Tag: Redistricting

With Washington gaining a tenth congressional district this year, the general assumption is that the new seat will be a heavily Democratic seat in the Seattle suburbs, which will turn Dave Reichert’s WA-08 into a Republican leaning district. I attempted to see if there was any way to prevent this. My goal was to draw a new Democratic WA-10, make WA-08 more Democratic, and protect all the surrounding districts, especially the potentially vulnerable WA-02, and keep WA-03 competitive, if not Democratic-leaning.  My goal with the suburban Seattle seats was to keep them all around D+5, which I think is the perfect balance between keeping the seats Democratic and making sure that they aren’t too packed. I came up with two ways to do this:

one that is slightly more compact that draws 7 Democratic seats, one lean-GOP seat, and two safe GOP seats…

…and one that is slightly less compact that draws 7 Democratic seats, one tossup-to-lean-Dem seat and two safe GOP seats

The only difference between these two maps is the Southwestern part of the state and the 3rd and 6th districts. In the first map, the 3rd is a district with a pvi of somewhere between EVEN and R+3 that takes up the Vancouver area, most of Cowlitz, Skamania, and Klickitat counties (gotta love those Washington county names), the Yakama Reservation, and the Hispanic-majority areas of Yakima county. In the second map, all the areas east of Clark co that were in the third in the first map are now in the 6th, and the 3rd stretches up along the Pacific coast. This 3rd is probably about D+1 or D+2.

The rest of the state is the same in both these maps. The 6th has dropped Tacoma and gained Olympia, which makes this area look a lot neater without really changing the partisan makeup at all. The 9th is now a very compact Tacoma district. The 1st is now a district composed of the Puget sound islands, Whatcom county, and Skagit county north and west of Mt Vernon. I tried to make the 5th as Democratic as any district in Eastern Washington could be, which is not really saying much. It contains the city of Spokane, which is slightly Democratic, but not the heavily Republican surrounding areas, the college town of Pullman, the Tri-Cities area, and some surrounding areas with large Hispanic populations (the district as a whole is 25% non-white). It is still probably considerable Republican-leaning, probably with a PVI of something like R+5. The devious thing about this district is that it draws Doc Hastings and Cathy McMorris Rogers into the same district. I expect McMorris Rogers will win the resulting primary, with the support of both the Republican “establishment” and the support of conservatives like Sarah Palin. Maybe this will convince Doc Hastings to jump into the gubernatorial primary. I haven’t heard any talk about him doing that, but it seems he could find a niche as the “true conservative” candidate. Democrats would of course love this because Doc Hastings would have no chance of winning the general election for governor.

Now on to the Seattle area:





The 2nd has swapped out some areas with the 1st, gaining the part of Snohomish Co part of the 1st and dropping some of the Northern areas. It is now probably a point or two more Democratic. The 7th has lost some heavily Democratic areas to the new 10th and gained some swingier suburban areas. It is somewhat less Democratic, but this doesn’t matter at all really. The new 10th is carved out of SW King Co, with territory taken from the 7th, 8th, and 9th districts. It contains Dave Reichert’s home in Auburn as well as some GOP-leaning areas in the eastern part of the district, but the heavily Democratic areas along the coast that make up the majority of the district’s population should make sure it has a strong Dem-lean, probably with a pvi of about D+6. Dave Reichert might be able to hold on to this district, but I think the Democratic candidate would start out with a solid advantage over Reichert given the fact that Reichert has never represented most of the district and the fact that Obama should be carrying this district with >60% of the vote. The 8th has also become more Democratic, with the loss of some GOP-leaning areas to the 10th and the gain of some heavily Democratic areas in the NW of King Co.  

• AZ-Sen: Could we actually see a retirement from the GOP’s #2, Jon Kyl? Seems hard to believe, but there seems to be increasing chatter about it, at least to the extent that it’s now a “real possibility.” Local sources refer to his fundraising as being in a “holding pattern.” Kyl promises a February deadline for deciding whether or not to run again.

• FL-Sen: He doesn’t have the name rec of ex-Sen. George LeMieux or Rep. Connie Mack IV, but don’t discount former state House majority leader Adam Hasner as a potential force in the GOP Senate primary. While he’s little-known, insiders point to him having the best-built network for fundraising and activist mobilization among the GOPers. (Also worth noting: his wife just finished running Meg Whitman’s campaign. Although I don’t know if, at this point, that’s a plus or a minus.)

• IN-Sen: Seemingly having learned from the 2010 Republican Senate primary, where two candidates split the hard-right vote and let warmed-over establishmentarian Dan Coats stroll to the nomination, Indiana tea partiers seem to be trying to coordinate their efforts better this time in order to beat Richard Lugar. 180 leaders met to summon three potential candidates (the already-oft-mentioned state Sen. Mike Delph and state Treasurer Richard Mourdock, but also 2010 IN-02 loser Jackie Walorski) to appear before them so they can unify behind one of them. (The article’s worth reading too for some provocative pushback from Lugar’s camp, including some thoughtful mention from them of the Latino vote, a growing demographic even in Indiana.) Meanwhile, faced with redistricting-related uncertainty in his House district, Rep. Joe Donnelly is continuing to “look at his political options” regarding a statewide run (where, theoretically, a Senate run could be more appealing, if odds are starting to look like the Gov. opponent will be Mike Pence and the Sen. opponent will be a little-known teabagger).

• MA-Sen: Cat fud doesn’t get any better than this: the National Republican Trust PAC, which spent $95K on IEs to get Scott Brown elected in 2010, is now vowing to defeat Brown in the next Republican primary in order to “protect its brand.” The last straw for them? START, of all things. While I can’t see such a primary likely to succeed (especially since these guys seem like kind of small-ball players… I mean, $95K?), the prospect of angry right-wingers staying home in November makes the general election that much more interesting. Meanwhile, Rep. Michael Capuano, who lost the special election Dem primary, still sounds like the Dem likeliest to make the race, although he’s now saying he won’t have a formal decision until summer. Another potential candidate, Rep. Stephen Lynch, is out with some comments that somehow don’t seem likely to endear him any more to the party’s base, saying that liberal activists should steer clear of primary challenges in 2012 (Lynch, of course, was recipient of one of those challenges). He stopped short of saying that they should steer clear of primary challenges to him in the Senate race, though, so that doesn’t give much insight into his 2012 plans.

• MI-Sen: With Peter Hoekstra having made some vague noises about being interested in the Senate race last week, now it’s Terry Lynn Land’s turn. The former Republican SoS says she’s “considering it,” but interestingly, plans to meet with Hoekstra next week before making a decision.

• TX-Sen: This isn’t much of a surprise, but west Texas’s three interchangeable Republican House members (Mike Conaway, Randy Neugebauer, and Mac Thornberry) announced en masse that they weren’t interested in running for the Senate seat. Makes sense… why give up the safest job in the nation (GOP House backbencher in a district that’s R+25 or more) for the chance to get flattened in a primary by David Dewhurst and/or a teabagger to be named later?

• VT-Sen: Republican State Auditor Tom Salmon seems to have an amazing new quantitative scheme for gauging his interest in running for Senate: currently he says he’s “65 percent in,” and that “when I hit 75 percent it will commence exploratory.” He also lets Politico know (I’m not making this up) that he “needs to be an authentic self-utilizing power along the lines of excellence.” I guess he switched from being a Democrat to a Republican last year because he felt more welcome in the GOP, given their long-standing tolerance of Sarah Palin’s gift for word salad.

• WI-Sen: This seems like a pretty good indicator that long-time Democratic Sen. Herb Kohl, who prefers to write his own checks rather than work the fundraising circuit, is planning another run in 2012 rather than retirement. He just loaned $1 million into his campaign account in the fourth quarter of 2011.

• WV-Gov: PPP is out with the primary election portions of its gubernatorial poll from last week. On the Dem side, there are two clear favorites but they’re neck and neck: acting Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin (at 25) and SoS Natalie Tennant (at 24). Further behind are state Treasurer John Perdue at 16, state Sen. Jeff Kessler at 7, state House speaker Rick Thompson at 6, and state Sen. Brooks McCabe at 4. On the GOP side, if Shelley Moore Capito does show up (which she says she won’t), she’s a shoo-in, at 72, with ex-SoS Betty Ireland at 10, state Sen. Clark Barnes at 5, Putnam Co. Prosecutor Mark Sorsaia at 1, and state GOP chair Mike Stuart at 1. They also try a Capito-free version, in which Ireland becomes the heavy fave at 46, with Barnes at 11, Sorsaia at 9, and Stuart at 4. There’s also word of one more GOPer who isn’t interesting: former astronaut and 1996 gubernatorial candidate (who lost the ’96 primary to Cecil Underwood) Jon McBride says he won’t run this time.

• IN-01, MI-14: Two Democratic old-timers who may be faced with less favorable districts after redistricting (or at least dark-blue districts that contain a lot of new territory) and have some ethical problems hanging overhead both announced that they’re running for re-election. Peter Visclosky and John Conyers both are looking to get an early start on their races.

• WA-08: Here’s a new House filing from a fairly prominent local Democrat to go against perennial target Dave Reichert: state Rep. Roger Goodman has set up a committee to run in the 8th. This requires some reading between the lines, though, because a Goodman/Reichert matchup is highly unlikely in the end; Goodman just needs a federal committee set up for, well, somewhere. Goodman lives in Kirkland, which is about a mile to the north of the 8th’s boundaries; he actually lives in WA-01, where he probably doesn’t want to look like he’s mounting a primary challenge to Jay Inslee, although it’s widely-assumed that Inslee will be vacating the 1st to run for Governor in 2012. That doesn’t mean that Goodman running in the 1st is a done deal, either; under the likeliest redistricting scenario, Kirkland is likely to be part of a new Dem-friendly district that’s based on the true Eastside (whether it’s the 8th or 10th remains to be seen), with Reichert, who’s based down in Auburn, getting his own friendlier district based in SE King County and eastern Pierce County. So, I’d say, it’s likelier than not that we’ll see both Reichert and Goodman in the House in 2013; the main question is the district numbers.

