Swing State Project

(This is a tremendous effort and a model for all future redistricting diaries, of which I’m sure we can expect many in the coming years – promoted by DavidNYC)

After reading Duffman’s excellent diary on redistricting New Jersey, I thought I’d take a crack at a 12-seat map. (I had done a 13-seat map awhile back, but it’s not nearly as exciting.) Unlike Duffman, though, I’m horribly shameless and did this without any intent of compactness, which I think will become readily obvious. My goal was to squeeze as many Democratic districts out as possible, while still conforming to the VRA.

I think I pretty much pulled out all the tricks in the book, while keeping Democratic incumbents in their home districts (although, seriously, Frank Pallone, get the f— out of Long Branch – you are singlehandedly responsible for half the ugliness of NJ districts). In the end, we get a 10-2 Democratic map, one where no Democratic district was less than 54% Obama at that. Maps, summary statistics, and more sardonic commentary over the flip.

To start, I used this map of Obama’s performance. Red/blue are obvious. Lightest shade is a margin of less than 5%, then 5-10, 10-20, and above 20. There’s a corresponding map for average margin from 2004-2006 (2008 hadn’t happened when I did the 13-seat map), which averages Kerry, Corzine, and Menendez’s margins.

So going district by district, here’s what we’ve got (for statistics, I also have raw vote totals, but I don’t think that’s as important here. The numbers here, in order, are: Population, Obama%, McCain%, Kerry%, Bush% in 2004.

Bottom line is, I don’t like Rob Andrews. I think what he pulled with his seat after challenging Lautenberg is pure BS, and I don’t think you’ll find me shedding any tears if he suddenly disappeared off the political stage. With that in mind, I tried to make his district less Camden-centric. It incorporates the entirety of Gloucester and Salem counties, along with the Republican parts of Salem. Camden proper and Andrews’ home in Haddon Heights is still here, but with the inclusion of Evesham Township in Burlington County, this district is majority not-Camden County. Obama ran just shy of 60%, Kerry got 55% – enough for a staunch Dem district.

I think there’s a lot of untapped potential in NJ-02, and we never seem to be able to capitalize. Unfortunately, with the slower population growth, this district has to expand northward. This district contains all of Atlantic and Cape May counties, and the parts of Cumberland not in the NJ-01. I’d like to think the split worked, given that Obama earned 62% in the NJ-02 part of Cumberland, while only 45% in the 1st. Throw in a bit of Ocean County, an arm into Camden, and some of Burlington including Democratic Pemberton, and you get a 54% Obama district. Kerry only narrowly lost here. Frank LoBiondo’s home in Ventnor City remains.

In my mind, there’s no point in dragging NJ-03 out to the Jersey shore, forcing it to pick up some nasty bits of Ocean County. (Packing and cracking, holler.) So this district pretty much runs diagonally up the state. Burlington is the center of population, but John Adler’s home of Cherry Hill (along with other Camden municipalities) stay in. Instead of touching Ocean County, it instead grabs some of the somewhat less-Republican Monmouth County – including Freehold and Marlboro Townships. On balance, you get a 57% Obama district – a big improvement over the 52% Obama scored in the current 3rd.

Well, the Republicans have to go somewhere, and this district is it. I tried to string together the most Republican parts of Ocean and Monmouth, and this strip running up the Jersey shore is what you get. I probably could have done a better job in Monmouth by pulling out some of the Democratic municipalities like Red Bank and given them to NJ-06, but that would have messed up the Middlesex districting. I take pride in that both Republican districts had Kerry scoring less than 40%, and Obama getting no more than 42%. I know that technically, Christopher Smith’s house in Hamilton Township is in Mercer County, but eh, I have no reservations against drawing Republicans out.

The other Republican district around here. Again, I tried to pack as much nastiness into this one district, and I think I mostly succeeded. This district takes in all of Sussex County. Originally, all of Warren and more of Morris county were going to go in, but I realized through some creative “tentacling,” this district could grab out some of the less-hospitable bits of Bergen (maintaining the Democratic performance in Steve Rothman’s district) without endangering Rush Holt. Hence the tentacles into Morris, Somerset, and Hunterdon. I think this also shows the relatively larger swing that Obama got in Northwest Jersey, as Obama did better here than in NJ-04, while Kerry did worse. Yes, Scott Garrett’s home in Wantage Township is still here.

