2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Missouri

[Nyvin]

Democrats: We're going to gerrymander every place we can and infiltrate commissions to get back at those evil Republicans for their past gerrymandering.

Republicans: We can't be too impolite and raucous. We better take the L lying down instead of using the limited power we have.

I guess UT, NC, OH, WA and AZ don't exist?

Of those, only NC and OH actually are gerrymandered to affect more than 1 seat, but both are less gerrymandered than they were 10 years ago. Utah just shored up a seat that was likely to be R anyway. The rest were independent commissions that produced an actually fair map (but since Dems think a fair map is gerrymandered, I guess that makes sense for you to bring that up). Arizona's map last time produced 5/9 Dem-leaning seats in a R-leaning state, and the new map is still 5/9 Biden-won seats.

In the case of OH and NC "less gerrymandered than they were 10 years ago" is a worthless statistic.

[Torie]

In the fruitless arguments about what is a gerrymander, and what is not, and what is fair and what is not, that never persuade anyone, it might be helpful to draw a distinction between what looks like a clean map with the partisan numbers turned off, and then have 3 baskets 1) a basket where based on some proportionality standard, however defined, and there are several of them, that give varying results, the map is unfair politically, so you make it more fair by making it less clean (gerrymandering for the sake of fairness), 2) you do nothing (we don't gerrymander to make maps fair), and 3) we make it less clean and even more unfair, because we want to shut the other party out to the max legally possible.

1. AZ is in basket one, but the Dems might claim that the map was kept too clean to be totally fair, as opposed to just more fair.

2. MI is in basket one, but the Pubs might claim that that the map was made so much more unclean that while it was made more fair, it is not totally fair because it now has a slight lean of unfairness in favor of the Dems. VA may be close to the totally fair ideal, and also went light on the ugly, but some vehemently disagree because they have different definitions of what is fair, and/or predictions as to future voting habits and/or trends.

3. IL, MD, TX, and OH (until struck down), are in category 3.

4. CA is too complicated for me to opine whether it is in basket 2 with Dem bias, Pub bias, or no bias, or in basket 3.

5. I am not sure we have a paradigmatic example of a basket 2 map, and we may never have one.  MT perhaps claim close, but I think without quite getting there. It is more Dem by a tad than the map I would have made ignoring the partisan numbers.

[windjammer]

Democrats: We're going to gerrymander every place we can and infiltrate commissions to get back at those evil Republicans for their past gerrymandering.

Republicans: We can't be too impolite and raucous. We better take the L lying down instead of using the limited power we have.

I guess UT, NC, OH, WA and AZ don't exist?

Of those, only NC and OH actually are gerrymandered to affect more than 1 seat, but both are less gerrymandered than they were 10 years ago. Utah just shored up a seat that was likely to be R anyway. The rest were independent commissions that produced an actually fair map (but since Dems think a fair map is gerrymandered, I guess that makes sense for you to bring that up). Arizona's map last time produced 5/9 Dem-leaning seats in a R-leaning state, and the new map is still 5/9 Biden-won seats.

Love the shifting standards to rationalize GOP gerrymandering in different states. NC and OH are "not as bad as last time" (arguable in OH's case), UT is "just shoring up a likely R seat" (which is only likely R because of a previous gerrymander and would be likely D in any fair map). I'm sure I could find some creative formulas like that to justify IL and MD too, but I'm not going to bother because I'm not a complete hack.

WA and AZ are examples of commissions where Republicans played hardball and Democrats played with kid gloves. To deny it is just delusional. The Arizona map is a soft R gerrymander which in a neutral year would go 6-3 and could even end up 7-2 in a mild Republican year. Sure, the 2010 map was a soft D gerrymander, but two wrongs don't make a right. WA ended up as a status quo map, but that just means enshrining the soft R gerrymander from 2010, so it's absolutely pathetic that Democrats caved on that. Again, feel free to nitpick each individual case applying an ad hoc rationale for why those two are totally OK but the mildldy D-leaning maps that came out of CA and MI are absolutely disgusting or something.

In the end there will be more dem seats than before redistricting so while EG's point was a bit hyperbolic, it is still valid.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Democrats: We're going to gerrymander every place we can and infiltrate commissions to get back at those evil Republicans for their past gerrymandering.

Republicans: We can't be too impolite and raucous. We better take the L lying down instead of using the limited power we have.

I guess UT, NC, OH, WA and AZ don't exist?

