminate another essential freedom by allowing the government to spy on its citizens without a warrant and giving lawbreakers who do so immunity from prosecution. Our founding fathers would be outraged at the bargaining away of the Bill of Rights.
You don’t fight terrorism abroad by taking away at our freedoms at home.
CA-48: Steve Young
We now know George Bush’s wiretapping program is not a narrow examination of calls made to and from suspected terrorist suspects — unless you believe that you and I are terrorists. I am worried and angry that the National Security Agency (NSA) has secretly purchased from the three largest telecommunications companies in the country, telephone records on tens of millions of Americans. On December 17, 2005, President Bush said he authorized the program, “to intercept the international communication of people with known links to Al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Then on January 23, 2006, after concerns were expressed that the NSA tapped into telecommunications arteries, Gen. Michael Hayden, then NSA chief, now CIA nominee, asserted his organization engages in surveillance if there is a “reasonable” basis for eavesdropping.
George Bush asks us to believe the NSA is not listening to phone conversations. Does that comfort you? Anyone with experience in data management knows the government now has the information necessary to cross-reference phone numbers, with available databases that link names and numbers to compile a substantial dossier on every American. Evidently, Bush now sees the enemy, and it is us.
I will insist on national security — we all must — but we must also insist that America is a land of laws. No one is above the law. If the law is a circumstantial inconvenience for President Bush, the law will soon be irrelevant to the ordinary American. Bush repeatedly asserts that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) — which established a special court to confidentially review and authorize sensitive surveillance requests — does not apply to his surveillance program, so George Bush bypasses the court.
When you elect me to Congress, I will sponsor and pass legislation to remove any doubt that warrantless spying on ordinary Americans is illegal. We must do what is right, let the consequences follow.
CA-50: Nick Leibham
What’s much MUCH more disconcerting to me is the entire FISA bill…As somebody who has been a prosecutor and dealt with the 4th Amendment, I can tell you that this happened to have been the one amendment in the Bill of Rights that all the Founding Fathers could agree upon; that in order for the government intrusion there had to be probable cause signed off on by an independent magistrate that says you may have committed a crime. I find the entire FISA process to be constitutionally dubious. That doesn’t mean that it couldn’t be made constitutionally valid but I think that anytime you have wiretaps involved…that deals with an American citizen, you’ve gotta have a court sign off on it. The only question in my mind is whether or not that has to be done prior to there warrant being executed or whether or not there is some grace period. There is no doubt in my mind that the executive branch itself cannot act as both overseer and executioner (of warrants or wiretaps). That, I think, is constitutionally impermissible; I think it’s a violation of the judiciary’s proper role of interpreting laws.
As a former prosecutor [and] law clerk in the US Attorney’s office in the Major Frauds and Economic Crimes section…I’ve never heard of anybody being given immunity when you don’t know what they’ve done. It’s not how the immunity process works. You don’t say to somebody ‘Whatever you’ve done, don’t worry about it.’…It’s unthinkable to me as a lawyer and as somebody who will have…sworn to uphold the Constitution that I could ever support that.
CA-52: Mike Lumpkin
FISA should never have been expanded. The government’s ability to spy was extensive enough already. The government is failing us in so many ways right now, this can just be added to the list. I want a safe, secure country. I have lived my life trying to secure exactly that. Frankly, the reason I joined the service was to defend my country’s beautiful liberties and secure them for future generations of Americans. Some attribute the following quote to Benjamin Franklin “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” No one can express the ideology of our democracy better than one of the founders.
As far as telecommunications immunity, my understanding is that legal culpability is determined in context. It is quite a thing to have the power of the executive branch of the government pointed in your direction making demands. Lack of courage to say “no” under such circumstances is no surprise. I think courts are well equipped to unravel this type of legal factual minutia and get to a just result. Immunity from the law is something to be dolled out sparingly.
CO-02: Joan Fitz-Gerald, Jared Polis, & Will Shafroth (primary is in August)
Said land conservation activist Shafroth: “While this current bill takes some small steps to weaken the authority of the president to unilaterally spy on Americans, it does not go far enough in protecting our civil liberties.”
Internet entrepreneur Polis said that “phone companies should not be given a pass and should be held accountable for their involvement in unwarranted wiretapping.”
And former state Senate President Fitz-Gerald criticized the bill’s “de facto immunity for telecommunications companies that broke the law.”
“The government has no right to listen and wiretap any phone without judicial oversight,” she said.
