Tag: Redistricting

• IN-Sen: Richard Lugar and local leaders in the tea party movement had a sitdown at an Indianapolis hotel last month. I’m not sure if it was actually intended by Lugar to try to deter a GOP primary challenge, but it seemed to have none of the desired effect if so; the net result seemed to have been cordial but with a sense of “game on,” with the main question left being who the challenger will be.

• WI-Sen: With this his first day out of the Senate, Russ Feingold will be, instead of heading for the K Street gravy train, taking a position at Marquette University’s law school. When asked about his 2012 plans in the event of a Herb Kohl retirement, Feingold simply said that he hopes Kohl runs again and would support him if so.

• IN-Gov: Democrat Jonathan Weinzapfel looks poised to become the first entrant in the Indiana gubernatorial race. He’s announced that he won’t seek another term as mayor of Evansville (which would require running for re-election this year), and says that he’ll take a “good, hard look at” the governor’s race and make a decision sooner rather than later.” Meanwhile, after the Beltway collectively decided yesterday that Mike Pence was going to run for Gov. on the GOP side, there’s yet more conflicting evidence today, as seen in his plans to appear with other GOP presidential hopefuls at a conference in Georgia, just across the border from pivotal South Carolina.

• MA-Gov: Deval Patrick is vowing today that he’ll serve out his full second term (something that a Massachusetts governor hasn’t done in decades, not since Mike Dukakis), but won’t seek a third term in 2014. That would seem to (at least for now) put the kibosh on any speculation that he might look to challenge Scott Brown in 2012.

• MN-06: The news that produced spit-takes all across America this morning: Michele Bachmann is floating her name for president in 2012. Obviously a failed vanity presidential bid is no deterrent to a return engagement in the House if you hit the ejector seat early enough (just ask still-Rep. Ron Paul), but this bit of laughable presidential weirdness could have some major downballot implications if it truly leads to an open seat (especially if Tarryl Clark is indeed looking to run again).

• WI-07: It looks like we might already have a serious contender in the on-deck circle in the 7th, which at D+3 is one of the bluest districts that the GOP picked up thanks to David Obey’s retirement. Former state Sen. Kevin Shibilski was one of the short-list of candidates to run in Obey’s stead (state Sen. Julie Lassa eventually became the consensus pick), and is now saying he’s seriously interested in a 2012 run. Shibilski owns two resorts and apparently has serious self-funding capacity. Shibilski still sounds a little wary, though, preferring to wait and see whether new Rep. Sean Duffy stays a boilerplate Republican or turns into the sort of moderate who’s been able, in the past, to hold down a rural Wisconsin seat (a la Steve Gunderson, or Mel Laird, if you want to go way back to Obey’s predecessor). (H/t alphaaqua.)

• IA-St. Sen.: The year’s barely started and the Dems have already lost their first special election! I don’t think anybody had particularly high hopes for last night’s fight, though: it was a GOP-leaning seat in Iowa’s rural southwestern corner, held to replace Kim Reynolds, who just became Iowa’s Lt. Governor. Montgomery County auditor Joni Ernst held the seat for the GOP, beating Dem nominee Ruth Smith, with 67% of the vote. The Dems still control the state Senate 26-23, with one more formerly-GOP-held special election pending.

• NV-St. Sen.: This is big news by Nevada standards: state Sen. Bill Raggio, the state GOP senate leader for decades but deposed recently from his perch in a tea party-ish palace coup (in the wake of his endorsement of Harry Reid), has announced that he’s resigning later this month rather than completing his term. This may have Sharron Angle’s antennae twitching, as you might remember she tried and failed to primary out Raggio in his Reno-area seat in 2008, and she might be interested in trying that again, adding the state Sen. to the list of her myriad other possibilities like another NV-Sen run or an NV-02 run if Dean Heller vacates (although it’s worth noting this won’t lead to a fast special election, as Nevada, like several other western states, fills legislative vacancies temporarily via appointment).

• NY-St. Sen.: This seems like strange posturing that will probably vaporize once the Democrats are back in the majority in the state Senate, but four of New York’s Senate Democrats just broke off from the Dem caucus and formed their own little club, the Independent Democrat Caucus (meaning the breakdown is either 32-30 or 32-26-4, depending on how you want to view it). Interestingly, it’s not the usual most-uncooperative Dems (Ruben Diaz, anyone?), but a clutch of reform-minded Dems (led by the barely-re-elected David Valesky, and also including the newly-elected David Carlucci) who apparently didn’t want to get boxed into voting for John Sampson as Dem leader.

• PA-St. Sen.: The special election to replace long-time Democratic state Sen. Michael O’Pake in the light-blue SD-11 has been set for March 15. As I’ve mentioned before, this could turn into an interesting bellwether on where Pennsylvania’s southeastern suburbs are headed.

• Votes: Today’s attention-getting vote was the number of defections against Nancy Pelosi in the Speaker vote: 19 Democrats voted for someone else (or present). Heath Shuler led the way with 11, while other votes included Steny Hoyer, John Lewis, and even neighbors Dennis Cardoza and Jim Costa voting for each other.

• Redistricting: Two news stories concern the independent commissions that will be in charge of redistricting in two states gaining seats, Arizona and Washington. In Arizona, they’re already litigating the issue of who even gets on the commission in the first place; new state Sen. president and all-around jackass Russell Pearce is suing on the basis that three of the people nominated to serve are technically ineligible. (Interestingly, two of the three are Republicans, although maybe the problem is they weren’t hardliners enough for Pearce’s tastes.) Meanwhile, in Washington, Skeletor has re-emerged from a decade of suspended animation: evil genius and ex-Sen. Slade Gorton will be one of the two designated Republicans on the commission. Luckily, the lead Dem going up against Gorton will be Tim Ceis, the former Seattle deputy mayor who’s well-known for his own elbow-throwing abilities.

Finally, the Fix has its latest installment in its state-by-state redistricting look, and I agree with both their conclusions about Ohio: that, mostly because of geography, Betty Sutton is the likeliest Dem to get squeezed rather than Dennis Kucinich (since she faces pressure from other Dems from the north, west, and east), and that, because of depopulation in the state’s Appalachian southeast and the fact that they’re both obscure freshmen, Bob Gibbs and Bill Johnson are the GOPers likeliest to get pitted against each other for the state’s other lost seat.

We’ve already had a lively discussion with regard to California redistricting in this diary below, but now that I have diary rights I want to finally post my own projected map of the new California districts. Needless to mention, redistricting California is a daunting task, particularly in light of the newly approved ‘nonpartisan’ commission. So, a few notes and caveats are in order.

1) My map is only as good as the data provided by Dave’s Redistricting App. Clearly then, to whatever extent that data is invalid, my output will be likewise.

2) In this installment I’ll mainly just outline the process that I followed in placing the districts. I might go over the political results or the VRA ramifications in a subsequent installment if there seems to be enough interest. In short, I welcome any feedback or criticism regarding my decisions. I want to be reasonably confident about the validity of my mapping scheme before I go into much detail about how it affects individual districts.

3) I did not take any account of the current districts when putting together my map. However, I went back and numbered them based on the closest current district merely so as to facilitate discussion. I have added the incumbent that holds that currently numbered district, though I generally have no idea whether they’d still live in said districts. Also, when I doublechecked this afternoon I realized that several of the LA County and OC County districts were not optimally labelled in the map I posted to the other thread. More on that when I get to it.

4) The purpose of this exercise is in part to counter the popular notion that we can’t project some reasonably accurate version of the new California district configuration. My basic premise is that: If the commission simply follows the rule of crossing county and city boundaries only when necessary, then in most cases it’s obvious which way to go, so long as you have a starting point.

