Tag: Redistricting

Republicans have a built-in advantage in the Senate. In the last congress, when the Senate was split 51-49, Republican Senators represented only 367 congressional districts between them, whilst the 51 Senators caucusing with the Democrats represented 503 congressional districts between them.

This is, to a large extent, a function of the way America’s states were formed. They began as a hodge-podge of different territories of varying histories and sizes and more were added rather haphazardly according to matters of population, prestige and transient electoral politics.

Meanwhile the Senate, a legacy of the time when states’ rights was more than a convenient label for segregationists to hide behind, gave two Senators to each state whether they had fifty representatives in the House or five. Ten states possess a majority of America’s electoral votes, yet they are outnumbered in the Senate by representatives of the eleven states with only three or four electoral votes.

And since a low population in a state tends to correlate with rurality and since the rural vote is generally extremely conservative, it is no surprise that there is a Republican skew to the Senate as a general rule.

For all the importance of redistricting, Democrats could gain much more if they could redistrict across state lines. They could give themselves a massive advantage in presidential races and a good chance of veto-proof Senate majorities. They could create a Permanent Democratic Majority that would last much longer than Karl Rove’s sorry attempt.

So let’s give this a go. A few suggestions have been made in the DE-AL comments thread, but I want to take this much further. Let’s dream of what we could do in an ideal world, and while we’re at it get some practice in before the next census is upon us

Before I begin, I’ll give the ground rules under which I’m operating:

1) All new states should be contiguous unless they include Alaska or Hawaii. Alaska and Hawaii must be attached to states with Pacific borders. Yes, I know Sarah Palin would enjoy being Governor of Oklahoma, but let’s be realistic with this exercise that bears no relation to reality.

2) All new states should have a roughly equal population. I’m lazy, so I’ve just made 15 states of 8 congressional districts each (in fast-growing areas of America) and 35 of 9 congressional districts each.

3) All new states should have some rationale to their existence beyond gerrymandering. In other words, don’t get too ambitious. Yes, you could make a new state stretching from Idaho to New Orleans, but there would be nothing real holding the state together. Stick to areas of common culture, religion, or geographical location.

With that aside, here’s a map of 50 new American states:

And here are their descriptions:

Olympia: This state is essentially Washington west of the Cascades, plus Alaska and northern Oregon. As Washington is likely to pick up a district in 2012, I’ve given it only eight CDs.

It contains AK-AL, OR-1, WA-1, WA-2, WA-3, WA-6, WA-7, WA-8 and WA-9. By my calculation, it’s 2004 PVI would have been D+5.5. That may not be entirely accurate, as throughout I’ve just added up the PVIs of the various CDs and averaged them.

Cascadia: One of four vote sinks in sagebrush country, Cascadia is made up of Idaho, eastern Washington, eastern Idaho and north-eastern California. I’ve given this eight CDs as well, which may have been a mistake given that most of this state is uninhabitable desert, but I had the idea that the Mormon population and global warming might keep this region growing at an above-average rate.

It contains CA-2, CA-4, ID-1, ID-2, OR-2, WA-4, WA-5 and WA-8. Estimated PVI is R+11.4.



Mormonistan: I don’t think this is one of my better states. Originally it included WY-AL, but due to me accidentally making San Francisco a 10-CD state, I had to give that up and take in CA-19 instead. This makes this district a little too Californian (it goes right up to the edge of L.A., because CA-25 is a huge district) and not really Mormon enough (although it is still centred on Utah and Cow Country). Also, I should probably have put Las Vegas elsewhere, but perhaps the rapid growth there will make this a winnable state in a couple of decades.

The state contains CA-19, CA-25, NV-1, NV-2, NV-3, UT-1, UT-2 and UT-3. Estimated PVI R+10.

San Jose:  This state takes in the east coast of California between L.A. and S.F, plus the Republican districts immediately inland of there. It was by far the easiest of the California replacements to make.

It contains CA-17, CA-20, CA-21, CA-22, CA-23, CA-24, CA-27, CA-28 and CA-30. Estimated PVI D+6.1.

Arizona: Nothing to see here. It’s a state with eight congressional districts and fast growth, so I decided just to leave it as is and call it a day. PVI should be around R+1.25.

Red Mexico: This is a combination of Colorado and New Mexico minus CO-04. I picked this name because I didn’t like the sound of New Colorado and I figured that this would be the place where Tom Tancredo would least want to live.

Estimate PVI is R+1.1, but I think that would be significantly changed if we were using 2008 PVIs.

Rio Grande: The Texas districts were a bastard to deal with, because almost all of them have either insanely Republican PVIs or very swingish numbers, despite being in 60% Hispanic districts. This is partly because of low Hispanic turnout, partly because of the Bush effect and his high numbers with Hispanics in 2004, and partly because the Delaymander was very clever. All four of the states I made from Texas have Republican PVIs, but two of them are winnable and swinging our way and it’s probably worth leaving the other two as vote sinks to help us speed that.

Rio Grande is made up south Texas districts and contains just about every Democratic district not held by Chet Edwards or a black representative. The districts in question are: TX-15, TX-16, TX-20, TX-21, TX-23, TX-25, TX-27 and TX-28. Estimated PVI is R+0.1.

North Texas: This area is a disaster zone for Democrats. Given Obama’s appalling performance here, it seems likely that one of TX-11, TX-13 and TX-19 will have the worst PVI in the country once the 2008 numbers come out. Bush is probably still popular here.

The district contains the the three districts already mentioned, plus TX-3, TX-12, TX-24, TX-26 and TX-32. It’s PVI is a stunning R+18.

East Texas: This area isn’t quite as bad as North Texas, but it’s a close-run thing. As a vote sink, this is more or less ideal. My only regret is that I couldn’t put Eddie Bernice Johnson’s Dallas district to good use.

The new state contains TX-1, TX-4, TX-5, TX-6, TX-8, TX-17, TX-30 and TX-31. Estimated PVI is R+11.6.

Louissippi: This is a state made up of Louisiana and the two southern districts of Mississippi, MS-3 and MS-4. I figure since Louisiana’s going to wrong way and we’ve been having no luck there, it’s best just to cut out the bits of territory we can use elsewhere and leave the rest well alone. Thanks to LA-02, it’s only R+6.2, but I wouldn’t put money on Mary Landrieu winning re-election here.

Kanslahoma: The third of the sagebrush vote sinks, this new state is made from all of Oklahoma, Kansas minus Dennis Moore’s district and CO-04. Sadly, I think it rather destroy any hope of Betsey Markey or Kathleen Sebelius moving up to the Senate, since it’s an imposing R+12.7.

Northern Plains: This puts a whole lot of empty space on the map where lines used to be. This vast state comprises Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska, the Dakotas, MN-7 and IA-5, just because I don’t think Iowans deserve Steve King.

The PVI is R+11.9, although Obama’s performance here may have improved that somewhat, and we hold enough Senators in the area already that we might still stand a chance here.

Minnisconsin: The last of the states which I had the room to label on the map, this is just an amalgam of Minnesota and northern Wisconsin. In an earlier form it also included the Upper Peninsula, because I figure it fits in better with Wisconsin that Minnesota, but my aforementioned mistake with San Francisco torpedoed that idea.

The districts present here are MN-1, MN-2, MN-3, MN-4, MN-5, MN-6, MN-8, WI-7 and WI-8. PVI is D+2.9.