When looking at the Presidential results, I realized that Plainfield, at 93% Obama (!!), was part of what was anchoring the Democratic performance here. This was putting a crimp in my plans for NJ-07, so I tried to keep the performance here up without Plainfield. The fact that this had to reach around large swaths of Monmouth County though, was a challenge. I thought Obama performed less well in the Monmouth part of the district (anchored in Asbury Park and Long Branch), but at 57%, no one’s complaining. Frank Pallone lives in Long Branch, which is along the shore (…seriously, move.) Staunchly Republican Middletown Township was getting in the way, along with roughly 50-50 Old Bridge. Luckily, the Brunswicks – New, North, East, and South – were happy to oblige, leaving Obama just shy of 60% here. Yes, this district is contiguous – just ask Sea Bright and Keansburg.

I had designed an old 7th district for Linda Stender awhile ago (when I thought she was going to win), so I made sure to keep Scotch Plains in this district. I also thought we were letting Democratic votes go to waste in Morristown, so I strung the two together. Because of the increased population requirement in going from 13 to 12 districts, this district takes in more bits of Essex and Somerset counties than before, but Obama’s solid 60% in the Plainfield-Westfield-Scotch Plains-Union Township anchor keeps this district at 55% Obama. Incidentally, Rod Frelinghuysen’s home in Harding Township gets placed here.

There are some good Democratic votes in Essex County that I didn’t want to all pack into Donald Payne’s district, so this is where they went. Added is Southern Passaic County, especially the very Democratic cities of Passaic, Clifton, and Paterson (where Bill Pascrell lives, incidentally). Also to relieve pressure on Steve Rothman, this district takes in four municipalities in Southwest Bergen County. You get a 61% Obama district, a few points shy of the current 8th, but Pascrell will survive.

This district, I think, changes the least from the current configuration. It keeps most of southern Bergen county. I would specify the municipalities that form the core, but I think the heuristic ‘towns in which you’re stuck in traffic on 95 before the Bridge” works well enough. It does reach a bit farther north than before, hitting the New York state line, and also south into Secaucus and Kearny in Hudson County – so basically, all of I-95 north of the Turnpike split and the Meadowlands. Fair Lawn – Steve Rothman’s residence – remains in this 61% Obama district.

The current NJ-10 and NJ-13 I always thought had unnecessary encroachments on each other, and this configuration cleaves Newark and Jersey City into separate districts. Obviously, this is centered on Newark (Donald Payne’s residence), which has about 40% of the district’s population. Also included are the Oranges, and a branch to hit Roselle Park through Elizabeth. I didn’t want too much Democratic goodness in Union and Essex to go here, so it reaches northwest from Newark to hit the nasty parts (Essex Fells, Fairfield, etc) and has a township in Morris County included for good measure. By my calculations, this district is 47.5% African-American and another 23% Hispanic/Latino, which should satisfy the VRA as a ‘coalition’ district. At 82% Democratic, this is the most Democratic in New Jersey.

Renumbered from the 13th, this district is centered on Jersey City and Bayonne. It also includes Hoboken and Albio Sires’ home in West New York. Going south, it goes through Elizabeth and Linden in Union county to Carteret, Woodbridge, and Perth Amboy in Middlesex. This district is 42% Hispanic and another 15% African-American, which again should satisfy the VRA. I think that’s why the current NJ-10 and 13 interfere so much, so that the majority-Black areas in Jersey City are included in the 10th and the predominantly Hispanic areas in Newark are kept in the 13th. Either way, 72% Obama, no worries.