5) None of my districts deviate by more than +/- 600 people. The majority deviate by less than +/- 200. Again, this is based on Dave’s app of course. And, speaking of Dave’s app: It’s glitchy at spots. I’ve edited these glitches out of the maps below.

So, without further ado, here we go:

To begin with, here’s my statewide map:

Now I chose San Francisco as a natural starting point. The simple reason for this being that it’s bounded on three sides by water boundaries. It’s also one of the state’s leading cities and a classic tenet of purely geographic districting is to minimize the subdivision of major population centers. Below is my final map of the Bay Area. This is the process by which I arrived at these boundaries:

1) I began with CA-08 in San Francisco County, then simply added voting blocks horizontally until I reach the correct population. Now, there’s been some discussion about the idea of instead dividing the county roughly in half and joining the northern district with Marin County across the Bay. For the record, I tried that just to see what happens. In short, all of these compact districts around the Bay are heavily Democratic districts, and taking CA-08 north into Marin simply rotates them clockwise, still leaving you with a set of heavily Democratic districts. The only meaningful difference is that population centers are harder to keep intact.

CA-08 (Pelosi – D): 85% Obama / 13% McCain

2) I started CA-12 with the remainder of San Francisco County and finished it with San Mateo County except for Redwood City.

CA-12 (Speier – D): 74% Obama / 24% McCain

3) I started CA-14 with Redwood City and added Santa Clara to complete the district. I then put San Jose in its own CA-15 district, and then started CA-16 with the rest of Santa Clara County.

CA-14 (Eshoo – D): 73% Obama / 25% McCain

CA-15 (Honda – D): 70% Obama / 28% McCain

4) I wasn’t sure which way to go with CA-16, so I switched gears to start CA-17 with Santa Cruz County. I then added Monterey County to CA-17. It then became clear enough that I should add San Benito County to CA-16, because if I added it to CA-17 it would not take up the whole county.

5) At this point it became clear enough that I should complete CA-16 with the eastern part of Alameda County.

CA-16 (Lofgren – D): 64% Obama / 34% McCain

6) All of central Alameda County can then become CA-13 (Fremont, Union City, Pleasonton, Hayword) and then Oakland can take up most of CA-09.

CA-13 (Stark – D): 72% Obama / 26% McCain

7) I then finished up CA-09 with the western tip of Contra Costa County, then added CA-10 to take up the central county through Concord and Danville.

CA-09 (Lee – D): 89% Obama / 9% McCain

CA-10 (Garamendi – D): 69% Obama / 30% McCain

8) I wasn’t sure where the rest of Contra Costa belonged, so I started CA-07 with Solano County. I wasn’t sure where to go for the rest of CA-07 so I switched to CA-06 in Marin County, then finished it up with most of Sonoma County.

CA-06 (Woolsey – D): 76% Obama / 22% McCain

OK, so now what? More after the map…

Below I have my maps of Northern California and the Sacramento area.

9) As I pondered CA-07, I realized that I could add all of Napa County and all of Yolo County except for West Sacramento. The alternatives would either create a weirdly shaped district or unnecessarily divide Sacramento.

CA-07 (Miller – D): 65% Obama / 33% McCain

10) I then started CA-01 with Mendocino, Trinity, Humboldt, Del Norte, and Lake counties. It also became clear that the rest of Sonoma belonged in CA-01. The CA-01 district still needed 365,000 people.

11) I went ahead and added CA-05 in West Sacramento (Yolo County) and Sacramento proper. Sacramento should clearly anchor 2 districts, so I placed CA-03 fully in the eastern part of the county.

CA-05 (Matsui – D): 69% Obama / 29% McCain

CA-03 (Lungren – R): 50% Obama / 48% McCain

12) I still had 55,000 people left in the southwestern salient of Sacramento County. It now became clear enough that CA-11 should take those, the remaining half of Contra Costa County, and San Joaquin including half of Stockton.

CA-11 (McNerney – D): 59% Obama / 39% McCain

13) I now added Colusa, Glenn, Tehama, Shasta, and Siskiyou counties to CA-01. I still needed 23,000 more people. The most efficient way to finish up CA-01 was with Modoc County and part of Lassen County.

CA-01 (Thompson – D): 50% Obama / 47% McCain

14) I could now start CA-02 with the rest of Lassen. I then added Plumas, Butte, Sierra, Yuba, Nevada, and Sutter. This left me needing 170,000 people. The obvious place to get them was Placer County except for the Rocklin/Roseville corner.

CA-02 (Herger – R): 47% Obama / 51% McCain

15) It now made sense to start CA-04 with this corner of Placer, and to add the sparsely populated eastern counties of El Dorado, Amador, Calaveras, Alpine, Mono, Tuolomne, and Mariposa. But, where to go now? More after the maps…

Below I’ve added my maps of the Central Valley and Southern California. The next set of decisions involving the Central Valley are the ones that I think are most debatable, as I’ve stated previously. In any case, here’s my reasoning

16) It made sense to start CA-18 with the rest of San Joaquin County and then finish it off in Stanislaus County, including the city of Modesto.

CA-18 (Cardoza – D): 54% Obama / 44% McCain

17) I then started CA-19 with the remainder of Stanislaus County and all of Merced County. At this point, the next population center was Fresno, but I had to decide what to do with Madera County that was in the way. I played with several alternatives and realized that my options were to either split Madera County or split the city of Fresno or end up with several weirdly shaped districts. I chose to split Madera County and then finish off CD-19 with western half of Fresno County.

CA-19 (Denham – R): 49% Obama / 49% McCain

18) It then made sense to give Fresno it’s own CA-21 district, and to place the sparsely populated eastern remainder of Madera & Fresno counties in CA-04.

CA-21 (Nunes – R): 51% Obama / 47% McCain

19) At this juncture, it seemed fairly obvious to start CA-20 with Kings and Tulare counties. Once I did that, it was obvious that CA-04 should finally be completed with Inyo and the sparsely populated east of San Bernardino County.

CA-04 (McClintock – R): 42% Obama / 56% McCain

20) I now decided it was time to switch back to the coast. It was clear that I should finish CA-17 with the Cambria corner of San Luis Obispo County. I could then start CA-23 with the rest of San Luis Obispo and add all of Santa Barbera County, which left me needing 67,000 people.

CA-17 (Farr – D): 71% Obama / 27% McCain

21) I then switched back to CA-20, finishing it in Kern County. Then I added CA-22 fully contained in Kern County, which left 12,000 people in one corner. I decided to add these to CA-04, swapping them out for 12,000 in San Bernardino (which didn’t change the partisan breakdown of CA-04).

CA-20 (Costa – D): 43% Obama / 56% McCain

CA-22 (McCarthy – R): 39% Obama / 59% McCain

22) I then added CA-41 in central San Bernardino County, finished CA-23 in northern Ventura County, and placed CA-24 in southern Ventura County. This left me with 34,000 people in Ventura County and I was ready to start on LA – after the maps!

CA-41 (Lewis – R): 44% Obama / 53% McCain

CA-23 (Capps – D): 58% Obama / 40% McCain

CA-24 (Gallegly – R): 55% Obama / 44% McCain

Below is my LA County map. Note that the district numbering has changed from the map that I posted in the other thread, because when I went back over it I realized that the current Dreier district (CA-26) had been dismantled and that the one which I had labeled as CA-26 should’ve been Chu’s CA-32, while the one that I originally labelled as CA-32 should’ve clearly been CA-39 (Linda Sanchez).

23) Anyhow, here is how I proceeded with LA County (with the above amendments):

CA-25: I started with northern LA County, and added the San Fernando Valley.

CA-30: I finished Ventura County, and added the Westside cities.

CA-27: I took the rest of San Fernando, Burbank, and Glendale.

