2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Missouri

[MarkD]

You're right, reagente, District 1 is a VRA-protected district so it can't be split. But part of me wonders whether the MO GOP would really have the stones to try to split up Kansas City in your suggested way too. Even though the current District 5 is not technically a VRA-protected district, some civil rights attorneys might threaten a lawsuit anyway, calling District 5 a "minority-influence district." Despite the lack of precedent for that approach, such a threat of a lawsuit might intimidate the MO GOP, and that together with some reluctance of suburban KC Republican legislators to see their region split up might result in some inertia to using a map like yours.

[MarkD]

State Senate Redistricting:

This probably starts off as 24-10, but could shift a bit either way depending on how far trends go. Dems have more theoretical upside, but only because they are already close to bottoming out.

That is a very interesting map. In that map, Districts 21 and 29 stay exactly the same as they are now. District 19 will likely flip Democratic in 2024, although that win might be mitigated by the new version of District 1 possibly flipping Republican. District 24 might flip Republican in 2022. Also, I don't think that they'll change St. Charles County's Districts 2 and 23 as drastically as that map shows. The new map will more likely keep District 2 in western St. Charles and District 23 in the eastern part of the county.

Regarding a new congressional district map, I still don't think -- like I said earlier in this thread -- that the legislature is going to crack the current District 5 and create a 7-1 map. I think it is more likely that the legislature will keep the map with the current 6-2 ratio.

[MarkD]

Alright - we have a DRA link now:

https://twitter.com/Missouri_Mapper/status/1476810221750214687

There's something not adding up here. If I take this map and compare it to the Wikipedia "List of counties in Missouri," and calculate, I end up with 88 too many people in districts 5 and 6, and 88 too few people in districts 7 and 8. That is, if I take all of the whole counties in 1, 2, 3, 4, add 3,327 people in Ray County, I get 3,077,456, which is 769,364 x 4. That would leave 19,831 people in Ray; if I add them to all the other whole counties in district 6, add in Clay and Jackson counties too, that should mean either 1,538,728 or 1,538,729. But instead I have 1,538,817 (in the combined area of what appears to be districts 5 and 6). Likewise, if I take what appears to be the 41 whole counties in districts 7 and 8 (9 whole counties in 7, 31 whole counties in 8, and Taney County split between the two districts), that adds up to 1,538,640, which is 88 less than what it should be (769,364 x 2).

The only way it could add up correctly is if somewhere, out of Camden, Miller, Maries, Gasconade, Franklin, or Jefferson counties, there is a split county that doesn't appear to be split on this map, and 88 people who live in one those counties are actually in district 8 instead of 3. So I clicked on "Tools" and "Find Split Precincts," and low and behold, there does appear to be a precinct that, bizarrely, is mostly in Camden County but spills over slightly into Laclede County. I cannot fathom why there would be, anywhere in the whole state of Missouri, an election precinct that crosses county boundaries! That doesn't make any sense at all! And even after examining that one bizarre split precinct, the math still doesn't make sense, because there have got to be more than 88 people in that large swath of southeastern Camden County (that appears to be merged with a very small chunk of Laclede County). So I'm still trying to find 88 people somewhere among those six counties who appear to be in 3, according to the map, but who are actually in 8. (Or perhaps, besides all that, there is something wrong with the numbers in Wikipedia!)

Is this map pretty much a done deal or is it likely to be altered a bunch before passing?

Unless Governor Parson calls a concurrent special session imminently, it seems like the process could be subject to a lot of shenanigans from people trying to advance their parochial concerns. The Senate GOP can only afford to lose one vote, so unless they rely on Democrats, two Republicans can hold up the entire map.

One area to look at will be St. Charles. The two State Senators representing the county are going to be pissed and they could conceivably get the Senate Conservative Caucus to try to force a map change.

