Tag: Redistricting

We know money and several other factors have major effects on House races.  But after we account for these major factors, how much advantage does incumbency give a candidate?  A gerrymandered district?  Getting caught in a scandal?

Yesterday I showed some regressions for Republican performance in House races for the years 2002, 2004, and 2006 that take account of incumbent party, fundraising ratio, and district partisan makeup.

Using these, we can tell how well we expect a Republican to do given certain conditions.  However, the regressions are not perfect – the data don’t fall along the lines plotted.  There’s plenty of room for other factors to be involved.  We can use the differences between what we expect and what actually happened – the residuals – to tease out the effects of additional conditions.  Below, a pack of factors, from the most important – money, party, district – to the less important ones – incumbency, gerrymandering, longevity – to the more interesting ones – scandal and failure.

Cross posted at Open Left and Daily Kos

How do various factors affect a House candidate’s percentage of vote in the election?  All the following numbers relate to average effects.  Individual results may vary.

The first four are the variables used to predict the expected performance:

1.   High D/R Fundraising Ratio:  +15 points (about 5 points for every factor of 3 increase)

On average, challengers running for a seat currently held by the opposite party will gain 15 points if they outraise their opponent by a factor of three compared to if they raise only one tenth of their opponent’s money, if all other factors are equal.  Note that the D/R Fundraising Ratio is fairly closely correlated to absolute amount of money raised by the challenger, so we can also say that challengers will greatly improve their performance if they raise a great deal of money, regardless of the incumbent’s fundraising.

2.  Running as incumbent party:  +10 points

Candidates running for a seat currently held by their own party (incumbents or open seat candidates) will gain, on average, 10 points compared to if they were running for a seat currently held by the opposite party, if all other factors (including D/R Fundraising Ratio) are the same.

3.  Running in a more favorable district:  +10 points (1 point for every 3 point change in Bush’s vote in the district)

Democrats running in the most liberal Republican-held districts (Bush vote 40-45%) will gain 10 points compared to Democrats running in the most conservative Republican-held districts (Bush vote 65-75%), if all other factors (including D/R Fundraising Ratio) are the same.  Democrats running in the moderately liberal Democratic-held districts (Bush vote 30-35%) will gain about 10 points compared to those running in the most conservative Democratic-held districts (Bush vote 60-65%).  

4.  Political climate:  +6 points

On average, Democratic challengers did 6 points better against Republican incumbents in 2006 compared to 2002 (4 points better than 2004) when accounting for D/R Fundraising Ratio and district partisan makeup.  Republican challengers did 4 points worse in 2006 compared to 2002.  In other words, Republican money was worth less in 2006 than in 2004 or 2002.  They had to raise more relative to their Democratic opponent to get the same result.

The following comparisons are made by comparing actual performance to calculated performance, accounting for the four factors above: D/R Fundraising Ratio, district composition, incumbent party, and political climate.  The numbers given are average residuals of the regressions.  

5.  Raising more than $2 million as a challenger: +3 points

Remember, this is after accounting for D/R Fundraising Ratio.  If both candidates raise the same amount of money, dollar-for-dollar, then the more money a challenger raises, the better the challenger does.  A challenger who raises more than $2 million (and whose opponent also raises more than $2 million) increases performance by about 3 points compared to one who only raises $100,000 (and whose opponent also raises only $100,000).  In other words, high-spending races with fundraising parity are generally to the advantage of the challenger.  (This leads to the strange corollary that the more an incumbent raises given fundraising parity, the worse the incumbent does!) Let me note again, when we do not control for D/R Fundraising Ratio, a challenger who raises a large amount of money will do far, far better than one who raises little money.

6.  Running as an incumbent:  + 2 points

The inherent incumbent advantage after accounting for money, party, district, and climate is not large.  This doesn’t mean running against an incumbent is just as easy as running for an open seat.   However, the incumbency advantage may reside mainly in the ability to scare off opponents and scare off opponents’ donors and supporters.  If a challenger can manage to raise as much money as an incumbent, then the challenger has almost as good a shot as if the challenger were running for an open seat.  However, 2 points is still an important amount.

7.  Running against a first-termer: +1 point

First term incumbents are not much more inherently vulnerable than other incumbents, if at all.  Even those who are in a seat that switched parties.  This doesn’t mean first-termers are safe, because they are more likely to attract high quality opponents with strong fundraising.  When they do, however, they perform only slightly worse than a long-time incumbent under the same circumstances, on average.

8.  Running against a self-funded candidate:  +1 point

On average, running against a self-funded candidate might give a slight advantage.  However, out of the 18 cases I found over the past three cycles, four showed the self-funded candidate underperforming by a massive 8-10 points.  There may be a risk of completely blowing it by self-funding.