….
Fitz-Gerald said the House version of the legislation amending FISA was better than an earlier U.S. Senate version, but “it still was not acceptable and I would have rejected the House measure.”
Shafroth said he would have voted against the bill because “many of the protections in the bill are superficial and there are too many avenues left to the president to unconstitutionally spy on American citizens.”
Polis said the nation must restore people’s trust in their government, but “rushing FISA reform through Congress is not the answer.”
More Polis:
It is disappointing that some of our Democratic leaders are rushing FISA reform through Congress. I strongly oppose telecom immunity that paves the ground for the further erosion of our privacy and civil liberties.
Our Democratic leaders in Washington should stand firm against allowing Republicans and the Bush Administration to violate the civil liberties of our citizens any more than they already have; phone companies should not be given a pass and should be held fully accountable for their involvement in unwarranted wiretapping.
Rather than providing cover for the Bush administration, our leaders should show backbone and not allow FISA reform to be rushed through Congress.
The fear mongering tactics of President Bush and his cronies on Capitol Hill are tired; the American public now understands that we can have security at home while also protecting the civil liberties of our law abiding citizens.
CO-04: Betsy Markey
I had left a message there asking her position on this FISA bill. She personally took the time to call me back and told me she is against this thing and would have voted Nay!
CT-04: Jim Himes
“In Congress, I will always stand up for the fundamental American belief that no man, and no corporation, is above the law. As always, this is a matter for the courts to decide– not for Congress, and absolutely not for the same Bush Administration who may have violated the law in the first place. It is great to see so many American citizens of all backgrounds coming together to stand up for the rule of law and in opposition to retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies who may have illegally spied on American citizens at the Bush Administration’s request. I am disappointed that Chris Shays and so many others continue to stand with President Bush by refusing to stand up for this most fundamental of American principles.”
FL-08: Alan Grayson
What, exactly, is the Right Wing’s problem with the Fourth Amendment? Why do they constantly seek ways to evade and subvert the Fourth Amendment? It seems to have worked pretty well, for over 200 years. And over 99% of the time, the federal judges give all POTUS the warrants he wants.
What it really comes down to is that they want a dictatorship. It’s issues like this one, where the Right has to choose between conservatism and fascism, when you see their true colors.
FL-24: Clint Curtis (h/t discocarp)
As the “New York Times” said in its June 18 editorial: “The bill is not a compromise. The final details are being worked out, but all indications are that many of its provisions are both unnecessary and a threat to the Bill of Rights. The White House and the Congressional Republicans who support the bill have two real aims. They want to undermine the power of the courts to review the legality of domestic spying programs. And they want to give a legal shield to the telecommunications companies that broke the law by helping Mr. Bush carry out his warrantless wiretapping operation.”
….
The problem is special interest money, Curtis said, coupled with a business-as-usual attitude in Washington.
“This is the root cause of the Democrats’ inability to stand up to the Republicans. They are all eating from the same trough,” Curtis said. “This is why we need leadership that will stay true to our values rather than cater to special interest contributors.”
FL-25: Joe Garcia
“The laws that were created under FISA were sufficient to meet our country?s national security needs. What the Bush administration has done, again, is present Americans with a false choice between national security and civil liberties, while this bill increases neither. I oppose any broad retroactive immunity provided to companies who may have broken the law. The legal purpose of immunity is to use the protection granted by such immunity as an inducement to divulge information about what occurred. Immunity in this case would do the opposite: it would shut down any investigation into what actually occurred.”
GA-08: Robert Nowak (primary challenger to Jim Marshall)
The latest demand from President Bush, that the US Congress shield telecommunication providers from liability for breaking federal law, is a real step backwards in the important mission of authorizing an effective intelligence surveillance program. Congress not give blanket immunity for any unlawful acts, it should renew its call for increased oversight of the telecom providers that may or may not have broken federal surveillance laws.
Further, the US Congress must not budge in insisting that any surveillance program with the capability of eavesdropping on US citizens be subject to court oversight.
The Congress should insist on codifying in the statute a court order requirement for any surveillance done on American citizens.
This last August, Representative Marshall voted for a temporary bill that allowed for expanded wiretapping and surveillance on Americans without a court order. Allowing that regime to continue is unacceptable.