CA-33: I started with Culver City, added Santa Monica, and Beverly Hills.

CA-28: Centered on Hollywood.

CA-29: Centered on Pasadena.

CA-32: I started in Glendora and took in the northern suburbs.

CA-35: Centered on Inglewood.

CA-36: Centered on Rancho Palos Verdes – with Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach.

CA-38: Centered on Pomona and Covina.

CA-31: Centered on downtown LA.

CA-34: Centered on Huntington Park.

CA-37: Centered on Compton.

CA-39: East LA, leaving the southeast waterfront corner of Los Angeles County.

CA-25 (McKeon – R): 53% Obama / 45% McCain

CA-27 (Sherman – D): 71% Obama / 27% McCain

CA-28 (Berman – D): 80% Obama / 18% McCain

CA-29 (Schiff – D): 69% Obama / 29% McCain

CA-30 (Waxman – D): 63% Obama / 35% McCain

CA-31 (Becerra – D): 80% Obama / 17% McCain

CA-32 (Chu – D): 58% Obama / 40% McCain I think Dreier actually lives here.

CA-33 (Bass – D): 77% Obama / 22% McCain

CA-34 (Roybal-Allard – D): 76% Obama / 22% McCain

CA-35 (Waters – D): 88% Obama / 11% McCain

CA-36 (Harman – D): 59% Obama / 39% McCain

CA-37 (Richardson – D): 84% Obama / 15% McCain

CA-38 (Napolitano – D): 64% Obama / 34% McCain

CA-39 (Linda Sanchez – D): 60% Obama / 38% McCain

With LA out of the way, it’s time to wrap up SoCal after the map.

Below I have added my final maps. The first covers Orange County & the Inland Empire; the second covers the San Diego area. Here is how I proceeded to map these districts.

24) I started with Orange County by taking the last bit of LA and joining it with Huntington Beach to make CA-46. I then put CA-47 in Fullerton, Anaheim, and Buena Park and Irvine/Newport Beach in CA-48.

CA-46 (Rohrabacher – R): 48% Obama / 50% McCain

CA-47 (Loretta Sanchez – D): 52% Obama / 46% McCain

CA-48 (Campbell – R): 55% Obama / 43% McCain

25) I then put the city of San Bernardino in CA-43, and finished off San Bernardino County with CA-42, which still needed about 90,000 people. However, I wasn’t sure whether these should come from Orange County or Riverside County.

CA-43 (Baca – D): Obama 61% / McCain 37%

26) I now switched to Riverside County by placing CA-45 in the eastern 2/3 anchored with  Palm Springs, and then centered CA-44 on the city of Riverside and Moreno Valley. I think CA-44 might actually be the vacant seat, so maybe I should’ve labeled it CA-26..

CA-45 (Bono Mack – R): 51% Obama / 48% McCain

CA-44 (Calvert – R, or maybe vacant): 58% Obama / 40% McCain

27) I then started CA-51 with Imperial County and added eastern San Diego County basically up to the coastal strip. That still left me needing 440,000 people, and neatest way to add them was to take the South Bay area (Chula Vista & Imperial Beach).

CA-51 (Filner – D): 51% Obama / 47% McCain

28) The city of San Diego can clearly anchor two compact districts, so I just split it down the middle with CA-52 and CA-53. I then added CA-50 along the coast, and started CA-49 in Oceanside.

CA-50 (Bilbray – R): 50% Obama / 48% McCain

CA-52 (Hunter – R): 55% Obama / 44% McCain

CA-53 (Davis – D): 66% Obama / 32% McCain

29) At this point it’s clear that if CA-49 goes into Riverside County, either Riverside or Orange will be subdivided once more than necessary. So, I finish off Orange County with CA-49 and CA-40, leaving 15,000 people in the southeast corner.

CA-40 (Royce – R): 43% Obama / 55% McCain

CA-49 (Issa – R): 46% Obama / 52% McCain

30) This leaves only Riverside County, where I wrap up CA-42 with Norco, and create what is essentially a new Inland Empire seat from Temecula to Corona (along with those 15,000 people from the corner of O.C.) I’ve numbered it CA-26, but it doesn’t actually overlap Dreier’s current district, and I think Calvert lives here in Corona, which would make the CA-44 district the vacant one.

CA-42 (Miller – R): 53% Obama / 45% McCain

CA-26 (Dreier – R; but actually either vacant or maybe Calvert – R): 44% Obama / 55% McCain

Whatever the case, I think that more than covers it! Please let me know what you think of my maps. Am I on track or way off base??

• CT-Sen: Joe Lieberman, in a recent interview, gave some more insight into how he might approach the various ways in which he might lose in 2012. He says he’s “leaning toward” running again, and it will likely be as an independent (although he’d need to create yet another ballot line for himself, having lost control of CfL), although he says some Senate colleagues have encouraged him to run as a Democrat.

• NE-Sen, NE-02: One of the items on the agenda for the legislative session this year in Nebraska (in its ostensibly-nonpartisan but practically-GOP-held unicameral body) is fixing a small hole that could theoretically wind up costing the GOP the presidency in a close election. Nebraska is one of only two states that allocates some electoral votes by congressional district, and Barack Obama took advantage of that to win 1 EV in Nebraska by narrowly winning NE-02. It’s worth noting that if this option is taken off the table before 2012, it makes it much less likely that the Obama campaign will put any money or manpower into the Omaha market, making Ben Nelson’s re-election hopes slimmer and also making it harder to take out Rep. Lee Terry, who was vulnerable in 2008. (That same link also mentions one potential other GOP Senate candidate, despite there already being a long list of possible challengers to Nelson: Mike Simmonds, whose main claim to fame seems to be owning 73 Burger King franchises.) Speaking of Nelson, he does have one new talking point that won’t help him much in the blogosphere but may help him get a little mileage in his red state confines: CQ’s new unity scores for last year are out, and Nelson was the least likely Senator to vote with his party, doing so only 46% of the time.

• NM-Sen: This seems a little unexpected: GOP ex-Rep. Heather Wilson, after taking the 2010 cycle off (when she, in retrospect, could have pretty easily gotten elected governor), may be interested in getting back into the political game in 2012, which would have to involve a seriously-uphill race against long-time Dem incumbent Jeff Bingaman for Senate. Of course, that presumes Bingaman runs again. His fundraising schedule suggests that he will run again, but maybe Wilson’s engaging in some early saber-rattling in the hopes of scaring the 68-year-old Bingaman into retirement, which would make her task easier.

• IN-Gov: Mike Pence seems to be making the sensible choice given the options of a longer-than-long-shot presidential bid and (with Becky Skillman out of the primary and Evan Bayh out of the general) what’s looking like a lightly-contested lay-up in the Indiana gubernatorial race. Insiders are looking at his newly planned schedule of events, with Lincoln Day Dinners scheduled all over Indiana, as an indication that he’s moving pretty firmly toward the gubernatorial race.

• FL-25: Usually Representatives wait until at least after they’ve gotten sworn in before getting involved in criminal investigations, but David Rivera is a real go-getter. In the wake of inquiries into Rivera’s support for a push to bring slot machines to Miami-Dade County, Rivera is now having to disclose $137K in never-before-mentioned loans from his mother’s marketing company (the same company under investigation for receiving payments from the Flagler Dog Track).

• IN-02: Jackie Walorski may be back in 2012 for another run against Rep. Joe Donnelly, saying another run is “possible.” Her main calculation seems to be what happens to the 2nd, which could be mutated into a much more Republican-friendly district if the state’s GOP legislature wanted to experiment with strange shapes.