9.  Running against a Republican incumbent in a Republican-gerrymandered district: +0 points

Looking at some states that were recently redistricted by Republicans in a partisan manner – FL, PA, MI, OH, VA, TX – there has been no benefit in performance for the Republicans.  There may have been a slight benefit the first cycle after redistricting, followed by a slight underperformance later.  The gerrymandering may have scared off opponents and their donors, however, which would certainly have been an overall benefit for the Republicans.

The following comparisons are specific to a just a few races, so we run into the problem of the statistics of small numbers, and can’t really say what the average effect is.  Also, in many of these races, the incumbent was tangled in more than one variety of misdeed.

10.  Third party candidates:  0 to -15 points

In 2006 there were 16 House races where third party candidates garnered more than 4.5 percent of the vote.  In 11 of these races the Republican underperformed by 4 or more points; in 6 races (2 in MN) the Democratic candidate underperformed by 4 or more points.

11.  The Abramoff scandals:  -1 to -12 points  

Republicans in districts with links to the Abramoff scandal all underperformed: TX-22 (-1),  FL-24 (-3), CA-4 (-4), AK-AL (-6), CA-11 (-7), and OH-18 (-12).

12.  Alleged domestic abuse:  -5 to -6 points

PA-10 (-6), NY-20 (-5):  Not the good kind of press.  

13.  Threatenting your opponent:  -5 points

WY-AL (-5), where Barbara Cubin told an opponent she’d slap him in the face if he weren’t in a wheelchair.  Cubin wasn’t well liked anyway though.

14.  The Delay scandal:  +5 to -6 points

TX-22 (-1), AZ-1 (-2), NC-8 (-6), PA-6 (+5).  Districts related to the Delay scandal don’t seem to have been affected too much, although the Delay scandal certainly affected the national climate.

15.  The Foley scandal:  +1 to -3 points

IL-14 (-2), IL-19 (+1), FL-16 (0), NY-26 (-3).  Again, no obvious severe penalty for those most closely related to the scandal or Foley’s replacement on the ballot, but the scandal contributed to the national political climate.

Overall, these numbers seem to validate the strategy of supporting strong candidates in every district, against every incumbent.  While it is certainly much more difficult for Democratic challengers to win against an incumbent in a conservative district, it is not impossible.  It appears that with enough money, such races will often be competitive or near competitive in the current political climate.  Another way to put it is that the competitive races in conservative districts in 2006 -WY-AL for example- were not simply flukes or outliers, but rather part of a larger pattern that is likely to be repeated in 2008.  

(From the diaries – promoted by James L.)

I’ll start by showing the Permanent Republican Majority in its current form in the House – the distribution of seats according to the percent of the vote Bush had in 2000 in each district.  I’ve added a smooth curve through the data:

Click to enlarge.

Here’s the distribution of Democratic House seats:

Click to enlarge.

The Blue Wave of the Democrats is clearly eroding that red cliff.  And there’s a good 60 or so Republicans – some in oh-so-carefully gerrymandered districts – teetering right on the edge.  it looks like a couple dozen have fallen in. 

Below, the evolution of the House from 1993 to today, and a bit about redistricting. 

Cross posted at Open Left and Daily Kos.

Here’s both parties together, represented just by the curves:

Click to enlarge.

Here’s a little animation showing the distribution of House seats from 1993 to now:

Click to animate.

Here’s each year separately: 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005.

There is a problem with these charts, and that is the ideological composition of the districts is not static.  Populations change.  From 1990-2000, though, only 10% of counties had a change in population of more than 30%, so we’re probably pretty safe extending the use of 2000 data seven years forward and back.  As far as where people fall on the political spectrum, let’s assume for now that nobody changes their minds about their values.  Furthermore, we’ll use the 2000 vote as a proxy for the conservative/liberal spectrum; in this case, we have good numbers from the 2000 exit polls showing 80% of liberals voted for Gore and 81% of conservatives voted for Bush.

The most striking thing is to watch the evolution of the Republican party as it narrows to a right-wing faction.  In 1993, the country had a center/right party (Republicans) and a center/left/urban party (Democrats).  Democrats and Republicans were both ‘big tent’ parties, for better or for worse (Democrats had a few bugs in the tent lining).  In 1994, the Republicans made gains deep into moderate territory.  From 1996 to 2004, the parties generally poached seats held by the other party in their own turf, followed by Democrats consolidating seats below 50% and pushing into Republican territory in 2006.  Now, Democrats have a slightly smaller tent with some dogs tied to the outside, but Republicans only have a lean-to, albeit a tall lean-to.  Democrats still manage to elect Representatives from nearly the entire spectrum of districts in the country, which certainly helps explain why it is so difficult for Democrats to govern.  Moderate Republicans, on the other hand, are nearly extinct.  The overlap between the two parties has grown smaller as well over the years, which is probably linked to the increase in partisanship.