Pacifica (1): This state stretches from Portland, down the Oregon coast to the northern outskirts of San Francisco, before turning inland to head towards the Nevada border and allow us to redistrict out Dan Lungren in 2012.

The districts here are CA-1, CA-3, CA-5, CA-6, CA-7, CA-10, OR-3, OR-4 and OR-5. The PVI is a very healthy D+9.5.

San Francisco (2): I tried not to allow this district to become too Democratic, but I failed (and, as previously mentioned, also tried to give this new state ten CDs). There’s definitely room for an attempt to be made to absorb more of wingnut country, who will be horrified by having two Senators with San Francisco values. Made up of CA-8, CA-9, CA-11, CA-12, CA-13, CA-14, CA-15, CA-16 and CA-18, it works out at D+18.8.

West L.A. (3): L.A. is large enough that it quite obviously has to be two states. The only question was how to accomplish this. If one were willing to cheat horribly, you could make some appalling spaghetti slices to match inner-city districts with Republican strongholds in the exurbs.

But personally, I couldn’t be bothered. I tried to absorb the less Democratic districts here, but pretty comprehensively failed, leaving West L.A. with a PVI of D+21. The districts used were CA-29, CA-31, CA-32, CA-33, CA-34, CA-35, CA-36, CA-37 and CA-46.

East L.A (4): The name is perhaps misleading here, since this district extends right out to the southern border of Orange County, encompassing CA-26, CA-38, CA-39, CA-40, CA-42, CA-43, CA-44, CA-47 and CA-48. Still, it works out as a comfortable D+1.7 and Hispanic growth and Obama’s strong Californian performance suggest that that Democrats will actually have more of an advantage here.

San Diego (5): Making a Democratic stronghold out of San Diego is almost impossible. So I cheated a little, rather than extending the district out to Phoenix, I merely joined it to Hawaii. This gives you a PVI of exactly 0, but Obama’s performance in Hawaii will have moved that in the right direction. The exact San Diego area districts used were CA-41, CA-45, CA-49, CA-50, CA-51, CA-52 and CA-53.

Houston (6): Made up of the Texas districts not used thus far (2, 7, 9, 10, 14, 18, 22 and 29,) this state gives us a PVI of R+2.3. Such a margin is not overwhelming, however, and I’d suspect that it would begin to lean strongly Democratic by 2016.

Arkasouri (7): A combination of the four Arkansas districts, the St. Louis districts of MO-1, MO-2 and MO-3 and the south Missouri districts of MO-7 and MO-8, Arkasouri clocks in at R+1.1. Disappointingly, this is also one of the few relatively marginal states that is probably trending in the wrong direction. I didn’t manage to create a strong progressive state based around Memphis and St. Louis. I’m open to suggestions as to how this could be done.

Missouwa (8): Made up of KS-03, the Missouri districts not in Arkasouri and all the Iowa districts bar IA-05, Missouwa is R+0.2. I can only argue that the Iowa caucuses will probably keep up turnout enough there that they’ll be able to balance out the rural Missouri parts of the state.

Illisconsin (9): I have to admit that this is a state that looks strange on a map, and would probably look strange even if I hadn’t drawn it. It might in fact have made more sense for down-state Illinois to go with Missouri and Iowa to go with the Quad Cities and western Wisconsin. Then again, I like the portmanteau.

The districts used were IL-12, IL-14, IL-15, IL-16, IL-17, IL-18, IL-19, WI-2 and WI-3. The PVI is R+0.2.

Wiscago (10): Beginning in the Madison area, this state takes a narrow path along the coast to draw in the North Side of Chicago and the northern suburbs. In between, it takes in enough of exurbia to wind up as a comfortable but not super-safe D+3.9. The constituent districts are IL-5, IL-6, IL-8, IL-9, IL-10, WI-1, WI-4, WI-5 and WI-6.

Undetroit (11): Originally this state was made up of all Michigan except for the north and the UP, Detroit and the Oakland county congressional districts. But with MI-1 back in the district, I had to reduce the south-east border by giving up on MI-8.

Other districts in this form of it are MI-2, MI-3, MI-4, MI-5, MI-6, MI-8, MI-10 and MI-12. At R+0.6, it has a very mild Republican lean.

Greater Chicago (12): The centre and South Side of Chicago, combined with some suburbs to the south and south-west and the Gary area make this new state. Joe Donnelly’s district was thrown in to make up the numbers and lower the PVI, but it’s an urban enough state that the PVI is still D+16. The consistuent districts are IL-1, IL-2, IL-3, IL-4, IL-7, IL-11, IL-13, IN-1 and IN-2.

Toledo Wedge (13): Harking back to an 1830s border dispute, this state is made up of the bluest bits of Michigan and the most insanely red bits of north-east Indiana and north-west Ohio. In an earlier and rather better iteration, it included Marcy Kaptur’s district, but that’s now been replaced with MI-8.

The other constituent parts are IN-3, MI-7, MI-11, MI-13, MI-14, MI-15, OH-4 and OH-5. Detroit counts for enough to give this a PVI of D+3.7.

Ohio River (14): Mostly filling gaps in my map, this state leaves relatively slim pickings for Democrats. It’s centred on Indiana, but replaces the Gary area with Louisville and the north-east with western Ohio and some Cincinnati suburbs.

It’s R+7.3. Obama’s performance in Indiana plus Democratic successes in the non-Indiana parts of the state might suggest better times ahead, but this will always lean Republican. The districts enclosed within are IN-4, IN-5, IN-6, IN-7, IN-8, IN-9, KY-3, OH-1 and OH-8.

Mississippi River (15): An attempt to make a Democratic district extending along the Mississippi, this state comes in at R+1.9 because Bennie Thompson’s district and the Memphis area can’t quite balance out western Kentucky, central Tennessee and north-eastern Mississippi. To be marked down as Democratic, it would probably have to extend up towards St. Louis instead.

The constituent parts are KY-1, KY-2, MS-1, MS-2, TN-5, TN-6, TN-7, TN-8 and TN-9.

Greater Alabama (16): This is quite a simple district, made up of all Alabama plus FL-01 and FL-02. It’s also a bit of a nightmare for Democrats, but considering that only 9% of Alabama whites voted for Obama, I think we knew that anyway. The PVI is R+9.

North Florida (17): Taking in Georgia’s coastline before heading down to Orlando and  west to the Gulf of Mexico, this is basically a cracker district, but with a black majority district unfortunately trapped within. The exact constituent parts are FL-3, FL-4, FL-5, FL-6, FL-7, FL-9, FL-12 and GA-1, which combine for a PVI of R+4.9. Like the other Florida-based states, it has eight congressional districts.

Central Florida (18): If this state appears messy, I blame the Florida 2002 redistricting plan. For the most part it’s a relatively simple formation, made up of the south-east portions of the Orlando metropolitan area and the land heading roughly south-west of there to Tampa, but for gerrymandering purposes it also includes FL-23, which has an absurd shape, being comprised of a chunk of land inside and a couple of squiggles into downtown Miami. Some sort of landswap with the state of Miami would certainly seem sensible here. Nevertheless, Alcee Hasting’s district is Democratic enough to turn this from a swing state to a Democratic bastion at D+3.1. Other districts in the state are FL-8, FL-10, FL-11, FL-13, FL-15, FL-16, FL-23 and FL-24.