Yeah; having lived there almost all of the first forty years of my life, and being very familiar with the precincts of St. Charles County, I definitely do not like seeing that east-west dividing line that splits, apparently, twelve precincts. I would prefer, and I feel pretty sure that Senators Onder and Eigel would prefer, a north-south dividing line instead, so that all of Eigel's SD 23 can be in MO-02, and most of Onder's SD 2 can be in MO-03. (I recently heard rumor that Onder's intention next year is to run for County Executive, which would make sense since it's about time for Steve Ehlmann to retire.)

Besides those two STCC Senators, can you think of any other legislators - of significant influence - who might put pressure on changing this map in some way? Notwithstanding that STCC split, I think it's a very good map.

[MarkD]

State Rep. Peter Meredith (HD-80; St. Louis)(I've performed with him - singing-wise - and spoken to him in the statehouse) posted the following on Facebook three days ago:

So… the new maps for the House were (amazingly) passed unanimously by the bipartisan commission. Nobody expected that. But here’s the thing: Dems have a LOT to be optimistic about going into the next election.

Under the current maps, 49 districts voted for Biden in 2020 and 50 voted for McCaskill in 2018. Dems currently hold 49 seats.

Under the new maps, 57 districts voted for Biden and 60 for McCaskill. We have every reason to believe we can grow our caucus significantly this year.

But it will take work, candidates and money. More districts than ever before are close and competitive. 14 of these districts were within 5pts last election, and 27 were within 10 pts. And even when we had a slight advantage, it’s usually harder for us to compete down ballot, where the Rs typically outspend us by 2-1 or 3-1 or worse, with a couple billionaires footing the bill, incumbents with name recognition, and institutional donors giving them much more simply because they are in power.

If you’ve thought about running, now is the time to contact us and step up. The new map is below in comments, and our website to find out how to get help running.

If you’ve thought about volunteering, now is the time to connect. Sign up to connect with our field director Alex Johnson on our website linked in the comments.

If you’ve thought about giving money before to support dems running for the MO House, NOW is the time to start. Again, go to our website.

Our Missouri House Dems started this cycle with infrastructure that we’ve never had before - full time staff, a network of volunteers across the state, and a more professional approach to messaging than we’ve ever had. We’ve got candidates already recruited in many districts, and provide every one with free websites, headshots, field plans, campaign plans, access to the voter database and so much more (our “campaign in a box”).

When I came into office, we didn’t even have a campaign committee, while the Rs raised and spent $5mil or more a year from theirs. My first cycle as chair we raised and spent over $500k and the second cycle we reached over a million. We flipped four districts blue, and were one of the only states in the country to manage to pick up a blue seat even in this very difficult last election. This year we’re looking to double that million raised, and we’ll need it if we want to flip a whole bunch more seats this cycle and this decade.

HELP US MAKE 2022 A BLUE WAVE.

Here was the link to the district map: https://redistrictmo.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/basic/index.html?appid=b30ec69d8b0f46ebaf6e080ca54b8ed1&fbclid=IwAR2Hgz6RT0ddqCzFC96GwTvxzr9CL2T9noo7HgEOPxGIaeuU3xNuQLxqg2w

Here was the link to the Dems' website: https://www.mohousedems.com/?fbclid=IwAR0qo4a6ZtZjWvgLj9ms-EeKdNTt_GCks3ty3xr8gfTZCfz17t01o6Rx2B8

Districts that will be made up of 1 or more whole counties, and no partial counties:
1 - Atchison, Gentry, Holt, Nodaway
2 - Caldwell, Daviess, Grundy, Harrison, Worth
5 - Marion, Ralls
120 - Crawford, Dent
145 - Perry, Ste. Genevieve
148 - Scott
157 - Lawrence