There is quite a change in 2002 as a result of redistricting.  Let’s look at the total distribution of seats, Republican and Democrat, before and after redistricting:

Click to enlarge.

Wow!  What an ? interesting change.  Prior to the 2000 census redistricting, we see a distribution that is common for all sorts of measurements – similar to the well-known bell curve, but skewed to one side – plus a little bump at the left for urban districts.  There are no districts that come anywhere near to being as far to the right as the urban core districts are to the left.  Even if you squeeze all the most conservative counties in the country into a few districts, you could only create two or three districts with an 80-90% level of support for Bush in 2000.  If we judge by the range of districts, then, the nation’s middle is at 45% – squarely captured by Democrats.  We represent moderation. 

Then came the redistricting.  The strategy of Republicans is clear:  push as many seats as possible just over the 50% line.  Now we have a strange distribution that looks like a camel that was swallowed by a snake.  This should have worked perfectly to ensure a Permanent Republican Majority.  Right?

Clearly not.  From the animation above, we see the Blue Wave washing right over the 50% line and sweeping seats into the sea.  The question is, was this a one-time event, or a first step?  Current conditions indicate the wave is still there today.  Next year – who knows?

Once Republicans were safely ensconced in their supposedly safe districts, did the party calculate that it could shift even further to the right without penalty?  Did it figure it could ditch the party moderates and pick up the remaining districts that voted for Bush?  Based on the hubris of Karl “The Math” Rove, it very may well have.  And that may have been part of its undoing. 

The battle for redistricting and the reapportionment of House seats has been a hot topic at the Swing State Project for a while. A few days ago, we took a look at the fastest and slowest-growing House districts in the nation. It might be time to follow that up with Polidata’s projections (based on ’06 estimates) for the states that stand to gain and lose House seats after the 2010 Census:

State	Delegation	Change
Arizona	4R, 4D	+2
Florida	16R, 9D	+2
Georgia	7R, 6D	+1
Illinois	10D, 9R	-1
Iowa	3D, 2R	-1
Louisiana	5R, 2D	-1
Massachusetts	10D	-1
Michigan	9R, 6D	-1
Minnesota	5D, 3R	-1
Missouri	5R, 4D	-1
Nevada	2R, 1D	+1
New Jersey	7D, 6R	-1
New York	23D, 6R	-2
Ohio	11R, 7D	-2
Oregon	4D, 1R	+1
Pennsylvania	11D, 8R	-1
Texas	19R, 13D	+4
Utah	2R, 1D	+1
Washington	6D, 3R	+1

To recap, while many of the states that stand to lose seats are of a bluish hue, the net effect of these changes will be decided mostly by the Democrats’ strength at the redistricting table. The redistricting process varies from state to state, but the DLCC has an extremely handy chart here detailing how it’s done in all 50 states, along with the balance of power in each state legislature. (Note: this chart is not updated to reflect the Democratic gain of the Mississippi and Virginia state senates.)

With some artful redistricting, Illinois should be able to rid itself of a few GOP House incumbents, for instance. Michigan’s delegation is also out of whack, but the Dems will need to reclaim the state senate in order to get a total edge in the process. Republicans have already done some amazingly twisted things with the Texas map this decade, so it’ll be hard to see how they could squeeze four more pick-ups out of their new bounty. I have to imagine that one or possibly two of those new seats will be Latino-dominated.

Any other thoughts from our crack team of redistricting fans in the comments?

From the latest edition of the Almanac of American Politics comes a list of the fastest and slowest-growing Congressional districts in the nation. Keep the following districts and states in mind as we lead up to another round of redistricting in a few years.