GA-12: Regina Thomas (primary challenger to John Barrow)
After reading the FISA bill — Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act — I thought “This can not be good for Americans. That the Bush Administration wants unlimited powers for spying on not only terrorists, but on any American citizen. This is against and violates the Constitutional Fourth Amendment [right of] privacy. This also allows warrant-less monitoring of any form of communication in the United States.” I was disappointed and dismayed with my Congressman John Barrow supporting this Bush Republican initiative against Americans. Too often Congressman Barrow from the 12th district in Georgia has voted with Bush and the Republicans on key issues.
IA-05: Rob Hubler (h/t desmoinesdem)
The Congress is considering a bill that guarantees retroactive immunity for telecom companies who participated in the President’s illegal wiretap program, and that fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home. This measure would require the courts to grant immunity to big telecom companies for their past illegal eavesdropping on American citizens, and authorize future surveillance on citizens without adequate checks and balances to protect their rights.
This is wrong. No one should get a free pass for breaking the law. Iowans and all Americans have a right to live their lives without government intrusion on their privacy.
If elected, I would vigorously oppose this measure. I believe that the constitutional rights of everyday Americans are at issue here, and full accountability is needed. No President should ever have unchecked power. Americans in the U. S. with no connection to suspected terrorists should never have their privacy abridged by an overzealous, unchecked executive branch. As Americans, we can protect ourselves without destroying our Constitutional rights. We need to focus on the very real threats we face, and not waste our resources on spying on loyal Americans.
IL-10: Dan Seals
Today, Rep. Mark Kirk once again showed how out-of-step he is with Illinois’ 10th district, by siding with the Bush administration to protect telecommunications companies who participated in illegal spying on American citizens. Kirk has received over $80,000 in contributions from the telecom companies he has continually voted to protect.
Coming in the wake of his vote against outlawing waterboarding, Kirk has shown that he is more interested in following the Bush administration than upholding our international agreements, like the Geneva Convention, and protecting our constitutional rights.
Congressional Candidate Dan Seals (IL-10) released the following statement today:
“While I was pleased to see the House Democrats stand their ground against granting amnesty to the telecommunications companies who broke the law, I was disappointed to see Mark Kirk side once again with the Bush administration and his campaign contributors over the 4th amendment.
“The U.S. Constitution is not a discretionary document. It’s time we elect leaders with the courage and independence to stand up for our most sacred rights. When I go to Congress, I will stand up for our Constitution and ensure that no one is above the law.”
IN-06: Barry Welsh
I like Brad Ellsworth, and yes he is that good looking in person, I like Baron Hill, and always have, I like Joe Donnelly and have since the first time I met him, and the same for Senator Bayh, but I really, really, really, have a fondness for this piece of paper called the United States Constitution.
I would not have voted as they did on FISA, but I am more liberal than they are and we all know that, you know that, I know that, and they know that. Some in Indiana are afraid of being called a Liberal and the word comes from Liberty, so I think we should embrace it.
….
Brad, Baron and Beyond, (Sorry, I couldn’t resist, it’s the blogger in me) voted the way they did because of National Security, and I do not hate them for voting what they believe, because I believe in National Security too, but I also understand the potential for expansion of the FISA bill, and the potential danger. I love this country but since 2000, have feared this government and do not agree with granting this administration any additional power. It is my hope that in 6 months this will not be re-newed, it is my fear that it will.
KY-01: Heather Ryan
There are several reasons why I feel this bill is unnecessary. First, I think that we have lost focus on the fact that a competent Administration could have actually gone a long way in preventing this tragedy. The Bush Administration was warned in advance of 9-11 and did nothing at the time to prevent it. I believe if the Bush Administration would have acted on the intelligence provided them, then the 9-11 tragedy could have been avoided through the laws that existed at the time.
I also believe this law is an extension of the Bush Administration’s attempts to politicize the Justice Department. Prosecuting entities are provided by the Constitution with checks and balances on which to operate. They already have very broad powers and if they found a credible threat would have no problem getting a warrant in a timely fashion.
Finally, I believe that FISA and this compromise are an abomination to the Constitution because it seeks to circumvent the checks and balances provided all of us by that sacred document. I strongly oppose giving the Telecom Corporations immunity when they knew they were breaking the law, when the Bush Administration asked them to break the law.
I saw where my opponent in this race, “Exxon Ed” Whitfield voted for this Legislation. I think it is pretty ironic when the very Republicans who lecture us regarding limiting the roll of the Federal Government propose, and push through, the House of Representatives a bill that vastly broadens the powers of the Federal Government. This is one issue on which Progressives, Moderates and Conservatives should all be able to agree. There are certain things on which none of us should ever compromise, and the Constitution is one thing on which I will never compromise as Representative of Kentucky’s First District.
