Mid-decade Redistricting

[Landslide Lyndon]

After what happened with Texas and Georgia in the past decade, do you think that the Democrats will try the same in states where they won't have the trifecta now but can achieve it the next 2-4 years?
In which states is there such a possibility?

[Dgov]

After what happened with Texas and Georgia in the past decade, do you think that the Democrats will try the same in states where they won't have the trifecta now but can achieve it the next 2-4 years?
In which states is there such a possibility?

New York most likely--the risk/rewards balance there is just too good for them to pass it up if the GOP retakes the State Senate this cycle and loses it again later on.  They can probably draw themselves a full 24-4 or 23-5 Safe map if the wanted to, and a much stronger State Senate majority for 2012.  In fact, I think they only reason they didn't do it last year was because they didn't want to give the Republicans an issue to use in what then looked to be a competitive Governor's race.

Other than that, it really depends on how the rest of the decade goes.  Honestly I think the reason they didn't draw themselves better maps mid-decade is because they didn't win control on anything in 2002 or 2004 they didn't have already in 2000.  They used to redraw the Texas maps anytime a Republican won a district (which is why their delegation was close to 100% Democrat for the entirety of the Early 20th Century despite not really being a "Solid South" state) until the DOJ basically told them to stop in 1965.

[Skill and Chance]

On the GOP side, they might gain control of the VA state senate in 2011, at which point they could redraw the districts to override whatever compromise is negotiated next year.

[Mr.Phips]

After what happened with Texas and Georgia in the past decade, do you think that the Democrats will try the same in states where they won't have the trifecta now but can achieve it the next 2-4 years?
In which states is there such a possibility?

New York most likely--the risk/rewards balance there is just too good for them to pass it up if the GOP retakes the State Senate this cycle and loses it again later on.  They can probably draw themselves a full 24-4 or 23-5 Safe map if the wanted to, and a much stronger State Senate majority for 2012.  In fact, I think they only reason they didn't do it last year was because they didn't want to give the Republicans an issue to use in what then looked to be a competitive Governor's race.

Other than that, it really depends on how the rest of the decade goes.  Honestly I think the reason they didn't draw themselves better maps mid-decade is because they didn't win control on anything in 2002 or 2004 they didn't have already in 2000.  They used to redraw the Texas maps anytime a Republican won a district (which is why their delegation was close to 100% Democrat for the entirety of the Early 20th Century despite not really being a "Solid South" state) until the DOJ basically told them to stop in 1965.

Democrats should have done this in New York in 2009. 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

On the GOP side, they might gain control of the VA state senate in 2011, at which point they could redraw the districts to override whatever compromise is negotiated next year.

Obama DOJ would veto it.

After what happened with Texas and Georgia in the past decade, do you think that the Democrats will try the same in states where they won't have the trifecta now but can achieve it the next 2-4 years?
In which states is there such a possibility?

New York most likely--the risk/rewards balance there is just too good for them to pass it up if the GOP retakes the State Senate this cycle and loses it again later on.  They can probably draw themselves a full 24-4 or 23-5 Safe map if the wanted to, and a much stronger State Senate majority for 2012.  In fact, I think they only reason they didn't do it last year was because they didn't want to give the Republicans an issue to use in what then looked to be a competitive Governor's race.

Other than that, it really depends on how the rest of the decade goes.  Honestly I think the reason they didn't draw themselves better maps mid-decade is because they didn't win control on anything in 2002 or 2004 they didn't have already in 2000.  They used to redraw the Texas maps anytime a Republican won a district (which is why their delegation was close to 100% Democrat for the entirety of the Early 20th Century despite not really being a "Solid South" state) until the DOJ basically told them to stop in 1965.

Democrats should have done this in New York in 2009.

Why? They hold all but two seats now and only one is a guaranteed loss that probably couldn't be preserved anyway.

[Mr.Phips]

On the GOP side, they might gain control of the VA state senate in 2011, at which point they could redraw the districts to override whatever compromise is negotiated next year.

Obama DOJ would veto it.

After what happened with Texas and Georgia in the past decade, do you think that the Democrats will try the same in states where they won't have the trifecta now but can achieve it the next 2-4 years?
In which states is there such a possibility?

New York most likely--the risk/rewards balance there is just too good for them to pass it up if the GOP retakes the State Senate this cycle and loses it again later on.  They can probably draw themselves a full 24-4 or 23-5 Safe map if the wanted to, and a much stronger State Senate majority for 2012.  In fact, I think they only reason they didn't do it last year was because they didn't want to give the Republicans an issue to use in what then looked to be a competitive Governor's race.

