2030 Reapportionment: Nightmare Scenario for Democrats?

[Bernie Derangement Syndrome Haver]

As we all know from the 2020 reapportionment, projections can only be taken with a grain of salt, especially when we're still early in the decade. But if population trends hold, here's what we could see in 2030:

+4
Texas

+3
Florida

+1
Arizona
Georgia
Idaho
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Utah

-4
California

-3
New York

-2
Illinois

-1
Michigan
Minnesota
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island


This would be catastrophic for Democrats. Every state that would be losing a seat is in a Biden state and every state gaining is either a Trump state or a tossup with high likelihood of a Republican legislature. I'm going to look at the nets each party would get by pairing up losing and gaining states:

In particular, all of California's losses going to Texas and all of New York's losses going to Florida would be devastating. Probably at least 3 CA seats and 2 NY seats lost would be D, and the TX and FL GOP would gerrymander to make sure at max only one new Dem sink was created in their states. Net of at least +3R out of these exchanges.

-Illinois losing 2 seats would likely be 2 lost Democratic seats. Democrats already gerrymandered the state as extreme as possible to only have 3 hyper-Republican districts and it's unlikely they can go any lower than that. Meanwhile NC and SC would gain 2 seats, and while both could plausibly be blue leaning, I have no doubt that the GOP in both states will find creative ways to not make this happen (North Carolina Republicans in particular are known for their shamelessly aggressive gerrymanders). Net of +2R.

-Oregon losing its sixth seat just 10 years after it gained it would be both embarrassing and weird - how often does something like that happen? That said, it's probably a swingy bluish seat that would go, so a slight benefit to Democrats there (it's easier to draw safer blue seats in a 5-district Oregon). Meanwhile, Idaho is a lock to gain a third one, and although a fair map would have a competitive/D leaning Boise seat, Idaho Republicans will never let that happen. Net of +1R.

-Rhode Island was grossly overcounted last time (thanks Gina ) and it's basically impossible that its luck doesn't run out in 2030 after defying the odds for two reapportionment cycles in a row. That's one lost Democratic seat, and Tennessee's new one should be a Nashville D sink, but we all know it won't be. +1R.

-Michigan's lost seat will likely be a swingy one in central Michigan - perhaps Slotkin's or Kildee's districts will get dismantled, but who knows what party will hold that district by then. On the flip side, the new Arizona seat will probably be somewhere near Phoenix and also competitive. Going to keep this exchange as +0 D/R.

-Pennsylvania's lost seat is hard to predict. It will probably be a more rural seat, perhaps in NEPA? I'll consider this slight good news for Democrats. I'll pair this with Utah, another rare piece of good news for Democrats. Although cracking Salt Lake City 4 ways was doable for the Utah GOP, I think with 5 districts they'll give in and just create a Safe D Salt Lake sink (although they'd likely face criticism for using the new seat they get to help only Democrats). Either way, +1D.

-Minnesota's lost seat is going to be a Republican one, but it also makes the outer suburban seats stretch into the rurals more and as a result they become more Republican. Still bad news for the GOP here. In Georgia, I fail to see how the new seat wouldn't be D-leaning, but who knows what the GOP could do if they control redistricting then. For now, +1D.

So overall, I'd estimate that it would be a net +5R seats if this were to happen (not to mention a significant increase of Republican advantage in the Electoral College). What do you all think?


One more thing I want to note: there's several seats that were on the cusp last time for being added in places like Delaware, New Jersey, and Virginia, and other states like Alabama just barely held on. The math changes quite a bit if these changes occur instead of more seats going to places like Texas and Florida.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Really hard to say this far out; coalitions can change quite a bit.

One thing I'm optimistic about is by 2030 Dems have a good chance at having a divided government in both GA and TX, so the maps in those states may actually be fair. That is especially powerful in TX where political geography naturally favors Democrats, and that geographic advantage only seems to be getting better. In your analysis, it seems to be a given both will be drawn by Rs, but in a divided government scenario, TX could go from 25R-13D --> 18R - 4 - 18D, simillarly in GA 9R - 5D --> 8D - 7R. Those would go a long way in cancelling out Dems seats lost from D states.