• Mayors: Rahm Emanuel got one more seal of approval for his Chicago mayoral candidacy today: a state circuit court judge just ruled today that Emanuel meets residency requirements and his name can remain on the Feb. 22 ballot, upholding the decision by the city’s Board of Election Commissioners. It’s not a done deal though as an appeal to the Illinois Appellate Court is imminent. Also, Salt Lake City is another one of the many cities holding mayoral elections this November; one-term incumbent Ralph Becker has announced he’s running for re-election, and, with a whopping 84% approval rating, it’s sounding like he won’t face more than a token challenge. The GOP may not even wind up running someone against him (Becker’s a Democrat, although it’s officially a nonpartisan post), and while there have been rumblings of a challenge to him from the left (with former SLC mayor Rocky Anderson a possibility), there doesn’t seem to be enough dissatisfaction with him to make that viable either.

• 2010 Leftovers: Two of the leaders of the Dems’ efforts in 2010 are in the news today, including outgoing DGA executive director Nathan Daschle, who let loose a curious tweet stating that “The purity test on display at yesterday’s RNC chair debate is one more reason why we need something other than 2 parties.” Now, given his previous aptitude at messing with Republicans’ heads via concern trolling, I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he’s subtly encouraging some sort of full-on split between the sane Republican party and the crazy wing while the Dems remain intact, rather than him going all No Labels on us. Meanwhile, Jon Vogel, the former exec director of the DCCC, is moving to the private sector, launching a political media firm with fellow consultant Steve Murphy. (This seems like a good time to queue up the best line from Ghostbusters: “You don’t know what it’s like out there! I’ve worked in the private sector! They expect results!”)

• Redistricting: Here’s an interesting interview with Democratic redistricting guru Matt Angle, who was Martin Frost’s right-hand man during the post-2000 round. Angle’s particular area of expertise is Texas, and he has some thoughts about what we can expect there. While he seems confident that at least two of the four new districts will be Hispanic-majority, he sounds a warning about last-remaining-Anglo Dem Lloyd Doggett, who may find himself drawn into either a Republican or VRA district (although it’s worth noting that already happened to Doggett once, as he briefly had a Hispanic-majority seat in the immediate pre-litigation aftermath of the DeLayMander).

• Twitter: We’re up to 3,981 followers on Twitter, but that’s not a nice, round number with a lot of zeroes in it that we can arbitrarily feel good about. Please help us reach 4,000!

Everyone says Georgia can’t eliminate John Barrow, but I don’t really see why not.  His district isn’t VRA Protected like Sanford Bishop, so far as I know. And anyways, 4 out of 14 VRA for Georgia is better than, say, 1 out of 7 in Alabama.  

Here’s my take:

Chatham Co. only gave Obama a margin of 15,000 votes, and if you add in the two suburban counties, it is only 50-50.  That plus all the GOP rural areas combine Barrow and Kingston into a Lean/Likely GOP district. (Light Blue) 60% White

from the 51% White Barrow’s current district is

Sanford Bishop (Green) gets a 46% White district, a slight improvement.  He adds Macon, making GA-8 completely safe for Austin Scott (periwinkle), who gets a 65% White district.  

The new 1st district (Dark Blue) is 66% White and fit for someone like St. Sen John Bulloch or St Sen Jeff Chapman, who ran for Governor in 2010.

The 4th, 5th, and 13th remain similar

Phil Gingrey’s district is eliminated, but since he is pushing 70, he’ll probably just retire.

Tom Price’s 6th (Teal) isn’t going blue anytime soon.  It could be a problem around 2020, though, but the new redistricting will be approaching by then.

Rob Woodall’s 7th (Gray) has to shed quite a bit of population, now being 63% White and nearly all in Gwinnett County.  This is the district I’d worry about most going Blue in the decade, particularly if the White percentage keeps dropping.  The 22% who are Hispanic or Asian is a wild card, as many don’t vote, at least not yet.

The New 11th (Green) is 60% White, with 10% the Hispanic/Asian wild cards.  Somehow, I can find no veteran State Senators from the district, so I’m not sure about the bench.  It’s mostly suburban Republicans, though.

Westmoreland’s purple 3rd is still safe for him, as are Graves’ 9th (Northwest) and Broun’s 10th (Northeast).  

On the east side, including Augusta, is the other open seat, the new 14th.

Now on to Washington, and their bipartisan incumbent protection map.

There it is.  

And the Seattle area is here:

In Eastern Washington, the two swing counties, Whitman and Spokane, are split up.  That’s the only big difference.  McMorris Rodgers (Yellow) and Hastings (Red) are safe.  Herrera Beutler (Purple) now has to extend a bit further East, as it loses Longview, Pacific Co., and Olympia, making it much safer for her, probably going from Toss-Up to Lean R.  

Dicks’ 6th (West), which needs to be made a bit safer for when he retires, as the Western lumber counties are trending a bit away from us, adds Pacific Co., Longview, and Olympia from the 3rd, loses some of S. Kitsap Co., as well as Central Tacoma, and remains a swingy Tilt D district.  

Reichert’s 8th (Purple) gets much bigger, losing the Microsoft Area to the new 10th (Pink) and taking up nearly all of the non-Coastal Northern Coast Counties from Larsen, making his Green 2nd a bit safer in the process (he nearly lost this year).  This means Larsen needs to take up more Suburbs, making Inslee (Blue) take a bit of Seattle, moving McDermott (Gray) into some low-income suburbs as well as Seattle, and making Adam Smith, the new Armed Services chair, in light blue, take in the AFB and Army Base, as well as all of Tacoma.

Now that it’s 2011, the redistricting games will soon begin in earnest, with more detailed Census data expected in February or March and some states holding spring legislative sessions to deal with drawing new maps. Long ago I planned to do state-by-state rundowns of the redistricting process as soon as 2010 election results and Census reapportionment were clear. Now that time has arrived, and it’s time to look at California, Colorado, and Connecticut.

Previous diary on Alabama, Arizona, and Arkansas

The rest below the fold…

California

Districts: 53

Who’s in charge? Nonpartisan commission

Is that important? Heck yes

Boy, is this the big kahuna. With California’s delegation comprising 12.2% of the entire House, and 17.6% of the whole Democratic caucus, the Golden State was already a dominant player in the nationwide redistricting wars, but with its recent switch from legislative control (which would have meant a Democratic gerrymander in 2011) to a nonpartisan commission, any semblance of certainty is out the window. The commission must preserve VRA-protected minority seats, of which there are at least 12 (Barbara Lee’s 9th, Jim Costa’s 20th, Xavier Becerra’s 31st, Judy Chu’s 32nd, Karen Bass’s 33rd, Lucille Roybal-Allard’s 34th, Maxine Waters’s 35th, Laura Richardson’s 37th, Grace Napolitano’s 38th, Linda Sanchez’s 39th, Joe Baca’s 43rd, and Loretta Sanchez’s 47th) and  several more if you interpret the law as protecting Latino-majority/plurality districts represented by non-Hispanic whites.

Republicans say the losers in California redistricting will be white Democrats representing less-than-completely-solid seats (such as Jerry McNerney and Dennis Cardoza), seats likely to be broken up and redistributed between other districts (such as Lois Capps), or seats likely to be turned into VRA-protected minority districts (such as one of the San Fernando Valley Dems: Berman, Sherman, or Schiff). Democrats say that the current map is not that gerrymandered in their favor, and is instead an incumbent protection gambit; they argue that nonpartisan redistricting will ruin as many GOP incumbents (Ken Calvert and Gary Miller, say) as Dem incumbents. In any case, few solid predictions can be made at this point, and I’d like very much to hear what those of you at SSP think will happen. If forced at gunpoint to predict something about the new map, I’d say a seat will be shifted from the Bay Area to the Inland Empire, and that Jerry McNerney is the likely “eliminee,” though it could also be a longtimer like George Miller or Pete Stark. Also, a competitive Central Coast district will be recreated à la the California 22nd in the 1990s, hurting the reelection prospects of both Lois Capps and Elton Gallegly. Demographics will also compel the commission to create a couple new Hispanic districts, at least one of which will be a reconfiguration of a seat now represented by a white L.A. Democrat.