Unquestionably, this is the district I’m most proud of. The current map was designed to help Rush Holt, and he does happen to be one of the Congresspeople I like more than most. So I set out trying to draw a good district for him. Obviously, the Democratic strength would have to come from Mercer County. Trenton is currently split between NJ-04 and this one, but with NJ-04 out of the picture, all of 93% Obama Trenton can fit here. Throw in Hopewell, Princeton, and you get a 74% Obama section. To the North, this district basically carves out the less Republican parts of Hunterdon, Warren and Somerset, and I think this shows – Obama scored 45% in this district’s part of Hunterdon, 46% in Warren, and 53% in Somerset, as opposed to the 38% he got in the parts of Hunterdon and Warren in the 5th and 40% in Somerset. Rush Holt’s home in Hopewell Township is here (as is Leonard Lance’s residence in Clinton Township in Hunterdon). At 57.9% Obama, this is only a 0.20% drop from Holt’s current district. Oh and yes, it is contiguous.

So there you have it. Questions, comments?

If you want shapefiles, vote statistics, outline maps, please ask!

As mentioned on today’s issue of Politics1.com: http://www.politico.com/news/s…

Huntsman says, against conventional wisdom (at least for the Republican base), that their party can’t be a party of “no”, among other things.

Sorry, I couldn’t think of a funnier title for this diary.  If you can, please do suggest it.

Also, a question: Is Utah so Republican that there are Republicans who are more liberal than Democrats there (as I’ve heard there are Democrats in Massachusetts who are more conservative than Republicans)?

We’re going to try out a new feature for weekday afternoons here at Swing State Project: four or five links to various items that we want to get out there but don’t feel like investing a diary’s worth of effort on. Enjoy the bullet points! (We encourage you to add your own bullet points in the comments, and otherwise treat this as an open thread.)

• UT-Sen: Daily Kos polls the 2010 Utah Senate race, where the action appears to be in the primary, but Bob Bennett looks safe for another 6 years. Bennett beats David Leavitt 44-23 in the primary, and, in the general, manhandles Rep. Jim Matheson 55-32 and Jeopardy! champion Ken Jennings 57-21, not that we should expect either of them to run.

• OH-Sen: A third Dem has jumped into the primary field for the 2010 Senate race: state representative Tyrone Yates. He doesn’t have the stature of Fisher or Brunner, but as the only African-American and only Cincinnati-area candidate, he may well complicate things.

• WA-08: The first Dem challenger has announced, and it’s another wealthy ex-Microsoft executive, Suzan DelBene. Don’t look for her to have the field to herself this time, though.

• MN-Sen: In an indication that the Coleman camp has exhausted every possible legal argument that can win in court, he’s moved onto arguing that it was basically a tie so let’s just have a do-over election. Not the kind of thing that someone who has a hope of winning in court ever says.

• Census: The Congressional Black Caucus is pushing the White House to keep the Census within its portfolio even though reliable Dem Gary Locke will now be taking over at Commerce.

• Blogospheria: Blogger brainpower (including Jane Hamsher, Glenn Greenwald, Markos Moulitsas, and Nate Silver) and union bucks come together in the new Accountability Now PAC. The goal is to pressure (and where there’s a good target, primary) bad Dems and create more space for good Dems to maneuver on the left.

• RI-01: Republican state representative John Loughlin is strongly considering a suicide mission against challenge to Rep. Patrick Kennedy. Kennedy got 69% against no-names in his last two elections, but apparently his approval ratings are softening.

• HI-01: In another district where you might be surprised to know there’s an elected Republican, Honolulu city councilor Charles Djou has announced his candidacy for HI-01, which is expected to be vacated by Neil Abercrombie as he goes for governor. Djou claims the endorsement of every Republican in Hawaii’s legislature (all 7 of them).

• NC-Sen: Former state treasurer, and gubernatorial primary loser, Richard Moore won’t be getting involved in the Dem primary to take on Richard Burr in 2010. The field looks clearer for AG Roy Cooper.

Siena College (2/18-19, likely voters):

Scott Murphy (D): 34

Jim Tedisco (R): 46

(MoE: ±3.7%)

Here is the first public poll of the special election in NY-20 to replace Kirsten Gillibrand; compared with the Tedisco internal released a few weeks ago (which had Tedisco up 50-29), it shows Scott Murphy in a better position, although still in a pretty deep hole.