Fastest and Slowest-Growing Congressional Districts, 2000-2005

District	Incumbent	Party	PVI	Growth	District	Incumbent	Party	PVI	Growth
AZ-06	Flake	R	R+12.2	36%	OH-11	Tubbs-Jones	D	D+33.1	-9%
AZ-02	Franks	R	R+8.7	34%	MI-13	Kilpatrick	D	D+32.2	-8%
NV-03	Porter	R	D+1.0	32%	IL-09	Schakowsky	D	D+19.7	-8%
FL-05	Brown-Waite	R	R+5.1	27%	PA-14	Doyle	D	D+21.9	-7%
CA-44	Calvert	R	R+6.0	24%	PA-02	Fattah	D	D+39.2	-7%
TX-10	McCaul	R	R+13.0	23%	NY-28	Slaughter	D	D+14.6	-7%
TX-22	Lampson	D	R+14.5	23%	MI-14	Conyers	D	D+33.4	-7%
TX-03	Johnson	R	R+17.1	22%	IL-05	Emanuel	D	D+17.8	-5%
CA-45	Bono	R	R+3.2	22%	CA-08	Pelosi	D	D+36.1	-5%
FL-14	Mack	R	R+10.5	22%	IN-07	Carson	D	D+8.7	-5%
VA-10	Wolf	R	R+5.3	21%	MA-08	Capuano	D	D+33.0	-5%
FL-25	M. Diaz-Balart	R	R+4.4	21%	OH-01	Chabot	R	R+0.5	-5%
CA-11	McNerney	D	R+3.0	20%	CA-53	S. Davis	D	D+12.5	-4%
NC-09	Myrick	R	R+12.2	20%	NY-12	Velazquez	D	D+33.9	-4%
FL-07	Mica	R	R+4.1	20%	IL-07	D. Davis	D	D+34.9	-4%
CA-41	Lewis	R	R+9.0	19%	SC-06	Clyburn	D	D+11.2	-4%
CO-06	Tancredo	R	R+10.0	18%	MO-01	Clay	D	D+25.6	-4%
IL-14	Hastert	R	R+4.8	18%	MN-05	Ellison	D	D+21.5	-4%
CA-25	McKeon	R	R+7.1	18%	AL-07	A. Davis	D	D+16.9	-4%
CA-03	Lungren	R	R+6.7	18%	DC-AL	Holmes-Norton	D	D+40	-4%

(Source: House Race Hotline)

I left a district blank here because it seems that the Hotline made a transcription error — they list CA-12 as one of the slowest-growing CDs, but the incumbent’s name is displayed as Nydia Velazquez (D). The only problem: Nydia represents a district on the other coast, NY-12. Tom Lantos (D), represents CA-12. So I’m not sure which district they meant to place in that slot. UPDATE (David): The House Race Hotline informs us that the correct district is NY-12.

A simplistic analysis of this chart might walk away with the impression that GOP strength is expanding, while Dem-heavy populations in urban districts are shrinking. But the effect of these changes will be determined by whoever is redrawing the district lines. Some of these burgeoning red districts could be made more geographically condensed.

It might also be worth noting that several of the fast-growing red districts bucked the national trend gave a greater share of their vote to John Kerry in 2004 than they did to Al Gore in 2000 (adjusted for ’02 redistricting): TX-03, TX-10, TX-22, VA-10, CO-06, and IL-14.

SSP has quite a few readers with a great deal of knowledge about the redistricting process. I wouldn’t mind hearing your thoughts on this data.

National and local bloggers as well as a local political scientist, who is, in fact, a Republican operative, have already discussed the ineluctable loss of a US Congressional seat in Louisiana, and they have noted how the GOP is ready to pounce on a state Democratic Party made vulnerable by a national and political disaster.  While I will not express my disgust with the Republicans’ vacuous cynicism and the egregious opportunism of some members of the Louisiana GOP, I will focus on one remedy to this increasingly dire situation: the 2007 elections for every seat in the Louisiana Legislature.

The Louisiana House of Representatives is comprised of 105 seats.  The Democrats presently enjoy a strong majority of 60 seats in the House, while the Republicans and an Independent occupy 41 seats and one seat respectively.  3 seats are currently vacant.  This majority, however, is threatened by many factors, one of which are the term limits that have recently been imposed on all Louisiana legislators: 30 Democrats and 16 Republicans must abandon their seats in 2007.  Compounding the dilemma Louisiana Democrats will face when trying to retain all these open seats is the organization the Republican Party has already consolidated in preparation for the 2007 elections.  Republicans are “on the march in Louisiana,” crows John Maginnis, another Republican operative who poses as an objective news analyst and as a disinterested political commentator for the New Orleans Times-Picayune and other Louisiana newspapers.  While his confidence is somewhat founded, it is also premature, especially as the field for the 2007 legislative races has not yet assumed a discernable shape. 

But Maginnis and the people for whom he serves as a paid pamphleteer do have reason to be optimistic.  For out of the 60 Louisiana Democrats presently in the House, only 30 are eligible for reelection.  And even worse, four of the thirty Democratic incumbents will most probably have to stave off spirited Republican challenges for thier seats in 2007. 

Complicating this already grim predicament are the 30 open seats Democrats must try to retain, 16 of which could very well fall to the Republicans if they are not amply defended.  While two of the sixteen Republican open seats can be claimed by strong Democratic challengers, Republicans can win the House if they wage a coordinated campaign across the state.  Indeed, Democrats are only guaranteed 40 seats in the 2007 election, 13 short of the 53 needed to claim the majority of their chamber.  And even if they win all three of the vacant seats up for election on 24 FEB 2007, they will still be 10 seats short after the November 2007 runoffs.  If Louisiana Democrats and the online activists who should help them do not plan for the imminent Republican onslaught as John Maginnis describes it in advance, their ability to redraw the lines of US House seats to the advantage of Democratic incumbents after the 2010 census will be compromised.