Of those, only NC and OH actually are gerrymandered to affect more than 1 seat, but both are less gerrymandered than they were 10 years ago. Utah just shored up a seat that was likely to be R anyway. The rest were independent commissions that produced an actually fair map (but since Dems think a fair map is gerrymandered, I guess that makes sense for you to bring that up). Arizona's map last time produced 5/9 Dem-leaning seats in a R-leaning state, and the new map is still 5/9 Biden-won seats.

Love the shifting standards to rationalize GOP gerrymandering in different states. NC and OH are "not as bad as last time" (arguable in OH's case), UT is "just shoring up a likely R seat" (which is only likely R because of a previous gerrymander and would be likely D in any fair map). I'm sure I could find some creative formulas like that to justify IL and MD too, but I'm not going to bother because I'm not a complete hack.

WA and AZ are examples of commissions where Republicans played hardball and Democrats played with kid gloves. To deny it is just delusional. The Arizona map is a soft R gerrymander which in a neutral year would go 6-3 and could even end up 7-2 in a mild Republican year. Sure, the 2010 map was a soft D gerrymander, but two wrongs don't make a right. WA ended up as a status quo map, but that just means enshrining the soft R gerrymander from 2010, so it's absolutely pathetic that Democrats caved on that. Again, feel free to nitpick each individual case applying an ad hoc rationale for why those two are totally OK but the mildldy D-leaning maps that came out of CA and MI are absolutely disgusting or something.

In the end there will be more dem seats than before redistricting so while EG's point was a bit hyperbolic, it is still valid.

That's entirely because 1. Democrats hold more governorships compared to 2010 and 2. More R-controlled states have enacted independent commissions (or at least rules. It has nothing to do with Republicans being nicer or unilaterally disarming.

[DrScholl]

Not sure if my instincts are correct but I think the urban-rural divide is playing a role in some redistricting. Rural counties do not want to be paired with urban areas that have zero in common with them and I suspect Republican legislators have the same mindset even if it would be political valuable to sink Kansas City into rural districts. Polarization is real and keeping cities and rural areas separate will be big priority moving forward.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

and we have our first GOP dissenter against the map:

https://twitter.com/BillEigel/status/1477409700903800836

How many people do you think he speaks for, likely?

[MaxQue]

and we have our first GOP dissenter against the map:

https://twitter.com/BillEigel/status/1477409700903800836

How many people do you think he speaks for, likely?

He is from St Charles, so he most likely upset that it doesn't create a path for a primary in MO-2é

[GALeftist]

Goes without saying, but this map is very fair and I hope national Democratic groups are making phone calls to Democrats in the Missouri Senate to make sure they show up and vote for this map if it comes to that.

Also, it would be pretty funny if losing MO-02 in 2018 and 2020 ended up benefitting Democrats in the long term. Without Wagner in office, there might not be many voices in the MOGOP advocating against slicing up St. Louis County!

[ProgressiveModerate]

Prolly get some sort of Republican "compromise" map which has MO-02 take in all of St. Charles, in turn making it redder while keeping it's suburban character. There's really no reason for Rs including Wagner herself to oppose this. However, seems like there's too many institutional reasons at this point MO-05 won't be cracked, similar to how MD Dems weren't able to make MD-01 into a reliably blue seat even though they "easily" could've with how ugly they were willing to make the map, but instead made it a swing district that half accomplishes the task.

[lfromnj]

Prolly get some sort of Republican "compromise" map which has MO-02 take in all of St. Charles, in turn making it redder while keeping it's suburban character. There's really no reason for Rs including Wagner herself to oppose this. However, seems like there's too many institutional reasons at this point MO-05 won't be cracked, similar to how MD Dems weren't able to make MD-01 into a reliably blue seat even though they "easily" could've with how ugly they were willing to make the map, but instead made it a swing district that half accomplishes the task.

Wagner may not like it actually because a primary challenger would be from St Charles . That would probably be 60% of the GOP primary vote.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Prolly get some sort of Republican "compromise" map which has MO-02 take in all of St. Charles, in turn making it redder while keeping it's suburban character. There's really no reason for Rs including Wagner herself to oppose this. However, seems like there's too many institutional reasons at this point MO-05 won't be cracked, similar to how MD Dems weren't able to make MD-01 into a reliably blue seat even though they "easily" could've with how ugly they were willing to make the map, but instead made it a swing district that half accomplishes the task.

Wagner may not like it actually because a primary challenger would be from St Charles . That would probably be 60% of the GOP primary vote.

So it's actually better for her to have a more marginal district; an all-St. Charles CD might fairly easily result in her being primaried.

[Oryxslayer]

Another member of Missouri Conservative Caucus has came out against the map. As it stands, the map can no longer pass without Democratic votes:

I'm ready for the GOP Insider - Democrat coalition.