The good news is that Murphy, who has never held office before, is still little-known, giving him room to grow (his favorable/unfavorable is 29/10 with 61% undecided); Tedisco, by comparison, is much better known, although he’s viewed pretty favorably (47/20, with 34% with no opinion). The poll also asks an interesting question: whose endorsement will matter the most to you? The most common answer is Kirsten Gillibrand, who still maintains a stratospheric 75/15 favorability rating in the district. Gillibrand stumping in the district will go a long way toward helping Murphy here. Discussion is already underway in DTM,B!‘s diary.

From December 2007 to March 2008, I wrote various drafts of a proposal on how our political parties — starting in 2012 — might adopt primary election procedures that would better serve our country in selecting presidential candidates. I originally drafted a hypothetical calendar for 2008, based on general election results from 2004. Now that we have the results for 2008, I can now propose a calendar specific to 2012.

The system by which our parties choose their presidential candidates has proven itself to be, at best, highly questionable — at worst, severely flawed.

The primary calendar we need most is one that is built on an orderly and rational plan — one that is based on mathematics and on recent historical outcomes — and not on an arbitrary, publicity-driven, system of one-upsmanship. The change I propose would provide for a more effective, equitable process than the one we have now.

The following factors are the key ones to consider:

Margin of Victory

– The state primaries would be placed in order according to the leading candidates’ margins of victory in the preceding general election — with the states registering the closest margins of victory going first.

For example, John McCain won Missouri by 0.1% and Barack Obama won North Carolina by 0.4%; conversely, McCain won Wyoming by 33%, and Obama won Hawaii by 45%. Therefore, the primary calendar I propose would commence with primaries being held in states such as Missouri and North Carolina — and would close with such states as Wyoming and Hawaii.

– The purpose of ordering the states according to the margin of victory is to help the parties determine which candidates can appeal to those states that have found themselves most recently on the Electoral Divide. A narrow margin in the general election is reflective of an evenly divided electorate. In this scenario, a candidate who appeals to, say, Florida and Montana is more likely to appeal to a greater number of Americans on the whole.

Iowa, New Hampshire, and Fairness

– Iowa and New Hampshire might object to this new system, given their longstanding tradition of being the first states to cast their ballots. However, so long as Iowa and New Hampshire retain their record of being fairly bipartisan states, they’ll maintain their position towards the front of the primary schedule.

– Just because a state should have its primary later in the season does not mean that that state will prove invaluable to the process. Indiana and North Carolina weren’t held until May 6th, but those two states might have very well decided the fate of the 2008 Democratic nomination.

– This new system allows other states to play a greater role in how the parties select their candidates. For example, Missouri and North Carolina would be two of the states to get the limelight in 2012. Likewise, based on the results to come in November of 2012, a still-different slate of states could have a more significant role come 2016. A rotating system will be healthier and fairer.

Groupings of Five, and Timing & Spacing

– By placing states into groupings of five, no one state will be overly emphasized on any given date.

– Candidates will still need to address the concerns of individual states, whilst having to maintain an overall national platform. For example, a candidate will be less able to campaign against NAFTA in Ohio whilst campaigning for it in Florida.

– Given that each state has its own system for electing its delegates, these groupings of five states will act as an overall balancer. Ideally, caucuses will be done away with altogether by 2012. However — should that not happen — states with caucuses, states with open primaries, and states with closed primaries can all coexist within a grouping, therefore no one system will hold too much influence on any given date.

– Racial and geographic diversity in this process has been a great concern for many. The narrowest margins of victory in 2008 were in a wide variety of regions — the Midwest, the Great Lakes, the Mid-Atlantic, the South, and the West.

– All parties would have an interest in addressing these narrow-margined states early on. The incumbent will want to win over those states that were most in doubt of him in the previous election, and opposing parties will want to put forth candidates who have the best chance of winning over those very same states.

– Primaries will be held biweekly, giving candidates and the media enough time to process and respond to the outcomes of each wave of primaries.

– Washington DC will be placed in the same grouping as whichever state — Virginia or Maryland — is closer to its own margin of victory.

– American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and Americans Abroad — not having Electoral votes of their own — will determine their own primary dates, so long as they occur between the first grouping and the last grouping.