Seats located in parishes that have voted for Democrats running for federal office statewide in 1996, 2000, 2002 and 2004 with incumbents unencumbered by term limits who have received little to no opposition in the last two election cycles are seats I consider guaranteed for the Democratic Party.  I also consider seats where Republicans have not competed in open seat primaries safe for the Democrats.  The maps located on this webpage will help you determine the exact location of these districts.  Seat numbers are printed in the order of Democratic strength, the weakest of which is typed last.

SAFE INCUMBENT DEMOCRATIC SEATS – LOUISIANA HOUSE

61 – Michael L. Jackson (D), East Baton Rouge Parish, elected 1999

101 – Cedric L. Richmond (D), Orleans Parish, elected 1999

102 – Jeffrey “Jeff” J. Arnold (D), Orleans, elected 2002

63 – Avon R. Honey (D), East Baton Rouge Parish, elected 2002

100 – Austin J. Badon, Jr. (D), Orleans Parish, elected 2003

97 – Jean-Paul L. Morrell (D), Orleans Parish, elected 2006

87 – Terrell L. Harris (D), Jefferson Parish, elected 2005

18 – Donald J. Cazayoux, Jr. (D), Pointe Coupee, West Baton Rouge and West Feliciana Parishes, elected 1999

21 – John F. “Andy” Anders (D), Concordia, East Carroll, Madison and Tensas Parishes, elected 2006

51 – Carla Blanchard Dartez (D), Assumption, St. Mary and Terrebonne Parishes, elected 1999

53 – Damon J. Baldone (D), Lafourche and Terrebonne Parishes, elected 2001

75 – Harold L. Ritchie (D), St. Tammany and Washington Parishes, elected 2003

10 – Jean M. Doerge (D), Webster Parish, elected 1998

60 – Karen Gaudet St. Germain (D), Ascension, Assumption, Iberville and West Baton Rouge Parishes, elected 2003

99 – Charmaine L. Marchand (D), Orleans Parish, elected 2003

96 – Juan A. LaFonta (D), Orleans Parish, elected 2005

91 – Jalila Jefferson-Bullock (D), Orleans Parish, elected 2003

29 – Regina Ashford Barrow (D), East Baton Rouge and West Baton Rouge Parishes, elected 2005

93 – Karen R. Carter (D), Orleans Parish, elected 1999

13 – James R. “Jim” Fannin (D), Bienville, Jackson, Ouachita and Winn Parishes, elected 2003

11 – Richard “Rick” Gallot, Jr. (D), Bienville, Lincoln and Claiborne Parishes, elected 2000

23 – T. Taylor Townsend (D), Natchitoches and Winn Parishes, elected 1999

38 – Kenneth Eric LaFleur (D), Evangeline and St. Landry Parishes, elected 1999

2 – Roy A. Burrell (D), Bossier and Caddo Parishes, elected 2003

28 – Monica H. Walker (D), Avoyelles Parish, elected 2003

56 – Gary L. Smith, Jr. (D), St. Charles and St. John the Baptist Parishes, elected 1999

26 seats

4 Democratic and 9 Republican incumbents presently occupy seats representing competitive districts.  These incumbents have received strong competition from an opposing party in an open primary, or they were forced to engage in very competitive runoffs against a member of the opposing party during the last two election cycles.  Some Republican incumbents, especially Nita Hutter and Ernest Wooton, are considered vulnerable as a result of demographic shifts in their districts in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.  Because Democrats may lose many of their open seats, it is to their advantage to wage vigorous challenges against Republicans who hold competitive seats in 2007, especially those Republicans who represent parishes with Democratic leanings.  Seat numbers are presented in order of Democratic strength, the weakest seat for Democrats typed last.  The lone Independent seat in the Louisiana House of Representatives is a competitive seat vulnerable to a Republican takeover.  Unfortunately, we did not run a candidate in the open primary for this seat during the 2004 special election.

COMPETITIVE INCUMBENT SEATS – LOUISIANA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

98 – Cheryl Artise Gray (D), Orleans Parish, elected 2003

27 – Rick L. Farrar (D), Rapides Parish, elected 1991 and 1999

22 – Billy R. Chandler (D), Grant, LaSalle, Rapides and Winn Parishes, elected 2006

41 – Mickey James Guillory (D), Acadia, Evangeline and St. Landry Parishes, elected 2003

105 – Ernest D. Wooton (R), Jefferson, Plaquemines and St. Charles Parishes, elected 1999, switched from D to R in 2006

54 – Loulan J. Pitre, Jr. (R), Jefferson and Lafourche Parishes, elected 1999

104 – Nita Hutter (R),  St. Bernard Parish, elected 2000

62 – Thomas H. “Tom” McVea (R), East Baton Rouge, Tangipahoa, West Feliciana, East Feliciana, Livingston and St. Helena Parishes, elected 2000