• DCCC: Here’s something we like to see; not only is the DCCC is getting an early start on offense this year, seeding the ground to try to get some early momentum going against the most vulnerable House GOPers, but they’re explicitly doing some progressive framing here, highlighting the links between infrastructure spending and job growth. They’re running radio ads in 19 districts, most of which aren’t a surprise by virtue of their swinginess: targets include Lou Barletta, Charlie Bass, Ann Marie Buerkle, Steve Chabot, Chip Cravaack, Bob Dold!, Sean Duffy, Blake Farenthold, Mike Fitzpatrick, Nan Hayworth, Joe Heck, Robert Hurt, Patrick Meehan, Dave Reichert, David Rivera, Jon Runyan, Joe Walsh, and Allen West. The wild card? Thad McCotter, whose continued presence in the House seems to have more to do with his ability to not draw tough opponents than it does with a connection to his district.

• Redistricting: The Fix has an interesting look at Virginia redistricting, where the Dem control of the state Senate probably means an 8-3 compromise map protecting current incumbents. There’s one wrinkle, though: congressional redistricting could be pushed back until after the 2011 legislative election in the hopes that the GOP takes back over the state Senate, which would give them the trifecta. (Obviously, they couldn’t delay legislative redistricting, though, meaning the GOP won’t have the leverage over the map that would shape the results of the 2011 legislative election.) Although it’s hard to see what they could do to VA-11 that wouldn’t cut into VA-10, the GOP could conceivably push for a 9-2 map if they got that advantage. (The Rose Report is out with a much more in-depth series on Virginia redistricting this month that’s worth a look.) Meanwhile, in New Jersey (another early state where the work is done by bipartisan commission), there’s already some disagreement within the commission over whether or not they need to have an 11th, tie-breaking member appointed so they can move forward. (H/t to Taniel for noticing the delightful headline: “N.J. redistricting commission argues over whether it is at an impasse.”)

• Census: Speaking of Virginia and New Jersey, and their early redistricting efforts, the Census Bureau will be rolling out the first big batch of complete, detailed data from 2010 for the first four states that need it early (for 2011 legislative election purposes)… Louisiana and Mississippi as well. They don’t have a specific date set, but keep watching this link because they’ll be available at some point this week.

Idaho has, as Nathaniel90 put it, a shot at “the prize of least interesting congressional redistricting process of the decade.” The current ID-1 and ID-2 are R+18 and R+17 and the minor revisions they’ll receive will not change this to any great extent.

On the other hand, at current growth rates there’s an outside chance that Idaho will receive a third congressional district after 2020, and almost certainly after 2030. And that’s where things get interesting.

Idaho is a fast-growing state. 6 counties saw growth of above 25% between April 2000 and July 2009, including the three largest counties of Ada, Canyon and Kootenai and for the state as a whole population increased by an impressive 19.5%.

But this growth is unevenly distributed, being much more notable in urban than in rural counties, higher in the Panhandle than in central and eastern Idaho and highest of all in the Boise-Nampa Metropolitan area in south-western Idaho.

Given that the growth is here and that the area will contain around half the state’s population, it’d be natural to locate a third congressional district here.

Republicans would be unlikely to be keen, as whilst McCain won all but 3 small counties in the state, Obama’s next best county was the state’s biggest, Boise. If portions of this were combined with (the admittedly very conservative) fast-growing Canyon County to its north-west, you’d have a district a garden-variety of insane Republican could lose and not just a Bill Sali kind of insane Republican.

Yet whilst Republicans dominate the state, Idaho opted for bipartisan redistricting in the 1990s. Democrats and Republicans both name three representatives to a commission that draws the maps and with Republicans often divided between the lunatic fringe and more mainstream conservatives, Democratic power on the commission is even more disproportionate to their popular support than the numbers would suggest.

I therefore suggest than if Idaho receives a third seat in 2020, the commission will draw a very compact Boise-Meridian-Nampa-Caldwell district that would rival WA-7 as the smallest district in the northwest. This would likely be a fair fight district, and in retaliation Republicans would almost certainly try to reintroduce partisan redistricting.

Read on for the districts themselves and methodology.

To estimate the 2020 population of Idaho and its distribution, I took the April 2000 population of each county. I then recorded its growth up to July 2009 (as the 2010 numbers aren’t yet out) and extrapolated this out to April 2020.

I only split two counties, namely Ada and Canyon, but here I encountered some problems. The city of Boise itself has enjoyed only modest growth, whereas other cities have nearly doubled in size in the past decade. It’s unlikely this will be allowed to continue unimpeded for another decade, but by the same token other smaller cities will be likely to experience explosive growth.

Rather than trying to model this, I took the cop-out option of working out what proportion of the two counties I needed to draw into other districts to achieve population equality, then removing them based on the population in Dave’s Redistricting App. This is not a rigorous method and will undoubtedly be out by several thousand in the final analysis, but it did at least allow a rough picture of the likely districts to be drawn.

ID-1

2000 population: 466396

Estimated current population: 524907

Estimated 2020 population: 614623

This district combines the Idaho panhandle with most of the Treasure Valley and a couple of rural counties thrown in for population equality.

It’s slightly oversized because it made the mental arithmetic slightly easier, but moving one block group would fix that and there are plenty of suitable ones around Boise.

Guaranteed safe Republican.

ID-2

2000 population: 360291

Estimated current population: 486060

Estimated 2020 population: 610485

From Boise in north-central Ada County this heads west along I-84 (west) until Caldwell, taking in Meridian and Nampa along the way. For the most part the Boise River is the northern boundary, but it heads beyond that to take in northern parts of the capital as well as the town of Eagle.

As the scale shows, it’s probably only around 200 square miles and hence takes up less than a quarter of a percent of the state’s land area.

Probably leans Republican, but a lot less so than the other two districts.

ID-3

2000 population: 467289

Estimated current population: 534835

Estimated 2020 population: 613230

This district fits communities of interest surprisingly well, as it takes in all of eastern Idaho and the Magic Valley as well as the Wood River Valley.

It would also include the rest of central Idaho, but I had to remove Custer and Lemhi counties to ID-1 for population reasons. This is a shame, as they have no road connections in that direction. However, if, as seems likely, population in rural eastern counties continues to decline, it might be possible to include them in this district in a 2020 map.

Would be monolithically Republican, even if it wasn’t even more Mormon than the present ID-2 already is.

California is a minority-majority state.  Therefore any non-partisan redistricting plan drawn there should reflect the diversity of the state by maximizing the number of minority-majority districts — as long as those districts can be drawn to be compact, drawn to preserve community interests, and otherwise adhere to the other requirements of the new Commission.  11 out of 14 persons on the Commission are themselves minorities; therefore it is quite plausible that they may draw the new districts in this manner.  I tried to put aside all partisan bias when drawing this map, and tried to use only non-partisan criteria like compactness and adherence to the VRA.

There are 53 districts in California.  In this map I drew 15 that fit entirely within the confines of San Diego/Orange/Inland Empire; 15 that basically fit within Los Angeles Co./Ventura and the remaining 23 are in central and northern California.

No districts cross over from Los Angeles Co. into Orange or San Bernardino Counties.  Ventura and Kern Counties share areas with LA Co., but that was the only logical way for me to draw the districts there and still account for equal population for each district.  Likewise, one district does cross over from the Bay Area into the Central Valley, but again, that is because of population totals — basically, one district has to cross that divide somewhere.  

The population deviation per district is under +/- 1,500 persons.  I used American Community Survey estimates for my demographics, so the numbers are off somewhat from the 2000 data that’s still in Dave’s Application.  I numbered the districts from south to north in order to get away from thinking about them in the current sense and away from thinking about them in terms of incumbents (although there may be a rule where the districts have to be numbered north to south ?).  I will discuss each geographic area in turn and try to explain how I drew the lines.

San Diego County

San Diego County’s population estimate according to the American Community Survey is 2,988,000 which is equal to 4.2 congressional districts.  The county is 51% white and 49% minority; therefore I made 2 of the districts majority white and 2 districts minority-majority (the remaining “0.2” of the county is in a majority white district that also encompasses parts of Orange and Riverside Counties).  Hispanics are about 30% of the county so at least one district must be Hispanic.  If you “pack” the most Hispanic precincts in San Diego into one district you will only come out with a district that is approx. 56% Hispanic, but the map would look like this:

Obviously, the Commission would not draw a convoluted map like the one above.  With just a few adjustments, “District 1” can be made pretty compact, however, and the Hispanic percentage would still be approx. 54% — only 2 points less than in the convoluted map.  (I use this example to demonstrate how I planned out many of the minority-majority districts in the state).  After District 1 was drawn, I still needed another minority-majority district for the county in order to draw a map that reflects the true diversity of the state.  It turned out that by combining all the other minority-majority areas in San Diego, you could draw a compact district almost entirely within the city of San Diego itself that is approximately 54% minority (basically combining Hispanics who are too geographically remote or dispersed to be included in District 1 with black and Asian areas in San Diego).  At this point, I had the two white majority districts to draw in the county — I drew one logically along the coast and one inland.