MI-07: Mark Schauer (with video!)
Personally I’m tired of Tim Walberg and George W. Bush using fear about our national security to score cheap political points. Congress has passed legislation to ensure that tools are in place to protect our country’s safety, but Walberg and Bush seem more interested in protecting big corporations that have helped them listen to our phone calls, read our emails, violate our privacy, then they are about protecting law-abiding citizens. I believe our Constitution, and our rights, including our right to privacy, are worth fighting for. If our government or big corporations break the rules, they should be held accountable.
MI-09: Gary Peters
I would have voted no. Let me start out by saying that, I am absolutely committed to keeping America safe, taking on the terrorists, and defending our national security. I was a Lt. Commander in the Navy Reserve, and I spent time over in the Persian Gulf. I understand what kind of pressure our people are under to get good intelligence. Good intelligence is absolutely critical to the safety of our soldiers and to protecting our country. We can’t function without it.
We definitely need to update FISA to give our intelligence agencies the tools they need, while also absolutely guaranteeing that Americans’ rights are protected.
There are important updates that we need to make to FISA, but I can’t support the retroactive immunity – and I sincerely hope that those provisions get stripped out in the Senate.
MN-03: Ashwin Madia
I am troubled by the House passage of HR 6304, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. There is much we can do to prevent terrorism, but such measures do not require the sacrifice of fundamental constitutional freedoms which our country was founded upon. This legislation demonstrates the need for leaders in Congress who have experience in the military and in Iraq, and who value the rule of law as we fight the War on Terror.
NC-08: Larry Kissell
The Fourth Amendment doesn’t exclude lobbyists. The “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” means George Bush and the other Washington politicians can’t grant immunity to law breakers no matter how much they give to campaigns.
NJ-05: Dennis Shulman
It is unfortunate that it appears that the telecom industry has managed to falsely conflate its quest for retroactive immunity for lawbreaking with the issue of national security. The Founding Fathers understood that our safety as a nation depended on our being a nation of laws. Retroactive immunity undermines the rule of law, and therefore undermines our principles and security as a nation.
NJ-07: Linda Stender
The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) issued a release today taunting Linda Stender, candidate for New Jersey’s 7th Congressional District, on the issue of Congress’ re-authorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
….
Stender hit back this afternoon.
“It’s clear from this nonsensical attack that the national Republicans know they’re in jeopardy of losing this seat,” said Stender campaign spokesman Joshua Henne. “Linda Stender believes we can defend both our nation’s security, and the Constitution. The Bush Republicans sadly still haven’t learned its possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.”
NM-01: Martin Heinrich (with campaign commercial!)
In America, no one is above the law. We shouldn’t compromise the integrity of our justice system to protect George Bush’s friends and allies in the telecommunications industry. Anyone who illegally spies on American citizens should be brought to justice.
NY-13: Steve Harrison (h/t akokon)
This Friday, legislation was passed that will take away constitutionally guaranteed rights. The FISA bill strips Americans of these rights and protects telecommunications companies from being held accountable by the people.
I am standing up against my own party because I believe we can have sound legislation that defends our country and, at the same time, protects our Constitution. If we are to hold our government accountable, retroactive immunity is the wrong path to go down.
It’s time to support Democrats with democratic values and principles, Democrats who will work on behalf of the American people and protect their rights. When I’m elected to Congress, I will be that Democrat.
NY-21: Darius Shahinfar (who’s still in a contested primary)
Today, Darius Shahinfar, candidate for the 21st Congressional District, called the compromise reached on amendment of the Federal Information Surveillance Act (FISA) a compromise of Constitutional principles.
“The critical problem of this compromise is that it contains a free pass for the Bush Administration’s and telecommunication companies’ past actions. The Administration’s use of warrantless wiretaps cannot be reviewed, and the process to review the telecommunications companies’ participation in the wiretapping program leads inevitably to immunity for those companies” Shahinfar said.
Darius’ remarks come at a time when the controversial piece of legislation would allow immunity to phone companies who currently face lawsuits for violating the constitutional rights of their members, according to plaintiff claims.
“By passing this piece of legislation, we are telling our government and our citizens that as long as the President tells you to do so, breaking the law is legal. No one, not even the President, is above our laws, especially when it comes to the issue of protecting our Constitutional rights.”