35 – Brett Frank Geymann (R), Calcasieu and Beauregard Parishes, elected 2003

88 – M. J. “Mert” Smiley, Jr. (R), Ascension and Livingston Parishes, elected 2003

71 – Dale M. Erdey (R), Livingston Parish, elected 1999

59 – Eddie J. Lambert (R), Ascension Parish, elected 2003

52 – Gordon E. Dove, Sr. (R), Lafourche and Terrebonne Parishes, elected 2003

31 – Donald “Mark” Don Trahan (R), Lafayette and Vermilion Parishes, elected 2003

45 – Joel C. Robideaux (I), Lafayette Parish, elected 2004

15 seats

15 incumbent Republicans who are unencumbered with lerm limits are considered safe in 2007, but every single one of these seats must be challenged.  The most Republican district is typed last. 

SAFE INCUMBENT REPUBLICAN SEATS – LOUISIANA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

16 – Kay Kellogg Katz (R), Ouachita Parish, elected 1999

43 – Ernest J. Alexander (R), Lafayette Parish, elected 1999

12 – Hollis Dawns (R), Lincoln and Union Parishes, elected 2003

36 – E. “Chuck” Kleckley (R), Calcasieu Parish, elected 2005

66 – Hunter V. Greene (R), East Baton Rouge Parish, elected 2005

69 – Gary J. Beard (R), East Baton Rouge Parish, elected 2001

81 – John LaBruzzo (R), Jefferson Parish, elected 2003

6 – Mike Powell (R), Bossier and Caddo Parishes, elected 2003

64 – Mack A. “Bodi” White, Jr. (R), East Baton Rouge and Livingston Parishes, elected 2003

89 – Timothy G. “Tim” Burns (R), St. Tammany Parish, elected 2003

86 – Jim Tucker (R), Jefferson and Orleans Parishes, elected 2001

8 – Jane H. Smith (R), Bossier Parish, elected 1999

76 – A. G. Crowe (R), St. Tammany Parish, elected 1999

74 – Michael G. Strain (R), St. Tammany Parish, Tangipahoa and Washington Parishes, elected 1999

5 – Wayne Wadell (R), Caddo Parrish, elected 1997

15 seats

30 Democrats and 16 Republicans must retire in 2008, leaving 46 open seats behind them.  14 seats are safe for Democrats, while 12 are safe for Republicans.  Of the 20 open seats I consider competitive, 16 are presently held by Democrats.  The weakest of these safe Democratic seats is typed last.

SAFE DEMOCRATIC OPEN SEATS – LOUISIANA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

95(Heaton, D) – Orleans Parish

26(Curtis, D) – Rapides Parish

44(Pierre, D) – Lafayette Parish

17(Hunter, D) – Ouachita Parish

57(Faucheux, D) – St. James and St. John the Baptist Parishes

46(Durand, D) – St. Martin Parish

47(Frith, D) – Cameron and Vermilion Parishes

55(Triche, D) – Lafourche Parish

34(Guillory, D) – Calcasieu Parish

67(Dorsey, D) – East Baton Rouge Parish

39(Baudoin, D) – Lafayette, St. Landry and St. Martin Parishes

20(Kenney, D) – Caldwell, Catahoula, Franklin and Tensas Parishes

3(Baylor, D) – Caddo Parish

58(Quezaire, D) – Ascension, Assumption, Iberville, St. James and St. John Parishes

14 seats

Louisiana Democrats have the tall order of defending 16 of the following 20 competitive open seats.  One Republican seat, however, can be won by a Democrat.  Emile “Peppi” Bruneau, an Orleans Parish Republican who fashions himself as a “fiscal conversative,” has occupied the 94th seat since 1974.  According to Louisiana Republican insiders, Bruneau may retire within the next month, opening the seat for a special election to be held on 31 March, the day of the election for New Orleans’s municipal judges.  Although Bruneau will endeavor to hand this seat to his son with lobbyist money from Baton Rouge, New Orleans Democrats can derail this effort and win this seat, especially as Republican voters from Lakeview have yet to return and rebuild.  Shelley Stephenson Midura, whose City Council district is similar in shape to that of Bruneau’s House district, won her seat as a Democrat during the New Orleans municipal elections last year.  If Orleans Parish Democrats can find a Democrat from Lakeview to run an aggressive grassroots campaign similar to that of Midura, we can win this seat and add to our majority.  Does former New Orleans mayoral candidate Virginia Boulet want a Louisiana House seat?  The least likely seat to be one by a Democrat is typed last.

