Tag: 2012 elections

Episode 3 in my series of diaries mapping out possible redistricting scenarios in the states is here! On the agenda today: Iowa and Ohio.

Previously covered:

Diary 1: Massachusetts and Texas

Diary 2: Michigan and Nevada

Again, the obligatory grain of salt alert: my districts are based on county estimates from 2007 which are due to be adjusted soon with 2008 numbers. Also, I am using projected seat totals that are equally subject to change.

Much geekdom, nerdiness, and dorkery lies below the fold…

Iowa

The redistricting process in Iowa should be among the least contentious in the nation, with an independent commission redrawing the lines. Of course, Iowa is expected to lose a seat in reapportionment, bringing its total down to four (for a Midwestern state that once had 11 districts, it is quite a sobering development to now be on par with Nevada, Utah, and Kansas in population). Mapmakers last had to eliminate a seat after the 1990 Census, and back then they opted to pit freshman Republican Rep. Jim Nussle against Democratic Rep. Dave Nagle in a competitive eastern Iowa district. It is widely assumed that their solution this round will be a race between Dem Leonard Boswell of Des Moines and Republican Tom Latham of Ames, and my map reflects that conventional wisdom. The new 3rd District, home to both incumbents, would likely have voted for Obama by a respectable, if modest, margin, but in a race between two entrenched incumbents would be a tossup. Given Latham’s proven ability to win easily in a slightly Dem-leaning district, he might even be favored against Boswell, who has had some close calls in the past and will be 78 years old in 2012.

As for the other three incumbents, they should be relatively comfortable. Note that all 99 counties are kept whole, as the commission has long strived to avoid county-splitting.

District 1 – Bruce Braley (D-Waterloo) — district expands in area but stays Democratic-leaning, as would any northeastern Iowa seat.

District 2 – Dave Loebsack (D-Mount Vernon) — but this district still stays an inch more Democratic.

District 3 – Leonard Boswell (D-Des Moines) vs. Tom Latham (R-Ames) — competitive seat, probably voted for Obama by a 7-to-10-point margin, but would be a tossup in most election years. Both Reps. retain their geographical base, but Latham probably has a stronger record of winning over tough territory.

District 4 – Steve King (R-Kiron) — stays the most Republican district, by far.

Iowa was probably the easiest state I’ve yet tinkered with, as counties were kept whole and the independent commission system means that I was able to suspend political considerations to some degree. I really think the final map will not look radically different than the above.

Ohio

This was tough, to say the least, but I feel that I succeeded. I assumed a continued power split in the state; currently, Democrats have the governor’s mansion (under Gov. Ted Strickland) and a 53-46 majority in the state House, while Republicans rule the Senate 21-12. I cannot imagine Democrats winning the Senate in 2010, but the threat of a GOP gerrymander redux is real. Still, odds are against the Republicans winning both the governor’s mansion and House in one election cycle, so for now the smart money is on split redistricting control in 2011-2012. What made Ohio particularly difficult is that the Buckeye State’s is, to date, the only delegation projected to lose two seats in Congress. Even New York is only expected to lose one at this point.

Should migration patterns change in the next year, it is of course possible for Ohio to salvage one of those two seats…but most seem to believe that demographic momentum is still running against the Rust Belt. So presuming a two-seat loss in Ohio, and split power in the remap, the obvious solution is to eliminate one Democrat and one Republican.

Finding population loss in a Democratic area was easy (northeast Ohio, especially in the Cleveland area, has been hemorrhaging population for longer than most of us can remember). I settled on Dennis Kucinich as the member of Congress most likely to face a fellow incumbent, given negative growth in Cuyahoga County, VRA-implied protection of Marcia Fudge, and the improbability of Tim Ryan’s 17th District being messed with for the second decade in a row. Under my map, he would face Betty Sutton in a district whose geography might favor Sutton but would at least give Kucinich a decent shot. Voters would choose between Kucinich’s seniority and visibility, and Sutton’s plum Rules Committee assignment and reportedly good relationship with the Speaker and party leadership.

Choosing a Republican was more difficult; nowhere else in the state are population shifts particularly robust or especially dismal. I decided that a relative newcomer would be a likely choice for elimination, especially if forced against someone with more clout. Knowing that Minority Leader John Boehner simply cannot realistically be messed with, I put current freshman Steve Austria in the same seat as Mike Turner. In a hypothetical primary fight in such a district, anyone’s money would be on Turner, whose Montgomery County base would be kept intact and who would have more seniority and a sweet Appropriations Committee spot to tout.

I tried to protect the other 14 incumbents, since that is typically what comes of bipartisan redistricting plans. There was no way to give Zack Space a Democratic-leaning district without harming John Boccieri, whose seat I assumed was a must-protect, but I managed to give everyone something about which they could breathe more easily. You may particularly like what I did with Columbus. Here’s the map:

District 1 – Steve Driehaus (D-Cincinnati) — comprises all the Democratic parts of Hamilton County.