When asked further of his views about FISA, Shahinfar continued, “FISA was created 30 years ago, is applicable with today’s advanced technology and has been a vital tool in collecting intelligence for our nations’ security.It had not been an issue, until this administration decided to use it improperly and against its intended purpose. This will not make Americans any safer from threats at home or abroad; rather it will put us at the mercy of secret agreements between corporations and our government.”
NY-25: Dan Maffei
If the Bush Administration had read the constitution the first time, we wouldn’t find ourselves having this debate. Granting amnesty to these companies would set a precedent that would allow others to arbitrarily ignore the constitution. No one should be above the law in America.
NY-26: Jon Powers
Growing up in Western New York, one of the first lessons I was taught was that each of us has to take responsibility for our actions. As a social studies teacher, I came to understand this principle in the broader context of our democracy. We are, first and foremost, a nation of laws. Each of us should be treated equally under the law, and no one should be given special treatment. The founding fathers designed the courts as the proper place to weigh one’s actions under the law, not the White House. I trust that the courts, which have ensured the rights and liberty of all Americans for over 200 years, are more than able to continue providing the wisdom and protections that keep us free.
NY-29: Eric Massa (you should really read the entire diary and Massa’s analysis)
At the heart of the debate is the truncation of the Fourth Amendment, which outlines the right of the people to be secure in their persons and belongings. That right, which many would consider a bedrock of basic liberties in the Nation, is altered to allow the Federal Government to conduct searches and seizures of personal property without a warrant from a court of law.
….
But the bigger problem here is the immunity that would be given if it is found that the government and cooperating officials acted without due justification. Under current law, those involved can be held accountable and the individual on whom the actions were perpetrated can seek redress before the government. This right to seek redress is another fundamental individual liberty that the Revolutionary War was fought to gain for all Americans. This current bill takes away the right of citizens to seek redress.
OH-02: Vic Wulsin
The Bush Administration has run roughshod over the Constitution and now they expect the American people to pay for it by granting retroactive immunity to big corporations that illegally violated their customers’ privacy. Congress cannot not let itself be bullied into giving away the civil liberties that belong to every American, and I promise that as a congresswoman I will never put the interests of corporations before the rights of the people.
OH-07: Sharen Neuhardt (h/t DarenB)
I am opposed to affording any immunity to the telecommunications companies who may have broken the law by their participation in handing over information or granting wire-taping access to the Bush Administration without first properly receiving permission through FISA Court.
I am hoping that before the current legislation makes its way to the President’s desk, members of the U.S. Senate will see that the protection of civil rights should precede any special treatment for any special interest. When the Patriot Act was first debated and wrongly passed, the telecommunications lobbying arm kept quiet and now they want to ensure that justice is silenced forever.
As the daughter of a cop, I have great respect for our Constitution and the pursuit of the truth. Any immunity that is granted before giving the American people the opportunity to even uncover a violation is a violation unto itself.
PA-15: Sam Bennett
The Constitution also places no one above, below or immune from the law. The House Judiciary Committee was absolutely correct today to reject President Bush’s demand for blind and blanket immunity for large telecom companies who aided illegal spying. It should be noted that not all such companies heeded the call for unchecked Presidential power, and those who resisted should be commended. For the others, blind immunity for crimes, especially when not even yet fully documented, is an alien and disturbing idea to Americans.
“Finally, to those who imply that by opposing warrantless, illegal spying in America, Democrats somehow are aiding our enemies: I urge you to take an evening off, turn off that distracting talk radio and Fox News, and spend a quiet evening reading the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution. You may learn something new, and wonderful.
TX-10: Larry Joe Doherty
This out of control president has systematically shredded the Constitutional protections of every American, trashing the patriotism of anyone who is willing to stand up to him. To think that the U.S. Congress should come along behind George Bush rubber-stamping the suspension of the Bill of Rights is offensive to me. Congress is sworn to protect the Constitution, and gagging the courts from upholding the Rule of Law is the wrong way to protect this country from its enemies.
VA-04: Andrea Miller
Has anyone in Washington these days ever heard of (let alone read) the U.S. Constitution– remember that document? We were guaranteed certain rights. It seems many Republican members of Congress lay awake at night, thinking what rights can we take away from our fellow Americans today.