Counties that will be made up of 2 or more whole districts, and no partial districts:
Cole - 2 districts (59-60)
Boone - 5 districts (44-47, 50)
Jefferson - 6 districts (97, 111-115)
Greene - 8 districts (130-137)
St. Louis City - 8 districts (76-82, 84)
St. Charles - 11 districts (63-65, 69, 102-108)
Jackson - 19 districts (19-37)
St. Louis - 27 districts (66-68, 70-75, 83, 85-96, 98-101, 110)
(Combined population of those 8 counties = 3,214,712 -- which is 52.23% of the state's population. Those 8 counites will have 86 seats in the House, which is 52.76% of the 163 seats in the House.)
Three districts in this map have the appearance of being severely gerrymandered districts: #76 (spread out across more than 3/4s of St. Louis's riverfront), #78 (spreading from as far north as Herbert St. in St. Louis to as far south as Gasconade St.), and #88 (Southwest St. Louis County).
(The system for numbering districts on this map is just as bad as it had been ten years ago! Districts 39 and 40 are over 150 miles apart from each other; districts 62 and 63 are roughly 200 miles apart. Districts 61 and 63 are much closer to each other than either of them are to district 62. Districts 48 and 49 are separated from each other by all of Boone County; district 49 is surrounded by 43, 44, 60, and 61. Districts 68 and 70 are in St. Louis County, but 69 is a few miles away, across the MO river, in St. Charles County, and doesn't share a boundary with either of them. District 99 has been plucked out of West St. Louis County (where it was for the last ten years) and plunked down in Mid St. Louis County; 99 is surrounded by districts 71, 72, 83, 86, 89-91. District 75 is several miles away from either 74 or 76, and 74 sits in between 85 and 86 (comparing the old map to the new one, they seem to have decided to switch district numbers 74 and 85 with one another; it would have been far more logical to switch the numbers 74 and 85 on this map). As I noted above, in St. Charles County, the districts are numbered 63-65, 69, and 102-108, but 102 and 103 do not share a mutual boundary, neither do 103 and 104, and neither do 106 and 107 (which are several miles apart). The two districts that lay wholly within Franklin County, with a long mutual boundary, are 109 and 119. Such silly choices where to put district numbers!)

[MarkD]

State Rep. Peter Meredith (HD-80; St. Louis) ... posted the following on Facebook three days ago:

So… the new maps for the House were (amazingly) passed unanimously by the bipartisan commission. Nobody expected that. But here’s the thing: Dems have a LOT to be optimistic about going into the next election.

Under the current maps, 49 districts voted for Biden in 2020 and 50 voted for McCaskill in 2018. Dems currently hold 49 seats.

Under the new maps, 57 districts voted for Biden and 60 for McCaskill. We have every reason to believe we can grow our caucus significantly this year.
-
-
-
-
-

Here was the link to the district map: https://redistrictmo.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/basic/index.html?appid=b30ec69d8b0f46ebaf6e080ca54b8ed1&fbclid=IwAR2Hgz6RT0ddqCzFC96GwTvxzr9CL2T9noo7HgEOPxGIaeuU3xNuQLxqg2w

-
-

Counties that will be made up of 2 or more whole districts, and no partial districts:
Cole - 2 districts (59-60)
Boone - 5 districts (44-47, 50)
Jefferson - 6 districts (97, 111-115)
Greene - 8 districts (130-137)
St. Louis City - 8 districts (76-82, 84)
St. Charles - 11 districts (63-65, 69, 102-108)
Jackson - 19 districts (19-37)
St. Louis - 27 districts (66-68, 70-75, 83, 85-96, 98-101, 110)
(Combined population of those 8 counties = 3,214,712 -- which is 52.23% of the state's population. Those 8 counites will have 86 seats in the House, which is 52.76% of the 163 seats in the House.)
-
-

Update: Today was the first day of filing to appear on the ballot in the August primary. Of course, neither a congressional map nor a state senate map has come out yet, so perhaps some people who filed don't even know whether they will live in the district that they have filed to run in.

Here's some more information about the degree of competition that there will be for seats in the Missouri House, as discussed above by Peter Merideth.
According to this document available on the MO SoS website, the House Independent Bipartisan Citizens Commission which drew the map described the specific details of the 163 districts with the following data: population per district, VAP per district, black population per district (either all black in the census or part black), total minority population per district, black VAP per district, total minority VAP per district, and lastly partisan statistics per district.