The commission’s membership has been finalized and its work should be complete by sometime this autumn. I, for one, greatly look forward to the fireworks.

Colorado

Districts: 7

Who’s in charge? Split (Dem Governor and Senate, GOP House)

Is that important? Not really

The bare Republican majority in Colorado’s House should ensure a safer seat for Scott Tipton in the 3rd (represented by a Republican from 1992 to 2004 and a Democrat from 2004 to 2010), but otherwise won’t change the partisan dynamics much in Colorado. Overwhelming Democratic edges for Diana DeGette in Denver and Jared Polis in the Boulder area may be diluted a bit to create a rock-solid constituency for Ed Perlmutter, but that will be the only tangible benefit for Team Blue.

Connecticut

Districts: 5

Who’s in charge? Democrats

Is that important? No

An overwhelmingly Democratic legislature will draw districts for an already all-Democratic House delegation. Jim Himes and Chris Murphy should get slightly safer seats at the marginal expense of rock-solid incumbents John Larson and Rosa DeLauro, but that will be the extend of remapping drama in the Nutmeg State.

Later this week: Florida, Georgia, and Hawaii!

Since it is one of the states the Dems completely control, I decided to look some at what could be done in West Virginia. Two objectives came to mind:

– Shore up Rahall

– Make life difficult for McKinley

Here is my first map:

The second district (in green) is designed to soak up as many Republican areas as possible and is around 61% McCain.  The first district (in blue) is now up about 45% Obama, while the third district clocks in at just over 46% Obama.  This is compared with 42% that Obama got in both districts in their current form.

Capito Moore lives in Charleston, so she might run for statewide office rather than in the new second, but should she decide to stay in congress her non-residency should be a non-issue, given her popularity.

This got me thinking: Is 46% Obama really the best we can do in West Virginia?  Only 7 counties went for Obama and they’re scattered throughout the state.  

This lead to my second map:

The 11 counties entirely contained in the 2nd (green) district went for Obama by just over 2000 votes.  Once you include the connective strips, it probably flips to McCain, but not by very much. With precinct data I’m sure it would be possible to create something similar that actually went Dem in 2008.

I wouldn’t actually recommend such a map.  Not only does it strengthen McKinley, it puts Capito Moore in the intended D second district and Rahall and his Beckley base in the now more Republican third. Nevertheless, I thought it an interesting experiment.

Now that it’s 2011, the redistricting games will soon begin in earnest, with more detailed Census data expected in February or March and some states holding spring legislative sessions to deal with drawing new maps. Long ago I planned to do state-by-state rundowns of the redistricting process as soon as 2010 election results and Census reapportionment were clear. Now that time has arrived, and I’ll go alphabetically, starting with Alabama, Arizona, and Arkansas.

The rest below the fold…

Alabama

Districts: 7

Who’s in charge? Republicans

Is that important? No

Don’t expect too much drama in Alabama, as Republicans seek an incumbent protection map that ensures no Democrat getting elected in the 2nd (represented by Martha Roby) or 3rd (Mike Rogers). The 7th remains a VRA-protected black-majority district, and the only Democratic stronghold in the state.

Arizona

Districts: 9, up from 8 in 2002

Who’s in charge? Nonpartisan commission

Is that important? Oh, yes

Whenever a nonpartisan commission is involved, most (but not all) bets are off. Both Hispanic-majority VRA districts — the 4th, represented by Ed Pastor, and Raul Grijalva’s 7th — will have to be kept majority-minority, and the weird lines in northern Arizona separating the Hopi (in Trent Franks’ 2nd) from the Navajo (in Paul Gosar’s 1st) will remain. But the commission is under no obligation to protect incumbents, and that goes for Gosar, Grijalva, Giffords, Quayle, Schweikert, and anyone else who may face trouble in the next decade. In any case, most observers predict a new GOP seat in the Phoenix area, since Democratic areas are sufficiently concentrated in the 4th and much of the state’s population growth has occurred in conservative suburban Maricopa County.

My prediction: Republicans +1, all things being equal. Multiple incumbent defeats are, however, very possible depending on the new lines.

Arkansas

Districts: 4

Who’s in charge? Democrats

Is that important? Probably not

While Democrats have the redistricting trifecta in Arkansas as they did not in 2002, I cannot imagine them exploiting it particularly well. The trends in this state are as plain as the nose on your face, and Democrats know from rising GOP fortunes both within the Natural State and within all its neighboring states that their days in power are numbered. If anything, they may attempt to strengthen Mike Ross’ 4th District, the only blue seat, but I don’t see them working to dislodge Tim Griffin or Rick Crawford, both of whom represent districts that just ten years ago were considered reliably and ancestrally Democratic. It’s not easy being a Democrat in the South, particularly not the slow-growing Old South consisting of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, et al.

In the next edition: California, Colorado, and Connecticut.

• AK-Sen: With the book about to close on 2010, so too is the last outstanding race of 2010, the Alaska Senate race. Today the state is planning to certify Lisa Murkowski as winner of the race, including hand-delivering the certification papers to Washington DC so there won’t be any possible obstacles to Murkowski’s swearing-in next week (and ensuing temporary loss of state clout). This, of course, follows a legal one-two punch to Joe Miller’s hopes: last week’s loss at the Alaska Supreme Court, which upheld the trial court’s decision that the write-in votes for Murkowski were properly counted, and then this week’s ruling by a federal district court judge dismissing his related federal suit and lifting the hold on the race’s certification. Miller will not stand in the way of the certification, although he says he is still considering whether to continue litigating the matter (which, if he did, would feature the 9th Circuit as the next stop).

The most ironic part of the whole tale is that the Tea Party Express, in their ill-advised RINO hunt, seem to have only succeeded in making Murkowski into more of a free agent. If you’ve noticed that Murkowski seems to be toeing the GOP line less since winning the election without running under the GOP banner, you’re not alone: she was the only Senate GOPer to vote with the Dems on all four big action items during the lame duck session (the tax compromise, DADT repeal, START, and the DREAM Act).

• DE-Sen: SSP isn’t about re-litigating old elections, but this is indeed relevant because Christine O’Donnell, looking to capitalize on her newfound celebrity, may yet be a fourth-time candidate for the Senate against Tom Carper in the future. That fourth run might be more difficult, though, if she’s in prison… perhaps possible as it seems like the federal government has decided it’s had enough of her once-every-two-years grifting tours and is now criminally investigating her use of campaign funds for personal purposes during her 2010 campaign. Anyway, she put out a truly epic statement today on the matter that ought to have you reaching for your copy of the DSM, so laden with paranoia and delusions of grandeur it is.

• MA-Sen: While everyone seems to be wondering which U.S. Rep. will step into the gap if nobody named Kennedy runs for the Senate, there’s always the outside possibility that someone with a business background and lots of his own money tries to move to the head of the pack in the Bay State. Robert Pozen may fit that bill, and he’s apparently been talking to party insiders about the possibility. The investment banker-turned-Harvard Business professor has some liabilities, though: he served briefly in Mitt Romney’s cabinet, which may help his bipartisan bona fides but could be poison in a primary, and his personality has been described as [John] “Silberesque,” which would just be all-purpose poison.