District 1: Hispanic San Diego

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 75% minority (Hispanic majority)

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 62; McCain 37

District 2: Inland City of San Diego – Multi-Ethnic

Estimated Demographics: Above 50% minority

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 60; McCain 38

District 3: Coastal San Diego

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 70% white

Politics:  Lean Democratic; Obama 58; McCain 40

District 4: Inland San Diego County

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 65% white

Politics:  Safe Republican; Obama 41; McCain 57

Inland Empire

The next area I covered was Riverside and San Bernardino Counties.  I decided to include Imperial Co. with a Riverside district, as the combination would result in a compact Hispanic-majority district, and it made more sense to me to include with Riverside than with the city of San Diego as the current CA-51 looks today.  Also, Inyo and Mono Counties were included with San Bernardino, as that made more sense than to include them with Los Angeles as the current CA-25 does today.  Both San Bernardino and Riverside Counties have Hispanic pluralities (and Imperial is over three-fourths Hispanic; Inyo and Mono are about two-thirds white but have relatively very little population); whites are only 38% of the combined area.  

The total population of the “Inland Empire” is approx. 4,213,000 which is equal to about 6 congressional districts.  Riverside Co. is only slightly bigger than San Bernardino Co., so 3 districts can be drawn in Riverside and 3 in San Bernardino.  Since San Bernardino/Inyo/Mono is only 36% white, I decided that 2 of the 3 San Bernardino-based districts should be minority-majority (with at least 1 being mostly Hispanic) and likewise, since Riverside/Imperial combined is only 40% white, I decided that 2 of the 3 districts there should be minority-majority (with at least 1 being mostly Hispanic).  The Hispanic growth in this area has been great and it was difficult to estimate the Hispanic percentages here.  For example, using even 2000 Census numbers, Districts 5 and 8 would be Hispanic majority, but if you use the ACS numbers, it appears that Districts 5 and 8 as drawn here would approach 60% Hispanic.

District 5:  Eastern Riverside Co. and Imperial

Estimated Demographics: Above 60% minority (Hispanic majority)

Politics:  Lean Democratic; Obama 56; McCain 43

District 6:  Central Riverside Co.

Estimated Demographics: White majority

Politics:  Safe Republican; Obama 45; McCain 53

District 7:  North-western Riverside Co.

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 70% minority (Hispanic majority)

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 60; McCain 39

District 8:  South-western San Bernardino Co.

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 75% minority (Hispanic majority)

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 60; McCain 38

District 9:  Northern San Bernardino Co./Inyo/Mono

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 60% white

Politics:  Safe Republican; Obama 43; McCain 55

District 10:  South-central San Bernardino Co. (and Calimesa in Riverside Co.)

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 65% minority (Hispanic plurality, and possibly majority)

Politics:  Lean Democratic; Obama 56; McCain 42

Orange County

Orange Co. has about 2,977,000 people, equal to 4.2 congressional districts.  The population is 47% white and 53% minority.  Like in San Diego Co., I decided to draw two minority-majority districts (with one being mostly Hispanic and the other “multi-ethnic”), and two white districts — one coastal and one interior.

District 11:  Central Orange Co.

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 75% minority (Hispanic majority)

Politics:  Lean Democratic; Obama 59; McCain 39

District 12:  North-central Orange Co.

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 75% minority (Hispanic plurality; large Asian population)

Politics:  Toss Up; Obama 53; McCain 45

District 13:  Coastal Orange Co.

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 70% white

Politics:  Safe Republican; Obama 46; McCain 52

Interesting note:  This potential district would be Republican but socially quite moderate.  For example, Huntington Beach, Newport Beach and Laguna Beach were some of the rare cities in the state where the “No” on Prop. 8 received more votes, percentage-wise, than Obama received in 2008.

District 14:  Inland Orange Co.

Estimated Demographics: Above. 60% white

Politics:  Safe Republican; Obama 43; McCain 55

“Leftover” San Diego/Orange/Riverside:

District 15:  Eastern Orange/Northern San Diego/Western Riverside

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 60% white

Politics:  Safe Republican; Obama 44; McCain 55

Los Angeles and Ventura Counties

The next 15 districts are based in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties (14 mostly in LA Co. and 1 mostly in Ventura).  The estimated population of LA County is 9,785,000 — equal to 13.8 districts.  47% of the population in the county is Hispanic — equal to 6.5 districts — so my plan makes sure that 6 districts are Hispanic majority and at least one other is Hispanic plurality.  Asians are 13% of the population which would translate to 1.8 districts.  However, as they are very geographically dispersed it would be impossible to draw two Asian-majority districts in LA Co.; in fact even drawing one Asian district resulted in a district that’s only plurality Asian.  Blacks in LA Co., on the other hand, form only 9% of the population, but are geographically very compact, so it was possible to draw a black-majority district in the county.  Whites are only 29% of LA County – equal to almost exactly 4 districts, but because of the way the white population is dispersed, the most logical thing to do was to create 2 white majority districts and 3 white plurality districts.  The Ventura-based district is also white majority/plurality.

District 16:  Eastern LA County; Pomona, Covina

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 75% minority (Hispanic majority)

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 61; McCain 37

District 17:  Eastern LA County; Whittier, Norwalk, Downey

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 75% minority (approx. 65% Hispanic)

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 64; McCain 34

District 18:  Central LA County; East Los Angeles, Southgate

Estimated Demographics: At least 98% minority (sic !); approx. 90% Hispanic

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 86; McCain 12

District 19:  Central Los Angeles

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 85% minority (above 60% Hispanic)

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 81; McCain 17

District 20:  Eastern Los Angeles (city), Burbank

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 75% minority (approx. 60% Hispanic)

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 77; McCain 21

District 21:  Eastern San Fernando Valley

Estimated Demographics: Above 80% minority (approx. 70% Hispanic)

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 74; McCain 24

District 22:  Long Beach and environs

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 70% minority (Hispanic plurality)

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 67; McCain 31

District 23:  Eastern LA County; San Gabriel, Diamond Bar

Estimated Demographics: Above 80% minority (Asian plurality)

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 60; McCain 38

District 24:  South-central LA

Estimated Demographics: At least 97% minority (sic !); above 50% black

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 94; McCain 5

District 25:  South-western LA Co.; Torrance, San Pedro part of LA

Estimated Demographics: Above 60% minority (has white plurality, but is quite multi-ethnic)

Politics:  Lean Democratic; Obama 59; McCain 39

District 26:  Santa Monica Bay coast and some inland areas

Estimated Demographics: Minority-majority (though barely, as whites at approx. 49%)

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 75; McCain 23

District 27:  Glendale, Pasadena, Monrovia

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 60% minority (but white plurality)

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 66; McCain 32

District 28:  Northern LA County, western San Fernando Valley

Estimated Demographics: Above 50% white

Politics:  Toss Up; Obama 54; McCain 44

This district, btw, is very similar to the CA-25 under the non-partisan 1992 plan (but since the population has grown a lot in this area, Lancaster in the far north is detached).

District 29:  Westside LA/Beverly Hills; Malibu; Thousand Oaks

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 75% white

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 67; McCain 32

District 30:  Ventura County (other than Thousand Oaks)

Estimated Demographics: white majority hovering around 50% (so could be white plurality ?)

Politics:  Lean Democratic; Obama 56; McCain 42

This district, btw, looks almost identical to the CA-23 under the non-partisan 1992 plan.

Central Coast

We now start to move out of southern California …. The central coast and Monterey Bay areas have sizeable Hispanic numbers (35-40% of the population), but there’s really not enough population to form a compact Hispanic district here that would at the same time preserve county/community cohesiveness (Hispanic-majority districts could be drawn that include some of this area, but they would have to cross over into the Central Valley).

District 31:  Central Coast

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 60% white

Politics:  Lean Democratic; Obama 57; McCain 41

This district is very similar to the CA-22 under the non-partisan 1992 plan.  All of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties are included, as well as southern Monterey Co.

District 32:  Monterey Bay area; Santa Cruz, San Benito and most of Monterey Counties (and sliver of Santa Clara)

Estimated Demographics: white majority hovering around 50% (so could be white plurality ?)

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 72; McCain 26

Central Valley

The San Joaquin Valley (Kern, Tulare, Kings, Fresno, Madera, Merced, Stanislaus, San Joaquin Counties) has approximately 3,792,000 persons which is equal to 5.4 congressional districts.  The population is about 46% Hispanic and 40% white — which “translates” into 3 minority-majority districts out of the 5 drawn here — however, as in this part of the state much of the Hispanic population is still undocumented/not citizens/under-age, it is realistically possible to create only two “effective” Hispanic-majority seats in this area.

District 33:  Northern San Joaquin Valley (Stockton to Fresno)

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 75% minority (Hispanic majority)

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 62; McCain 37

District 34:  Southern San Joaquin Valley (Bakersfield to Fresno Co.)

Estimated Demographics: Above 80% minority (approx. 70% Hispanic)

Politics:  Safe Democratic; Obama 60; McCain 39

District 35:  Kern Co. and Lancaster (in LA Co.)

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 60% white

Politics:  Safe Republican; Obama 38; McCain 60

District 36:  Parts of Tulare, Fresno, Kings

Estimated Demographics: White majority

Politics:  Safe Republican; Obama 38; McCain 60

District 37:  Modesto, Merced, Madera, Mariposa

Estimated Demographics: White majority

Politics:  Lean to Safe Republican; Obama 48; McCain 51

Sacramento

The map now moves into the Sacramento area.  Sacramento Co. is about 52% white.  It has roughly enough population for two congressional districts, so I made one district here majority white and one that is minority-majority.

District 38:  Sacramento suburbs, part of San Joaquin Co.

Estimated Demographics: Above 60% white

Politics:  Lean to Safe Republican; Obama 47; McCain 51

District 39:  Sacramento (city) and environs

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 60% minority (Hispanics, Asians, blacks)

Politics: Safe Democratic; Obama 68; McCain 30

San Francisco Bay Area

We next go into the San Francisco Bay area.  The population amounts to approximately 9.5 districts here; in the resulting map, there are 9 districts completely within the Bay Area and one that overlaps with part of the Central Valley.  The white population in the Bay Area is about 45%, but there is really no predominant minority ethnic/racial group – but instead relatively large numbers of Hispanics, Asians and blacks.  Out of the 10 districts here, 5 are white majority and 5 are minority-majority (and out of those, I made 1 to be Hispanic-majority, 1 Asian plurality, 1 white plurality with a relatively high number of blacks, and 2 white plurality with large numbers of Asians).  