The document, for some reason, does not explain how the commission calculated the partisan makeup of the districts, but I will assume that it was pretty similar to how the commission that did the district map ten years ago calculated at that time. Ten years ago, they used the elections results for 11 different kinds of elections from the preceding five general elections in even-numbered years: all three federal elections, and eight kinds of state elections, including state legislative elections. The only difference between ten years ago and this time is that ten years ago, they did not bother to include the votes cast for minor-party candidates/independents, but this time they did include those votes. You can find the partisan statistics that the commission calculated on pages 57-61 of the document.

Based on this document, I can't confirm what Rep. Merideth said about there being 60 districts that McCaskill won, or 57 districts that Biden won. The data in this table only explains what percentage of votes were cast for all Democrat candidates, all Republican candidates, and all other candidates in every general election for the last five general elections (again, I'm assuming that is the basis of the calculating that they did). But here is the way I can summarize the data from those pages (57-61).
Exactly 100 districts have a Republican percentage of at least 52.50%, which I take to mean they will be Likely R to Safe R.
13 districts I would rate in the Tossup to Lean R range, because these districts are 48% to 52.50% Republican. (One of these districts, #29, located in south-central Independence, is almost exactly evenly matched between Rs and Ds.)
11 districts I would rate in the Tossup to Lean D range, because these districts are 48% to 52.50% Democratic.
That leaves 39 districts that are 52.50% or more Democratic, making them Likely D to Safe D.

So, if Democrats do win all 50 districts that are 48% or more Democratic, according to this table, then they only have to win 5 of the districts that are in the 48% to 52.50% Republican range to be able to get over the 33.33% hump that they have been under for the last seven years. (55 out of 163 seats is 33.74% of the seats in the House.) But they have to win a total of 16 of the 24 districts that are in the most competitive range -- 52.50% D to 52.50% R -- to get to that point.

[MarkD]

There are four House districts in which no one has yet filed to run for the seat, even though each of them has an incumbent who is eligible to run for at least one more term. One of those four is district 80, in the city of St. Louis; the incumbent is Peter Merideth, who I quoted above. One of the other three is district 42, encompassing Warren County and a chunk of Montgomery County; the incumbent is Jeff Porter (R), who is eligible to run for two more terms. The other two are in lower Clay County: districts 17 and 18, in which the incumbents are Mark Ellebracht (D) and Wes Rogers (D), respectively.

There's a former state representative who is trying to win a seat again after giving hers up two years ago: Deb Lavender. She has run for state rep six times in the last 14 years. She lost her first three tries in a district that encompasses Kirkwood in St. Louis County (2008, 2010, and 2012), then she won the next three times (2014, 2016, and 2018). She gave up her seat in 2020 when she tried to run for state senate, but lost with 46%. She is still eligible to win one more term, and she is trying to do so from a new district, a few miles west from Kirkwood; the new district she is trying in encompasses much of the same area in west St. Louis County that Democrat Trish Gunby won in a 2019 special election and in 2020.

I recognize one other name of someone running for state rep in the city where I grew up, in a district in which the new lines include my boyhood neighborhood. In district 106, which encompasses most of the northern half of the city of St. Charles, Buddy Hardin is one of two Republicans who have filed. This district includes most of the population who were in the previous district 65, which is currently vacant because the guy who won in 65 the last three elections died of a stroke last year: Tom Hannegan. I first met Buddy about thirty years ago, at the weekly meetings of the St. Charles County Pachyderm Club. Buddy had once run for state rep in the state of Illinois -- in 1988, I believe -- but lost that race. Then he moved across the river to St. Charles, MO. He married County Recorder of Deeds Barbara J. Hall (who was first elected to that position in 1986, and she recently retired, as of 2018, after 32 years as RoD), then he ended up running for state rep in St. Charles County twice during the 1990s. In 1996, he had the Republican nomination without opposition, but lost the general election with 46%. Two years later, he won the Republican primary with 68%, but lost a second time to the same Democrat with 47.7%. Now here it is, 24 years later, and he's going to try again? Wow.