District 2 – Jean Schmidt (R-Miami Township) — knowing her history of closer-than-they-should-be electoral victories, I took out historically industrial and Democratic areas in the east and gave them to Zack Space and Charlie Wilson (where they seem to belong). Now she would represent an even more heavily Republican, decidedly suburban and exurban, district.

District 3 – Mike Turner (R-Dayton) vs. Steve Austria (R-Beavercreek) — do you dig its compactness as much as I do? While Dayton leans Democratic, Fayette and Greene Counties more than cancel it out to make this a Republican seat. By the way, other than Austria’s home being in the district, he would have nothing to like about this fight. Turner’s Montgomery County base is 99% in-district, and like I said, he has a new Appropriations seat to crow about. If I were Austria, I’d move and challenge Space, or possibly seek higher office. Tough break, but newbies usually draw the short straw when seats must be cut out.

District 4 – Jim Jordan (R-Urbana) — expands in area, stays safely GOP.

District 5 – Bob Latta (R-Bowling Green) — now stretches all the way to Medina County because of lagging population growth, but should stay strongly GOP-leaning.

District 6 – Charlie Wilson (D-St. Clairsville) — still a socially conservative, working class and traditionally Democratic seat.

District 7 – John Boehner (R-West Chester) — it meanders a bit, but remains safely Republican. The esteemed Minority Leader would demand nothing less.

District 8 – Marcy Kaptur (D-Toledo) — as labor-friendly, Democratic, and Toledo-heavy as ever.

District 9 – Dennis Kucinich (D-Cleveland) vs. Betty Sutton (D-Copley) — this is really a definitive industrial northern Ohio district. Its largest population anchor is Summit County (Akron), of which it covers 59%. Following that is 13% of Cuyahoga (Cleveland), 48% of Lorain, and 49% of Medina. The bulk of the district is Sutton territory, but Kucinich’s name recognition and reputation as a liberal firebrand might ignite enthusiasm in such a primary battle. An aside: I know that some Kossacks will hate me for putting Kucinich in this spot, but something in the Cleveland area had to give, and like I said, it couldn’t exactly be VRA-protected Marcia Fudge or Tim Ryan, whose seat was cobbled together in 2002 due to a plan that eliminated Jim Traficant.

District 10 – Marcia Fudge (D-Warrensville Heights) — 55% of Cuyahoga County, still majority-black and the most Democratic district in the state.

District 11 – Pat Tiberi (R-Columbus) — I served both Columbus Congresscritters’ interests here in what is, I think, my most effective turf-splitting in the state. Tiberi keeps his home in-district but now has the conservative suburbs to himself. Unlike before, I sincerely doubt his new district would have voted for Obama.

District 12 – Steve LaTourette (R-Bainbridge Township) — by dropping Portage and Trumbull Counties, it gets slightly more Republican, but still encroaches on 22% of Cuyahoga County, not exactly a boon for a GOPer. With a strong base in competitive Lake County, LaTourette should be fine.

District 13 – Mary Jo Kilroy (D-Columbus) — now contained entirely within Democratic-leaning Franklin County, in a district that should have voted Obama by double digits. See, Kilroy and Tiberi can both win from a good gerrymander!

District 14 – John Boccieri (D-Alliance) — hoping to help Space a little bit, I gave Boccieri heavily Republican Holmes County and cut out a small portion of Stark County (Canton), but to avoid endangering Boccieri, he gets a healthy 35% of strongly Democratic Summit.

District 15 – Tim Ryan (D-Niles) — if it could possibly be more Democratic, it now is, even if by accident.

District 16 – Zack Space (D-Dover) — if there is one major flaw in my map it is that I could not quite figure out how to protect Space. That’s because, in the end, this part of Ohio is tough for any Democrat, so if Space can continue to hold it easily, that is to his credit. There just wasn’t a way that I saw (and perhaps actual Ohioans could have found one) to help him significantly without hurting Boccieri, Kilroy, or Wilson, all of whom represent relatively competitive districts that were designed without their interests in mind. When all is said and done, Space should be fine, but a future Democrat may still have trouble in this district.

In general, I feel that Ohio was one of my more successful endeavors. I believe I avoided embarrassing mistakes of inexperience such as those in my maps for Massachusetts (I thought keeping counties intact was a good move toward cleaner lines, while New Englanders tell me that splitting towns is a far greater sin in that neck of the woods) and Michigan (I intended to force Mike Rogers against Mark Schauer but seem to have put him with Thad McCotter instead). I also protected most, if not all, of the incumbents, and yet managed to keep the map from looking crazily gerrymandered.