(Looking back after I drew the map, what I found interesting in this area was that even after making a new Hispanic-majority district here (that’s also overall about 85% minority, and “packing” as many African-Americans as I could into an Oakland-based district) all the surrounding “outer-Bay Area” districts still remain solidly Democratic — there’s just no way to draw even a single Republican district here if you’re using strictly non-partisan criteria.)

District 40:  San Francisco

Estimated Demographics: White plurality; large Asian population

Politics: Safe Democratic; Obama 86; McCain 12

District 41:  San Mateo peninsula, part of San Francisco

Estimated Demographics: White plurality; large Asian population

Politics: Safe Democratic; Obama 74; McCain 25

District 42:  Silicon Valley

Estimated Demographics: White majority

Politics: Safe Democratic; Obama 71; McCain 27

District 43:  part of San Jose; outer Santa Clara and Alameda Counties

Estimated Demographics: White majority

Politics: Safe Democratic; Obama 65; McCain 34

District 44:  part of San Jose; parts of Alameda and San Mateo Counties

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 85% minority (Hispanic majority)

Politics: Safe Democratic; Obama 77; McCain 21

District 45:  parts of Alameda and Santa Clara Co’s.; Fremont, San Leandro, Milpitas

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 70% minority (Asian plurality)

Politics: Safe Democratic; Obama 71; McCain 27

District 46:  Oakland, Berkeley, Richmond

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 70% minority (black, Asian, Hispanic)

Politics: Safe Democratic; Obama 88; McCain 10

District 47:  Western Contra Costa; parts of Solano

Estimated Demographics: White majority

Politics: Safe Democratic; Obama 70; McCain 28

District 48:  Eastern Contra Costa; parts of San Joaquin

Estimated Demographics: white majority hovering around 50% (so could be white plurality ?)

Politics: Safe Democratic; Obama 61; McCain 37

District 49:  Marin, Sonoma

Estimated Demographics: Above 70% white

Politics: Safe Democratic; Obama 76; McCain 22

Northern California

Last, but not least, we move to the northern-most area of California.  The districts here kind of drew themselves, as there were several instances where you can draw perfectly compact districts that correspond almost perfectly to county lines and also look almost exactly like the 1992 non-partisan districts.  This area is overwhelmingly white, so all four districts here are white majority.

District 50:  North Coast, Napa, Solano

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 65% white

Politics: Safe Democratic; Obama 62; McCain 36

District 51:  Sacramento River Valley

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 60% white

Politics: Toss Up; Obama 54; McCain 44

This district looks almost exactly like CA-3 under the non-partisan 1992 map.

District 52:  Far-northern California

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 80% white

Politics: Safe Republican; Obama 44; McCain 53

District fits perfectly within county lines; almost identical to CA-2 under non-partisan 1992 map.

District 53:  Sierra Nevada area; Sacramento exurbs

Estimated Demographics: Approx. 80% white

Politics: Safe Republican; Obama 44; McCain 54

District fits almost perfectly within county lines; almost the same as CA-4 under 1992 map.

So, that’s my map for California — using non-partisan criteria and with an emphasis on maximizing minority-majority seats.  The map has 22 out of 53 seats at white-majority status — corresponding exactly to the 42% of the population that is white according to the ACS.  There are 15 Hispanic-majority seats (and a majority of those are at least 60% Hispanic) and two more with a strong Hispanic plurality — unfortunately, that is below the estimated 36-37% of the population that is Hispanic (ideally, there would be 19 Hispanic-majority seats).  However, some of the Hispanic population is just too dispersed to form a district, and the 15 seats are almost double the current number of Hispanic representatives in the state.  The remaining 14 districts are either black-majority, Asian-plurality or multi-ethnic districts where no single group predominates .

It should be noted that in partisan terms, the map produces 31 safe Democratic seats; 7 lean Democratic seats; 3 toss-ups (Obama won two of those by 10 points and one by 8 points, but that should still be considered “Toss-Up” by California standards); 2 lean to safe Republican seats; and 10 safe Republican seats.  

A plan could certainly be made that has more Republican seats — but you would not be using neutral criteria, and the number of minority-majority or minority-plurality seats would necessarily go down in such a plan.

• CT-Sen: The Chris Murphy/Susan Bysiewicz primary still could turn into a chaotic battle royale, based on this week’s indications. Rep. Joe Courtney is “leaning toward” the run (although that’s not Courtney’s own words, just another insider’s interpretation), and says he’ll have a decision soon. Ted Kennedy Jr. also doesn’t have anything official to say, but he does seem to be stepping up his appearances around the state, including one in Bridgeport next week. One Dem we can probably rule out, though, is former state Treasurer and former Hartford deputy mayor Frank Borges, who disputed reports that he was looking into the race. Here’s also one other Republican who might make the race who seems to have access to big fundraising pools, although it seems like he’d be starting in a big name rec hole against, say, Linda McMahon: state Sen. L. Scott Frantz, who represents wealthy Greenwich in the state’s southwestern tip.

• MI-Sen: After sounding pretty thoroughly disinterested in his few public comments about the possibility of a Michigan Senate race, ex-Rep. and 2010 gubernatorial primary loser Peter Hoekstra is now publicly expressing some interest. He says that he’s “considering it” and will make a decision in a few months. There’s also a poll out of the GOP primary from GOP pollster Strategic National (no word on whose behalf the poll was taken) showing Hoekstra well in the lead, which may be prompting him to get more interested: he’s at 33, with Terry Lynn Land at 15 and Saul Anuzis at all of 1, with 50% still undecided.

• ND-Sen: Rep. Rick Berg has been mentioned often as a potential GOP candidate for the open seat being vacated by Kent Conrad, and chatter seems to indicate the local party seems to have him at the top of the list in terms of someone to unite behind to avoid a divisive primary. Moving from the House to the Senate after only one term is still a pretty unusual move (although it may be less momentous in an at-large state). (In fact, here’s a trivia question for you all, for which I don’t know the answer: who was the last person to successfully jump to the Senate after only one term in the House? I can’t even think of a one-termer getting his party’s nomination since 1994, when Dem Sam Coppersmith ran and lost an open seat race in Arizona to Jon Kyl.) There’s one other name bubbling up to add to the list of the ten-or-more Republicans already listed as possible candidates: Fargo-area state Sen. Tony Grindberg.

• NE-Sen: You might remember that the mysterious GOP dark money group American Future Fund ran some radio ads in North Dakota last month and Kent Conrad was announcing his retirement within a few weeks after that? Not that there’s likely a causal relationship there, but maybe they’re feeling like lightning might strike twice, and now they’re running a similar ad against Ben Nelson in Nebraska.

• TX-Sen: San Antonio mayor Julian Castro had already given some vague statements of not intending to run for the Democratic nomination for the open Senate seat, but put a finer point on that today by announcing that he’s kicking off his campaign for a second term as mayor. One Republican who has expressed some interest in the race but doesn’t seem likely to run is Rep. Mike McCaul from TX-10; the likelier scenario, at least according to one expert, is that McCaul plans to run for state Attorney General in 2014, which will probably be vacated by current occupant Greg Abbott moving up to the Lt. Governor slot, presuming that David Dewhurst either becomes Senator or doesn’t run again in ’14.

• UT-Sen: You thought that Hasselbeck vs. Cromartie Twitter fight was exciting? That’s got nothing on a good social media smackdown between rival right-wing astroturfers Club for Growth and Tea Party Express. In the wake of TPX head Sal Russo’s comments yesterday praising Orrin Hatch, CfG just dissed TPX, saying they seem “to like Hatch’s record in support of TARP, earmarks…” Roll Call has more on the Club’s plans to go aggressively after Hatch. Russo also seems like he’s getting undercut by his fellow TPX leader, Amy Kremer, who says that Hatch isn’t off the hook yet and will be under their microscope for the cycle.

• VA-Sen: Jamie Radtke, the only person in the race so far offering a challenge from the right to presumed GOP frontrunner George Allen, let everyone know yesterday where she’d stand, putting in an appearance at the initial unveiling of the Senate Tea Party caucus (and its four members… or five if you count Pat Toomey, who was willing to speak to them but not join). Other interesting reading regarding Virginia is this profile of Jim Webb which doesn’t offer many surprises but is a good overview of his ambivalence about the Senate race is pretty much in keeping with everything else about him. And buried in another boilerplate article is a pretty sharp smack at Allen from a fellow GOPer and the last person to successfully pivot from getting bounced out of the Senate to winning a later race (in 1988), Slade Gorton. Gorton says Allen, to win, will first need to apologize to voters, saying “I don’t see anything from him about how he screwed up, even though he did.”

• LA-Gov: See you later, Al Ater. After some semi-encouraging statements about a possible candidacy, the Democratic former Secretary of State now says he won’t run for Governor this year. That still leaves the Dems without any sort of candidate to go against Bobby Jindal, with the clock definitely starting to tick louder.

• WV-Gov: Don’t get too comfortable with the idea of a primary to pick the gubernatorial candidates in West Virginia (tentatively set for June 20); the legislature still has to enact that and there are some grumblings that it might not happen because of the expense involved, which would mean party conventions instead. That could give a boost to one of the less-known Democratic candidates who have stronger relations to organized labor, like House speaker Rick Thompson or treasurer John Perdue. The article also mentions a few other Republicans whose names are emerging in the race, most notably Putnam Co. Prosecutor Mark Sorasia (who’ll be participating in an upcoming candidate forum), also mentioning former state Sen. Steve Harrison and state Del. Troy Andes.