In the senate side, there's a few interesting things going on. The new map is still not out; there are over 30 candidates who have filed even though they don't know what their district is going to look like. Republicans currently hold 14 of the seats that are up this year; Democrats hold only 3. The three districts they have are all in the St. Louis area: districts 4, 14, and 24. District 4 shares a mutual boundary with 14, and 14 shares a long mutual boundary with 24. Karla May has filed to run again in 4, Brian Williams has filed to run again in 14, and district 24, where Jill Schupp is term limited, has state rep Tracy McCreery running. None of these three districts has yet to see a Republican file to run as well (although it would be understandable for Republicans to not even try for 4 or 14; it's district 24 where they certainly have a good chance to win and they ought to have a nominee file this year). But conversely, there are no Democrats who have yet filed to run for any of the 14 districts that Republicans currently hold. They certainly have a good chance to win district 30, covering most of the city of Springfield, and they should have nominees running for districts 6, 8, 26, and 34 too. I think state rep Crystal Quade ought to run for SD 30, but she has not filed to run for any office yet.

[MarkD]

https://twitter.com/RedistrictNet/status/1503377543155666945?s=20&t=EKRoRKwZ...

MO senate map. legislature has adjourned until March 21.

Here are the election results by district - a pretty status quo map:

https://twitter.com/Missouri_Mapper/status/1503402072355573763

"Pretty status quo"? Maybe, for most districts. But I notice three very surprising things about this map. 1) They split Buchanan County. No county with a population of that size has been split by senate district lines since the 1980's, when Franklin County was split. 2) They rearranged boundaries for districts 28, 29, and 31 when they didn't have to. If those three districts were left as is -- to have the exact same boundaries as the last ten years -- they would still have been within optimal population size. District 28's population, if the boundaries were not changed, would be 1.26% below average (178,754 compared to 181,027); District 29's population would be 1.08% above average (182,980); and District 31's population would be 2.14% below average (177,156). So why change those three at all? 3) They changed District 11, in Jackson County, so drastically that it is now going to be even more Republican than District 8. That means a high probability that it will flip in the 2024 election, and will elect a Republican for the first time ever. (At the same time, it is somewhat probable that District 19 will flip back to the Democrats in 2024, although that partisan change was pretty much to be expected.) So this map is "status quo" mainly in terms of the fact that Democrats are unlikely to win any more than the ten seats they currently hold.