Specifically my opponent J. Randy Forbes, VA (R) wanted to add language that would have ensured that nothing in the bill would be construed to prohibit surveillance of, or grant any rights to, a state sponsor of terrorism or agents of state sponsors of terrorism. In addition, the language would have permitted the intelligence community to conduct surveillance of any person concerning an imminent attack on the United States, any U.S. person, including members of the Armed Forces, or an ally of the United States, Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, members of the al-Queda Iranian Revolutionary Guard, or any terrorist or terrorist organization. This language failed to garner enough votes to be included in H.R. 3773.
The right-wing is operating in force in Congress and the typical corporate Republicrats are once again falling in line. We have a Democratic majority in the House and yet they seem to be as confused by the meaning of the Constitution as the Republicans. Apparently, since impeachment is off the table, so is the U.S. Constitution. When I look at this new bill I can’t help wondering if this is the new Democratic thinking, “If we make all illegal actions legal, then the President and Vice President have done nothing wrong. Ergo there is no need to consider impeachment because no laws were broken.”
VA-05: Tom Perriello
“This “compromise” will not make Americans safer,” said Perriello, a national security consultant with experience in Afghanistan, Darfur and West Africa. “If Congress and the President were serious about national security they would have spent their time and energy giving our brave intelligence officers the resources they need, not the American freedoms that our armed forces defend. Our constitutional principles are never up for negotiation.”
VA-10: Judy Feder
No one in this country should be above the law and saying Alberto Gonzales told me it was okay is hardly an excuse. I oppose retroactive immunity for the telecoms who engaged in illegal surveillance. Unfortunately, Frank Wolf has again sided with the President on this issue voting in favor of immunity for those who circumvented the FISA courts and our legal process.
WA-08: Darcy Burner (with video!)
Honestly, I don’t understand why at this point any member of Congress would think it was a good idea to give George Bush the power to grant immunity to anyone he wants around warrantless wiretapping – and to cover all tracks in the process. George Bush has proven, over and over again, that he cannot be trusted to uphold either the letter or the spirit of the laws that protect the people of the United States from the abuse of our government.
….
All I can say is that I’m sorry Congress failed on this one – and that I will honor the pledge I hope to take to uphold the Constitution.
WY-AL: Gary Trauner (also see here for some excellent choice quotes Gary dug up from our own Founding Fathers)
Wow. I am deeply saddened today by the news that the US House has voted to pass a bill amending the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) which strikes at the very core of American democracy – our Constitutional Bill of Rights and the rule of law. It enables our federal government to intercept, without probable cause, all international communications of American citizens, and it provides retroactive immunity for companies that may have broken the law (if they did nothing wrong, why would they need immunity?).
….
Wow! Is that what it’s come to? Our federal government says you must do something, even if it is against the law, and we “need” to do it? Well, I don’t care whether it’s the Republican Leadership in Washington DC or the Democrats in the House, I’ll proudly tell them – and you – where I stand on warrantless wiretapping, the rule of law and protecting our national security:
I want to ensure that my children, and all of our children, are safe from terrorist attacks by beefing up our intelligence capabilities, protecting vulnerable targets, proactively taking out terrorists such as Al-Qaeda in their hideouts in Afghanistan, Pakistan and around the world, and working to remove safe havens for terrorists by winning the battle of ideas, not simply the battle for Tikrit. I believe in the Constitution and rule of law, the two things that define our great American experiment. We must not gut our freedoms in order to save our freedoms. If we do that, those who use terror as a tactic will achieve their goal – after all, what would we be fighting to protect?. We can protect our nation without sacrificing everything our founding fathers and millions of veterans fought for; the FISA law, already updated in 2001 after 9/11 and recently patched to fix some omissions due to changing technology, works. I would rather bring Osama Bin Laden to justice than help large corporations avoid justice. If we value our Constitutional rights such as the 2nd amendment right to bear arms, we better think twice about ignoring other Constitutional rights, such as the 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant and probable cause. Because once we cherry pick the Constitution, someone will eventually come after the rights we hold most dear. ….
Finally, the truth is that Congress last year passed a temporary extension of the Protect America Act that was vetoed by the President and voted against by the Republican leadership and certain Democrats. They said they would not accept a bill that does not include giving a free pass to companies that might have broken the law! Incredible. It deserve saying one more time – these so-called leaders are telling us the Protect America Act was so important, without it America is not protected from terrorists; however, they were willing to block this incredibly important Act, and leave America unprotected, unless large corporations were let off the hook for knowingly breaking the law. Because unlike you and me, who in the event of potential wrongdoing only get off the hook by presenting our case in a court of law, they think large corporations should be held to a different standard – no accountability.