Miami (19): Made up of those bits of Florida not already used, this state is mostly a narrow coastal strip on the Atlantic, with the numbers being made up by the Keys, the very southern tip of the Mainland and Fort Myers. It clocks in at a fairly comfortable D+6.8.

Atlanta (20): This is my attempt to produce a Democratic state from Georgia based on 2004 results. It’s centred on metro Atlanta and the Black Belt, but for population reasons it also has to include the districts of Lynn Westmoreland and Tom Price.

Right now it’s D+2.5, but I fully expect that Obama’s performance added a couple of points here. The districts within it are GA-2, GA-3, GA-4, GA-5, GA-6, GA-8, GA-12 and GA-13.

Sumter (21): Yes, I picked that name purely to annoy. This fast-growing new state is made up of all South Carolina, plus a western eextension made up of GA-7 and GA-10 that stops just outside Atlanta. It’s not going to be easy picking for Democrats in the short-term, as it’s R+9.25.

Charlotte (22): Containing pretty much all of North Carolina bar the Triangle and the Appalachian regions, Charlotte clocks in at R+4.1. 2008 results notwithstanding, I suspect you could get a better map if you were prepared to make some ugly looking states. Districts used are NC-1, NC-2, NC-3, NC-6, NC-7, NC-8, NC-9 and NC-12.

Southern Appalachia (23): Another vote sink, this new state is made up of northern Georgia, western North Carolina and eastern and middle Tennessee. I’d expect this to be a state with little internal cohesion but a lot of cultural cohesion. I don’t think you could expect to elect a single progressive here.

The PVI is R+12.5 and the districts are GA-9, GA-11, NC-5, NC-10, NC-11, TN-1, TN-2, TN-3 and TN-4.

Northern Appalachia (24): The slightly less red companion to its southern neighbour, this is actually a state where Democrats could still compete at lower levels. Containing KY-4, KY-5, KY-6, OH-6, VA-6, VA-9, WV-1, WV-2 and WV-3, it isn’t going to produce great progressives, but you could get some decent economic populists and union supporters from here. PVI is R+6.2.

Real Virginia (25): It’s not really what Nancy Pfotenhauer meant, but I like the name. This version takes in North Carolina’s Triangle, all of southern Virginia bar the very western portions and goes up into Communist Country at its northern extnet. And all for a PVI of R+1.3, which is probably now reversed. The specific districts here are NC-4, NC-13, VA-1, VA-2, VA-3, VA-4, VA-5, VA-7 and VA-11.

Baltimore (26): Despite the name, this district is a sprawl. It begins in the DC suburbs (but does not include DC, as I’m leaving that out of this restructuring), curves round the Chesapeake Bay, moves on to the Eastern Shore and continues up through Delaware into southern New Jersey. I’ve just noticed that it’s not actually contiguous, since Elijah Cummings’ district extends to the shoreline, but since I’m too lazy to fix that we’ll just pretend that that district has given away a two foot wide stretch of shoreline to this new state.

So this State of Baltimore (without the city of Baltimore, much like Kansas) has a PVI of D+5.3. It takes in DE-AL, MD-1, MD-2, MD-3, MD-5, NJ-1, NJ-2, VA-8 and VA-10.

Allegany (27): This is a quite blatant gerrymander, stretching from the Pittsburgh metro area down through rural Maryland into the DC suburbs and Baltimore. I imagine there’d be a degree of cultural clash between the more liberal Maryland portions of the district and the culturally conservative Appalachian regions, but there’s a decent chance you could elect a black Senator here and the D+7.6 PVI is not to be sniffed at. The districts used are MD-4, MD-6, MD-7, MD-8, PA-4, PA-9, PA-12, PA-14 and PA-18.

Columbus (28): This state is essentially made up of the bits of Ohio I couldn’t use elsewhere. Still, for a rump it’s a lot better than it could have been and its PVI is only R+1.2. Extending from Cincinnati through the central portion of the state, it once reached the Cleveland outskirts but I had to change it to take in Marcy Kaptur’s Erie-side district and it now gets no closer than the Mahoning valley.

The component parts are OH-2, OH-3, OH-7, OH-9, OH-12, OH-15, OH-16, OH-17 and OH-18.

Lakeside (29): Based around the coastlines of Lakes Erie and Ontario, this state stretches from Cleveland to Rochester. It also extends out wildly to enclose PA-5. In my defence, it looked a lot less weird when I also had NY-29 in here, but that had to change to help clear up my mistake with San Francisco.

The PVI is D+5.8 and other unmentioned districts here are NY-26, NY-27, NY-28, OH-10, OH-11, OH-13, OH-14 and PA-3.

Delaware River (30): This district is based around Upstate but also extends down through the Poconos into Philadelphia’s outer suburbs and northern New Jersey. It’s mildly Democratic, with a PVI of D+2.1, although that’s only because I cheated a little and extended it down into the north-western edge of New York City.

The current seats are NJ-5, NY-17, NY-22, NY-24, NY-25, NY-29, PA-10, PA-11 and PA-15.

Philadelphia (31): This was a comparatively simple district to draw. Luckily, Philadelphia’s centre and blueing suburbs easily swamp the portions of the T here and I extended the district into New Jersey just because I needed somewhere to put Adler’s district. If you wanted to respect state lines where possible, you could swap it for Patrick Murphy’s district for no difference whatsoever.

The PVI is D+6.9 and the districts are NJ-3, PA-1, PA-2, PA-6, PA-7, PA-13, PA-16, PA-17 and PA-19.

North Jersey (32): At this point, I’d like to apologise for the map. If I could draw, I would have made a better one. It’s not very clear here, so let me just explain that this is basically just central and northern New Jersey, plus Patrick Murphy’s Pennsylvania district for geographical compactness.

The PVI is D+8.2 and the districts used are NJ-4, NJ-6, NJ-7, NJ-8, NJ-9, NJ-10, NJ-11, NJ-12 and PA-8.

Manhattan (33): One of two NYC districts, this one has a whopping D+28.3 PVI. Unfortunately, urban areas generally tend to clump together and produce unnecessarily large Democratic PVIs and this trend is exacerbated because of NYC’s geographic location. On the plus side, I reckon that a minority candidate would be the favourite to win a Senate seat in a state like this.

This state is made up of Manhattan, Staten Island, most of the Bronx, parts of Queens and Brooklyn and Albio Sires’ New Jersey district. That means NJ-13, NY-7, NY-8, NJ-12, NJ-13, NJ-14, NJ-15, NJ-16.

Long Island (34): This area isn’t quite as Democratic as Manhattan. Still, it does have a suitable impressive D+19.2 PVI, so I wouldn’t worry about losing it. It’s basically made up of areas east of Manhattan State, curving around Jamaica Bay, by which I mean NY-1, NY-2, NY-3, NY-4, NY-5, NY-6, NY-9, NY-10 and NY-11.

Greater Connecticut (35): Not much to say here. This is just Connecticut plus New York down to Yonkers and the congressional districts in Massachusetts based around Worcester. PVI is D+8.5 and constituent parts are CT-1, CT-2, CT-3, CT-4, CT-5, MA-2, MA-3, NY-18 and NY-19.

Cape Cod (36): Again, there’s little to see here. This is just Rhode Island stuck together with eastern Massachusetts. PVI of D+16.2, districts are MA-4, MA-5, MA-6, MA-7, MA-8, MA-9, MA-10, RI-1 and RI-2.