• CT-05: The dance cards in the 5th district are definitely filling up. On the Democratic side, Audrey Blondin is saying that she’ll run; she’s a former Selectwoman from Litchfield, a member of the state party committee, and briefly ran for SoS in 2005. Also considering the Democratic primary is J. Paul Vance, the former leader of the Waterbury board of aldermen and a narrow loser to Michael Jarjura in the 2009 Dem mayoral primary. On the Republican side, Mike Clark is in; he’s Farmington town council chair but he’s best known for leading the FBI team that took down corrupt Gov. John Rowland, and was on Tom Foley’s LG short-list. Several other possible names on the Republican field that are mentioned include state Sen. Kevin Witkos, Torrington mayor Ryan Bingham, and one possible heavyweight in the field (and the guy who actually was Foley’s running mate), Danbury mayor Mark Boughton.

• FL-25: Freshman Rep. David Rivera seems to be in a world of trouble, with an entirely new angle on his corruption arising courtesy of an AP investigation: he paid himself nearly $60K in “unexplained” campaign reimbursements during his eight years in the state legislature. Between that and the already mounting investigation by Florida authorities and the FEC into potential payoffs from a dog track, there’s apparently growing discontent with him behind the scenes in Republican leadership, who may be feeling pressure to make an example out of him as part of their “drain the swamp” promises (although Ethics Committee rules prevent them from using that vehicle, since they can’t take up matters that are already under criminal investigation). Rumors persist that both parties are already sounding out candidates for a potential special election. He isn’t getting much public support from John Boehner, whose only on-the-record comments are that he’s taking a wait-and-see attitude on how things unfold.

• WI-01: Is this just a bit of monkeying around with Paul Ryan now that he’s temporarily a celebrity, or are Dems seriously thinking about making a target out of him now that he’s more notorious? (He’s in what’s currently an R+2 district, certainly within reach in a Dem-friendly year with a good candidate, and leads veteran House Republicans in terms of ideological out-of-whackness with his district lean… though that may have changed with the newest crop of teabaggers) At any rate, mailers are being sent out to voters in his district, having a bit of sport with his Medicare-voucherization proposals.

• Chicago mayor: We Ask America is out with another poll of the Chicago mayoral race (taken during the brief period when it looked like Rahm Emanuel might have been off the ballot). It looks like, as speculated, the whole debacle may have actually increased sympathy for Emanuel (with 72% of respondents saying his name should stay on the ballot), as this is the first poll to show him over the magic 50% mark that would help him avoid a runoff. He’s at 52, with Gerry Chico at 14, Carol Mosely Braun at 11, and Miguel del Valle at 4. It also provides support for the theory that Chico, not Mosely Braun, would have been the chief beneficiary if Emanuel had gotten kicked off, as Chico led a Rahm-free option at 33, with Mosely Braun at 17 and del Valle at 7 (with 38 undecided).

• Nassau Co. Exec: This may pretty much spell doom for any future political efforts by Republican Nassau Co. Exec Ed Mangano, who was elected in a narrow upset over Tom Suozzi in 2009. Mangano has, since then, closely stuck to the teabagger/underpants gnome playbook of governance (step 1: cut taxes; step 2: ???; step 3: profit!), and lo and behold, found his county government insolvent. The state government has been forced to step in and seize control of the finance in the county on Long Island, one of the nation’s wealthiest.

• Redistricting: I can’t see this going anywhere legislatively even if Dems still held the majority (and I’m not sure it would pass constitutional muster anyway), but Heath Shuler and Jim Cooper are introducing legislation in the House that would switch every state away from partisan redistricting to requiring use of a five-person bipartisan commission. (They’re picking up the flag from fellow Blue Dog John Tanner, for whom this was a personal hobby horse for many years until he recently left the House, but they may also have some personal stake in wanting this to succeed, seeing as how they suddenly find themselves in states where the Republicans now control the trifecta.) Also, the public rumblings of worry from prominent Republicans about how the GOP isn’t financially or mentally prepared for this round of redistricting (something that seems dramatically out of character for them) seem to keep coming, this time from Ed Gillespie.

• Voting: Montana seems to be taking a cue from its nearby neighbors Oregon and Washington, and moving toward a vote-by-mail system. The measure cleared the House and will soon move to the state Senate. Despite the fact that the GOP controls that chamber and this was a Democratic bill, there was enough Republican support to move it forward. (Studies have shown that vote-by-mail tends to noticeably increase participation by traditionally-Democratic constituencies that ordinarily aren’t very likely voters.)

• MO-Sen: Most likely you already saw this story yesterday, but the big story in the Missouri Senate race is that Politico’s Dave Catanese seems to be the recipient of various leaks that ex-Sen. Jim Talent will announce soon that he isn’t going to run for Senate. We won’t start jumping up and down and honking our clown horn until we actually hear it from Talent, but this isn’t a surprise, based on previous rumors out of the Show Me State and Talent’s seeming decision to focus on hitching his wagon to Mitt Romney’s star instead. Without a dominant establishment candidate in the field, it looks like even more GOPers are starting to sniff out the race: MO-08 Rep. Jo Ann Emerson is now on the record as at least “considering” a run. Emerson, who’s had some mavericky moments in the House, would easily be the most moderate GOPer in the field if she ran (and may see a path there, with multiple tea partiers seeming poised to cannibalize each others’ votes). Emerson’s potential departure would create an open seat in the currently R+15 8th, an area that actually went for Bill Clinton but has fallen off the cliff for Dems in recent years, most recently with the fizzle of the touted Tommy Sowers campaign last year.

• NJ-Sen: PPP, while “cleaning out their fridge” as they said, found some week-old GOP Senate primary numbers from their New Jersey sample. They find state Sen. and 2006 candidate Tom Kean Jr. in good shape, with support from both moderates (which is probably what he would qualify as) and conservatives; he leads Lou Dobbs 42-30 with Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno at 7, “someone else” at 6, and 15 undecided.

• KY-Gov: Filing day came and went without any last-minute shenanigans in Kentucky. Steve Beshear will get a totally free ride in the Democratic primary (looks like that primary from the scrap metal dealer didn’t materialize), and will face one of three GOP opponents: state Senate president David Williams, teabagging businessman Phil Moffett, or Jefferson Co. Clerk Bobbie Holsclaw. The general election field in the AG race is already set; Jack Conway and Todd P’Pool didn’t draw any primary challengers. The most activity seems to be in the Ag Commissioner race (vacated by Richie Farmer, who’s running for Lt. Gov.), with 5 Dems and 2 GOPers running.

• MN-08: This probably isn’t a surprise, but after his upset loss last year, 76-year-old Jim Oberstar has decided to opt for retirement rather than a rerun against new Rep. Chip Cravaack. Two other high-profile Dems, Duluth mayor Don Ness and state Sen. Tony Lourey have also recently said no. Two DFLers who are considering the race, though, are Duluth-based state Sen. Roger Reinert and Daniel Fanning, Al Franken’s deputy state director.

• Omaha mayor: Omaha mayor Jim Suttle narrowly survived a recall attempt in last night’s special election. He won 51-49. Suttle vows to do a better job of communicating with voters in the election’s wake, although it remains an open question whether he runs again in 2013.

• Redistricting: Here’s a new wrinkle in the fight over the Fair Districts initiatives in Florida: Rick Scott seems to be stalling implementation of the new standards (which would limit the state legislature’s ability to gerrymander districts). The state “quietly withdrew” its request that the federal DOJ approve implementation of the initiatives, which jeopardizes whether they’ll be in place in time for the actual business of redistricting. Florida, as a one-time part of the Deep South, is one of those states that requires DOJ preclearance for changes to its electoral regime under the Voting Rights Act.

Politico also has an interesting article today about the Congressional Black Caucus and redistricting, which will reshape many of their districts, seeing as how some of their members’ districts have had the biggest population losses of any districts in the nation (OH-11, MI-13, MI-14, and MO-01 in particular). These districts seem like they can absorb some suburban votes without losing their lopsided Dem advantages, but they’re probably more worried about members getting pitted against each other (as might happen with the two Detroit districts) or against another Dem (possible for Marcia Fudge and Lacy Clay). Other lingering questions are whether Sanford Bishop’s GA-02 (the only CBC-held district that’s legitimately swingy) gets shored up or made worse, and whether South Carolina can be compelled to eke out a second VRA seat.

• Turnout models: I rarely get the chance to say this, but if you look at only one scatterplot today, it should be this one. It’s a remarkably-clear slope showing how predictable presidential approval is across demographic groups, and more evidence that the swing in the 2010 election was uniform across groups in response to macro factors (i.e. the stupid economy) rather than a failure of microtargeting. And here are some further thoughts on the matter from Larry Sabato’s new book, pointing out the really steep dropoffs in 2010 turnout for the groups I tend to label the “casual voters” (reliably Dem lower-information voters, mostly young and/or people of color, who turn out for presidential races but not the less compelling stuff in between), and how the 2010 model isn’t anything like what the 2012 model will resemble.

This is my first diary post using Dave’s App, so any suggestions are welcome 🙂

I tried to create a slight Democratic Gerrymander of Florida. I didn’t follow VRA very much, so I will be working to make a VRA map with 2 AA majority districts and 3 hispanic majority districts. I don’t believe the DOJ will require a 3rd in North Florida (Corrine Browns awful district.)

But being able to basically ignore the VRA in Florida opens amazing opportunities, especially in South FL. And luckily, some of the districts around the Tampa Bay area and a few others may end up being the actual districts with the new Fair Districts initiative being passed.

So, here are my maps:

Panhandle:

CD1 in Blue: It’s pretty hard to do anything here unless you want to send an arm from CD2 to to suck up Pensacola voters, but that would just look to crazy. This district is Safe Republican for the next decade at least.