Other than that, it really depends on how the rest of the decade goes.  Honestly I think the reason they didn't draw themselves better maps mid-decade is because they didn't win control on anything in 2002 or 2004 they didn't have already in 2000.  They used to redraw the Texas maps anytime a Republican won a district (which is why their delegation was close to 100% Democrat for the entirety of the Early 20th Century despite not really being a "Solid South" state) until the DOJ basically told them to stop in 1965.

Democrats should have done this in New York in 2009.

Why? They hold all but two seats now and only one is a guaranteed loss that probably couldn't be preserved anyway.

To protect the districts they have.  For instance, they could have sent NY-19 all the way into the Bronx making Hall invulnerable.  They could have also drew themselves a much better state Senate map so they would be guaranteed never to lose the chamber. 

[Skill and Chance]

On the GOP side, they might gain control of the VA state senate in 2011, at which point they could redraw the districts to override whatever compromise is negotiated next year.

Obama DOJ would veto it.

A GOP gerrymander in VA would likely create a second majority African-American district, leaving very little reasonable grounds for the DOJ to veto it (presumably on VRA grounds).  Furthermore, they could do it in 2013 if Obama loses.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I don't see how you could draw a second black district in Virginia in a map that benefits the GOP overall. Best you could probably do is swap one of the Democratic incumbents for a black one, even that is unlikely since VA-02 and VA-05 look like they'll be lost.

[Dgov]

On the GOP side, they might gain control of the VA state senate in 2011, at which point they could redraw the districts to override whatever compromise is negotiated next year.

Obama DOJ would veto it.

A GOP gerrymander in VA would likely create a second majority African-American district, leaving very little reasonable grounds for the DOJ to veto it (presumably on VRA grounds).  Furthermore, they could do it in 2013 if Obama loses.

What makes you think they wouldn't do it?  I don't see the ODOJ sitting something like this out, especially if they have good moral cover (mid-decade redistricting).  They'd strike it down if it doesn't create a 2nd African-American majority district, and they'd strike it down if it looked ugly and not-compact, which are two mutually exclusive options.

[Skill and Chance]

On the GOP side, they might gain control of the VA state senate in 2011, at which point they could redraw the districts to override whatever compromise is negotiated next year.

Obama DOJ would veto it.

A GOP gerrymander in VA would likely create a second majority African-American district, leaving very little reasonable grounds for the DOJ to veto it (presumably on VRA grounds).  Furthermore, they could do it in 2013 if Obama loses.

What makes you think they wouldn't do it?  I don't see the ODOJ sitting something like this out, especially if they have good moral cover (mid-decade redistricting).  They'd strike it down if it doesn't create a 2nd African-American majority district, and they'd strike it down if it looked ugly and not-compact, which are two mutually exclusive options.

The more I think about this, I think they would hesitate even in 2013 with a GOP president for fear of the Democratic candidate for governor having a ready made campaign issue. This would be expecially true if Obama loses, given the strong state level countertrend in VA. 

[Brittain33]

The more I think about this, I think they would hesitate even in 2013 with a GOP president for fear of the Democratic candidate for governor having a ready made campaign issue. This would be expecially true if Obama loses, given the strong state level countertrend in VA. 

I don't think you can get voters to care about this kind of thing.

[muon2]

The more I think about this, I think they would hesitate even in 2013 with a GOP president for fear of the Democratic candidate for governor having a ready made campaign issue. This would be expecially true if Obama loses, given the strong state level countertrend in VA. 

I don't think you can get voters to care about this kind of thing.

I think it depends on the state and its history of mid-decade redistricting. If there's been a history of it in the past, voters would probably view it as inside baseball and it wouldn't go far. In states that have no history of it, there might be some traction depending on other aspects of the political climate.

[Brittain33]

The more I think about this, I think they would hesitate even in 2013 with a GOP president for fear of the Democratic candidate for governor having a ready made campaign issue. This would be expecially true if Obama loses, given the strong state level countertrend in VA. 

I don't think you can get voters to care about this kind of thing.

I think it depends on the state and its history of mid-decade redistricting. If there's been a history of it in the past, voters would probably view it as inside baseball and it wouldn't go far. In states that have no history of it, there might be some traction depending on other aspects of the political climate.

For me, I'm trying to picture that last 5% of voters Democrats in Virginia need to win to get over the top, and I have a hard time seeing it resonate.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It'd work better if the DOJ does veto so they spends tons of taxpayer money fighting that in court.

[minionofmidas]

No-cover mid-decade redistricting is not an election-winning strategy, people. Texas had the minimal cover of the original map being court-drawn plus Democrats still winning a majority of seats with a good bit less than half the votes (by pulling out wins in every vulnerable seat in 2002, which wasn't really foreseeable, but who cares.)
And Georgia, of course, replaced a completely crazy over-the-top gerrymander with a map that (though it includes a few partisan poison pills) is broadly sensible.
And of course, as a gerrymander neither map was all that perfectly successful. (Max Burns winning in 2002, Marshall and Barrow hanging on in 2006, and 2008 too o/c.)