In most of those red states, growth is largely powered by D-leaning areas, so even if Rs gerrymander, they'll likely be forced to cede more D-sinks. If UT and TN gain seats, good chance they'll be SLC and Nasheville sinks respectively. If Rs control GA they'll likely have to make the new seat an ATL sink. In TX the GOP will likely need at least one new sink in each of the majopr metros, possibly 2 in Dallas. Even in SC, I'm not concinced the GOP could draw a 7R-1D map.

[kwabbit]

Really hard to say this far out; coalitions can change quite a bit.

One thing I'm optimistic about is by 2030 Dems have a good chance at having a divided government in both GA and TX, so the maps in those states may actually be fair. That is especially powerful in TX where political geography naturally favors Democrats, and that geographic advantage only seems to be getting better. In your analysis, it seems to be a given both will be drawn by Rs, but in a divided government scenario, TX could go from 25R-13D --> 18R - 4 - 18D, simillarly in GA 9R - 5D --> 8D - 7R. Those would go a long way in cancelling out Dems seats lost from D states.

In most of those red states, growth is largely powered by D-leaning areas, so even if Rs gerrymander, they'll likely be forced to cede more D-sinks. If UT and TN gain seats, good chance they'll be SLC and Nasheville sinks respectively. If Rs control GA they'll likely have to make the new seat an ATL sink. In TX the GOP will likely need at least one new sink in each of the majopr metros, possibly 2 in Dallas. Even in SC, I'm not concinced the GOP could draw a 7R-1D map.

I'm gonna try to draw a complete map extrapolating population trends for SC, but just from 5 minutes in DRA I think 7-1 is still possible. Clyburn's seat has to expand more and more each cycle from Black Belt depopulation so it would grab more of the Charleston area and keep SC-01 from getting that blue. The issue for SC-01 is that the trends among educated Whites might just overpower any gerrymander.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

Nothing is more democratic then dooming about events six years out

[Arizona Iced Tea]

Nothing is more democratic then dooming about events six years out

I can't believe it's only 6 years away honestly. It feels like just a few months ago it was early 2021. Time flies fast.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Really hard to say this far out; coalitions can change quite a bit.

One thing I'm optimistic about is by 2030 Dems have a good chance at having a divided government in both GA and TX, so the maps in those states may actually be fair. That is especially powerful in TX where political geography naturally favors Democrats, and that geographic advantage only seems to be getting better. In your analysis, it seems to be a given both will be drawn by Rs, but in a divided government scenario, TX could go from 25R-13D --> 18R - 4 - 18D, simillarly in GA 9R - 5D --> 8D - 7R. Those would go a long way in cancelling out Dems seats lost from D states.

In most of those red states, growth is largely powered by D-leaning areas, so even if Rs gerrymander, they'll likely be forced to cede more D-sinks. If UT and TN gain seats, good chance they'll be SLC and Nasheville sinks respectively. If Rs control GA they'll likely have to make the new seat an ATL sink. In TX the GOP will likely need at least one new sink in each of the majopr metros, possibly 2 in Dallas. Even in SC, I'm not concinced the GOP could draw a 7R-1D map.

I'm gonna try to draw a complete map extrapolating population trends for SC, but just from 5 minutes in DRA I think 7-1 is still possible. Clyburn's seat has to expand more and more each cycle from Black Belt depopulation so it would grab more of the Charleston area and keep SC-01 from getting that blue. The issue for SC-01 is that the trends among educated Whites might just overpower any gerrymander.

Fair - perhaps they draw a 6-1-1 map with a swingy Charleston seat - it's going to be increasingly harder to keep that seat R-leaning, especially if it has to shed population. Everything else can be made at least likely R though, though again impossible to say how things will look politically by 2030; this assumes trends largely continue as expected.

We'll also have to see how VRA holds up as well as black growth - the new seat may have to be a 2nd black functioning seat.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Nothing is more democratic then dooming about events six years out

I can't believe it's only 6 years away honestly. It feels like just a few months ago it was early 2021. Time flies fast.