Algonquia (37): I’ll close this out with a state that’s essentially charged with watching the border for a Canadian invasion. Made up of all Maine and New Hampshire, Vermont and New York down to Albany (NY-20, NY-21 and NY-23) it’s D+4.8.

If we count anything below R or D+2 as a swing state and anything above R or D+5 as a safe state, then we end up with the following statistics:

Democratic safe: 176 EV (17 states + DC)

Democratic lean: 75 EV (7 states)

Swing (Democratic edge): 11 EV (1 state)

Absolutely balanced: 11 EV (1 state)

Swing (Republican edge): 108 EV (10 states)

Republican lean: 30 EV (3 states)

Republican safe: 127 EV (12 states)

I’ll be the first to admit that Republicans could win on this map. But it wouldn’t be easy. Democrats have more than half of their total locked up and since it’s hard to flip swing states, they essentially start at 251 EV to Republicans’ 157.

Then add in the fact that Republicans have a lot more marginal states to defend and that some of those states are trending blue pretty fast, and we begin to see a map where a 50:50 race leans distinctly Democratic.

Meanwhile, in the Senate there are at least 30 seats where there is no reason for Democrats to nominate a minority and a good half a dozen states where minority candidates could easily win election.

I think this would be a better map than the one we have now. But if you can improve it further, or suggest a new map entirely, post it in the comments.

(From the diaries – promoted by DavidNYC)

The U.S. Census Bureau confirmed this week that Iowa will lose a Congressional district following the 2010 census unless we experience unprecedented (for Iowa) population growth in the next two years:

During the past eight years, Iowa has gained as many people – about 76,000 – as states like South Carolina and Virginia gained between 2007 and 2008 alone.

To retain the congressional seat, the state would have to gain nearly twice that number by 2010, according to projections by Election Data Services, a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm that analyzes the impact of demographics on politics.

So, Iowa will be left with four Congressional districts. No one knows what the new map will look like, but it’s likely that the 2012 race in the new third district will determine whether Iowa Democrats (who now hold a 3-2 edge in U.S. House seats) gain a 3-1 advantage or have to settle for a 2-2 split.  

Note: A non-partisan commission draws up the new Congressional map after each census in Iowa, so Democratic gerrymanders will not take place, even if Governor Chet Culver wins re-election in 2010 and Democrats hold their majorities in the state House and Senate.

However, if the Democrats maintain control of the legislature, they have the option of rejecting the first and/or second map produced by the non-partisan commission. Republicans in the Iowa legislature rejected the first map proposed after the last census.

Most of what’s now the fifth district, represented by Republican incumbent Steve “10 Worst” King, is likely to become the new fourth district. It makes no difference whether the new counties added to IA-04 come from the current third or fourth districts–that is going to be a safe Republican seat.

Given the voting trends in eastern Iowa, I assume the new first and second Congressional districts will still be relatively safe for Democrats. (Remember, fewer than 10 Republicans in the whole country represent districts with any kind of Democratic partisan lean.) Either Bruce Braley or Dave Loebsack may need to move if the new map throws Waterloo (Black Hawk County) in the same district as Mount Vernon (Linn County), but that should not present much of a problem.

The big question mark is what happens to IA-03. Polk County will remain the largest county in the district, but it won’t be as dominant in the new district as it is now. A majority of the votes in the current third district come from the county containing Des Moines and most of its suburbs.

In which direction will IA-03 expand? If the counties added to it come mostly from the southwest, Republicans will have a better chance of winning the district. One reason Greg Ganske beat longtime incumbent Neal Smith in the 1994 landslide was that Smith’s fourth district had lost Story and Jasper counties, and gained a lot of southwestern Iowa counties, following the 1990 census.

If IA-03 includes more counties from the southeast, Democrats would be better positioned to hold the seat, although it’s worth remembering that Ottumwa resident Mariannette Miller-Meeks carried seven southern counties in her unsuccessful challenge to Loebsack in IA-02 this year.

Speaking at an Iowa Politics forum in Des Moines last month, Miller-Meeks said she was leaving her ophthalmology practice at the end of 2008. She strongly suggested that she will run for office again. Whether that means another bid for Congress or a run for the state legislature was unclear.

Miller-Meeks has little chance of winning a district as strongly Democratic as IA-02, but I could easily see her taking on Leonard Boswell if Wapello County ends up in IA-03 after the next census. The Des Moines Register has endorsed Boswell’s challengers before and would back any credible Republican opponent against him.

The Republicans’ best chance in a third district stretching to the south, though, would be to run someone with strong Polk County connections to keep down the Democratic margins there. I don’t have any idea which Republicans have their eye on this race.

If IA-03 expands to the north, it’s good news and bad news for Democrats. Story County and Marshall County are reasonably strong territory for the party. On the down side, current fourth district incumbent Tom Latham lives in Story County. Latham is a mediocre Republican back-bencher; what else can you say about a seven-term incumbent whose big achievement on health care, according to his own campaign, was co-sponsoring a bill that never made it out of committee?

However, Latham has obviously used his position on the Appropriations Committee to build up a lot of goodwill in the district. He just won re-election by 21 points in a district Barack Obama carried by 8 percent, and he even carried Story County.

I don’t care to run Boswell or a non-incumbent Democrat (in the event of Boswell’s retirement) against Latham in a redrawn IA-03. I’m not saying Democrats couldn’t hold the seat in those circumstances, but I feel it would be a tough hold.

We would be better off electing a new, ambitious Democrat to Iowa’s third district in 2010, so we can run a rising star in the majority party against Latham, if it comes to that. Actually, we’d have been better off if Boswell had retired in 2008, allowing someone new to compete for this seat as a two-term Democratic incumbent in 2012. But what’s done is done.

Anyone think there’s a chance Boswell will reconsider his promise to run for re-election in 2010?

If Democrats still control the state legislature after 2010, should they reject the first new Congressional map suggested by the non-partisan commission if that map puts Story County in IA-03?

What kind of map would give Democrats the best chance of holding the third district?

I look forward to reading your absurdly early speculation about the 2012 races in the comments.

For those who are interested in the national implications of the post-census reapportionment, DavidNYC created a chart showing which states are likely to gain or lose Congressional districts.

Chris Bowers has already created a 2012 electoral college map, and even with one fewer electoral vote, Iowa will remain important to Obama’s re-election chances. You should click over and read the whole post yourself, but the good news is that Obama has a clear path to 270 electoral votes in 2012 even if he loses Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Indiana and North Carolina.

UPDATE: Iowa blogger John Deeth looked ahead to the 2012 Iowa races in this post last week. He concluded that in order to win three out of the four Congressional districts, Iowa Democrats will need to 1) beat Latham in 2010, and 2) get Boswell to retire in 2012. Click over to read how he reached that conclusion.  

Election Data Services has updated its projections (PDF) for Congressional re-apportionment after the 2010 census, taking into account population changes over the past year. (You can find a summary of EDS’s 2007 findings here.) The news is good in particular for the state of New York.

This time, EDS offers five different models for projecting every state’s population two years hence. The column headers indicate the range of time used to come up with each projection.

As you can see, there isn’t a whole lot of difference between the models. Only four states aren’t uniform across the board: California, Florida, North Carolina, and Oregon. CA & OR apparently have seen a recent uptick in relative growth while FL and NC have experienced the opposite.