COMPETITIVE OPEN SEATS – LOUISIANA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

83(Alario, D) – Jefferson Parish

84(Damico, D) – Jefferson Parish

94(Bruneau, R) – Orleans Parish (may retire in time for 31March election)

19(Thompson, D) – East Carroll, Madison, Morehouse, Ouachita, Richland and West Carroll Parishes

72(Carter, D) – East Feliciana, Tangipahoa, West Feliciana and St. Helena Parishes

103(Odinet, D) – Orleans and St. Bernard Parishes

42(Pinac, D) – Acadia and Lafayette Parishes

32(Hill, D) – Allen, Beauregard and Vernon Parishes

24(Salter, D) – DeSoto, Red River, Sabine and Vernon Parishes

70(Crane, R) – East Baton Rouge Parish

14(McDonald, D) – East Caroll, Morehouse, Ouachita, West Carroll

49(Hebert, D) – Iberia and Vermilion Parishes

25(DeWitt, D) – Rapides and Vernon Parishes

50(Smith, D) – Iberia, St. Martin and St. Mary Parishes

65(Kennard, R) – East Baton Rouge Parish

92(Ansardi, D) – Jefferson Parish

48(Romero, D) – Iberia Parish

7(Bruce, D) – Caddo and DeSoto Parishes

30(Smith, D) – Beauregard and Vernon Parishes

73(Powell, R) – Tangipahoa Parish

20 seats

All of the following safe Republican open seats must be challenged.  The weakest Democratic opportunity is typed last.

SAFE REPUBLICAN OPEN SEATS – LOUISIANA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

15(Walsworth, R) – Ouachita Parish

68(Daniel, R) – East Baton Rouge Parish

33(Johns, R) – Beauregard and Calcasieu Parishes

82(Scalise, R) – Jefferson and Orleans Parishes

37(Moorish, R) – Calcasieu and Jefferson Davis Parishes

85(Toomy,R) – Jefferson Parish

79(Martiny, R) – Jefferson Parish

9(Montgomery, R) – Bossier Parish

80(Lancaster, R) – Jefferson Parish

78(Bowler, R) – Jefferson Parish

90(Schneider, R) – St. Tammany Parish

77(Winston, R) – St. Tammany and Tangipahoa Parishes

20 seats

Open primaries will be held for the three vacant House seats on 24 February 2007.  2 of these vacant seats are safe Democratic seats, while one of them is a competitive seat.  Here is how the ballot for these seats will appear:

State Representative, 1st Representative District
0 of 31 precincts reporting
Click here for Results by Parish
0  0% Michael Page Boyter, R –
0  0% Richard “Richie” Hollier, D –
0  0% Ruth W. Johnston, D –
0  0% “Jim” Morris, R –
0  0% Marc Weddleton, R –

State Representative, 4th Representative District
0 of 26 precincts reporting
Click here for Results by Parish
0  0% Larry Ferdinand, D –
0  0% Reginald Johnson, D –
0  0% Calvin “Ben” Lester, Jr., D –
0  0% Patrick C. Williams, D –

State Representative, 40th Representative District
0 of 43 precincts reporting
Click here for Results by Parish
0  0% “Jim” Darby, D –
0  0% “Chris” Declouette, D –
0  0% Elbert Lee Guillory, D –
0  0% “Bradford” Jackson, N –
0  0% Roderick “Rod” James, D –
0  0% Ledricka Johnson, D –

The 40th district seat, located in Opelousas, St. Landry Parish, is the safest Democratic seat with an election on 24 Feb, even if there is a candidate not affiliated with the Democratic Party on the ballot.  The 4th district seat in Shreveport is guaranteed for the Democrats, as only Democrats are on the open primary ballot.  But the 1st district ballot is somewhat worrisome.  Previously held by a Democrat, Rep. Hoppy Hopkins, who recently died of cancer, this is a competitive seat for Republicans: notice how they have three Republicans on the ballot.  Thankfully, we have only two Democrats on the ballot, giving us a chance to at least have one Democrat make the runoff, as Republicans will split their vote between three candidates.  Ruth Johnston, former restaurant owner and populist Justice of the Peace from Oil City, Louisiana (population 1,188), is the strongest Democratic candidate, although she does not have a website.  The other Democratic candidate, Richie Hollier, also lacks a website, and I hope Louisiana Democrats will begin to create campaign websites in the future, for some Republicans, especially those who fashion themselves as so many mindless clones of a David Vitter or a Piyush “Bobby” Jindal, already have. 

Beating Caddo Parish Commissioner Jim Morris in the first distrcit race on 27 FEB will be difficult, even if “Psycho Santa” is tarring the Republican brand with his eccentric marijuana rights platform .  Given the shape of this first district race, I hope you understand why I am so worried about 2007:  Republicans are fielding their best candidates for competitive seats, and Louisiana Democrats believe they can retain their fragile majorities without advanced infrastructure or Internet outreach.  This must change immeidately, and I plan on contacting Chris Whittington at the Louisiana Democratic Party office in Baton Rouge about this problem. 