Yeah lol. I think it's in part because 2022 redistricting was pretty dragged out.

[TML]

In terms of NC, if Democrats can get their act together in that state in a manner similar to what they managed to accomplish in Wisconsin, they could first retake the Supreme Court in either 2028 or 2030, which would likely force that state to give them additional congressional seats in the 2030s (I'm sure a D-leaning court would ensure that Democrats get 7-8 congressional seats out of 15).

[ProgressiveModerate]

In terms of NC, if Democrats can get their act together in that state in a manner similar to what they managed to accomplish in Wisconsin, they could first retake the Supreme Court in either 2028 or 2030, which would likely force that state to give them additional congressional seats in the 2030s.

Pretty unlikely. Dems have really struggled to win statewide elections in NC and that requires them to sweep or come close to sweeping all the remaining court elections of the decade.

Another problem is even on a fair maps geography helps Republicans and remember in NC the Governor's veto is notoriously weak. Even if Dems control the state supreme court and the state had fairer maps, R legislature could essentially govern the state.

[Tekken_Guy]

In terms of NC, if Democrats can get their act together in that state in a manner similar to what they managed to accomplish in Wisconsin, they could first retake the Supreme Court in either 2028 or 2030, which would likely force that state to give them additional congressional seats in the 2030s.

Pretty unlikely. Dems have really struggled to win statewide elections in NC and that requires them to sweep or come close to sweeping all the remaining court elections of the decade.

Another problem is even on a fair maps geography helps Republicans and remember in NC the Governor's veto is notoriously weak. Even if Dems control the state supreme court and the state had fairer maps, R legislature could essentially govern the state.

He said “if Democrats can get their act together”. Democrats were not seen as viable parties in Arizona or Georgia at this point a decade ago.

Is there a reason to think NC Dems’ luck won’t change? Especially with Mark Robinson as the face of the NCGOP now?

Also three of the seats will all be up in 2028. If they don’t lose both of their races before then, they’ll flip the court for 2028 with a clean sweep.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Ds could probably cut two R seats instead of one in NY. Turning NY-01 into a R vote sink and merging one of the GOP vote sinks in upstate together. Assuming upstate continues to suffer disproportionate population loss.

[wnwnwn]

The Alabama rpecedent will have its effects.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

The Alabama rpecedent will have its effects.

The Alabama precedent should ensure the new seat is a D seat.
I could see Rs stretching SC 1 into Horry and dividing the rural Black Belt into two seats, one centered on Charleston and the other on Columbia. This locks down a 6R-2D.

[ProgressiveModerate]

In terms of NC, if Democrats can get their act together in that state in a manner similar to what they managed to accomplish in Wisconsin, they could first retake the Supreme Court in either 2028 or 2030, which would likely force that state to give them additional congressional seats in the 2030s.

Pretty unlikely. Dems have really struggled to win statewide elections in NC and that requires them to sweep or come close to sweeping all the remaining court elections of the decade.

Another problem is even on a fair maps geography helps Republicans and remember in NC the Governor's veto is notoriously weak. Even if Dems control the state supreme court and the state had fairer maps, R legislature could essentially govern the state.

He said “if Democrats can get their act together”. Democrats were not seen as viable parties in Arizona or Georgia at this point a decade ago.

Is there a reason to think NC Dems’ luck won’t change? Especially with Mark Robinson as the face of the NCGOP now?

Also three of the seats will all be up in 2028. If they don’t lose both of their races before then, they’ll flip the court for 2028 with a clean sweep.

I think Dems could have success in winning statewide elections. The issue is in NC that’s not important unless you can win the legislature. In NC, it’d be hard for Dems to win the state leg on a strictly urban/suburban coalition like in AZ or GA; they’d have to come back in parts of rural and small town eastern NC where they lose ground by the cycle.

[Tekken_Guy]

In terms of NC, if Democrats can get their act together in that state in a manner similar to what they managed to accomplish in Wisconsin, they could first retake the Supreme Court in either 2028 or 2030, which would likely force that state to give them additional congressional seats in the 2030s.