The bigger deal, though, are the changes compared to last year’s survey. The previous version of this study used three models rather than five, but all of them showed NY losing two seats. Now, all five EDS projections show NY losing just one seat. This might hardly seem like something to cheer about for a state which had 45 House seats just half a century ago, but I for one am glad.

So where does this seat probably come from? As it happens, it’s a state known for its sizable ex-New Yorker population. Three of the five current models (and all of them the shortest-term) show Florida dropping a seat while only one of three did in 2007. Meanwhile, Minnesota now looks pretty certain to lose a seat while South Carolina appears set to gain one.

Things could of course still change over the next two years. As EDS notes, the economic crisis has already reduced migration rates to their lowest level since the 1940s (when the government first started tracking this information). A worsening recession could cause even more people to stay put, changing these numbers yet again. We’ll just have to wait and see.

This is a preliminary report of the 2008 election showing congressional districts won by a member of a party other than the winner of the presidential vote in the district (i.e. “ticket-splitting” districts that voted Obama-R or McCain-D). I performed my analysis using a combination of factors, most importantly: county by county federal election returns in 2008 compared to prior years, familiarity with the partisan breakdowns of the respective congressional districts (using tools like PVI, 2006 Almanac of American Politics etc) and in some cases, the margin of victory in congressional districts won by the opposing party or where the incumbent held on narrowly. Not all states break down their results by Congressional districts (VA and NE are immediate exceptions), but some states are easier to report absent this metric (e.g. At-Large as well as small states like NH, ME, etc).  

Update: Some posters have noted that I may be wrong about IN-2, in that Obama may have carried it (i.e. McCain may have won 49 seats) while I may have incorrectly excluded MI-11 from Obama’s total (because he dominated Oakland Count in MI). I will go back and check my data and correct ASAP. In the mean time, pls keep firing away. Tks

Update 2: Rechecked the data on Donnelly and have corrected accordingly. Obama did win IN-02, so McCain/D is down by 1. Also, a very sharp poster pointed out Obama won WI-6 by the itsy bitiest margin, which surpised me a lot about that district, so chalk one up for an additional Obama/R +1. Will still look at MI-11 and KS-3.

Update 3: Looks like Mary Jo Kilroy won OH-15, so 111th Congress will be 257 (D) to 178 (R). Basically, the GOP goes back to what it had in Jan 1993. Well…you play the cards you are dealt.

I have been following this metric since the 1980s and even going back to the 1970s, when, in some elections, 40% or more congressional districts were ticket-splitters (e.g. in 1972 and 1984, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, respectively, each, won over 180 Democratic held congressional districts). I am very familiar with the federal voting patterns of many of these districts even after redistricting, but I will not claim that my analysis is 100% correct. I believe I am sure of 90% of them and may be within a few hundred or 1-2k of the remaining 10%. Of these 10%, I included an asterisk (*) after the district number, as noted below, I did not expect would be ticket-splitters but don’t have enough data to say that otherwise (or vice versa)

The more accurate reports for the incoming 111th Congress will be published by folks like Congressional Quarterly or the Almanac of American Politics by Feb or March 2009 at the earliest. However, I did my own analysis and came up with what I believe is close to what the final data will reveal. I don’t believe Virgil Goode can win the recount against Tom Periello in VA-5 nor do I see Carmouche (sadly, since he was by far the better candidate) overtaking Fleming in LA-4 as it was such a low turnout election). Based on this allocation, the Obama-R and McCain-D districts are as follows:

OBAMA/R CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS (32 total)

Gallegly (CA-24); Dreier (CA-26)*; Bono-Mack (CA-45)*; Bilbray (CA-50); Castle (DE-AL); Ros-Lehtinen (FL-18)*; Young (FL-10); Latham (IA-4); Roskam (IL-6); Kirk (IL-10); Biggert (IL-13); Johnson (IL-15)*; Manzullo (IL-16); Schock (IL-18)*; Cao (LA-2); Camp (MI-4); Upton (MI-6); Rogers (MI-8); Paulsen (MN-3); Terry (NE-2); Lobiondo (NJ-2); Smith (NJ-4); Lance (NJ-7); King (NY-3)*; LaTourette (OH-14); Gerlach (PA-6); Dent (PA-15); Forbes (VA-4); Wolf (VA-10); Reichert (WA-8); Ryan(WI-1) and Petri (WI-6).

MCCAIN/D CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS (49 total)

Bright (AL-2); Griffith (AL-5); Berry (AR-1); Snyder (AR-2); Ross (AR-4); Kirkpatrick (AZ-1); Mitchell (AZ-5); Giffords (AZ-8)*; Markey (CO-4); Salazar (CO-3); Boyd (FL-2); Marshall (GA-8); Minnick (ID-1); Ellsworth (IN-8); Hill (IN-9); Moore (KS-3); Chandler (KY-6); Melancon (LA-3); Kratovil (MD-1); Peterson (MN-07); Childers (MS-1); Taylor (MS-4); Skelton (MO-4); Pomeroy (ND-AL); Teague (NM-2); McMahon (NY-13); Massa (NY-29); Etheridge (NC-2); McIntyre (NC-7); Shuler (NC-11); Wilson (OH-6); Boccieri (OH-16); Space (OH-18); Boren (OK-2); Dahlkemper (PA-3); Altmire (PA-4); Carney (PA-10); Murtha (PA-12); Spratt (SC-5); Hersheth-Sandlin (SD-AL); Davis (TN-4); Gordon (TN-6); Tanner (TN-8); Periello (VA-5); Boucher (VA-9); Mollohan (WV-1); Rahall (WV-3); Edwards (TX-17) and Matheson (UT-2).

Obama will have won 208 Democratic held congressional districts and 32 Republican held congressional districts: total of 240; McCain will have won 146 Republican held congressional districts and 49 Democratic-held congressional districts: total of 195.

A few key things to keep in mind:

Historical Patterns: As has been the case since 1968, but with the exception of Bill Clinton in 1996, the GOP Presidential nominee, win or lose, has won more ticket-splitting districts than the Democratic Presidential nominee. Compared to 2004 when John Kerry won 18 Republican held congressional districts while George Bush won 41 Democratic held congressional districts, Obama did better than Kerry by wining 14 more GOP held districts while McCain got 8 more Democratic-held districts. However, this “improvement” is masked by the fact that Democrats retook the House in 2006 with a 31 seat pickup and appear to have increased their margin by 21 seats in 2008. One way of looking at this data is to see which ticket-splitting districts are held by freshman members and/or which ones are held by freshman members succeeding or defeating a politician from the opposing party. On that metric, only 1 Obama-R district, Aaron Schock of IL-18*, is held by a freshmen and no Obama-R district switched from Democrat to Republican control (i.e. they were all GOP retentions); whereas all but 1 of the 12 McCain-D districts won by a freshman was a Democratic retention (Parker Griffith AL-5 succeed retiring Democrat Bud Cramer). This suggests that virtually all ticket-splitting districts held by freshmen are Democratic defenses. This may be a good or bad thing: good in that they may have a better chance to hold in an off-year election when turnout is lower but bad in that absent the weight of Bush or a poorly run GOP presidential campaign, the GOP may be able to focus more intently on partisan affiliation in these districts.