• MI-Sen: If the NRSC ever had any interest in Tim Leuliette as their Senate candidate in Michigan, that probably evaporated this week. The auto-parts magnate just said that he’s not comfortable with self-funding his campaign and wouldn’t put much of his “large fortune” into a run. Considering that that was the main (if not only) selling point for a candidacy from an otherwise unknown political newcomer, that should pretty much be end-of-story.

• MO-Sen, MO-Gov: A poll from Republican pollster Wilson Research (commissioned by consulting firm Axiom Strategies) has (big surprise) good news for Republicans in it, most notably Jim Talent. The ex-Sen. has a significant lead in a rematch against Claire McCaskill, ahead 51-40. Talent seems to have a big electability edge over Sarah Steelman, who’s tied 44-44 with McCaskill. McCaskill’s approvals are 48/45. They also look at the Governor’s race, finding a more competitive race than PPP did but not the lead that a Peter Kinder internal showed. They find Dem incumbent Jay Nixon leading Kinder 45-42, with Nixon’s approvals at 52%. Worth noting: the poll’s a little stale, taken Dec. 1-2.

• ND-Sen: It’s starting to look like Kent Conrad will face some serious opposition from Republicans this cycle (assuming the 62-year-old runs for re-election), although it’s not clear exactly from whom. Perhaps the heaviest-hitter available, the state’s ex-Gov. and the former Bush administration Agriculture Secretary, Ed Schafer, has just ruled it out. For now, the likeliest-sounding one right now seems to be Brian Kalk, one of the state’s three Public Service Commissioners, a statewide elected position. Kalk says he’s giving it “serious thought,” which contrasts with oft-mentioned AG Wayne Stenehjem’s statement that he doesn’t have “any plans” (although not closing “any doors” either) and with newly-promoted Gov. Jack Dalrymple, for whom it’s the “last thing” on his mind.

• NE-Sen (pdf): In case you weren’t sure whether or not Ben Nelson’s in trouble for 2012, um, yes, he’s in trouble. Republican pollster Magellan is out with a poll finding Nelson with an overall 29/59 re-elect, and trailing GOP AG Jon Bruning 52-38. He’s also trailing state Treasurer Don Stenberg (not yet a candidate, but sounding likely to run as well) 46-40. Hopefully we’ll get a look from PPP at this one soon for confirmation. It seems like the Dems are already treating Bruning as a serious threat, though, with the state party trying to throw obstacles in his path by filing FEC and IRS complaints against Bruning over shoddy campaign-committee setup.

• VA-Sen: So apparently all you have to do is append “Tea Party Activist” to your job description, and all of a sudden you’re magically promoted from Some Dude to Very Serious Candidate Worthy of National Media Attention. Or at least that’s the case with the campaign announcement from Jamie Radtke, head of the Judean People’s Front People’s Front of Judea Virginia Federation of Tea Party Patriots, whose main claim to fame seems to be organizing a gathering of 3,000 ‘baggers in Richmond. At any rate, Radtke is the first actually announced GOP candidate. Meanwhile, Jim Webb seems to be moving closer to making a decision on whether to run for re-election (though no clues on how he feels), saying he’ll sort it out over the holiday break and make an announcement in the first quarter of 2011.

• IN-Gov: This comes as a surprise, since there had been a lot of buzz about her as the nominee, with increasing moves from Rep. Mike Pence toward a presidential run instead. But Becky Skillman, Indiana’s Lt. Governor, recently announced that she wouldn’t run for Governor in 2012, citing “minor health issues.” Does this make likelier a Pence gubernatorial run, now that he’d have an easy stroll to the nomination? And if Pence doesn’t run, that seems to point to a truly wide open field, as no one seems to have contemplated a GOP field that didn’t include Pence or Skillman. Who else might step up? (I hear Mike Sodrel may still be looking for a job…)

• NC-Gov: Rounding out the troika of Republican polls showing Dem incumbents in trouble is one from North Carolina from Civitas, who have coordinated with a variety of pollsters and this time went straight to the big daddy of GOP pollsters, POS. The poll finds GOP former Charlotte mayor Pat McCrory cruising in a rematch against Dem incumbent Bev Perdue, who never really seemed to gain her footing after a narrow 2008 win: he leads her 51-36 (with Perdue getting only 64% among Democrats).

• WA-Gov: Two interesting developments mean this race isn’t as open-and-shut as I’d thought. One is that there’s increasing buzz linking Dow Constantine, just elected in 2009 as King County Executive, to the governor’s race. I’ve regarded Constantine (who’s 47) as a very likely Governor starting in 2020, but with Dems seeming a little edgy that none of their biggest-name candidates (Rep. Jay Inslee, whose WA-01 is centered in suburban Snohomish Co., Snohomish Co. Exec Aaron Reardon, Spokane-based state Sen. majority leader Lisa Brown) are from their stronghold of King County while likely GOP candidate Rob McKenna is, there might be some pressure on Constantine to move up his timetable. (It’s worth noting that Gary Locke became Gov. in 1996 after three years as King Co. Executive.) The other develompent is that Chris Gregoire isn’t categorically ruling out an attempt at a third term, which she’s legally entitled to do but Just Isn’t Done. (Although she might point out that the last time it was tried, 1972, Dan Evans was successfully re-elected… in fact, the last time a Republican was re-elected Governor in Washington.) She registered as a 2012 candidate with the Public Disclosure Commission, in order to “keep her options open.” (UPDATE: Big h/t to meekermariner, who points out in comments that this Gregoire article is nearly two years old, leaving me to wonder why Politico was linking to it with such enthusiasm. At any rate, the Gregoire committee remains open today, although that in itself isn’t much of a suggestion that a third term may be in the offing.)

• WV-Gov: This week was the deadline for filing briefs for the lawsuit that’s attempting to move up the special election to replace Joe Manchin up to 2011. We still don’t have an answer to when it will happen, but at least we know who’s on what side in the case: the state’s major unions (including the AFL-CIO and WVEA) want it sooner, and so does likely candidate and Dem state House speaker Rick Thompson. State Auditor Glen Gainer supports the expedited election too, while SoS Natalie Tennant (another possible Dem candidate) has basically punted on the issue. And if you’re wondering about Joe Manchin’s decision to duck DADT and DREAM Act votes in order to enjoy family holiday festivities, it seems like it wasn’t, first and foremost, a self-protecting profile in cowardice. With Manchin having survived probably his toughest challenge, he’s more interested now in clearing the way for ally and acting Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin, and not interested in provoking a social issues-based civil war within the state Dem party that could undermine Tomblin’s shot at getting elected to a full term.

• OH-01: Guess who’s sounding like he’s gearing up for a rematch? Steve Driehaus, in an interview with the Cincinnati paper, took a variety of potshots at Steve Chabot, calling him a Boehner “follower” and saying he shouldn’t “sit too easy.” Driehaus has previously said he’s “open” to another attempt. (This is Cincinnati-based district is notorious for steep dropoff in African-American voting in off-years, so if any time would be the right time for Driehaus to try again, 2012 would be it.)

• LA-St. House: There was a long period of threatening and flirting, but now it’s official: state Rep. Noble Ellington switched to the Republican Party, formally flipping control of the state’s lower legislative chamber to the GOP for the first time since Reconstruction. Functionally, it may not make much perceptible difference, since there was already a Republican speaker, and many Dems were already quite conservative.

• NY-St. Sen.: Looks like the end of the line in one other outstanding race (which ultimately had the balance of the New York state Senate in play): the state’s Court of Appeals said no thanks to incumbent Dem Craig Johnson’s appeal of a lower court decision that said there didn’t need to be a hand recount of machine votes in New York’s 7th District. GOPer Jack Martins had been declared the winner in the race by several hundred votes, handing the state Senate back to the GOP by a 32-30 margin.