Although I plan to contact local officials, I also plan to write the DLCC.  We can retain our majority in the Louisiana House of Representatives, but it will take some money, some time and some effort at recruitment.  It will have its dividends, however, as we will control redistrcting in 2010 after setting an overly confident Louisiana GOP to rout.  What better way to prepare Louisiana to vote for a Democratic Presidential candidate than to humiliate their state GOP party organization in a year when they expect to sweep legislative and executive offices throughout the state?

Expect a diary on LA-HD104 once Emile “Peppi” Bruneau’s retirement is confirmed.  This is a race Democrats can and must win before the October 2007 showdown.  And because the netroots was already involved in New Orleans politics with Karen Carter’s bid to oust Bill Jefferson, I imagine a residual infrastructure still exists in order to support this important effort.

 

Let’s talk New Mexico.  One of the tiny pangs of disappointment for our side on election night last month was falling just barely short from knocking off Republican Heather Wilson in NM-01, a district with a PVI of D+2.4 that John Kerry won.  With seats as red as NY-20 (R+2.5), AZ-05 (R+3.7), NC-11 (R+7.1), and KS-01 (R+7.3) falling to upstart Democratic challengers in a national wave, local Dems are at their wits’ end as to what it will take to finally elect a Democrat in a Democratic district if they can’t do it in a favorable national environment.

With a rock-solid majority in the state legislature and Bill Richardson in the Governor’s mansion, the wheels are in motion to do an end run around Wilson and redraw the lines of NM-01, according to a recent Roll Call (subscription-only) article:

New Mexico Democrats, frustrated by their inability to defeat Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.), now are openly talking about redrawing the state’s Congressional district boundaries prior to the 2008 elections.

State Sen. Jerry Ortiz y Pino (D), who said he is ready to introduce a redistricting bill when the Legislature convenes in January, insisted that his chief goal is to create Congressional lines that make more sense and keep communities of interest together – not to target Wilson.

[…]

In New Mexico, Democrats have held all the levers of power since Gov. Bill Richardson (D) was elected in 2002. Richardson has resisted legislators’ calls to redraw the boundaries of the state’s three House districts in the past, but a spokesman said Wednesday that the governor is at least willing to consider the prospect this time.

“The governor prefers to wait until the next round of redistricting in 2010, but he’s willing to meet with Sen. Ortiz y Pino about it,” Richardson spokesman Gilbert Gallegos said.

[…]

Ortiz y Pino is proposing unifying Valencia County south of Albuquerque, which is split between Wilson’s district and the 2nd district into the 1st district. That would put the Hispanic-majority city of Los Lunas in the 1st district along with a significant portion of American Indian territory. In exchange, Torrance County, an agricultural stronghold that is south and east of Albuquerque and now in the 1st district, would go into Rep. Steve Pearce’s (R) more rural and conservative 2nd district.

With all that in mind, we have two questions to ponder tonight:

1) Would the proposed redistricting of NM-01 be worth the political blowback?

2) Would the proposed plan make enough of a difference?

The answer to #2 might be entirely dependent on the answer to #1: an effort to redraw the lines of Wilson’s district two election cycles early could generate a level of public backlash that Wilson could play to her favor.  These are all things to consider, but let’s look at #2 first.

Ortiz y Pino’s plan, as mentioned, is centered around subtracting rural Torrance County from NM-01 and adding it to Republican Steve Pearce’s NM-02 in exchange for consolidating all of Valencia County in NM-01 (it’s currently split between the two districts).  According to CNN, here’s how Torrance County voted in 2006:

Wilson (R): 3,287 (61%)
Madrid (D)): 2,114 (39%)

And here’s how the portion of Valencia County in NM-02 voted:

Pearce (R): 7,995 (60%)
Kissling (D): 5,280 (40%)

Those numbers definitely give me pause here.  Granted, I accept all the usual caveats about comparing two unlike races (Kissling was an underfunded, under-organized challenger, so I doubt there was any extensive or effective GOTV in this county), but on the other hand, there were several counties that actually delivered for Kissling, so this doesn’t really seem like the most immediately obvious territory to tack on to NM-01 if beating Heather Wilson is your objective.  Perhaps shaving off some territory from Mark Udall’s NM-03 might be more productive in this case–but would certainly raise all kinds of red flags regarding Ortiz y Pino’s “compactness” argument.

Then again, I’m lacking all kinds of information about Valencia County.  Perhaps it is indeed an untapped reservoir of Democratic votes, but it doesn’t appear to be obviously so.  Perhaps we have some local readers who can offer some perspective on this plan, and on Valencia County in general.