As for how this portends for Obama getting difficult measures through the 111th Congress, note that just because Obama won a district that voted for the GOP doesn’t mean he can expect the Republican to support him more often than not. For example, Bill Clinton won 50 ticket-splitting seats in 1992 yet not one single House Republican (or even Senate Republican for that matter) voted for his Budget Bill in August 1993; a mere 10 months after he won their districts. A president is only as strong as his popularity projects and seeing that there are now fewer Republican moderates in the House, I won’t be surprised if Obama has to pass a lot of difficult legislation on Democratic only votes.

Redistricting and Partisanship Voting: One cannot underestimate how big an impact this has had on voting results in some districts. This may in part explain why wave elections may be less frequent and evenly distributed across the country than before. In TX and CA, many Democratic under-funded challengers to non-stellar GOP house members lost. In the case of CA, redistricting was a major firewall for them even though Obama, in dominating the state, won 4 GOP held seats. In TX it was a combination of redistricting and straight ticket voting which hurt folks like Larry Joe Daugherty and Mike Skelly and almost brought down Chet Edwards. For Democrats to have a better shot at improving their margins, they have to look at redistricting. I happen to think that non-partisan redistricting using what I call the “contiguous-county rule” (see an example by Andrew White at Albany Project http://www.thealbanyproject.co… would help Democrats (and Republicans) in the long run, but that is a debate for another day and another diary. Suffice to say, had Dems faced districts like that in CA, David Dreier, Mary Bono-Mack (I love this hyphenated name), Brian Bilbray, Dan Lundgren and possibly Dana Rohrabacher would have lost while Nick Lampson and Charlie Brown would have won.

Surprises: I’m not surprised that Obama may have won all but one GOP held seat in his home state of Illinois* or that McCain may have won 3 of the 5 Democratic held congressional districts in his home state of Arizona*. However, a few things to note across the regions:

• EAST COAST: Not sure what else is here but suffice to say New England is to the Democrats what the Deep South is to the GOP. Obama’s only weak Dem seats are in NY-13, NY-29 (both of which he lost) and NY-3 (which he won narrowly). In NY-13, I suspect Obama’s narrow loss may have been due to residual racism among conservative Jewish voters in southwestern Brooklyn and unfounded fears that Obama may be a Muslim; NY-29 is the most republican district in NY state so his loss there was not unexpected, but NY-3 was weaker for Obama because he underperformed Kerry and Gore among the white-working class voters in the southern portion of the district where most voters live and with the wealthier and heavily Jewish neighborhoods in the northern portion of the district. In NJ, Obama did win one additional ticket-splitting seat by capturing Leonard Lance’s NJ-7 (which, but for a flawed nominee, was ripe for a Dem takeover). No other real surprises were noted from DE down to MD, though it appears that Obama improved on all prior Democratic performances in MD’s Anne Arundel County, a critical Republican leaning area.

• MID-WEST: Obama over-performed Gore and Kerry in the Mid-West not only because of huge margins in the cities but also did very well in many suburban Republican counties that even Bill Clinton did not carry. The clearest example was Cincinnati, OH; GOP counties around Indianapolis and Dupage County in Illinois. However, Obama does have an Appalachia problem (or the other way round) and for the first time since 1988, the Democratic nominee lost PA-12, Jack Murtha’s district (though Obama won Tim Holden’s PA-17 thanks to his smashing victory in Berks County, which Bill Clinton, Gore and Kerry all lost). Obama suffered heavy losses across KY, Southern OH and IN which accounted for McCain’s ticket-splitting seats in some of these districts (Charlie Wilson OH-6 and Baron Hill in IN-9, to mention a few). Yet even though he lost most of the congressional districts in OH and IN, he still won both states. Obama won Paul Ryan’s southern Wisconsin district (which I guess, makes Ryan one of a handful of very conservative GOP members representing a district won by Obama). Michigan was a case where the GOP effectively collapsed at all levels when McCain pulled out (might have happened regardless) and Obama’s coattails probably helped Mike Schaeur and Gary Peters win longtime GOP districts. Additionally, Obama came very close to winning John Kline’s district in MN-2 and Colin Peterson’s in MN-7 but underperformed Elwynn Tinkelberg who narrowly lost to Michelle Bachmann. Finally, while Missouri was not the bellwether in 2008, it was the narrowest state (Obama lost by less than 4k votes). I think he will carry the state in 2012 but 4 years is a lifetime in politics.

• SOUTH: This is a tough area for Dems regardless of who the nominee is. With the exception of six Democratic held districts (Kissel, Price and Miller in NC; Nye in VA, Cooper in TN and Barrow in GA) Obama lost every majority-white district held by a Southern white democrat from Virginia through the Florida panhandle to Texas. He even lost the ancestrally democratic AR-1, AR-4 and TN-8. Some might chalk this up to racially polarized voting but that is too easy an explanation. I’m sure some voters were fearful of a black President but those folks just don’t vote Democratic in the south anymore. These districts are populated by socially conservative folks and Obama, at least in my view, is probably the most socially liberal Democrat ever nominated. I think he could have minimized his losses had he campaigned more in these places but I suspect many of these Dems preferred he stayed away, which he did and I can understand why. In any event, only Republican dominated TX and GA will see population increases in 2010 but because these are Section 5 states, I doubt their GOP legislatures can squeeze out that many more GOP friendly districts to pass the smell test with Eric Holder’s Justice Department. However, in the case of TN, the GOP has taken over the TN legislature and Democratic Gov. Bredesen is term-limited so Dems must hold the TN Governorship in 2010 or risk adverse gerrymandering.

• WEST: Obama held on to sleeper GOP presidential voting but Democratic held districts like Pete De Fazio in OR (yes, while he is a very liberal his district was a ticket-splitter until narrowly going for Kerry and staying with Obama) and Jerry McNerney’s in CA However, nothing beats Obama’s impressive margins in CO and Southern CA and while he did not win any GOP held seats in the former, his margin in San Diego and Riverside counties helped him tremendously in wining two GOP seats that last voted Democratic eons ago. On the other hand, Walter Minnick of ID-1 is now the most endangered House member and unless he catches a solid break, I’m doubtful he can hold on to his seat in 2010. But if Jim Matheson can survive, there may be hope for Walter, but don’t be surprised if he loses in 2010.  

Future Prospects: The 50 state strategy or what I call “cast your net as wide as reasonably possible” works and I think both parties should compete everywhere as it is good for the American people. However, a lot of these gains and improvements depend on the success of the Obama presidency. More importantly, it depends heavily on Obama defining what a 21st century Democratic office holder should stand for (a la Reagan and Republicans of the 1980s) and showing that those principles will generate lasting results. It also depends on enacting enduring legislation like health care and putting into place long lasting policies that will foster growth of good paying American jobs so people don’t despair and buy into the false choices created by mindless culture wars.  

Two weeks ago we looked at the racial breakdown of population changes from the years 2000 to 2007 in the states that are projected to gain seats after the 2010 census. In many of the states (Arizona, Florida, Nevada) Hispanic growth far outpaced white growth, and this was especially pronounced in Texas. I vowed to return to this when the 2007 estimate, broken down by congressional district or county, was released; well, it hasn’t, but I thought I’d look at the changes from the 2000 census to the 2006 estimate, broken down by county.