76% White, 13% Black, 4% Hispanic

Rating: Safe R

CD2 in Green: This district is based in Tallahassee, and differs from the current district because it extends further north and east (Repubs drew an arm from Andrew Crenshaws district on the GA border over into CD2 to suck up Blue Dog voters and take out Allen Boyds home town in Monticello)

Here, I put a lot of traditionally Dem voting areas (Wakulla and Jefferson counties) along with very Democratic Leon county. This district is probably around even PVI, and I can easily see a Dem winning this (probably a moderate).

68% White, 24% Black, 4% Hispanic

Rating: Tossup

North Central FL and Jacksonville:

CD3 in Purple: This is a Gainesville based district. I toyed with trying to tie this to Tallahassee or Jacksonville, but decided to just give this district traditionally Democratic Madison county in the northwest part of the district, heavily Dem Alachua county and high AA parts of Ocala in the southern part of the district, and also extends over to Palatka in the east down through hispanic De Leon Springs. It has enough of an AA population along with the University of Florida to make it a competitive district. I am fairly unsure of what Obama % this district would be, but I think another fairly moderate Dem could easily hold this district barring another 2010.

70% White, 19% Black, 7% Hispanic

Rating: Tossup

CD4 in Red: This district sucks up heavily Republican suburbs of Jacksonville including all of Nassau county. It stretches further south to suck up rural white populations away from the east coast.

82% White, 8% Black, 5% Hispanic

Rating: Safe R

CD5 in Yellow: I decided to let Jacksonville have it’s own district, but at the same time keep it competitive for Dems. It’s only 55% white, but the Jacksonville area is very racially divided. However, with some liberal whites, a high AA populations, and some hispanics, this district will also probably be very competitive. It all depends on AA turnout in the city.

55% White, 34% Black, 6% Hispanic, 3% Asian

Rating: In Presidential years – Lean D In off years- Tossup

CD6 in Blue-Green: This district was designed to be as Dem as possible on the east coast. It takes in fairly wealthy beach towns, and heavily AA areas like Titusville and Holly Hill. It extends over towards Orlando to pick up heavily minority Sanford.

74% White, 12% Black, 10% Hispanic

Rating: Lean D

CD7 in Grey: I love this district. It covers heavily rural and Republican areas all through the big bend and central part of the state.

83% White, 7% Black, 8% Hispanic

Rating: Safe R

I’ll come back to CD 8 after the Tampa area.

Behold, Tampa!:

CD9 in Cyan: This is a solely Tampa based district and is plurality-white. It doesn’t include all of the New Tampa area (which is technically part of the city.) It stretches down a bit to take in Gibsonton and  Riverview, and east to take in the diverse Brandon area and heavily AA Progress Village and Clair Mel City.

49% White, 21% Black, 25% Hispanic

Rating: Safe D

CD10 in Magenta? / Pink: A Tampa suburb district. This takes in Republican leaning areas in Pasco, down through heavily R Sun City, absorbing the rest of the R leaning Tampa suburbs.

72% White, 7% Black, 16% Hispanic

Rating: Likely R

CD11 in Pale Green: St. Petersburg district. If you look closely at the current district map, the actual city of St. Pete is gerrymandered out of this district, and linked to downtown Tampa and Bradenton to the south by water (awful.) So adding downtown St. Pete makes this district much more Dem friendly, considering it is already a Tossup. Once Bill Young retires, this would easily go D.

76% White, 12% Black, 7% Hispanic

Rating: Lean D after Young retires.

CD12 in Light-Bluish: Coastal Pasco and Hernando and Northern Pinellas. This district takes in Greek populations north of Clearwater, and suburban R leaning Pasco and Hernando. Bilirakis would probably run here and win, with his family name. As for the long term, this district may slowly trend D as its population explodes and suburbs continue to become slightly more D friendly.

Rating: Likely R, possibly Lean R by the end of the decade.

Now for the Orlando Area:

CD8 in Light Blue: This district is majority-minority when adding all minority groups. It includes the western half of Orlando, and heavily hispanic areas to the south and west of downtown Orlando. The Dem primary here would be interesting.

47% White, 25% Black, 20% Hispanic, 5% Asian

Rating: Safe to Likely D

CD14 in Ugly Brown/Green: I’m really unsure of the Obama % here. There is a decent minority vote here, along with the eastern half of downtown Orlando. I know this area is quickly growing, and becoming more D as the Puerto Rican population skyrockets. This district also slides east to pickup the space center and Merritt Island.

70% White, 7% Black, 17% Hispanic

Rating: Unsure… could be between Lean R and Lean D.

CD15 in Orange: One of my more gerrymandered districts that I am proud of. It is barely majority white. This takes in south Orlando, Kissimmee, St. Cloud, along with downtown Winter Haven and Lakeland. It could be tweaked maybe to make it majority-minority.

50% White, 12% Black, 33% Hispanic

Rating: Likely D

SW Florida and South Central FL:

CD 13 in Tan: I apologize for the colors here. This districts includes all of Brandenton, Sarasota, Venice, Punta Gorda, and Port Charlotte. Bye-bye, Vern Buchanan. He might run in CD10 or CD16 instead.

81% White, 7% Black, 10% Hispanic

Rating: Likely D

CD16 in Bright Green: Republican vote sink extraordinaire. Probably my favorite R vote sink in FL. This district sucks in all of the R heavy and R leaning areas from Hillsborough County all the way down through the spine of central FL, ending at Lake Okeechobee.

73% White, 9% Black, 16% Hispanic

Rating: Safe R

CD17 in Purple: Another fun east coast district, including Melbourne all the way down to Fort Pierce. Not too sure about this district either… I know the coastal areas are fairly swingy, but I assume Obama carried them narrowly, but lost the inland parts I put in CD16.

74% White, 12% Black, 10% Hispanic

Rating: Lean D to Tossup

CD18 in Pale Yellow: This district takes some very low population inland Everglades areas, and eat up part of the East coast and we approach the Miami area. I believe a lot of the white population here is wealthy, and also I think we are starting to get into some Jewish population areas. If anyone wants to help fill me in on the type of white population that lives here that would be awesome!

63% White, 17% Black, 16% Hispanic

Rating: Lean D to Tossup?

CD19 in Lime Greenish: This district includes Palm Beach. It has a decent AA and hispanic population (that I don’t think is too Cuban heavy yet.) We’re also getting into the more Jewish populated areas.

61% White, 14% Black, 22% Hispanic

Rating: Likely to Lean D

CD20 in Pale Pink: Fort Myers and Cape Coral. These heavily populated areas are Lean D, considering they are a huge hot-spot for retirees. This district is probably R leaning, but I may be wrong and it could elect the right D.

77% White, 6% Black, 14% Hispanic

Rating: Lean R

South Florida!:

CD21 in Brown: How do you make Rs in Florida pissed? Make them have a nasty primary between old white people in Naples and Cubans near Miami. Should be an R district, until the Cuban populations shift to Dems (hopefully soon)

48% White, 14% Black, 35% Hispanic

Rating: Likely R for now.

CD26 in a Greyish color below the Lime green district: Boca!

I apologize again for the picture here. This district should be heavily Jewish with a 12% AA population. I don’t think this district will leave the D column.

69% White, 12% Black, 15% Hispanic

Rating: Likely D

CD27 in Aquamarine:  Ft. Lauderdale. This district was my leftovers kind of. It’s extremely diverse, but with over 30% AA and most of the white population being Jewish, it seems like it should be a Dem district.

42% White, 34% Black, 19% Hispanic

Rating: Safe to Likely D

Miami Area:

CD22 in White: Hollywood. A barely white majority district, diluting some of the Cuban power in the area. With the Jewish population and % AA population combined, it should be Lean D.

50% White, 8% Black, 36% Hispanic

Rating: Lean D

CD24 in Purple: North Miami. This is the only AA majority district I have here, so the VRA would be sad.

14% White, 52% Black, 30% Hispanic

Rating: Safe D

A closer look at the South Miami Area:

CD23 in Teal-ish color: Miami Cuban areas. Can’t get much more Cuban than this district.

9% White, 6% Black, 83% Hispanic

Rating: Safe R for one of the Diaz-Balarts or Ms. Ileana.

CD25 in Light Pink: Hialeah. This sucks in Hialeah and makes a C shape to suck in more Cuban populations to the south.

14% White, 5% Black, 79% Hispanic

Rating: Safe R

The Dems came extremely close to controlling the redistricting trifecta in CO, losing the state house of reps by a single seat. If the Dems had won that house seat last year, or if they could somehow convince one of the Republicans in the house to switch parties or support a Democratic redistricting plan, here is one way the Democrats could draw a reasonably compact 5-2 map of Colorado.

Denver Area:

The two districts that are the most changed under this map are the 3rd and the 4th. The new 3rd is a C-shaped district that includes the Hispanic areas in the Southern part of the state, the liberal rocky mtn ski towns, and some swingy areas in Jefferson county. Despite the fact that the Jeff Co areas are swing regions, this district is safely Democratic as those areas only make up about one third of the district’s population. A GOP candidate could get up to 60% of the vote in the Jeff Co part of this district and still lose overall due to the heavy Democratic lean of the other areas. The one problem with this district is that rep Ed Perlmutter actually lives here. This shouldn’t be a problem in terms of losing to a Republican (he’s more vulnerable in his old district than here), but he may not want to represent a district composed of so much new territory.

The new 4th is composed of Greeley, Fort Collins-Loveland, and some mainly Hispanic areas in Weld and Adams counties. Between the white liberals in Greeley and Fort Collins and the Hispanics in Adams Co, it should be all but safe democratic. I could see this district maybe going red in a midterm year with low Hispanic turnout, but even that would probably be a stretch, and getting less likely with every passing year as this area trends more and more democratic. Still this is probably the least Democratic of the 5 D districts on this map, which is a testament to how Democratic this map is more than anything else.