Senate candidates
AK-Sen: Mark Begich
The Alaskan Constitution protects the right of privacy. The 4th Amendment demands a warrant be issued for any search. And FISA says that domestic electronic surveillance must be approved by a special court. None of these facts should be forgotten on behalf of telecommunications companies that now face legal consequences for the role they played in the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program. I am strongly opposed to retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.
ID-Sen: Larry LaRocco
The Church Committee’s investigations resulted in the creation of a permanent Senate Committee on Intelligence, and the passage of substantial legislation, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in 1978.
Church’s work is now being shredded by the Bush Administration.
FISA established a legal framework for electronic eavesdropping at home, including a special FISA court. It was originally passed to allow the government to collect intelligence involving communications with “agents of foreign powers.”
The Bush Administration exploited this narrow exception in the passage of the Patriot Act that allows use of FISA to obtain personal records from many sources including libraries and internet service providers, even when they have no connection to terrorism.
Even worse, the Bush Administration now uses FISA to get around the constitutional requirement of seeking a warrant before it eavesdrops on communications by the NSA.
….
When I am elected to the Senate, I will demand an end to the abuse of FISA and a return to the checks and balances espoused by Frank Church and the Church Committee.
As a former Congressman, Frank Church staff member, and U.S. Army intelligence office, I will help lead the way back from the civil liberty abuses of this administration.
KY-Sen: Bruce Lunsford
The secret warrantless wiretapping program was flat out wrong. The Bush administration went too far when it may not have even been necessary. Almost 99 percent of wiretapping applications were approved when they were submitted to judges. We must do all we can to ensure that our law enforcement and intelligence agencies have the necessary tools to protect our homeland but individual privacy and civil liberties must be protected because those are the freedoms we fight for. That is America. And I think we should be focused finding terrorists and not protecting corporate CEOs. I’m sure there was pressure from the Bush administration and that isn’t an enviable position to be in for a company but what is wrong is wrong and there must be accountability. When mistakes were made in my companies, I took responsibility, took action and solved the problems.
I was encouraged by news a few months ago that both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives passed new FISA bills with added privacy protections. Now Mitch McConnell and his Republican leadership in Washington need to work with Senate and House Democrats to finalize legislation that protects the safety, and freedoms, of all Americans. I hear this issue will be brought up again in the Senate sometime during the summer.
ME-Sen: Tom Allen (who just voted against it in the House)
As I have stated before, neither the government nor large telecommunications corporations are above the law; everyone must be held accountable. This ‘compromise’ fails to hold either the Bush administration or the telecommunications companies to the same standards that apply to other Americans.
NM-Sen: Tom Udall
The FISA bill we considered today would compromise the constitutionally guaranteed rights that make America a beacon of hope around the world.
Today’s vote was not easy. I stood up to leaders of my own party and voted against this bill, because I took an oath to defend Americans and our Constitution, and it was the right thing to do.
That duty is most important when it is most difficult. We can protect our nation while upholding our values, but unfortunately, this bill falls short.
OK-Sen: Andrew Rice
Having lost my brother in the World Trade Center on 9/11, I am very sensitive to the importance of the U.S. intelligence community’s ability to effectively monitor foreign terrorist targets. However, our country must preserve our constitutional principles and such monitoring must be accomplished without compromising the civil liberties of American citizens. I am hopeful that Congress is on the verge of finally properly scrutinizing the Bush Administration’s warrantless surveillance programs, and can create reasonable legislation that provides our government the tools it needs to monitor legitimate international threats, while at the same time not compromising the personal liberties of law-abiding Americans. Members of congress must ensure that any surveillance of U.S Citizens be granted with the proper warrant. If they fail to accomplish this, then we will have lost something very sacred about America and what our system of values is supposed to provide for all Americans.
The provision for corporate immunity for the telecom companies who may have violated federal law is unacceptable and unfortunately another example of the Bush administration wanting the legislative branch to craft legislation that protects the executive branch from its own incompetance.
OR-Sen: Jeff Merkley
The bill will force federal district courts to immediately dismiss any cases against telecommunications companies that participated in illegal surveillance. This is unacceptable. The Constitution of the United States was violated. Over several years telecommunications companies turned over the records of millions of innocent Americans to the federal government without proper oversight and without a warrant.