Pretty unlikely. Dems have really struggled to win statewide elections in NC and that requires them to sweep or come close to sweeping all the remaining court elections of the decade.

Another problem is even on a fair maps geography helps Republicans and remember in NC the Governor's veto is notoriously weak. Even if Dems control the state supreme court and the state had fairer maps, R legislature could essentially govern the state.

He said “if Democrats can get their act together”. Democrats were not seen as viable parties in Arizona or Georgia at this point a decade ago.

Is there a reason to think NC Dems’ luck won’t change? Especially with Mark Robinson as the face of the NCGOP now?

Also three of the seats will all be up in 2028. If they don’t lose both of their races before then, they’ll flip the court for 2028 with a clean sweep.

I think Dems could have success in winning statewide elections. The issue is in NC that’s not important unless you can win the legislature. In NC, it’d be hard for Dems to win the state leg on a strictly urban/suburban coalition like in AZ or GA; they’d have to come back in parts of rural and small town eastern NC where they lose ground by the cycle.

Not on the current NC map no, but a fair map would crack communities to maximize Democratic seats like Wisconsin’s does even if it’s not geographically compact.

[ProgressiveModerate]

In terms of NC, if Democrats can get their act together in that state in a manner similar to what they managed to accomplish in Wisconsin, they could first retake the Supreme Court in either 2028 or 2030, which would likely force that state to give them additional congressional seats in the 2030s.

Pretty unlikely. Dems have really struggled to win statewide elections in NC and that requires them to sweep or come close to sweeping all the remaining court elections of the decade.

Another problem is even on a fair maps geography helps Republicans and remember in NC the Governor's veto is notoriously weak. Even if Dems control the state supreme court and the state had fairer maps, R legislature could essentially govern the state.

He said “if Democrats can get their act together”. Democrats were not seen as viable parties in Arizona or Georgia at this point a decade ago.

Is there a reason to think NC Dems’ luck won’t change? Especially with Mark Robinson as the face of the NCGOP now?

Also three of the seats will all be up in 2028. If they don’t lose both of their races before then, they’ll flip the court for 2028 with a clean sweep.

I think Dems could have success in winning statewide elections. The issue is in NC that’s not important unless you can win the legislature. In NC, it’d be hard for Dems to win the state leg on a strictly urban/suburban coalition like in AZ or GA; they’d have to come back in parts of rural and small town eastern NC where they lose ground by the cycle.

Not on the current NC map no, but a fair map would crack communities to maximize Democratic seats like Wisconsin’s does even if it’s not geographically compact.

This is pretty tricky unless you eliminate the current County cluster rule (which tbf a liberal court could do).

[Tekken_Guy]

In terms of NC, if Democrats can get their act together in that state in a manner similar to what they managed to accomplish in Wisconsin, they could first retake the Supreme Court in either 2028 or 2030, which would likely force that state to give them additional congressional seats in the 2030s.

Pretty unlikely. Dems have really struggled to win statewide elections in NC and that requires them to sweep or come close to sweeping all the remaining court elections of the decade.

Another problem is even on a fair maps geography helps Republicans and remember in NC the Governor's veto is notoriously weak. Even if Dems control the state supreme court and the state had fairer maps, R legislature could essentially govern the state.

He said “if Democrats can get their act together”. Democrats were not seen as viable parties in Arizona or Georgia at this point a decade ago.

Is there a reason to think NC Dems’ luck won’t change? Especially with Mark Robinson as the face of the NCGOP now?

Also three of the seats will all be up in 2028. If they don’t lose both of their races before then, they’ll flip the court for 2028 with a clean sweep.

I think Dems could have success in winning statewide elections. The issue is in NC that’s not important unless you can win the legislature. In NC, it’d be hard for Dems to win the state leg on a strictly urban/suburban coalition like in AZ or GA; they’d have to come back in parts of rural and small town eastern NC where they lose ground by the cycle.

Not on the current NC map no, but a fair map would crack communities to maximize Democratic seats like Wisconsin’s does even if it’s not geographically compact.

This is pretty tricky unless you eliminate the current County cluster rule (which tbf a liberal court could do).