The 2nd district around Boulder is almost unchanged. The 1st has shed some areas in Denver Co to the 7th and gained some suburban areas around Littleton in order to shore up the 7th. The  1st is now less Democratic but still enough for Diana DeGette to be completely safe. The 7th has lost a lot of territory in Adams and Jefferson counties, but it has gained some African-American and mixed African-American and Hispanic areas in Denver along with some areas in Weld and Morgan counties. At 59% White it is the most minority-heavy of all these districts, and should be much safer for Democrats now. Lastly, the 5th and 6th serve as GOP vote dumps in Colorado Springs and the outer areas of the state, respectively.

UPDATE

There was some discussion in the comments of the potential effects of the VRA on Colorado. It is actually possible to draw a compact plurality-hispanic district in Denver and Adams Co. My initial guess was that this would wind up hurting Democrats significantly. This turned out to be partially true, but much less than I originally thought. The basic methodology of the map remains the same; Draw a C-shaped district combining the Denver suburbs, the Hispanic areas in South CO, and the liberal ski towns, and attach Fort Collins and Greeley to something other than ruralconservativeland. It turns out looking like this:



Denver Area:



Under this map, the 1st district is 43% W, 8 %B, 44% H. It is possible to make it as much as 39-ish percent white if you want to, but once it crosses the 50% non-white line there is no legal obligation to make it more non-white so I decided to leave it 43% white in order to make the surrounding districts safer. One big change under this map is that the 4th is now drawn down to Boulder instead of Adams Co. This saves the Democrats the trouble of having to find someone to run in what was under the first map their weakest district. The other change is that the 2nd district is now mainly a Jefferson Co based district, with a bit of Arapahoe Co and the SW tip of Denver Co thrown in. This is probably the worst thing for the Democrats on this map, as I suspect the PVI of this district is something like D+2 or 3, making it only a slightly D-leaning seat. It also has no incumbent, as rep Perlmutter’s home is still in the 3rd. This area is trending Democratic very quickly, though, so if the Dems have to draw a VRA seat then I wouldn’t totally freak out about this one. The 7th, having lost a lot of nonwhite territory to the 1st, now has taken on the majority-white sections of Denver. I don’t know where Rep Diana DeGette lives in Denver, however I would guess she probably lives in one of the mainly white areas, so she probably runs in the 7th under this map, opening up the new 1st for a Hispanic representative. The 7th, like the 4th, has probably moved towards the Democrats under this map. The 3rd, OTOH, has moved to the GOP here, as it has taken on the rural areas previously in the 2nd, a tiny part of Douglas Co, and Crowley and Otero counties in the south which are GOP leaning but have significant Hispanic minorities. Overall, this new 3rd is probably Likely D at worst. So the net shift to the GOP from creating a new Hispanic-plurality district is at most one district. The biggest loser under this new VRA scenario seems to be compactness and community-of-interest contiguity (I particularly don’t like the idea of splitting Denver Co between multiple districts), not necessarily the Democratic Party.

• CT-Sen: Murphmentum! Rep. Chris Murphy, in the race to replace Joe Lieberman, seems to have a sizable early edge in both the primary and general elections, at least according to his internal poll from the Gotham Research Group (with a Jan. 3-5 sample period, so pre-Murphy’s campaign launch and pre-Lieberman’s retirement). In the primary, he leads a two-way race against Susan Bysiewicz, 40-31. In the general, he leads Linda McMahon 54-35 and leads Rob Simmons 46-34 (which is quite the testament to McMahon’s toxicity). The spread on the primary numbers is close to the 47-35 mystery poll that was widely mentioned on Murphy’s announcement day, although the Murphy campaign reiterates that that poll wasn’t theirs.

• MN-Sen: Norm Coleman (currently heading American Action Network, who were big players on the dark money front in 2010) is saying that he’s not ruling out another run for office, although couching that by saying he’s enjoying being out of the news on a regular basis. No indication what he wants to run for, though.

• MO-Sen: Here’s one more name to add to the list for Missouri… or to add back to the list, after briefly being off the list while the pursued the chairmanship of the RNC. Ann Wagner, a former ambassador to Luxembourg, former RNC vice-chair, and former campaign manager to Roy Blunt (can’t get much more GOP establishment than that resume), is publicly weighing the race again. (She says she’d defer to Jim Talent, though, but that’s looking less likely.) And here’s an early endorsement for Ed Martin, the former MO-03 candidate who’s emerging as something of the tea party favorite in the field, if he decides to run; he got the endorsement of Phyllis Schlafly, Missouri-based 80s right-wing icon who still has a lot of pull in social conservative circles.

• OH-Sen: Rep. Jim Jordan is back in the news for saying that he’s “leaning against” a run against Sherrod Brown. If I recall correctly, he’s been “leaning against” the race for months, so things don’t seem to have changed much here.

• LA-Gov: Louisiana Democrats seem to be turning their attention toward something that’s previously eluded them: a potentially willing candidate to go up against Bobby Jindal. Former SoS Al Ater, well-regarded for getting the state electoral system back in gear after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, still sounds pretty noncommittal, perhaps most about the idea of spending his own money on the race (self-financing seems to be the Dems’ main criteria for the race, and while Ater has money, he doesn’t sound happy about spending much of it).

• IA-03: Christie Vilsack is seemingly moving toward a run for the House in 2012, meeting with donors and labor leaders to lay some groundwork. This seems strange, though, because all three of the state’s House Dems say they’re running for re-election, including 77-year-old Leonard Boswell. (Vilsack would be likeliest to run in the 3rd, or whatever the Des Moines-area district will be called once redistricting happens.) She won’t make a formal decision until April, when the new four-district redistricting maps will be unveiled, but for now it looks like, unless she’s going to run against Steve King, there’s a collision course with an existing Dem.

• Chicago mayor: Fresh off a surprising setback in the Illinois Appellate Court, which reversed lower court rulings that he was a Chicago resident and eligible to become mayor, Rahm Emanuel has appealed to the state Supreme Court; they’ve announced they’ll hear the case on an expedited basis, with no oral arguments, so we should be out of limbo pretty soon. There was a brief period where it looked like the city was going to go ahead and start printing ballots without Emanuel’s name (which would basically be the kiss of death), but also today, a stay was ordered that pushes back the ballot printing until the case is fully decided. Also, in case you though this was all just about a legitimate case of differences in statutory interpretation, with grownups disagreeing about what an inadequately-specific law means, guess again. (Forget it, Jake. It’s Chicago.) It turns out that two of the three Appellate Court judges on the case were slated by the 14th district Alderman Edward Burke, a local powerbroker who’s a staunch Emanuel rival and a key Gery Chico backer. This leads to the question of whether supreme court justice Anne Burke, who may have a certain loyalty to Edward seeing as how she’s married to him, will recuse herself from the Emanuel case.

• Omaha mayor: There’s one special election on tap today: a recall election in Omaha, against mayor Jim Suttle. There’s no scandal or malfeasance alleged, just anger about over usual teabagger grievances like “excessive taxes, broken promises, and union deals,” as well as the unspoken obvious: while it’s an ostensibly nonpartisan job, Suttle’s a Democrat. (Omaha seems particularly trigger-happy about recalls; Mike Boyle was successfully recalled in 1987.)

• Senate: Somehow it doesn’t seem unusual, but what George Allen is attempting (and what Jim Talent could attempt, too) is, in fact, highly unusual. Only five Senators have lost re-election and then come back to the Senate… but most of them (Slade Gorton most recently) were elected to their state’s other Senate seat. What Allen is doing is even more unusual: defeating the guy who beat you six years ago in order to reclaim your seat seems to have happened all of once in history. Thanks to UMN’s Smart Politics, it looks like the one time was in 1934, when Rhode Island Democrat Peter Gerry (the great-grandson of Elbridge Gerry, in case you’re wondering) beat one-term Republican Felix Hebert, who had knocked him out in the GOP tsunami of 1928.

• DGA: The Democratic Governor’s Association announced its new hires for the cycle, including the Patriot Majority’s Dan Sena as its political director. We’re especially happy to see their new hire for communication director: friend-to-the-site Lis Smith, last seen on Ted Strickland’s campaign.

• Redistricting: There’s some redistricting-related drama looming in New York, where the Senate Republicans are backing away from promises of a non-partisan redistricting map. Andrew Cuomo has signaled that he’d veto any map that wasn’t non-partisan, but is now suggesting he can negotiate on that, in exchange for other priorities. There was also a smaller battle in Georgia, won by Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle (who, in his role as Senate president, got to reassert his authority over the process), where the stakes are lower since the GOP controls the trifecta. The battle was against Senate president pro tem Tommie Williams… Williams is from the south (unlike Nathan Deal, Cagle, and the House speaker, all from the north) and has a stake in keeping the underpopulated southern part of the state’s interests represented at the table.

One of the big question marks for redistricting is Florida, where the initiative that passed, limiting gerrymandering, still has to run the gauntlet in the courts; the GOP in the state House are joining the suit against the initiative that was filed jointly by Mario Diaz-Balart and Corrine Brown (not surprising that they’d support it, since the GOP controls the trifecta and the legislature would get to resume gerrymandering if it’s struck down). Finally, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette takes a look at Pennsylvania redistricting prospects, concluding (rightly, in my estimation) that the axe is likely to fall in the southwest corner of the state because of its stagnant population, and suggesting that the likeliest removal from the House will be the loser of a Jason Altmire/Mark Critz mashup.

The problem: Democrats are going into redistricting with a 22-18 advantage in the Virginia State Senate. They have to either hold on to 21 of those seats or carve out new seats that they can win. The question is, can they succeed? I’ve tried my best to come up with a map that gives Democrats a good chance at holding their majority.

State Map

Click for bigger view.

As you can see, it ain’t pretty. I attempted to maintain as much population equality as possible, trying to keep districts under 1,000 population variance; with districts that are targeted around 194,000 people, this is well within the normal variance allowed for state legislative districts. The Democrats may be able to massage the numbers some more than I was willing to try. To compare, you can see the 2007 results and existing Senate districts at the Virginia Public Access Project.