Under these guidelines, the proposed calendar for the 2012 primary season is:

January 2012

Tue, 1/10

Missouri

North Carolina

Indiana

Florida

Montana

Tue, 1/24

Ohio

Georgia

Virginia

Colorado

South Dakota

Tue, 2/7

North Dakota

Arizona

South Carolina

Iowa

New Hampshire

Tue, 2/21

Minnesota

Pennsylvania

Texas

Nevada

West Virginia

Tue, 2/26

Mississippi

Wisconsin

New Jersey

New Mexico

Tennessee

Tue, 3/6

Kansas

Nebraska

Oregon

Kentucky

Michigan

Tue, 3/20

Washington

Maine

Louisiana

Arkansas

Alabama

Tue, 4/3

Connecticut

California

Illinois

Delaware

Maryland

Washington DC

Tue, 4/17

Alaska

Idaho

New York

Massachusetts

Rhode Island

Tue, 5/1

Utah

Oklahoma

Wyoming

Vermont

Hawaii

Our friends at Public Policy Polling have a pair of new Texas polls out this week. Let’s have a look.

First, the presumably open seat Senate race (2/18-20, registered voters):

John Sharp (D): 36

David Dewhurst (R): 42

Undecided: 22

John Sharp (D): 36

Greg Abbott (R): 44

Undecided: 19

John Sharp (D): 37

Florence Shapiro (R): 36

Undecided: 29

Bill White (D): 37

David Dewhurst (R): 42

Undecided: 21

Bill White (D): 36

Greg Abbott (R): 42

Undecided: 22

Bill White (D): 36

Florence Shapiro (R): 37

Undecided: 27

(MoE: ±2.6%)

Need a scorecard? Here you go:

Former state Comptroller John Sharp

Houston Mayor Bill White

Lt. Governor David Dewhurst

Attorney General Greg Abbott

State Senator Florence Shapiro (Dallas/Fort Worth area)

Lots of numbers here, but unfortunately, all of this information may not be of much use to us at this point for a number of reasons: 1) Neither Abbott nor Dewhurst have announced their intentions to run, but also; 2) Assuming Hutchison resigns and a special election occurs, we’ll be first have to deal with a massive jungle-type primary with potentially dozens of candidates (Democrat, Republican, and freakazoid alike) throwing their ten-gallon hats into the pen. The top two will then advance to a run-off, so the events that lead us there could easily throw us all for a loop.

However, the immediate takeaway is that White and Sharp start off on nearly equal footing — their favorability ratings are a rough match (33-25 for Sharp and 31-26 for White), but both also have the most room to grow in this field in terms of name recognition — a little over 40% of voters don’t know diddly about either man, while Abbott and Dewhurst are known to 68% and 73% of respondents, respectively. (Unsurprisingly, though, Shapiro leads on this score with a 48% “not sure” rating.)

Oh, and speaking of that brewing gubernatorial primary battle… Hutchison is creaming Perry (2/18-20, likely GOP primary voters):

Kay Bailey Hutchison (R): 56

Rick Perry (R-inc): 31

Undecided: 13

(MoE: ±3.5%)

Things are looking pretty grim for Perr-Perr, though who knows how nasty this primary could get. Discussion already well underway in DTM,B!’s diary.

At this point, it wouldn’t be a surprise to see Tom McClintock and Gary Coleman show up to run in the Republican senate primary in Louisiana. So far, we have a potential challenge to David Vitter, a man who allegedly paid for sex, from Stormy Daniels, a woman whose career is based around being paid for sex. (If Mary Carey’s candidacy for governor of California is any indication, the Daniels candidacy shouldn’t be expected to get any serious traction, if it even becomes official. As a marketing ploy it might not even pencil out for her, if the anticipated revenues from increased sales of DVDs to curious constituents interested in learning more about her positions are exceeded by lost residuals from campaign advertising laws preventing her cinematic works from being shown on Louisiana cable systems.)

As of today, add a more legitimate potential challenger: Tony Perkins, prominent religious right talking head and current head of the Family Research Council. This is what Vitter was trying to head off with his recent moves to the hard right (taking on Clinton for SoS, for instance), but Perkins apparently still smells blood, today telling Politico that he’s “considering” the race.