Of course, my usual soapbox line still applies: it would be far better if all states used nonpartisan redistricting like Arizona, Iowa, Washington, and other locales already do. Nonpartisan redistricting at its best doesn’t ensure competitive elections, but it keeps the boundaries within the realm of logic, and doesn’t value incumbency for incumbency’s sake; rather, it stresses more practical concerns of political categorizing such as communities of interest and pure geography. Florida is considering a redistricting reform initiative in 2010, and here’s hoping it reaches the necessary 60% (though I won’t yet hold my breath). In the mean time, the system we have is the system we must work with.

Episode 4: Georgia and New Jersey

Episode 5: Florida and Louisiana

Episode 6: Pennsylvania and Utah

Episode 7: Arizona and New York

Episode 2 in my series of diaries mapping out possible redistricting scenarios in the states has arrived! Today, I map Michigan and Nevada.

Grain of salt alert: my districts are based on county estimates from 2007 which are due to be adjusted soon with 2008 numbers. Also, I am using projected seat totals that are equally subject to change.

The number geeks among us will really enjoy what’s below the fold…

Michigan

The battle for control of redistricting in Michigan is wide open in the 2010 elections, with a competitive open race for the governor’s mansion being vacated by term-limited Democrat Jennifer Granholm and the state Senate standing at a narrow 21-17 Republican advantage. Since Democrats have a strong 67-43 edge in the House, the one scenario that seems unlikely is a repeat of 2001’s GOP gerrymander. Given the difficulty of both holding Granholm’s spot and picking up those three Senate seats, my best bet would be a continuation of split redistricting power when map-making time comes around in 2011-2012…and usually, split control means incumbent protection.

But hark, Michigan is expected to lose a seat in redistricting, going from 15 down to 14. Someone will have to be the unlucky loser. If Democrats somehow won the trifecta, they could force two GOP incumbents (say, Mike Rogers and Dave Camp) to run against each other. But since I’m presuming split control, it will have to be a Republican against a Democrat.

At first, the logical choice seemed to be eliminating Thad McCotter by pitting him against longtimer Sander Levin. But I decided against this for a very good reason: Gary Peters must be protected in any plan, and since Oakland County is a relatively competitive county, its Republican voters have to go somewhere. So if McCotter and Levin went against each other, it would likely have to be a GOP-leaning district, one a liberal like Levin would have trouble winning. Meanwhile, there was one incumbent other than Peters (Mark Schauer) whom I pointedly wanted to protect, and the only way to make him safe that I saw was to encroach on heavily Democratic Ingham County (Lansing). Thus the solution was reached: a Democratic-leaning 7th District that forces Schauer against Mike Rogers in a seat Schauer would likely win.

Would Republicans in the state Senate vote for such a plan? Well, they probably would if it protected the congressional delegation’s weakest GOP member, McCotter…and by giving him Livingston County, it does.

There is only one problematic side effect of my map: it pushes Sander Levin’s home out of the district in which he’d presumably run. I’m not clear whether his hometown of Royal Oak would be represented by Peters or McCotter, but his base would be shifted to working-class Democratic parts of Macomb and Wayne Counties. I’m sure he’d move if necessary; Michigan isn’t new to messy redistricting plans. In retrospect, I probably could have split Oakland County three ways and allowed Levin to stay put, but the way my map is configured, he’d need to pick up a lot of Macomb County’s Democrats anyway.

Without further ado, here it is:

District 1 – Bart Stupak (D-Menominee) — I think I finally found the way to make his district relatively strong for a future Democrat (face it, some day, 10 to 15 years down the road, Stupak will retire, and the Upper Peninsula isn’t as Democratic as it once was): I gave Stupak 89% of Bay County, making Bay City the largest source of district population.

District 2 – Pete Hoekstra (R-Holland) — Hoekstra will likely run for Governor in 2010, but another conservative West Michigan Republican should succeed him, and that person will be plenty safe in 2012 under my plan.

District 3 – Vern Ehlers (R-Grand Rapids) — had to expand a little and take Kent County whole, but will remain strongly GOP-leaning.

District 4 – Dave Camp (R-Midland) — this thing stretches from Lake Michigan to the Saginaw area now because of lagging population, but it should stay strong for Camp and any credible Republican in most years.

District 5 – Dale Kildee (D-Flint) — like most of the state’s districts, this one had to expand geographically, taking much of Michigan’s Thumb from Candice Miller. With all of Genesee County intact, no doubt it stays a Democratic seat.

District 6 – Fred Upton (R-St. Joseph) — possibly became a bit more Republican by taking some of Mark Schauer’s more conservative turf, but not significantly so. Stays safe for Upton, competitive or slightly GOP-leaning in a future race.