Furthermore, the practice is illegal or of dubious legality in some states. Colorado Republicans considered the issue in 2004 and dropped it over legality concerns.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I think they pushed for it but the State Supreme Court shot them down.

[minionofmidas]

I think they pushed for it but the State Supreme Court shot them down.

I googled it and you're right. Also, the current Colo. map is also court-drawn.

"Colorado General Assembly v. Salazar

Because the Colorado General Assembly failed to agree upon a congressional redistricting plan in time for the 2002 elections, a Colorado state court drew a map. In 2003, the Republican-controlled General Assembly pushed through a new districting map in the closing days of the legislative session. The map was challenged, and the Colorado Supreme Court held that the new plan was unconstitutional because under Colorado's constitution, congressional boundaries could only be drawn once in a decade -- immediately following the federal decennial census.  The Supreme Court denied the State application for certiorari. Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas dissented in the denial, arguing that under Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the Constitution, the state General Assembly has the ultimate authority to draw congressional district boundaries."

[jimrtex]

The more I think about this, I think they would hesitate even in 2013 with a GOP president for fear of the Democratic candidate for governor having a ready made campaign issue. This would be expecially true if Obama loses, given the strong state level countertrend in VA. 

I don't think you can get voters to care about this kind of thing.

I think it depends on the state and its history of mid-decade redistricting. If there's been a history of it in the past, voters would probably view it as inside baseball and it wouldn't go far. In states that have no history of it, there might be some traction depending on other aspects of the political climate.

In Texas, the federal courts had imposed a plan after the Democrats had blocked legislative action in 2001.  The federal court admitted that their plan was the minimum necessary to add 2 seats and hold an election.  The legislature had a moral responsibility to redistrict.

[jimrtex]

I think they pushed for it but the State Supreme Court shot them down.

I googled it and you're right. Also, the current Colo. map is also court-drawn.

"Colorado General Assembly v. Salazar

Because the Colorado General Assembly failed to agree upon a congressional redistricting plan in time for the 2002 elections, a Colorado state court drew a map. In 2003, the Republican-controlled General Assembly pushed through a new districting map in the closing days of the legislative session. The map was challenged, and the Colorado Supreme Court held that the new plan was unconstitutional because under Colorado's constitution, congressional boundaries could only be drawn once in a decade -- immediately following the federal decennial census.  The Supreme Court denied the State application for certiorari. Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas dissented in the denial, arguing that under Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the Constitution, the state General Assembly has the ultimate authority to draw congressional district boundaries."

The Colorado Supreme Court made up its interpretation of the constitution on the fly.  There was never an understanding before then that was the correct interpretation, nor did the district court or the Supreme Court have any inkling in 2001 that they were drawing a permanent plan.  The Supreme Court decision was a party line vote.

When Colorado became a State, it only had one representative, and the Constitution directed that he be represented at large; and further provided that when Colorado was apportioned additional representatives, that they be elected from districts drawn by the legislature.  Recall that the US Constitution does not require election by districts, so the Colorado Constitution was merely specifying the manner by which its representatives were elected.

Following the 1890 Census, Colorado was divided into 2 districts, but when a 3rd representative was apportioned based on the 1900 Census, he was elected at large; and following the 1910 Census, two representatives were elected at large in addition to the two district representatives.  It wasn't until the 1914 election that Colorado had 4 district-elected representatives.  So even in terms of a manner regulation, the Colorado Constitution had not been followed.

In 2001, the two houses deadlocked on redistricting, and the Democrat-controlled senate refused to even appoint conferees.  Redistricting ended up in a Denver district court.  The Democrats submitted their senate plan, which the judge immediately ruled as unworkable because it ripped apart Denver.  He then took the Republican house plan, but let the Democrats modify it and let them redraw the 7th district, even though it splits both Aurora and Lakewood.  The judge then explained his plan, citing the demographic and economic interests of each district, until he got to the 7th, which he admitted he could not explain on any basis other than it was politically competitive.

The plan was reviewed by the Supreme Court, but there was absolutely no notion that the district court judge was fixing the boundaries for the next decade.  The reason it ended up in court was not because there was a violation of the Colorado constitution, but a violation of the US constitution and law.

After the legislature drew a new map, the Supreme Court then made up its new interpretation of the Constitution, claiming that the founders had envisioned a district court judge in Denver to be an arm of the legislature, and one that denied the People of Colorado the right to review the actions of their elected government.  Later court decisions were that no one had standing to even challenge the decision.  Thoroughly unrepublican and a judicial branch running amok.