• PA-St. Sen.: Pennsylvania’s state Senate has been even more stubbornly Republican over the years than New York’s, and it looks like the Dems are going to have play a bit more defense there in an upcoming special election. Democratic minority whip Michael O’Pake (the state’s longest-serving legislator) died several days ago at age 70, leaving a vacancy in SD-11 that will need to be filled by special election at some point between March and May (date TBD). On paper, this looks like the kind of district that would be a major test case for whether the Dems are going to continue their run of bad luck in the Keystone State from the 2010 election: while it works out to about D+4 (going 59/40 for Barack Obama and 51/48 for John Kerry), it also gave 55% of the vote to Tom Corbett and 50.6% to Pat Toomey this year. However, this may all boil down to bench strength in a traditionally-Dem district (centered on the blue-collar city of Reading, although made purple by inclusion of its suburbs, too): insiders from both parties are treating Democratic former Berks Co. Commissioner Judy Schwank as “prohibitive favorite.”

• Approvals: PPP does us the favor of consolidating all their year-end Senate approval ratings and gubernatorial approvals in one (or two, really) places. In the Senate, the most popular Senator overall, in addition to most popular one up in 2012, is Amy Klobuchar (59/29); while outgoing Roland Burris is the overall goat, Joe Lieberman is in worst shape of anyone up in 2012 (33/54). Among the few governors facing 2012 re-election, Jack Markell is tops at 50/32 (with Jay Nixon not far behind at 44/30), while Chris Gregoire fares the worst, in case she actually runs (although this might dissuade her sudden interest in a third term); her 40/53 is actually a worse spread than Bev Perdue’s 35/44.

• Redistricting: The Fix has a good piece on redistricting out, that should pretty much serve as the last word on why GOP purely-redistricting-related House seat gains are likely to be limited to the single digits for 2012: thanks to their 2010 overperformance, they’re thoroughly maxed out in the big four prizes where they have total control (Texas, Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania). That’s compounded by, in Florida, the new Fair Districts initiative, and in Texas, the need to create at least two more VRA districts while still protecting Blake Farenthold. Also, here’s one other redistricting implication that’s gotten totally overlooked in all the last few weeks’ discussion: although California didn’t lose or gain a seat, there’s been enough population shift within the state (thanks to stagnation in the Bay Area and rapid growth in the Inland Empire) that the net result will be the moving of most of one district from NoCal to SoCal. It’ll be interesting to see whether the new independent commission is able to do that in a way that lightly shifts boundaries southwards and protects the jobs of all 53 incumbents, or if someone from the north actually gets turfed out and an effectively new seat opens up in the south.

• Chicago mayor: A lot has happened in the Chicago mayoral race since we last checked: first, Rahm Emanuel cleared the first hurdle in ascertaining that he is, indeed, a Chicago resident and not a Kenyan (although there will be inevitable courtroom appeals for weeks to come, with opponents willing to go to the state Supreme Court). The Chicago Board of Election Commissioners last week rejected claims that Emanuel had abandoned his Chicago residency when he went to work in the White House. Also, we’ve seen two of Emanuel’s erstwhile opponents drop out of the race, narrowing the number of African-American candidates but still leaving that part of the field split between Danny Davis (last seen publicly urging Bill Clinton against coming to Chicago to campaign for Emanuel) and Carol Mosely Braun. State Sen. James Meeks dropped out, saying he didn’t want to further split the black vote, and Roland Burris also withdrew, via press release, from the race (although it’s unclear whether he ever really was in the race, since he never made any public appearances). Finally, we got another poll of the race from We Ask America, which may be most noteworthy for showing Gerry Chico in position to make the runoff. They find Emanuel at 44, Chico at 12, Braun at 8, Davis at 7, Miguel Del Valle at 6, and Meeks at 4.

As we all know, the GOP did very well in a lot of state-level races around the country, in addition to their big gains in the House.  This was especially true in Michigan, where the Michigan House of Representatives flipped from D to R after a 20 seat Democratic loss, and the Republicans gained seats in the Michigan Senate, going from a 22-16 majority to a 26-12 supermajority.  Republican gubernatorial candidate Rick Snyder won convincingly.  And over on the Michigan Supreme Court, two GOP-backed candidates (one incumbent justice, one challenger to an incumbent recently appointed by outgoing Gov. Jennifer Granholm) won their races as well, turning a narrow 4-3 “Democratic” majority into a 4-3 “Republican” majority.  (The races and the court are nominally non-partisan…but everyone knows.)

There has been much buzz about exactly what this complete GOP control of the redistricting process means for the reapportionment process.  Given the fact that Michigan is home, I’ve been among those wondering just that.  This is my attempt at a prediction (or two).  As an added bonus, it is my first diary ever here at SSP!

First, there’s the current map:

This is the 2001 apportionment plan based on the 2000 census.  Like the forthcoming map, it was drawn when the state government was largely under Republican control (Legislature and Governor certainly were…I’m not sure about the MI Supreme Court at the time).  As such, the map as it stands is already a GOP gerrymander, though it doesn’t look as obvious as, say, some of the districts in Pennsylvania ::cough::PA-12::cough::.  This map flipped a 9-7 D-R delegation to 9-6 R-D.  As with the 2000 census, Michigan loses one seat in 2010, down to 14 overall.

After the 2010 elections, we’re back from an 8-7 D-R map (Democrats flipped two districts in 2008) to a 9-6 R-D map.  Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11 will be represented by Republicans in the coming Congress; Districts 5, 9, 12, 13, 14, and 15 will be represented by Democrats.  The only real change from 2000 is that District 1 is now in Republican hands and District 9 is in Democratic hands.  As many of you know, the 9th (my district!) was drawn as a Republican district, but has trended away from the GOP and is now held by Democrat Gary Peters.  District 1 was Bart Stupak’s district, which fell in the wave this year after he retired.

Obviously, if the Republicans want to try to protect all their incumbents, new and old, they will have to put two Democrats together to account for the loss of one seat.  Much of the discussion I’ve seen has revolved around the idea that the Republicans are likely to match Gary Peters in the 9th and Sandy Levin in the 12th and either let them fight it out or encourage/force Levin into retirement.

I decided to explore the idea of such a match up to see exactly how it would impact redistricting throughout the rest of the state.  Based on copious hours of work on the maps you’ll see below, a Peters-Levin match-up is eminently doable, but it will likely wreak havoc throughout the rest of the state for Republican incumbents.  Although this seemed the most likely match-up to me, I’m starting to think that the GOP may instead try to pair John Dingell (MI-15) and John Conyers (MI-14), leaving Levin and Peters alone.  I plan to explore that match-up another time.

Before we get to the maps, here are the principles I used in drawing them:

1.  Wherever possible try to keep districts as compact as possible and without breaking county or municipal/township lines.  This was not as high a priority as it otherwise might have been, as the Supreme Court is, IMO, likely to be a bit flexible with these requirements which are embodied in state law.

2.  Keep each Republican incumbent in a single district, without matching them up with another Republican or forcing them to move.  (While they obviously don’t have to live in the district, it always helps from a PR standpoint…)

3.  Try to shore up shakier Republican districts.

4.  Maintain two minority-majority districts based in Detroit (currently the 13th and 14th).

I used Dave’s App without using the “estimate new population” check box, as it had projected the state’s population to increase, rather than go down as it did.  So, the current population figure on the app is actually closer to what it will be than the estimate.  Obviously the population will change within the voting blocks, so take these maps with a grain of salt.

My first attempt at a Peters-Levin mash looked overall as follows:

Without the partisan numbers, I had to kind of eyeball the districts based on county-level returns and my own knowledge of the state.  I figured the 2008 Obama numbers were the high mark in most counties since McCain basically gave up the state a month before the election.