We’ll start in Southwestern Virginia and work our way around the state.

SD-40, incumbent: William Wampler Jr. (R)

Not much you can do with this part of the state. It’s pretty much the same as the existing district, except expanded a bit to the east to up the population.

SD-38, incumbent: Phil Puckett (D)

Believe it or not, Puckett went unopposed in 2007. Given the extreme shift away from the Democrats that this part of the state has undergone in the past couple years, I can’t imagine that will be the case this year. Again, there’s not much you can do here; the best I could do was stretch the district out to pull in Radford from SD-22.

SD-20, incumbent: Roscoe Reynolds (D)

Reynolds did have an opponent in 2007, but trounced him. I tried to help him out by putting Danville into the district, along with some parts of Pittsylvania County that have a high African-American population. The district’s black population is 25%.

SD-21, incumbent: John Edwards (D)

No, not that John Edwards. This is the one safe Democratic district this far south, as it contains Montgomery County, Roanoke, and not much else.

SD-22, incumbent: Ralph Smith (R)

Smith knocked off the incumbent in a primary in 2007, then barely beat the Democratic candidate. Rather than try to replicate that feat (because, quite frankly, if they couldn’t win it in 2007, they’re not going to win it in 2011), I just dumped all of the Roanoke suburbs into the district, so it will be safe for the Republicans.

SD-23, incumbents: Steve Newman (R), William Stanley (R)

A district had to be eliminated and spirited off to Northern Virginia, and the obvious choice is the existing 19th, as it has some Dem-friendly parts that can be appended to the 20th, and Stanley is the junior-most Senator, having just been elected this month. This is an extremely Republican district consisting of a rural swath of land between Lynchburg and Roanoke.

SD-15, incumbent: Frank Ruff (R)

Another very Republican district dominated by Lynchburg and Amherst County. It stretches down to the North Carolina border because Ruff lives in the very southeastern tip of the district.

On to Southside and Richmond…

SD-13, incumbent: none

This is where the Democrats need to get creative. The 13th used to be Republican Fred Quayle’s district, stretching from Portsmouth to Hopewell; I’ve created a district to replace it centered in Emporia, Petersburg, and the Southside counties with high black populations. In fact, this district is very narrowly majority-black (50.2%). It should be a prime pickup opportunity for the Democrats.

SD-11, incumbent: Stephen Martin (R) (possibly)

Martin’s residence is just listed as “Chesterfield County” on Wikipedia, and there’s nothing on his campaign website that says where in the county he lives, but this is the district he would run in. It’s a solidly Republican district that takes in Amelia and Nottoway Counties as well as part of Chesterfield.

SD-10, incumbent: John Watkins (R)

Watkins does live in this district. It’s another solidly-Republican suburban Richmond district.

SD-12, incumbent: Walter Stosch (R) (possibly)

Again, Stosch is just listed as being in Henrico County, which is chopped up between four districts. This is an attempt to create as Dem-friendly a district as possible. It’s still a Republican-leaning district, but it’s more likely a 55-45 district than the 60-40 district it is now.

SD-16, incumbent: Henry Marsh (D)

Marsh’s district was drawn to soak up as many black voters as possible. I’ve dropped it down to 51% black, as it loses the southern end of the district, including Petersburg. Still safe Dem.

SD-9, incumbent: Don McEachin (D)

This one loses part of Richmond and gains more of Henrico. Still majority-black, at 52%, and safe Dem.

Now we’re on to my part of the state, Hampton Roads.

SD-1, incumbent: John Miller (D)

Miller barely beat a nutcase back in 2007, so he really needs a better district. I axed the Poquoson/York/Hampton part of the district, gave him all of Newport News, and ran the district up to Williamsburg and across the James River to Surry/Sussex/Franklin. It should make his district much less Republican.

SD-2, incumbent: Mamie Locke (D)

Locke’s district consists of all of Hampton and the southern end of Newport News. Remains majority-black at 53%. Safe Dem.

SD-18, incumbent: Louise Lucas (D)

Maintains the African-American majority (53% black) without the ridiculous stretched-across-a-third-of-the-state shape that it has currently. Most of Portsmouth and part of Suffolk.

SD-5, incumbent: Yvonne Miller (D)

Another majority-black district; it’s the minority-heavy parts of Norfolk, Chespeake, and a few precincts from Virginia Beach. 55% black, safe Dem.

SD-6, incumbent: Ralph Northam (D)

Northam’s district is the white-majority half of Norfolk, the Eastern Shore, and one or two precincts in Virginia Beach. It’s 27% black. Should be pretty safe for Northam.

SD-7, incumbent: Frank Wagner (R) (possibly)

Wagner may or may not live here, I have no idea. He’s somewhere in Virginia Beach. This was an attempt to create as Dem-friendly a district as you can get in Virginia Beach. It’s certainly more diverse than the city at-large; it’s 60% white, 23% black, 7% Asian, and 7% Hispanic. It would still be an uphill climb for a Democrat to win here, but it is at least possible.

SD-8, incumbent: Jeff McWaters (R)

I’m pretty sure McWaters lives here, though. It’s the very Republican Virginia Beach/Chesapeake district.

SD-14, incumbent: Harry Blevins (R) (possibly), Fred Quayle (R)

Again, Blevins lives in Chesapeake, but I have no idea where. Quayle lives in Suffolk, but he’s probably retiring regardless of how the map looks, so that doesn’t matter. This district takes in the white parts of Chesapeake, Suffolk, Portsmouth, as well as parts of Sussex, Southampton, and Isle of Wight Counties. It should be a pretty Republican district.

Okay, that was a lot. Let’s move on to the Tidewater area.

SD-3, incumbent: Tommy Norment (R)

Norment gets a district consisting of a swath of Republican areas between Newport News and the Northern Neck.

SD-4, incumbent: Ryan McDougle (R)

This district actually shrinks, which is a good thing, because it contains some swing counties that I needed for the 17th. It’s centered in the Hanover County exurbs, which are bright-red.

SD-17, incumbent: Edd Houck (D)

A ridiculous snake of a district that attempts to shore up Houck as much as possible. He lives in Spotsylvania, and it stretches from Culpeper in the northwest down to King & Queen and Essex Counties in the southeast.

SD-28, incumbent: Richard Stuart (R)

Northern Neck to Stafford. Actually shrinks, since it used to go all the way up to Fauquier. Should remain in Republican hands; Del. Al Pollard would be about the only candidate to make it competitive, and he lost when the seat was open in 2007.

Okay, two more regions to go. First is the Shenandoah Valley.

SD-25, incumbent: Creigh Deeds (D)

The Deeds district. Pretty much the same as before, should remain safe Dem, as the population is centered in Albemarle/Charlottesville.

SD-24, incumbent: Emmett Hanger (R)

Not much changes here; still a heavily Republican district in Augusta/Rockingham.

SD-26, incumbent: Mark Obenshain (R)

Same as above. Stretches up to Frederick County to pull some territory out of the 27th.

SD-27, incumbent: Jill Holtzman Vogel (R)

JHV narrowly won in 2007, but she’ll be happy with this district; it cuts out the parts that she didn’t win that year (Loudoun and Clarke Counties and Winchester).

And finally, here’s Northern Virginia.

SD-19, incumbent: none

A new district formed out of parts of the 27th and 33rd. The parts from the 27th were won by the Democratic candidate, Karen Schultz. It also takes in the southern end of the 33rd. This is a winnable district for Democrats, but it would likely depend on the candidate quality and the climate.

SD-33, incumbent: Mark Herring (D)

Herring’s district is reconfigured to span Leesburg to Sterling, and Herring should be pretty happy with that.

SD-29, incumbent: Chuck Colgan (D)

Colgan is expected to retire, and I can’t say that’s a whole lot you can do with his district. The areas around Manassas are the most Dem-friendly parts of the old district, but with Del. Jackson Miller, a Manassas native, a likely candidate for the seat, it’s going to be tough for Democrats to hold it.

SD-36, incumbent: Toddy Puller (D)

Puller’s district remains one that stretches from Mt. Vernon to southern Prince William County.

SD-39, incumbent: George Barker (D)

After the 29th, this is probably the most vulnerable district in NoVa. I tried to strengthen it by running it up to inner Fairfax. It might just be a good idea to give up on the 29th and put as much of Prince William in that district, while making the 39th a mostly-Fairfax district.

SD-37, incumbent: Dave Marsden (D)

Marsden’s district, as currently drawn, is intended to be as polarized as possible. Redrawn, it’s centered around Marsden’s home of Burke, so it will be much safer for him.

SD-34, incumbent: Chap Petersen (D)

Chap lives in Fairfax City, and should have little trouble holding down this district.

SD-32, incumbent: Janet Howell (D)

Howell’s district currently stretches from Reston, through Great Falls, and into McLean. This district stretches from Reston around to the southwestern edge of the county. It might be somewhat less Democratic now, but someone’s got to take those Republican precincts.

SD-31, incumbent: Mary Margaret Whipple (D)

This district is currently mostly Arlington, but I decided to stretch it out to Great Falls. You’d think you could unpack these districts more, but it’s tough when all the surrounding territory is Democratic.

SD-30, incumbent: Patsy Ticer (D)

Arlington/Alexandria, probably the most Democratic district in this map.

SD-35, incumbent: Dick Saslaw (D) (possibly)

Saslaw lives somewhere in Fairfax, but where, I don’t know. It may require some precinct swapping to get him in this district. Either way, it’s safe.

So there you have it. I’m not sure if I can answer my question, because there are a lot of variables in play here. The Democrats’ majority is hanging by a thread, and there are a lot of Democrats in tough districts (at least as currently drawn). It’s going to be interesting to see how they proceed.