District 7 – Mark Schauer (D-Battle Creek) vs. Mike Rogers (R-Brighton) — the horror of hard-right Rogers representing 66% Obama-supporting Ingham County is coming to an end! Rogers’ saving grace, heavily Republican Livingston County, is removed from the district as Ingham combines with Schauer’s less Democratic geographical base to make Rogers a goner. After 2012, Schauer could likely rely on Lansing more than Battle Creek or Jackson to get him reelected.

District 8 – Gary Peters (D-Bloomfield Township) — contained entirely within Oakland County, grabbing more Democratic areas from Sander Levin, who presumably has enough clout and seniority to make it in a modified but definitely Dem-friendly Macomb/Wayne district. As I said before, if there’s anything I would have done differently with this map, it’s keeping Levin in Oakland, but since these are based on 2007 county population estimates anyway, this plan is only a rough guideline of how I see redistricting going down in two or three years.

District 9 – Candice Miller (R-Harrison Township) — heavier in Macomb County, snatching its more Republican areas while only creeping a bit up the Thumb.

District 10 – Thad McCotter (R-Livonia) — he finally becomes safe, because no matter the trends in Oakland or Wayne, he’ll have Livingston County to keep him in Congress. It was a tough call figuring out which Republican would be hurt by redistricting, but as I mentioned, Oakland County is relatively 50/50 in neutral election years and those Republicans have to go somewhere…it’s far easier to imagine a bipartisan plan targeting Rogers, whose district is one of the truest gerrymanders in the state.

District 11 – Sander Levin (D-Royal Oak) — okay, maybe the legislature can find a way to keep him in Oakland County, but regardless, his district will stay safely Democratic (though it has to shed a few Dems for Peters’ sake).

District 12 – Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D-Detroit) — while population loss has been severe in Detroit, the Voting Rights Act as practiced today would seem to protect both Kilpatrick and Conyers. Her district will grow in area but should stay majority-black and overwhelmingly Democratic.

District 13 – John Conyers (D-Detroit) — ditto.

District 14 – John Dingell (D-Dearborn) — stays safely Democratic. When Dingell retires, it will be fascinating to see the primary battle play out between a Dingell-esque old-school “GM-approved candidate” and an Ann Arbor latte liberal.

Most likely result of this plan: 8 Democrats, 6 Republicans. While the Senate won’t like losing a Republican, the fact is that people like Upton, Rogers, and McCotter already represent districts that voted for Obama, so to cement GOP seats in the future, something’s gotta give. Saving McCotter should be enough of a consolation prize/sweetener to win Senate approval for a plan like this.

On to Nevada

Over the last decade, no state has represented a more different kind of America from Michigan than Nevada. While a slowdown in migration is currently resulting from the poor economy, and a “desert foreclosure crisis” has slowed Nevada’s growth to something of a halt compared to past years, the Silver State is still a lock for a new seat. As in Michigan, Democrats have a realistic chance at a takeover, but for now, control is split. 2010 will be a huge year in Nevada, with Harry Reid fighting for reelection, GOP Gov. Jim Gibbons badly unpopular, and term limits finally taking effect in the Democratic-controlled legislature. Gibbons’ approval ratings render him DOA either in the primary or the general, but the difference could be crucial. Term limits could help either party, and might affect control of the Senate, though the Assembly is lopsided enough to remain Democratic regardless.

In any case, while Democrats will gun for a shutout, the current state of affairs is split control, and I drew my map accordingly. What you’ll immediately notice is that the “cow counties” north of Las Vegas finally have not one, but two, districts representing them in Congress. Yet appearances can be deceiving; Dean Heller’s District 2 will actually be dominated by Reno and Carson City, while my proposed District 4 (likely a competitive seat) will have mixed turf in northern Clark County as its population base.

District 1 – Shelley Berkley (D-Las Vegas) — will probably become even tinier in area and stay solidly Democratic.

District 2 – Dean Heller (R-Carson City) — I tried my darnedest to protect Heller knowing that whether Democrats control the process or power is split, Heller will not be a target, but he will lose the southern part of his district no matter who draws the lines. In a Democratic wave year like 2008, this district would not look great for him what with Dem trends in Washoe County and Carson City, but if he can endear himself to Reno and hold strong at home, he should be fine.

District 3 – Dina Titus (D-Las Vegas) — will also contract and become more Democratic regardless who draws the lines.

And the new District 4 – stretches up from North Las Vegas to Elko County — this should be a competitive seat, with a Democratic-leaning Clark County base counterbalanced by Art Bell libertarians in Pahrump and cowboy conservatives up north. If Democrats manage to hold the Senate and win the governor’s mansion in 2010, they will seek to make the new 4th more Democratic than did I and further protect Heller in his increasingly centrist turf, but again, I’m assuming split control for now.

Net result: Berkley and Titus are safe, Heller is fine as long as he can win Reno, and a new wild card is introduced. The question is: is there any politician in Nevada who would know how to win over the suburbs of Las Vegas and Elko?