Here is the Lower Peninsula, and then a close up of the southern Lower Peninsula:

The first mash-up district I built more closely resembles Peters’ current 9th, but swoops south to take in Ferndale and Royal Oak (Levin’s home) in the southeast corner of Oakland County.  The district surrenders its northern reaches (making Mike Rogers my Congressman…again) and West Bloomfield, becoming more compact, but probably more Democratic than it is currently.  The district remains entirely within Oakland County.

As the maps show, though, this configuration likely causes chaos elsewhere.  What was much of Sandy Levin’s 12th in southern Macomb (Democratic) has to go somewhere, and Candice Miller is unlikely to want all of it.  So, the 13th, which will be held by incoming freshman Hansen Clarke, shifts a bit north from Wayne County.  The district stays majority African American, but just barely.  This pulls Candice Miller’s 10th south a bit, which costs her much of the thumb area.  John Conyers’ district then shifts east a bit, but remains firmly African American majority.  John Dingell’s district (now the 15th, here renumbered the 14th) is then pulled north out of swingy Monroe County and into friendlier territory in Wayne and Washtenaw Counties.  Finally, Thad McCotter (MI-11) suffers as he picks up more Dem-friendly West Bloomfield in a mild attempt to keep his district compact.

Outside SE Michigan, things get even more interesting.  I’ve pretty much concluded that Crazy Tim…I mean, Tim Walberg (MI-07) is stuck with a swing district unless the GOP folks in Lansing throw Mike Rogers (MI-08) under the bus and give Walberg all of heavily Republican Livingston County…which is where Rogers is from.  So not happening.  In this map, Walberg’s district shifts east, giving up more Dem-friendly Calhoun County (Battle Creek) and swingy Eaton County for swingy Monroe County and a slice of Livingston County.  Calhoun County still has to go somewhere, and the only district really in the area is Fred Upton’s 6th.  I doubt Upton will let this happen, as he already has heavily-Democratic Kalamazoo to contend with.

Likewise, someone needs to pick up Democratic Lansing and Walberg certainly won’t want it.  Rogers seemed a likely contender at first (even though he wouldn’t want it either), but in the end his 8th District ended up (hideously, I must say) going east into the thumb area to pick up Candice Miller’s losses.  (I tried at least 3 configurations to try to stretch Rogers’ district west and Dale Kildee’s 5th or Dave Camp’s 4th east into the thumb…I just couldn’t get anything that looked workable though.)  This seemed like the best I could get, as ugly as it is.  So, in the end the lucky winner of Lansing was Republican Dave Camp (MI-04).  Camp’s district now occupies much of the farm country heartland of the state and includes his home in Midland, in an attempt to counterbalance Lansing.  Dale Kildee’s 5th District takes in the Democratic areas in Flint, Saginaw, and Bay County, then stretches north to take in a few rural areas; I’d guess it stays firmly Democratic, though.

Finally, in the west and north, the 1st District which will be held by Republican Rep.-elect Dan Benishek shifts west and takes in Traverse City, probably shoring up the district for him.  Republican Rep.-elect Justin Amash’s 3rd District gets a bold new look, but probably stays Republican, splitting urban Grand Rapids with the neighboring and still heavily Republican 2nd.  (I realized after I finished everything that Amash may have to pick up and move a few miles after all, as I think I accidentally put him in the new 2nd with fellow Republican freshman Bill Huizenga.  Oops.)  The new 2nd, instead of stretching up the Lake Michigan coast, consolidates ruby red Ottawa County with southern Kent County (Grand Rapids) and areas further south.

Given the chaos that such a map could cause, I knew that it was unlikely that the Republicans in Lansing would try this.  Even if they managed to tweak things (say, finding a way to stretch the 4th or 5th into the thumb instead of the 8th), having a Peters-Levin mash-up with a 9th District as I’ve constructed it here could cause too much of a headache to be worth the trouble.  The real problem seemed to be with the shift in the districts caused by the leftover Democratic-leaning territory in southern Macomb, which is currently in Sandy Levin’s district.

I think the bottom line is that the current map is already close to an effective Republican gerrymander as you can get.  There are islands of Democratic strength, especially in SE Michigan and sprinkled across the rest of the state that make it hard to make the Republican incumbents much stronger without hurting a fellow Republican.  Without threading the needle precisely, the whole house of cards could end up collapsing in a Dem-friendly year, wave or no.

My next set of maps for Part 2 of this diary (to be posted within the next couple days) looks at a Peters-Levin match up in a district that looks more like Levin’s current 12th, rather than like Peters’ current 9th.  The results were a little more encouraging for the GOP, but still caused problems that make me think they won’t go for that either.  I’ll leave you all with that as food for thought until next time.

I made a map with two goals. They were:

1.) Keep cities together, and if possible, counties

2.) Make the district without care for partisanship

Philadelphia is the only city in more than one cd, and only four counties have 3 or more cds in them (Allegheny, Philadelphia, Chester, and Montgomery. 4 out of 69 aint bad, considering that Philadelphia has to be.)

There is high upside here for both parties, and this is a decent compromise, although more favorable to the republicans. It comes down to if you believe 2008 or 2010 is the closer to reality.

I really only think one picture is necessary due to the nature of this exercise. If anyone wants a zoomed view, lemme know. All are under 1000 off the ideal population.

District 1 (Blue): 53% Black, 88% Obama

Entirely Philadelphia. Safe as could be. 1-0-0

District 2 (Green): 36% B, 14 Hispanic, 5 Asia, 80% O

Entirely Philadelphia. Safe as could be. 2-0-0

District 3 (Dark Magenta): 58% O

North-East Philly, and parts of Montgomery and Bucks. Leans very D. 3-0-0

District 4 (Red): 61% O

Delco and a part of montco. Likely D. 4-0-0

District 5 (Gold): 54% O

Rest of Montgomery and Bucks, plus a tiny bit of chester. Toss-up, Leans slightly R. 4-0-1

District 6 (Teal): 56% O

Bethlehem, Allentown, Easton and their counties, plus a bit of monroe. Toss-up, Leans slightly D. 4-0-2

District 7 (Dark Grey): 56% O

Scranton, Wilkes-Barre and the surrounding area. Toss-Up, Leans slightly D. 4-0-3

District 8 (Slate Blue): 53% M

A few small cities (Hazelton, Bloomsburg, Pottsville), but a lotta empty area. Likely R. 4-1-3

District 9 (Cyan): 55% O

Reading, the rest of Berks and a huge part of chester county. Pure Toss-Up 4-1-4

District 10 (Deep Pink): 56% M

Lancaster, Lebanon and space. Likely R. 4-2-4

District 11 (Chartreuse): 51% M

Harrisburg and York. Lean M. 4-3-4

District 12 (Cornflower Blue): 63% M

Not a lot going on here. Safe R. 4-4-4

District 13 (Dark Salmon): 54% M

North PA. Surprised it is this close tbqh. Likely R. 4-5-4

District 14 (Olive): 49% O (Wins by about 600 votes).

Erie. Toss-Up, Leans R. However, I think obama underperformed what a congressional D could do here so i’m counting it in the toss-up.  4-5-5

District 15 (Dark Orange): 55% M

North of Pitt. Likely R. 4-6-5

District 16 (Lime): 64% O

Pittsburgh. Safe D. 5-6-5

District 17 (Dark Slate Blue): 50% O

South of Pitt. Toss-Up, Leans R. 5-6-6

District 18 (Yellow): 56% M

The rest, includes Altoona. Likely R. 5-7-6.

Not the best either side could do, but most definitely fair. Both sides have reason to believe they could win a lot of the toss-ups. I hope the gopers believe that anyways. Well, lemme know.