Dems could just work off the 2022 map which had a lot of D-favorable seats in the state house in Cabarrus, Buncombe, Pitt, Alamance, New Hanover, Guilford, Forsyth that were reworked into R seats. In the state senate it’s possible to make more swing seats with the Piedmont triad suburbs, make the Cabarrus seat bluer, restore a black vote sink out of SD-01/03, make two winnable seats in Cumberland, and a fair fight in New Hanover.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/1c98e9d3-8c69-4b38-a5ba-e2aa74e8ef3b
What a possible 2030 SC R gerrymander might look like

[Skill and Chance]

I don't think it necessarily means national politics will get more Republican in the long run (though it would certainly give them an immediate leg up in 2032), but that national politics will get more culturally Southern.  Statistically speaking, all the young kids are being raised in the South now and Democrats will have to find a platform that caters to enough of the South (i.e. more than just VA) to survive the 2030's.  However, history strongly suggests they well bounce back.

[Nyvin]

I expect the Florida number to drop down a bit by 2030.

Also a five seat Utah would be interesting to see.

[Skill and Chance]

I expect the Florida number to drop down a bit by 2030.

Also a five seat Utah would be interesting to see.

5 seat Utah and 3 seat Idaho likely force a Dem-leaning seat in both if courts uphold the redistricting guidelines put in place.

[kwabbit]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/1c98e9d3-8c69-4b38-a5ba-e2aa74e8ef3b
What a possible 2030 SC R gerrymander might look like

https://davesredistricting.org/join/a380e4d0-5af9-4a53-9d17-8aae908b1a13

This is 7-1. SC-01 is Trump +10. Trending left for sure but gets some of Myrtle and Georgetown to offset that. Seats 8 and 5 are left trending as well but get some scattered Black Belt counties to offset. This is with extrapolating the 2010-2020 change, idk if it's possible to draw 7-1 with 2020 pop in place. The crucial aspect is that SC-06 can grab all of Black Charleston County and still get enough of Richland to keep SC-05 red once depopulation in the Black Belt is accounted for.

[wnwnwn]

I expect the Florida number to drop down a bit by 2030.

Also a five seat Utah would be interesting to see.

5 seat Utah and 3 seat Idaho likely force a Dem-leaning seat in both if courts uphold the redistricting guidelines put in place.

Boise metro would have a lean R district.
I suppose it would be competitive if the city and state grows enough to make the district appear.

[Unbeatable Titan Susan Collins]

I largely agree with the caveat that it is 6 years out and I think some of the house seats have to be dem sinks .

Tennessee and Utah really have to have d+1

Idaho doesn't (a boise based seat needs to take in to many rurals) 4 seat Idaho which may happen in 205 or even 40 if trends continue would need a Dem seat

The biggest problems for Dems is most of the places losing seats are guaranteed dem seats. RI can only eliminate a Dem, Illinois is already pretty much a max gerrymander. So that is probably -3 Dems

California has limited to eliminate and same parts the Bay area will have to bear some of the loss and there are no GOP seats there. Of the 4 losses, 3 are probably Dems

In New York Dems could probably eliminate 2 GOP seats, but will have to lose at least one of their own.
 

[patzer]

I largely agree with the caveat that it is 6 years out and I think some of the house seats have to be dem sinks .

Tennessee and Utah really have to have d+1

Idaho doesn't (a boise based seat needs to take in to many rurals) 4 seat Idaho which may happen in 205 or even 40 if trends continue would need a Dem seat

The biggest problems for Dems is most of the places losing seats are guaranteed dem seats. RI can only eliminate a Dem, Illinois is already pretty much a max gerrymander. So that is probably -3 Dems

California has limited to eliminate and same parts the Bay area will have to bear some of the loss and there are no GOP seats there. Of the 4 losses, 3 are probably Dems

In New York Dems could probably eliminate 2 GOP seats, but will have to lose at least one of their own.

Illinois did have a proposed map in 2020 with only two GOP sinks iirc, so that may be possible.

Think New York can eliminate three GOP seats easily enough. One of the Long Island seats, the 24th, and merge 10/11 into a Dem-leaning district.