The changes are pretty dramatic, and they show that the Hispanic and African-American growth is solidly concentrated in the metropolitan areas (which was something I was concerned about when I last posted on this). For redistricting purposes, it helps us immensely to have this growth concentrated as much as possible, so that even if the Texas GOP controls the redistricting process, they may have no choice but to concede several new majority-minority or ‘influence’ House districts, instead of being able to disperse and dilute those votes.

In the following tables, I’ve broken the large counties down by the metro area they’re part of. There’s also a separate table for ‘rest of the state,’ which is all of the counties that are left over.

Houston area

County	Total gain	White gain	Af.-Am. gain	Asian gain	Hispanic gain
Brazoria	46,131	10,363	10,027	7,274	17,628
Fort Bend	138,735	31,662	32,575	32,832	37,973
Galveston	33,393	15,056	1,049	2,795	12,485
Harris	485,629	-4,677	95,933	35,369	364,560
Montgomery	104,522	64,104	7,022	3,873	29,027

Dallas area

County	Total gain	White gain	Af.-Am. gain	Asian gain	Hispanic gain
Collin	207,176	99,096	26,944	35,834	42,912
Dallas	126,826	-139,664	33,058	15,357	221,832
Denton	151,262	74,506	15,295	14,986	41,487
Tarrant	225,076	31,307	44,605	18,331	129,308

San Antonio and Austin area

County	Total gain	White gain	Af.-Am. gain	Asian gain	Hispanic gain
Bexar	162,661	9,515	9,725	10,310	132,625
Travis	108,726	20,270	4,161	14,309	70,191
Williamson	103,863	56,529	6,916	6,645	28,123

South Texas

County	Total gain	White gain	Af.-Am. gain	Asian gain	Hispanic gain
Cameron	52,490	-3,825	-363	1,755	50,988
Hidalgo	131,171	2,365	812	2,079	123,642
Nueces	7,812	-7,164	-595	564	14,130

Other major counties

County	Total gain	White gain	Af.-Am. gain	Asian gain	Hispanic gain
Bell	19,973	3,156	6,399	1,683	9,307
El Paso	56,988	-11,704	-634	1,048	67,699
Jefferson	-8,137	-13,138	-1,099	-215	6,011
Lubbock	12,234	554	180	749	10,207
McLennan	13,372	1,195	729	1,476	9,205

Rest of state

Total gain	White gain	Af.-Am. gain	Asian gain	Hispanic gain
872,657	270,799	72,870	26,253	511,393

As you can see, there is a huge concentration of Hispanic growth in Harris County (Houston and its closest suburbs), to the extent that even if Republicans solely control the redistricting process they may have to concede the creation of a new Hispanic-majority district in central and south-west Houston (probably accompanied by pushing the current 7th further out into the western suburbs to maintain its strong Republican lean).

There also looks like the possibility of a Hispanic-majority district in Dallas, particularly if it’s a barbell-shaped district that takes in western Dallas and the central part of Fort Worth with a strip of suburbs in between (accompanied by pushing the 24th and 32nd further north into Collin and Denton Counties, fast-growing conservative exurbs to the north of Dallas). If Republicans control redistricting, they might not want to concede this district as well, but the population numbers might pave the way for a Voting Rights Act vote-dilution lawsuit that could force the creation of the district anyway.

Remaining Hispanic growth seems dispersed enough that the remaining two seats (of the four Texas is predicted to gain) are likely to be those long, squiggly Republican-leaning rural seats that the Texas GOP seems to love so much. But even there, the Texas Republicans are going to be fighting a slowly losing battle, building bulwarks against a rising tide.

UPDATE: It was asked in the comments if this data was available broken down by congressional district. As with counties, it isn’t broken down by congressional district for 2007, but it is for 2006, so here are the districts in the two major metro areas:

Houston area

District	2000-04 PVI	Total gain	White gain	Af.-Am. gain	Asian gain	Hispanic gain
TX-02 (north suburbs)	R+12	95,936	5,766	36,233	10,339	44,521
TX-07 (west Houston)	R+16	111,479	10,157	34,502	16,457	53,946
TX-08 (Montgomery Co.)	R+20	112,708	71,110	3,618	4,381	32,795
TX-09 (south Houston)	D+21	46,698	-21,186	5,334	-1,836	72,098
TX-10 (west suburbs)	R+13	197,489	58,452	21,843	22,577	91,974
TX-14 (Brazoria, Galveston Cos.)	R+14	80,660	30,099	5,389	6,249	33,776
TX-18 (north Houston)	D+23	35,176	-22,950	-1,530	-16	61,501
TX-22 (Fort Bend Co.)	R+15	156,439	12,262	44,954	35,114	62,637
TX-29 (east Houston)	D+8	38,363	-34,178	-507	3,034	71,678

Dallas area

District	2000-04 PVI	Total gain	White gain	Af.-Am. gain	Asian gain	Hispanic gain
TX-03 (Collin Co.)	R+17	161,646	39,434	32,662	34,758	57,888
TX-04 (Collin Co.)	R+17	129,236	64,729	14,452	8,631	38,159
TX-05 (eastern suburbs)	R+16	62,297	4,304	11,094	3,112	44,988
TX-06 (southern suburbs)	R+15	100,664	4,912	34,321	5,874	56,831
TX-12 (Ft. Worth)	R+14	98,789	44,514	6,271	5,363	43,648
TX-24 (airport area)	R+15	115,310	-15,695	28,387	23,600	79,641
TX-26 (Denton Co.)	R+12	162,261	73,887	8,893	11,041	63,934
TX-30 (south Dallas)	D+26	31,221	-23,647	-7,824	-364	60,496
TX-32 (north Dallas)	R+11	2,734	-45,354	6,716	-1,596	44,824

This puts into pretty stark relief why TX-07, TX-10, and TX-32 are suddenly on everyone’s maps: demographically, they’re totally different districts than they were four, let alone eight, years ago.

The first reaction when someone sees a list of the states that are poised to gain House seats as a result of the 2010 census is usually “Uh oh, that’s a lot of red states.” Well, that’s true; of the nine states that Election Data Services projects as possibly gaining seats, only one (Oregon) has voted Democratic in the last few presidential elections. This might make the Electoral College more difficult in the short term.

The question is, though, who’s moving to these states (or being born in these states)? Over the long term, the answer is good news, because for the most part, it’s groups who are favorable to the Democratic party. (In particular, Latinos.) As immigrants get citizenship, and as their kids reach voting age, these states are likely to tip in our direction (unless the GOP somehow muzzles its nativist base and becomes all about inclusion). But this might have more immediate implications at the House level, because this may mean more minority-majority and/or ‘influence’ districts. Despite the fact that the new seats will be in red states, they might not be red seats. (Especially if we can control the redistricting process in as many of these states as possible.)

This table shows the raw numbers for population change for each major population group in each of these states between the 2000 census and the 2007 estimate. (White, Af.-Am., Asian = non-Hispanic white alone, non-Hispanic African-American alone, and non-Hispanic Asian alone.)