Episode 3 (coming soon): will cover Iowa and Ohio (two of my best)

Episode 4: New Jersey and Georgia

Episode 5: Florida and Louisiana

Episode 6: Pennsylvania and Utah

EDIT: Re: my Michigan plan, it seems that I inadvertently am forcing two Republicans against each other. Brighton is in Livingston County, not Ingham County. Very well, then, let Rogers and McCotter have each other out, but would Senate Republicans go for it? I would point out that a similar situation occurred in Indiana back in 2001 (the state lost a seat, and a Democratic Governor and House passed a plan — with approval from a Republican Senate — that forced GOPers Brian Kerns and Steve Buyer against each other).

Crossposted at Daily Kos

With the 2010 Census just a year away and the next round of nationwide redistricting two or three years away, I’ve decided to start looking at the redistricting situations in different states and begin some conversation about what kinds of changes we can expect to see. These diaries will be sporadic, and the data is always subject to change (for now, county population estimates are from 2007; 2008 numbers will be out soon, meaning my number-crunching will need constant adjusting)…but for we super-geeks, merely the discussion of redistricting and speculation on its effects will be sufficiently entertaining.

My “state focus” redistricting diaries will cover two states, usually one large and one a bit smaller.

Today, I was feeling the vibes of 2004, so we’ll delve into Massachusetts and Texas. Below the fold…

Massachusetts

The redistricting process in Massachusetts is expected to be run by the Democrats in 2011-2012, and even if Gov. Deval Patrick manages to lose to a Republican in 2010, it won’t make much difference for the sake of district maps; all ten congressional incumbents are left-of-center Democrats.

Unfortunately, Massachusetts is likely to lose one seat due to its lagging population growth. You can see the current Mass. congressional map (and it’s quite a mess; the late Bay Stater Elbridge Gerry himself would be proud) here.

So I tried to think like a Democratic state legislator forced to eliminate one of his/her own from Congress. Seeing that population growth was weakest in western Massachusetts, and that Rep. John Olver (D-Amherst) will be 76 at the 2012 election, it seemed logical to combine western Mass’s two districts and force Olver against his then-63-year-old colleague, Richard Neal of Springfield. Most think Olver would retire if pitted against Neal. The other eight seats mostly fell into place, though I dramatically redrew some of them for cleaner, more compact district lines. This was tough because four Congresspeople call Middlesex County home, yet I wanted to avoid splitting counties too many ways. It is doubtful that the legislature will be as averse to messy lines as I was, but this is a rough approximation of what I see coming out of the next round of redistricting (and yes, I think all nine seats should be comfortably Democratic):

District 1 – Olver vs. Neal

District 2 – Jim McGovern (D-Worcester) — picks up the remainder of Hampden County not covered by District 1 but anchored in Worcester County.

District 3 – Barney Frank (D-Newton) — now entirely within Middlesex County.

District 4 – Niki Tsongas (D-Lowell) — dominated by Middlesex, picks up the remainder of Worcester.

District 5 – John Tierney (D-Salem) — now entirely within Essex County, ye olde witch-hunters.

District 6 – Ed Markey (D-Malden) — dominated by Norfolk County, nabs the small remainder of Essex and enough of Middlesex to retain Markey’s home base.

District 7 – Mike Capuano (D-Somerville) — why can’t he just move to Boston? This district grabs 96% of Suffolk County, but had to eat into a tiny section of Middlesex to keep his home intact.

District 8 – Stephen Lynch (D-South Boston) — this one changes significantly: it retains his base in South Boston but is now dominated by Bristol County, theoretically rendering him vulnerable to a primary challenge (not my intent by any means, but the bizarre lines in Middlesex, Suffolk, and Norfolk Counties simply had to end).

District 9 – Bill Delahunt (D-Quincy) — still the Cape Cod/Nantucket district, preserving his home in Norfolk but dominated by Plymouth and Barnstable Counties.

In the end, Massachusetts wasn’t too hard. Certainly not compared to Texas, a state of 32 seats that is expected to gain another four!

Texas

Barring a huge slowdown in migration during 2009 and before the Census on April 1, 2010 (and such a slowdown is possible), Texas should gain four seats for a whopping total of 36 districts. The Republicans currently hold the state government trifecta in the Lone Star State, but only with a fragile 76-74 lead in the state House. Democrats are bullish about winning the House in 2010.