The Bush Administration disregarded the Fourth Amendment when it authorized this surveillance and now Congress may provide the Administration and these companies a free pass. This is a mistake. The Senate is set to vote on the FISA bill this week. For the sake of our constitution and the foundation of our democracy, I urge all Senators to unite in opposition to this bill.
If I’m elected to the Senate, I will not hesitate to fight to protect our civil liberties and the laws this nation was founded upon.
I have spoken out against immunity for telecommunications companies throughout this campaign. Last February, I urged my supporters to sign a petition to pressure my opponent, Republican Senator Gordon Smith, to vote against the FISA bill that granted retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.
Unfortunately, Gordon Smith voted in favor of granting retroactive immunity. I expect him to do the same when the Senate votes on this issue in the coming days. For years, the Bush Administration has been undermining the balance of powers. Checks and balances must be restored and a vote against the immunity bill would be a critical starting point.
TX-Sen: Rick Noriega (with video!)
On Christmas morning 2004, outside of Kabul, Afghanistan, my buddies and I drove to our base camp to use the computers. We wanted to be with our kids when they woke up that Christmas. To get there we drove through a near ambush–anytime we drove on the Jalalabad Road, it was risky, and we had an incident on our way.
That Christmas morning, I suspect the government listened to our conversations. They occurred between two countries; Afghanistan and the US. They probably didn’t realize the difference in tone in my voice as I spoke to my wife and children that morning as my heart raced still from our encounter on the road. My wife did.
I fought to defend our country and our constitution in Afghanistan. I fought for the right to privacy for every Texan. Mr. Cornyn must now stand up for the privacy of every Texan and American too. We as a nation cannot grant anyone sweeping amnesty if they violated the law.
Americans understand the need for safety and the need for intelligence gathering. What they will not accept is an abuse of power, of crossing the line on American’s privacy.
I would join Sen. Dodd in opposition to any retroactive provisions that allow a “get out of jail card” for violating the Constitution. If Mr. Cornyn had ever had the opportunity to have his Christmas conversation listened to by the government, on a day that he feared for his life in a convoy on Jalalabad Road, he would do the same.
Then there’s those whose names have been bandied about the blogosphere that we’d like to think they’d be opposed to Bush taking away the Fourth Amendment, but where I cannot find a single statement from them about this specific issue. Much help would be appreciated in figuring out exactly where they stand on FISA.
House
AZ-03: Bob Lord (nobody asked him in his diary two days ago?)
FL-18: Annette Taddeo
FL-21: Raul Martinez
FL-24: Suzanne Kosmas
IL-11: Debbie Halvorson
MD-01: Frank Kratovil
MN-02: Steve Sarvi
NE-02: Jim Esch
NM-02: Harry Teague
NM-03: Ben Ray Lujan (who even diaried here last week, but nobody asked him about FISA!)
NV-02: Jill Derby
NV-03: Dina Titus
OH-15: Mary Jo Kilroy
OH-16: John Boccieri
TX-07: Michael Skelly
WV-02: Anne Barth
Senate
KS-Sen: Jim Slattery
MN-Sen: Al Franken (though he did write a satire piece about wiretapping)
MS-Sen: Ronnie Musgrove
NE-Sen: Scott Kleeb
And then there’s even some Democratic challengers who have come out in FAVOR of this FISA bill.
NJ-03: John Adler
For his part, Adler released a statement today, underscoring his own support for reupping FISA “so that our intelligence community has the tools needed to keep America safe in a dangerous world. We must also protect the freedoms for which our troops have made so many courageous sacrifices.”
NC-Sen: Kay Hagan
She was asked if she would have voted for, or against, the FISA bill this week which would have granted retroactive immunity to Telcos for felony violations of the current FISA law.
Ms. Hagan explained that she was against Telcos spying on Americans, but that she would have voted FOR the bill, and granted them immunity, but that future law breaking would not be tolerated.
And of course, Mark Udall running for the Senate in Colorado voted for this bill last week. And perception on the blogs seems to be that Mark Warner and Jeanne Shaheen would’ve supported this bill had they been in the Senate, so I’m not exactly holding my breath to hear statements from them against telecom immunity.
Now, some of the candidates above still have a contested primary to go, like in CO-02, where all three of them came out against it, even as the person they’re trying to replace, Mark Udall, voted for it. There’s other districts, like in AZ-01 and NY-21, where only that candidate has released a statement on FISA, and others haven’t seemed to. (I’m looking at you, Ann Kirkpatrick.) If you guys can find statements by them, please let me know in the comments.