State	Total gain	White gain	Af.-Am. gain	Asian gain	Hispanic gain
Arizona	1,208,123	469,107	66,077	58,131	582,480
Florida	2,268,865	640,271	475,492	135,175	1,072,845
Georgia	1,358,297	454,928	494,140	92,859	305,616
Nevada	567,125	183,986	54,547	64,482	250,514
North Carolina	1,011,719	473,557	211,927	54,860	259,481
Oregon	326,056	158,006	11,906	34,316	120,826
South Carolina	395,697	225,266	74,125	16,082	73,844
Texas	3,052,560	510,305	365,609	233,307	1,930,733
Utah	412,161	273,041	9,201	14,377	104,955

In Arizona, Florida, and Nevada, Hispanic growth outpaced white growth, and in Georgia, African-American growth outpaced white growth. Most glaring of all is Texas, where Hispanic growth has outpaced white growth by a factor of four. (I’ll follow up on this when they release the 2007 estimate broken down by Congressional district, which should happen soon. This can help us look closer at, say, Texas, and identify where exactly all this new growth is happening.)

The GOP is facing a deep hole. The McCain camp is in disarray, Mitch McConnell has admitted that there’s no way for the GOP to pick up seats in the Senate, and in the House… well… the fact that Tom Cole is up to Deathwatch No. 9 says it all.

With the Republicans finally realizing that rebuilding their permanent majority is going to be a long, multi-step process, it seems like they’re engaged in some soul-searching about where to start the demolition work. And today’s thought-bubble isn’t about rebranding their line of dog food, let alone deciding not to try to sell poisoned dog food in the first place. It’s about doing what the Republicans do best: manipulating the electoral process, in this case via gerrymandering. This means seizing control of the statehouses in 2010, which is something that we’ve already talked about at length at Swing State Project.

Sam Stein at HuffPo has the dirt.

“The 2010 elections are almost as important or equally important as the elections this year. After redistricting in 2011, the governors are going to have a huge influence in determining the political makeup of this country,” said Chris Schrimpf, a spokesman for the Republican Governors Association. “We could feasibly see 25 to 30 congressional seats swing as the result of redistricting. And the state legislatures and governor could determine that swing. Can the National Republican Congressional Committee make a statement like that with a straight face? It would be harder for them.”

Now it may not be surprising to see the spokesperson for the Republican Governors Association doing the over-selling of the importance of the role of governors in the redistricting process; after all, the RGA has funds to raise, and they need a fresh new angle to do so in an environment where GOP donors are increasingly sitting on their wallets while looking for a sign of a pulse.

But he’s got a point: in many of the states where new House seats will be added or lost via the 2010 census, there’s also a 2010 governor’s race… California, Texas, Florida, Arizona, Georgia, Nevada among the gainers, and Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania among the losers. (Plus one likely lost seat in a state with its gubernatorial race this year: Missouri, where luckily we’re on track to pick up the governor’s seat.)

Now, of course, the governor doesn’t actually draw the lines (that’s generally the legislature’s job, with disputes usually winding up in the courts rather than on the governor’s desk). But via veto power in some states, or redistricting commission appointment in other states, the governor has a huge role in the process.

And while it’s easy to be sanguine about many of these 2010 governor’s races (is there any Republican in California who can retain the governor’s seat post-Arnie?), don’t underestimate the Republicans’ ability to fight back with their favorite methods when backed against the wall:

“In the worst case scenario, 2010 would be the first, most important evidence that there is life in the Republican Party,” said Craig Shirley, a longtime Republican strategist. “The elections that year will be vitally important because it will put on stage the worst creative skills of ever politician… Members of Congress aren’t bright about handling Social Security, Medicare and the budget but they are astonishing bright at self-preservation… and drawing favorable [political] districts.”

A new study by Ernest Reock, Jr. of Rutgers University concludes that New Jersey will retain all 13 of its congressional districts after the 2010 census, despite the Garden State’s loss of 72,500 residents in 2006.  However, districts in South and Central Jersey are set to shrink.

That doesn’t quite jibe with Polidata’s projection which pegged New Jersey as losing a seat in the next re-apportionment.  Election Data Services also projects NJ to lose a district.

New Jersey currently has a 7 Dem, 6 GOP congressional delegation, but that could easily be pushed into a 9D-4R split with the retirements of Reps. Ferguson and Saxton.

Texas is on track to pick up four House seats after the next round of Congressional re-apportionment. Matt Glazer explains what this means:

In any case, these 4 seats could mean big gains for us if Democrats have a say in how the new map is drawn.

It is easy to see a situation where Republicans gerrymander a map and solidify some Democratic seats but at the same time make current seats either more competitive or flip[] them completely.  This is the exactly what Tom DeLay, Tom Craddick, and David Dewhurst did in 2003 with their unconstitutional map.

There is one way to have a say in the process and prevent another purely partisan map.  A constitutional amendment in 1951 established the redistricting process and established the Legislative Redistricting Board (LRB).  The board is composed of the lieutenant governor, speaker of the house, attorney general, comptroller, and land commissioner.  Let’s go through this really quickly; David Dewhurst, Tom Craddick, Greg Abbott, Susan Combs, and Jerry Patterson will determine the fate of these 4 new seats along with the 32.

All five of these folks are Republicans. Without a voice at the table, we’ll surely get railroaded once more. But there is hope:

We currently have 71 Democrats in the state house.  If we can win back the House this cycle (pick up 5 more seats) we will have taken 1 of the 5 seats on the redistricting board.

Indeed, the TX House situation is already vastly improved from just a few years ago – it was 88-62 in the GOP’s favor after 2002. What’s more, the momentum is ours – we just won a special election last month in heavily Republican territory. Taking the House back this cycle would undoubtedly be very energizing. Should we fall just short, though, we’ll still have a second bite in 2010. That’s also when Texas will have statewide elections once more, which will give us an opportunity to contest some of the other offices which get a seat on the redistricting commission.

Nonetheless, while several other key legislatures (such as the NY Senate) are also on the verge of changing hands in our favor, I think Texas House may be the number one body to keep our eyes on this year.

UPDATE: Read this important comment from DCal, which clarifies the LRB’s role in redistricting. Bottom line: It’s not involved in federal map-drawing – just state. Still, federal redistricting plans must be approved by the legislature, which means the TX House will have a say along with the Senate and Governor. So taking it back is probably even more crucial than I originally understood it to be.

A company called Election Data Services has published a new study (PDF) of Congressional re-apportionment, based on newly-released Census data. EDS used three different models to project likely re-apportionment figures, which they explain as follows:

First, there is a “long-term” trend model that reflects the overall change that has occurred so far this decade; that is from 2000 to 2007, and projects it to 2010. Second, a “midterm” trend model uses the population change that has occurred from 2005 to 2007. Finally, a “short-term” trend model incorporates the change that has occurred in just the past year, from 2006 to 2007, and carries that rate of change forward to 2010.

The results:

State	Long-Term	Mid-Term	Short-Term
Arizona	2	2	2
California	0	-1	0
Florida	2	2	1
Georgia	1	1	1
Illinois	-1	-1	-1
Iowa	-1	-1	-1
Louisiana	-1	-1	-1
Massachusetts	-1	-1	-1
Michigan	-1	-1	-1
Minnesota	0	-1	-1
Missouri	-1	-1	-1
Nevada	1	1	1
New Jersey	-1	-1	-1
New York	-2	-2	-2
North Carolina	0	1	1
Ohio	-2	-2	-2
Oregon	1	1	1
Pennsylvania	-1	-1	-1
South Carolina	0	1	1
Texas	4	4	4
Utah	1	1	1

When it comes to matters of re-apportionment and re-districting, I know that Swing State readers don’t need any commentary from me about what this all might mean. So have at it!