The opportunity to prevent a wrenching repeat of the 2003 DeLaymander in Texas is an exciting one for political junkies, but if my map-making experiment (again, using 2007 estimates, so take with salt) was at all accurate, Republicans are nearly maxed-out on seats in Texas as it is. I attempted in this venture to put on my thinking cap, imagine I was a Republican state legislator, and work to protect all GOP incumbents, weaken Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Waco), and maximize GOP advantages in the four new seats…but because of where the four new seats ended up being located in my simulation, I can’t really imagine Republicans winning more than two of them. Of course, their map artistes are surely far superior in skill to me and my low-tech method, but the point stands: once all 32 incumbents were done, I found significant leftover population in urban Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston, in areas I would expect to tilt Democratic given voting trends in Harris and Dallas Counties.

The other two seats were odd rural-urban mixes that meander and should lean Republican (especially the one stretching down Central Texas from Tarrant County). Here’s the map:

Texas is so large, and its urban seats so small in area, that you can’t even see some of the 36 districts, so here are the details on each one:

District 1 – Louie Gohmert (R-Tyler) — stays safely GOP, merely contracts in area.

District 2 – Ted Poe (R-Humble) — ditto

District 3 – Sam Johnson (R-Plano) — I chose to keep this entirely within Collin County for purposes of compactness.

District 4 – Ralph Hall (R-Rockwall) — remains an odd mix of rural northeast Texas and the far outskirts of the Metroplex.

District 5 – Jeb Hensarling (R-Dallas) — snatches exurbs and small towns in East Texas, but Dallas County is still the largest population source.

District 6 – Joe Barton (R-Ennis) — looks rural on a map but is in fact dominated by Tarrant and Ellis Counties.

District 7 – John Culberson (R-Houston) — entirely within Harris County

District 8 – Kevin Brady (R-The Woodlands) — grabs 92% of Montgomery County and conservative marshy areas north of Houston.

District 9 – Al Green (D-Houston) — dominated by Houston but catches diverse parts of Fort Bend County to remain a Voting Rights Act African-American opportunity seat.

District 10 – Mike McCaul (R-Austin) — still the Austin-to-Houston seat, but weighted more toward Austin.

District 11 – Mike Conaway (R-Midland) — with 35 counties by my count, this is one rural district if ever I’ve seen one.

District 12 – Kay Granger (R-Fort Worth) — dominated by Tarrant, but kept safely GOP because of Parker and Wise Counties.

District 13 – Mac Thornberry (R-Clarendon) — no, actually, this is one rural district if ever I’ve seen one, with 44 counties wholly or partially included.

District 14 – Ron Paul (R-Surfside) — dominated by Brazoria and Galveston Counties, contracting a bit in area due to population growth.

District 15 – Rubén Hinojosa (D-Mercedes) — might be a tad whiter due to shedding some of Hidalgo County and picking up conservative areas up north, but still heavily Hispanic and Democratic.

District 16 – Silvestre Reyes (D-El Paso) — still contained in El Paso County.

District 17 – Chet Edwards (D-Waco) — I tried to think like a Republican and mess with him a bit by edging the district a bit further southeast and even into Montgomery County, but there’s only so much more that can be done to hurt this Dem survivor.

District 18 – Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Houston) — smaller in area, but should still be a VRA “African-American opportunity seat”.

District 19 – Randy Neugebauer (R-Lubbock) — Republicans might like to make him, Thornberry, and Conaway a bit less overwhelmingly safe to help the party elsewhere, but unfortunately for the GOP, its votes are concentrated thickly in West Texas.

District 20 – Charlie Gonzalez (D-San Antonio) — still heavily Hispanic, still entirely within Bexar County.

District 21 – Lamar Smith (R-San Antonio) — I removed Travis County to 1) make him even safer, 2) allow him to concentrate his base in Bexar County, and 3) keep GOP Hill Country voters together.

District 22 – Pete Olson (R-Sugar Land) — anchored in Fort Bend but snaking into Harris and Wharton; probably safer for Olson than before but trending the wrong way long-term for his party.

District 23 – Ciro Rodriguez (D-San Antonio) — the Big Bend district is still dominated by south San Antonio and is probably a bit more heavily Hispanic.

District 24 – Kenny Marchant (R-Coppell) — links northeast Tarrant with northwest Dallas Counties to preserve suburban GOP votes.

District 25 – Lloyd Doggett (D-Austin) — I think the Republicans will finally put him entirely in Travis County to pack Democratic votes and keep fast-growing Central Texas counties open for the taking. They’ve certainly given up on defeating him.

District 26 – Mike Burgess (R-Lewisville) — all of Denton County and a small slice of Tarrant.

District 27 – Solomon Ortiz (D-Corpus Christi) — really doesn’t change much; heavily Hispanic and Democratic-leaning.

District 28 – Henry Cuellar (D-Laredo) — growth is so strong in Hidalgo County that this district sheds its northern reaches and becomes possibly the state’s most Hispanic seat. 90% of Cuellar’s Webb County base is preserved but he could become more vulnerable to a McAllen-area primary challenge.