I've been toying with senate district maps of my own, but the only two districts that I drew that are exactly the same as in this map are districts 19 and 32. I kept 28, 29, and 31 as is (the same boundaries as ten years ago), and I left District 11 as a Dem-lean district, so with District 19 likely to flip, I was giving Dems 11 seats instead of their current ten. And my new version of District 30 would have been slightly more competitive than this version. So this map looks to me very surprising in a lot of ways.

~~~~
In other news, a Republican has filed to run in HD 80, but incumbent Democrat Peter Merideth has still not filed for reelection. Now all 163 districts have at least one candidate who is running. Like HD 80, no Democrat has yet filed in HD 132, even though they currently hold it, and they are likely to keep both 80 and 132 in their column this November so long as they have good candidates (80 is a sure thing, but 132 only leans D). Besides 132, there are 7 other districts which are definitely very competitive -- less than 52.50% Republican -- but no Dems have filed to run in them yet. Nineteen Democrats have so far filed to run in Safe R districts (60% Republican or more), but of the 19 districts that are Likely R (52.50% to 60% Republican), only 7 have Dem candidates that have filed so far. So far, only 81 districts have Democrats who have filed to run. In the last five election cycles, Dems have had 114 nominees who ran for the House on average, and the lowest number has been 97 nominees, so they certainly should have 20 to 35 more people who run for the House this year. So far, Republicans have filed to run in 129 districts, and they'll probably have about five or six more than that before filing closes.

UPDATE: As of this morning, 3/17, Rep. Jeff Porter is not going to run for re-election to his seat in the House: A) he doesn't live in the new version of HD 42, B) he has filed this morning to run for SD 10. There is going to be a three-way race for SD 10 between two incumbent members of the House and one former member of the House: Porter, Travis Fitzwater (four terms so far, so he's term limited; he represents most of Callaway County), and Bryan Spencer, who was elected to four terms, 2012-2020, in western St. Charles County (and a chunk of northeastern Warren County). A fourth Republican who filed to run for SD 10, Joshua Price, of Mexico, MO, is not in SD 10 now that the new map is out, and I think it's highly likely he will withdraw from the race for SD 10 and instead will run for SD 18 against incumbent Cindy O'Loughlin (if Price will run at all; or maybe he'll switch to run for the House against incumbent Kent Haden in HD 43). There's also another Republican who filed to run for the state senate who does not live in the district he filed for, and that's a guy who lives in Camden County, who filed to run in SD 16 (because that county was located in that district for the last ten years), but he now lives in SD 6 instead, so maybe that guy will also change which district he's filed in.

[MarkD]

Also, overshadowed by today's congressional redistricting news, but here's the GOP primary breakdowns in a number of State Senate districts:

https://twitter.com/Missouri_Mapper/status/1507052484220575750

Out of 17 available senate races, Democrats have only 3 candidates running, each of them in the seats that they already hold, and no Democrat has yet filed to run in any of the other 14 districts, all of which are held by Republicans currently, and all 14 Republicans are at least lean Republican; most are heavily Republican. The oddest list of candidates for any of the senate districts so far is in district 30 - covering Springfield. The incumbent, Lincoln Hough, is eligible to run for reelection; he has been quoted in the media as saying he intends to run for another term, and would file "soon," but that was a month ago, but he still hasn't filed to run, with only three business days left before filing ends. Also, as the most competitive senate district that is up for grabs this cycle, a Democrat should run for this seat, such as Rep. Crystal Quade, but still no Democrat has filed yet. It would be utterly ridiculous for Democrats to not try to compete for any of those Republican-held seats, especially SD 30, and to only have 3 candidates running for the three seats they currently hold (4, 14, and 24; adjacent to one another in the St. Louis City-County area).

[MarkD]

Also, overshadowed by today's congressional redistricting news, but here's the GOP primary breakdowns in a number of State Senate districts:

https://twitter.com/Missouri_Mapper/status/1507052484220575750

Out of 17 available senate races, Democrats have only 3 candidates running, each of them in the seats that they already hold, and no Democrat has yet filed to run in any of the other 14 districts, all of which are held by Republicans currently, and all 14 Republicans are at least lean Republican; most are heavily Republican. The oddest list of candidates for any of the senate districts so far is in district 30 - covering Springfield. The incumbent, Lincoln Hough, is eligible to run for reelection; he has been quoted in the media as saying he intends to run for another term, and would file "soon," but that was a month ago, but he still hasn't filed to run, with only three business days left before filing ends. Also, as the most competitive senate district that is up for grabs this cycle, a Democrat should run for this seat, such as Rep. Crystal Quade, but still no Democrat has filed yet. It would be utterly ridiculous for Democrats to not try to compete for any of those Republican-held seats, especially SD 30, and to only have 3 candidates running for the three seats they currently hold (4, 14, and 24; adjacent to one another in the St. Louis City-County area).