“I don’t think he needs to say anything else about it, but I don’t think he can do anything else about it,” Perkins said. “Can people feel a sense of trust in him to publicly stand with him and support him and help him? Maybe he has [gotten to that point]. I know I still get some questions. I think he is certainly vulnerable [to] a challenge from the right – a candidate without issues.”

Perkins does have a background in elective politics: he lost the 2002 Senate primary and prior to that was a state representative in Louisiana, where he helped pass the state’s “covenant marriage” law which allows couples to opt into a marriage where divorce becomes more difficult. He also managed the failed 1996 Senate campaign for Woody Jenkins (last seen losing the LA-06 special to Don Cazayoux).

This is an extremely difficult race to handicap, since it’s still unclear who will be running (no Dems have stepped forward yet). It’s also unclear how the Republican base would split in the case of one of the nation’s most right-wing senators being challenged from the right: the breakdown may not be ideological as much as based on religion and region, as Vitter is a Catholic who used to represent New Orleans suburbs, while Perkins is from Baton Rouge and will play better among evangelical Protestants in the state’s north. (And don’t forget that while Louisiana threw out its traditional jungle primary for federal races, it still uses runoffs for primary races where no one hits 50%, and if there’s a third candidate a runoff may result.)

It’s tempting to say that a Democrat would have a better shot against the ostensibly more polarizing Perkins (with his links to the Council of Conservative Citizens and, via the Jenkins campaign, David Duke) than Vitter, but with Vitter’s travails, maybe not. And with Louisiana one of the few states trending away from the Democrats, they might not have much of a shot against either one.

Check out my new video!

A fascinating – and long overdue – development today:

The District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act overcame a major hurdle Tuesday, passing a Senate cloture vote by 62-34. …

The bill would give the Democratic-heavy District a voting Representative in the House and Republican-leaning Utah an extra seat that it just barely missed adding in the 2000 census. …

If the House and Senate versions pass each chamber as is, the bill would have to go to conference in order to iron out some differences – mainly, the fact that the Senate bill gives Utah a new district seat, while the House gives the state an at-large seat.

In practical terms, if this bill passes and survives constitutional scrutiny, DC will undoubtedly elect a Democrat. As for the Utah “sweetener” (necessary to ensure Republican votes), the question is whether the state legislature would use the opportunity to screw Jim Matheson out of his seat. The House solution neatly avoids this problem and would be my preferred outcome. Note that while no state with more than one representative utilizes at-large districts, there’s nothing forbidding it, and many states have done so in the past.

In any event, an at-large seat would probably only be temporary, as Utah is almost assured of gaining a new seat after the 2010 census. The enlargement of the House to 437 seats, however, would be permanent. And, bizarrely enough, this would mean the likely end of potential ties in the electoral college:

[T]he Constitution says that each state gets the same number of electoral votes as it has seats in Congress (in both the House and the Senate). So, you’d think that two more members of Congress would mean two more electoral votes, increasing the Electoral College from 538 members to 540.

However, the 23th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which granted the District voting rights in presidential elections, stipulates that the District only gets as many electoral votes as the state with the fewest. Even if this legislation is enacted (and upheld by the courts), Washington, D.C. will still only have three electoral votes.

As a result, the Electoral College will only increase by one vote, not two. That means that the Electoral College’s members would add up to 539, which, tragically, is an odd number. When you have an odd number of voters, it’s always tricky to end up with a tie vote. Unless a third-party candidate took some electoral votes, one candidate would have a majority.

Incidentally, Election Data Services’ latest study (PDF, p. 14) variously shows CA, NC, OR, and WA in the 436th and 437th slots, meaning one of those states would likely pick up an extra seat (or in the case of California, not lose a seat) in 2012.

UPDATE: A CRS report (PDF) suggests that Congress might have outlawed at-large districts – but because Congress has the power to set such rules (under the Constitution), it can do as it pleases vis-a-vis Utah. The same report also says that such a district would not violate one person, one vote jurisprudence.