District 29 – Gene Green (D-Houston) — still a tiny sliver of Harris; I assume it will stay majority-Hispanic, but that mantle could be taken up by the new 35th…I’m not familiar enough with Houston geography.

District 30 – Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Dallas) — concentrates black neighborhoods of Dallas.

District 31 – John Carter (R-Round Rock) — growth in Williamson County has been stupendous enough that this district is becoming surprisingly small in area.

District 32 – Pete Sessions (R-Dallas) — desperately attempts to grab Republicans in north Dallas.

And now, the four new seats as I found them:

District 33 – Dallas & Tarrant Counties — this lilliputian snake of land vaguely recalls Martin Frost’s (D-Arlington) former stomping grounds, a diverse urban-suburban Metroplex mélange presumably leaning Democratic. In fact, I’m fairly sure of it electing a Democrat, as Republicans have milked every seat they possibly can out of the Dallas area.

District 34 – remainders of Tarrant County, stretches all the way to Guadalupe County near San Antonio — this is an ugly district, with a barely-visible serpentine line down Williamson and Travis Counties. It is meant to find all the Republicans not already accounted for in the 12th, 17th, 21st, or 31st, but I would certainly hope the legislature doesn’t try to draw something so incoherent.

District 35 – Harris County — unlike the masterful DeLay-led cracking of Democratic votes in Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston already has three Democratic Reps., but all in VRA opportunity seats. Is it time for a “limousine liberal” seat in Houston, or is there room for another John Culberson-like Republican?

District 36 – arches from north of Laredo through San Antonio to the coast — less bizarre than the 34th, but still an oddity, this seat’s population base is Bexar County but should elect a Republican despite its decent Hispanic population. The odd nature of this district was necessitated by VRA Hispanic seats like the 23rd and 28th dropping their “whiter” counties. If Henry Bonilla (R-San Antonio) ever wanted to stage a comeback, my 36th would be a great shot for him.

I’m not exactly pleased with some odd boundaries in this map, especially the downright psychedelic 34th District. The explosive growth in three areas — the Metroplex, Houston, and Central Texas around Austin — meant some odd leftovers when all incumbents were solidified. But the real point here is that, even if Republicans still run the process in Texas next round, their room for growth is limited. My plan might allow them as great as a 24-12 majority should they defeat Chet Edwards, but 23-13 is more likely. Perhaps an experienced Friend of Elbridge (and by that I mean a professional gerrymander-er) could craft something more advantageous, but as long as Democratic strength grows in the metro areas, protecting suburban GOP incumbents like Kenny Marchant, Kay Granger, and Pete Olson will be the utmost priority. I really think redistricting could be a wash in the Lone Star State, whether Republicans control the House or not.

The next diary will map Michigan and Nevada; after that, we’ll get Iowa and my greatest masterpiece to date, Ohio.

If Iowa’s representatives on the Republican National Committee had had their way, Michael Steele would not be the party’s new chairman.  

Iowa RNC Committeeman Steve Scheffler and Committeewoman Kim Lehman both supported South Carolina GOP chairman Katon Dawson, who turned out to be Steele’s toughest rival in yesterday’s voting.  Don’t ask me why Republicans who presumably want to start winning elections again would want the party’s leader to be a southerner who was in an all-white country club when the GOP is looking more like a regional party than ever before and the Democratic president (who happens to be black) is wildly popular.  

Seriously, to hear Dawson explain the roots of his political views, it all started when he got mad that the government desegregated his school when he was 15. Just the guy to give the GOP a more tolerant, inclusive image!

But I digress.

Scheffler and Lehman didn’t quietly prefer a different candidate for RNC chair, they went on record criticizing Steele earlier this month:

Though the pro-life and pro-gun Steele built a conservative record in his home state, the former Maryland lieutenant governor’s one-time affiliation with the Republican Leadership Council, which religious conservatives view as hostile to their agenda, remains a deal breaker in some sectors of the committee.

“That is an organization that created itself for the purpose of eliminating a very important part of the Republican Party and its family values,” said Iowa Committeewoman Kim Lehman, who supports South Carolina Republican Party Chair Katon Dawson’s campaign. “Michael Steele crossed over a serious line.”

“In that field, the only one that would be my number six out of six choice would be Michael Steele,” said Iowa Committeeman Steve Scheffler, citing Steele’s “past deep involvement with the Republican Leadership Council.”

“They partnered with groups like Planned Parenthood,” said Scheffler, who joined Lehman in endorsing Dawson. “In my view, you don’t lend your name to a group if you don’t agree with them.”

Incidentally, Lehman has a history of intolerance toward Republicans who believe abortion should be legal even in limited circumstances such as rape or incest. The State Central Committee of the Republican Party of Iowa censured her in December for failing to support Republican Congressional candidate Mariannette Miller-Meeks (IA-02).