[lfromnj]

Prolly get some sort of Republican "compromise" map which has MO-02 take in all of St. Charles, in turn making it redder while keeping it's suburban character. There's really no reason for Rs including Wagner herself to oppose this. However, seems like there's too many institutional reasons at this point MO-05 won't be cracked, similar to how MD Dems weren't able to make MD-01 into a reliably blue seat even though they "easily" could've with how ugly they were willing to make the map, but instead made it a swing district that half accomplishes the task.

Wagner may not like it actually because a primary challenger would be from St Charles . That would probably be 60% of the GOP primary vote.

So it's actually better for her to have a more marginal district; an all-St. Charles CD might fairly easily result in her being primaried.

Probably not actually better but she seems to think so.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The Democratic caucus needs to come out in support of it right now.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

The Democratic caucus needs to come out in support of it right now.

Not yet, methinks. They shouldn't be too loud about it. If your opponent is in the middle of making a mistake, don't interrupt them.

[BoiseBoy]

https://twitter.com/redistrict/status/1478237130556166147?s=21

[GALeftist]

https://twitter.com/redistrict/status/1478237130556166147?s=21

According to the article, based Democratic sleeper agent Mike Parson has costed the MO House GOP their 2/3 majority by not scheduling special elections for vacancies, a majority which would not be necessary had he called a special session. One can only marvel at the difference between this cycle and 2011, Parson has probably done more for fair maps than Nixon did.

The math will tell you that if we want to pass the map, we will need Democratic votes ... I believe we will get bipartisan support."

[Ebsy]

The loss of the supermajority in the State House is a gigantic embarrassment that will have real consequences for redistricting. As for Eigel, I remember him storming down the halls of the legislature at the end of session 2018 screaming about his bill getting killed (his fellow Republicans killed it because no one liked him). Since then he has been a thorn in the side of the Majority in the Senate, a notoriously dysfunctional body in the best of times. Four of six the members of the "Conservative Caucus" are sad losers that no one can standm hard to believe Denny Hoskins puts up with the rest of them but I suppose they have their uses.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The loss of the supermajority in the State House is a gigantic embarrassment that will have real consequences for redistricting. As for Eigel, I remember him storming down the halls of the legislature at the end of session 2018 screaming about his bill getting killed (his fellow Republicans killed it because no one liked him). Since then he has been a thorn in the side of the Majority in the Senate, a notoriously dysfunctional body in the best of times. Four of six the members of the "Conservative Caucus" are sad losers that no one can standm hard to believe Denny Hoskins puts up with the rest of them but I suppose they have their uses.

In a way it's kinda refreshing to see a red state where personal relationships and good decorum can still prevail over partisanship in legislative behavior. Hopefully that means Democrats and Republicans can come together and pass this fair map.

[vileplume]

The Democratic caucus needs to come out in support of it right now.

Not yet, methinks. They shouldn't be too loud about it. If your opponent is in the middle of making a mistake, don't interrupt them.

Whilst I agree this would be the best strategy for the Democrats to take, it is quite a sad indictment of this whole process when a sensible, fair map is portrayed as a 'mistake'.

[Oryxslayer]

Billy Long of the 7th district supports 7-1:

https://twitter.com/auctnr1/status/1479442040844955650

I think this is the first comment on the matter from a member of the GOP congressional delegation.

Except he isn't  a member anymore,  his district is one of several the leg is playing with to benefit their own candidates as successors.  With this in mind, his statement seems like one to curry favor in the senate primary,  not a statement born out of desires to see "his" seat redrawn.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Billy Long of the 7th district supports 7-1:

https://twitter.com/auctnr1/status/1479442040844955650

I think this is the first comment on the matter from a member of the GOP congressional delegation.

Except he isn't  a member anymore,  his district is one of several the leg is playing with to benefit their own candidates as successors.  With this in mind, his statement seems like one to curry favor in the senate primary,  not a statement born out of desires to see "his" seat redrawn.

Of course. It's not like Billy Long is above engaging in his own bit of kabuki theater.

[BoiseBoy]

https://twitter.com/scottfaughn/status/1480273508202655745?s=21

[Antonio the Sixth]

https://twitter.com/scottfaughn/status/1480273508202655745?s=21

Gerrymandering aside, I doubt that the plan to rotate the entire state by 90° would pass constitutional muster.

[BoiseBoy]

https://twitter.com/K_Schallhorn/status/1480616070088212480
https://twitter.com/missouriscout/status/1480616421457543174
Has any other Republican state seen this much conservative pushback against a proposed map?

Outside of Florida, I don't think so. These people are just dumb and crazy.