Quade is eligible for one more term in the legislature and her house seat is bluer than the Senate seat, which still voted for Trump and is unlikely to go Blue.

(I've just got to nitpick this point with you.) House districts 132, 133, 135, 136 (the new versions under the new map) all lie entirely within Senate district 30, and collectively, those four house districts encompass 82.8% of the population of the senate district. Democrats have a 4.35-point advantage in 132 and a 3.38-point advantage in 135; Republicans have a 3.00-point advantage in 133 and a 4.75-point advantage in 136. So, collectively, that region within the senate district the two major parties are effectively equal to one another. It's only the remaining 17.2% of the district - on the southern and western periphery, partially within House districts 130, 134, and 137 - that Republicans have a huge advantage. And overall, it gives the whole senate district a slight Republican lean. According to the election analysis that the panel of judges who drew this map, SD 30 has about a 3.52-point Republican advantage. Hence, the district is only a Tilt R district, and therefore there absolutely should be a Democrat who runs for district 30, and there's no reason for Quade to not be the one who runs for it. She's the most prominent officeholder the Democrats have in that district. Lots of previous members of the House have run for a higher office despite having three or less terms, including some who are running for the senate or the US House this year. Or if Quade does run for HD 132 again, some other Democrat should run. (Four years ago, the Dem nominee for SD 30 got 46.7%; this is a district they should not give up on.)

[MarkD]

Also, overshadowed by today's congressional redistricting news, but here's the GOP primary breakdowns in a number of State Senate districts:

https://twitter.com/Missouri_Mapper/status/1507052484220575750

Out of 17 available senate races, Democrats have only 3 candidates running, each of them in the seats that they already hold, and no Democrat has yet filed to run in any of the other 14 districts, all of which are held by Republicans currently, and all 14 Republicans are at least lean Republican; most are heavily Republican. The oddest list of candidates for any of the senate districts so far is in district 30 - covering Springfield. The incumbent, Lincoln Hough, is eligible to run for reelection; he has been quoted in the media as saying he intends to run for another term, and would file "soon," but that was a month ago, but he still hasn't filed to run, with only three business days left before filing ends. Also, as the most competitive senate district that is up for grabs this cycle, a Democrat should run for this seat, such as Rep. Crystal Quade, but still no Democrat has filed yet. It would be utterly ridiculous for Democrats to not try to compete for any of those Republican-held seats, especially SD 30, and to only have 3 candidates running for the three seats they currently hold (4, 14, and 24; adjacent to one another in the St. Louis City-County area).

Quade is eligible for one more term in the legislature and her house seat is bluer than the Senate seat, which still voted for Trump and is unlikely to go Blue.

(I've just got to nitpick this point with you.) House districts 132, 133, 135, 136 (the new versions under the new map) all lie entirely within Senate district 30, and collectively, those four house districts encompass 82.8% of the population of the senate district. Democrats have a 4.35-point advantage in 132 and a 3.38-point advantage in 135; Republicans have a 3.00-point advantage in 133 and a 4.75-point advantage in 136. So, collectively, that region within the senate district the two major parties are effectively equal to one another. It's only the remaining 17.2% of the district - on the southern and western periphery, partially within House districts 130, 134, and 137 - that Republicans have a huge advantage. And overall, it gives the whole senate district a slight Republican lean. According to the election analysis that the panel of judges who drew this map, SD 30 has about a 3.52-point Republican advantage. Hence, the district is only a Tilt R district, and therefore there absolutely should be a Democrat who runs for district 30, and there's no reason for Quade to not be the one who runs for it. She's the most prominent officeholder the Democrats have in that district. Lots of previous members of the House have run for a higher office despite having three or less terms, including some who are running for the senate or the US House this year. Or if Quade does run for HD 132 again, some other Democrat should run. (Four years ago, the Dem nominee for SD 30 got 46.7%; this is a district they should not give up on.)

But Quade is literally minority leader. I'd assume she'd keep that position for her final term.

You were right: this afternoon Crystal Quade did file to run for reelection for HD 132 (although the fact that she took so long to do it was one of the reasons I was wondering which office she would run for).