Iowa’s third RNC member, newly elected state GOP chairman Matt Strawn, endorsed the incumbent RNC chair Mike Duncan earlier this week but apparently backed Dawson over Steele in the later ballots yesterday.

Steele’s election immediately sparked concern among some Iowa politicos that we may lose our first-in-the-nation status when the GOP selects its next presidential nominee. However, Strawn, Scheffler and Lehman had only praise for Steele in their official statements. Strawn said,

“I am excited to work with Chairman Steele to advance our principled agenda, rebuild our party from the grassroots up, and elect Republicans all across Iowa.  I am also encouraged by my conversations with Chairman Steele regarding Iowa’s First in the Nation presidential status. I will work closely with him to ensure Iowa retains its leading role for the 2012 caucus and beyond.”

Side note regarding the RNC leadership contest: I was surprised that former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell turned out not to be a serious contender, despite lining up a long list of endorsements from conservative intellectuals.

With Steele and Blackwell back in the news this month, I’ve really missed Steve Gilliard. He used to write hilarious posts about them in 2006, culminating in the classic rant You Have Shamed Us.  

(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.  

Skip this diary if you think it’s too early to start talking about the 2012 presidential campaign just because Barack Obama hasn’t been inaugurated yet.  

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, the winner of the 2008 Iowa caucuses, was back in the state this week in more ways than one. On Thursday he held book signings that attracted some 600 people in Cedar Rapids and an even larger crowd in a Des Moines suburb. According to the Des Moines Register, he “brushed off talk of a 2012 run” but

brought to Iowa a prescription for the national Republican Party, which he said has wandered from its founding principles.

“There is no such thing as fiscal conservativism without social conservativism,” Huckabee said. “We really should be governing by a moral code that we live by, which can be summed up in the phrase: Do unto others as you’d have them do unto you.”

Governing by that principle would lead to a more humane society, with lower crime and poverty rates, creating less demand on government spending, he said.

Huckabee was accompanied on Thursday by Bob Vander Plaats, who chaired his Iowa campaign for president. Vander Plaats has sought the Republican nomination for Iowa governor twice and is expected to run again in 2010. He recently came out swinging against calls for the Iowa GOP to move to the middle following its latest election losses. The Republican caucuses in the Iowa House and the Iowa Senate elected new leadership this month, and the state party will choose a new chairman in January. Vander Plaats is likely to be involved in a bruising battle against those who want the new chairman to reach out more to moderates.

Many Iowans who didn’t come to Huckabee’s book signings heard from him anyway this week, as he became the first politician to robocall Iowa voters since the November election. The calls ask a few questions in order to identify voters who oppose abortion rights, then ask them to donate to the National Right to Life Council. According to Iowa Independent, the call universe included some Democrats and no-party voters as well as registered Republicans. Raising money for an anti-abortion group both keeps Huckabee in front of voters and scores points with advocates who could be foot-soldiers during the next caucus campaign.

Meanwhile, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal made two stops in Iowa yesterday. Speaking in Cedar Rapids,

Jindal said America’s culture is one of the things that makes it great, but warned that its music, art and constant streams of media and communication have often moved in the wrong direction.

“There are things we can do as private citizens working together to strengthen our society,” he said. “Our focus does not need to be on fixing the (Republican) party,” he said. “Our focus needs to be on how to fix America.”

I’m really glad to hear he’s not worried about fixing the party that has record-high disapproval ratings, according to Gallup.

Later in the day, Jindal headlined a fundraiser in West Des Moines for the Iowa Family Policy Center. He said he wasn’t there to talk politics (as if what follows isn’t a politically advantageous message for that audience):

“It all starts with family and builds outward from there,” said the first-term Jindal, who was making his first visit to Iowa. “As a parent, I’m acutely aware of the overall coarsening of our culture in many ways.”

The governor said technology such as television and the Internet are conduits for corrupting children, which he also believes is an issue agreed upon across party lines.

“As governor, I can’t censor anything or take away anyone’s freedom of speech – nor do I want to if I could,” he said, “but I can still control what my kids watch, what they hear and what they read.”

The problem is that parents who want to control what their kids read often try to do so by limiting what other people’s kids can read. A couple near Des Moines

are fighting to restrict access to the children’s book “And Tango Makes Three” at East Elementary School in Ankeny. The book is the story of two male penguins who raise a chick together.

The Ankeny parents want it either removed or moved to the parents-only section, arguing that it promotes homosexuality and same-sex couples as normal and that children are too young to understand the subject.

Gay rights are sure to be an issue in the next Republican caucus campaign, especially if the Iowa Supreme Court rules in favor of marriage equality next year. The court will soon hear oral arguments in a gay marriage case.

For now, though, it’s enough for Jindal to speak generally about “family” and “culture” and raise his name recognition among the religious conservatives who have often crowned the winner in the Iowa caucuses.