With less than an hour ago today and then just one more day before filing closes, there are now 54 districts with a D v. R race, leaving 109 districts without such a race. Republicans have 188 candidates running in 130 districts, and Democrats have 104 candidates running in 87 districts (and there are 10 Libertarians and 1 Constitution Party candidates). I can see at least 1 more district that a Republican ought to file in - district 135 in Springfield - and at least 5 more districts in which Democrats ought to file in - 16 and 38 in Clay County, 30 in Jackson County, 101 in St. Louis County, and 106 in St. Charles County - because those six districts are all very closely competitive. Those six districts range between being 52.50% Republican and 52.50% Democratic.
Republicans have filed to run in all but 1 senate district, and so far Democrats have filed to run in 10 senate districts - including SD 30, where incumbent Republican Lincoln Hough also just filed.

[MarkD]

MO SoS's website has the following disclaimer:
"Pursuant to section 115.361, RSMo., candidate filing will reopen for the offices of U.S. Senator, State Senator - District 10 and District 16, State Representative - District 17, District 29, District 88, District 98, and District 101. Filings for these offices only will be accepted during normal business hours starting Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 8:00am to Friday, April 8, 2022 at 5:00pm."

With each of those respective offices, those particular districts, a candidate who had previously filed withdrew from those races either today or last Friday. For example, incumbent Republican State Rep. Derek Grier originally filed on the first day (Feb. 22) to run for HD 101, but withdrew from the race this morning -- and, at the time, the only other person who filed was a Libertarian. After several hours, another Republican and a Democrat filed before the close of business today, but the SoS office is going to allow more people to file during Apr 5-8 because of Grier's withdrawal. I remember, decades ago, when this law (section 115.361) was adopted because it was deemed unfair that some incumbents would file to run for reelection, they would go for five weeks without anyone else filing to run against them, then on the last day of the filing period, the incumbent would withdraw and some relative or friend would file instead on that last day, thus effectively handing the seat to that person, because no one else knew the incumbent was going to withdraw. That really was an unfair trick for incumbent state legislators to pull, so it was appropriate to do something about it. But I thought it was only applicable if someone would withdraw on the very last day of filing; I don't know why they are allowing this extended filing period for the offices in which certain candidates withdrew last Friday (such as in HD 88; a Democrat had filed on the first day, but last Friday he withdrew from that race and filed, instead, to run for SD 26. As of now, there isn't a Democrat who is running for the seat, so that apparently is why filing for that district will be reopened next week).

There are exactly 200 Republicans who are running for 135 house districts, and 117 Democrats who are currently running for 96 house districts -- although another Democrat may choose to file, next week, for HD 88, which would make it 118 Dems running in 97 house districts. In the past, the lowest number of Democratic nominees there has been was 97 in the year 2016. As of now, there will be 68 D v. R contests, and the lowest there have ever been was 66, also in 2016. Over the last 20 years, the average number of D v. R contests there have been for the 163 seats in the House has been 92, with as low as 66 and as high as 117.

[MarkD]

The guy on the left, with the red hair and red beard, is Rep. Peter Meredith -- District 80 -- who I referenced and quoted in Reply #280 (page 12 of this thread). As I said earlier this year in that post, I have met him in person a couple of times, including once when I was performing in a chorus and he sang a solo with our chorus. This year, he and Crystal Quade were the last incumbent House members to file to run for reelection.

Yes, Sol, this is extremely clownish behavior for a state legislature with Republican supermajorities in both chambers.

[MarkD]

I've been looking at HB2909, but it describes the precincts and the census blocks that are in each district, for divided counties; it doesn't have raw population data. I'd like to know what percentage of St. Charles County is in MO-2 and MO-3 respectively. In the last map, as drawn ten years ago, about 37.5% of STCC was in MO-2 and about 62.5% in MO-3, but just eyeballing the new map, it's pretty clearly going to be much more of STCC in MO-3 and much less of it in MO-2. It looks as if it may be about 75% to 25% ratio in this map. It's also interesting to see them divide Warren County by following exactly along I-70, which leaves Foristell, Wright City, and Warrenton all divided between the two congressional districts. I have figured out that 30.09% of Jefferson County is in MO-3 compared to 69.91% in MO-8.

[MarkD]

For the sake of transparency, here are the two maps I've been debating:

Option 1


Option 2

In both of these iterations, you are putting Luetkemeyer's Miller County home just outside of MO-3. That doesn't prevent him from running again in MO-3, but it does mean he couldn't vote for himself unless he moves to a new home somewhere in your versions of MO-3.
Also, that's a pretty tiny little dot of St. Charles County you've got in  MO-2. Isn't that just an uninhabited piece of the Missouri River floodplain?