There are three key things to know about Kansas that will drive the redistricting process in Kansas. First, for most purposes, Kansas is a three-party state: the Democratic Party, a traditional Republican Party, and a Nativist-Evangelical-Trumpist Republican Party. In state-wide elections, the two Republican parties battle in the primary. If the winning candidate is too solidly in the wacky wing of the Republican Party (like Spawn of Satan Kris Kobach), the Democrats can win which is how Kansas now has a Democrat in the Governor’s mansion. While that is true for state-wide elections, both versions of the Republican Party hold seats in the Kansas legislature. And their inability to work together is how, despite having a Republican governor back in 2011-12, the last round of redistricting ended up in court. In theory, if the two wings of the Republican Party could reach an agreement, the Republicans do have enough votes to override any veto. So, in theory, the Republicans are in complete control of the process. But, if the Republicans are unable to unanimously agree to a plan, they might not be able to overcome the veto. (They have no votes to spare in the House and four votes to spare in the Senate.)
Second, Kansas is one of the states with a part-time legislature. And the legislature has adjourned for the year. The Governor does have the power to call a special session to deal with redistricting. Given the Democratic minority, for the reasons discussed below, the Democrats have no incentive to call such a special session unless there is a consensus map supported by both parties. The Republicans could force a special session, but, like a veto override, it takes two-thirds of each house to sign a petition for a special session. As noted above, that will require every Republican in the Kansas House of Representatives to sign a petition which might not happen if the Republicans do not have maps that every Republican in the House supports.
Third, Kansas may be the rare state in which geography favors the Democrats. For over seventy years, western Kansas has had its own congressional seat as has the south central area around Wichita. But population change has slowly led the First District’s eastern boundary to drift eastward so that the First District now covers the vast majority of the state. The Democratic core of the state is in the Kansas City suburbs stretching out along I-70 toward the state capitol in Topeka and the University of Kansas in Lawrence. The First District and the Fourth District (the area around Wichita) is very red. As a result the current Second District (the eastern part of the state, including Topeka and Lawrence but not the Kansas City suburbs) and the Third District (the Kansas City suburbs) are essentially a swing to very slightly lean Republican area. And because the Republicans have only a slight advantage when the Second District and Third District are combined, any change to make the Third District redder would potentially put the Second District at risk. In short, barring significant changes, the Republicans can have a 3-0 edge with one toss-up that slightly favors the Democrats or a 2-0 edge with two toss-ups that slightly favor the Republicans.
Based on current populations, the First District is over 20,000 short on population and the Third District has approximately 40,000 more people than it should. (Both the Second and Fourth are slightly under over 10,000 for the Second and around 5,000 for the Fourth.) So even aside from any desire to tamper with the Third District, there is a need to move some population around to meet one person, one vote requirements.
Given these population changes, It’s possible to draw a map in Kansas that favors the Republicans, but it requires very careful line drawing that splits the Democratic core between three separate districts in a way that some local Republicans might not like. The First District would reach out east to take in the Democrats around Topeka. The Second District would take in Republicans in northern Kansas that are currently in the First District and would reach almost to Wichita (the historical core of the Fourht District) in the south with the Fourth District shifting westward into the southeastern part of the First District. Finally, the Second District would expand to take in Wyandotte County (the most Democratic County in the state) from the Third District and give up four or five Republican counties to the south of the Kansas City suburbs to the Third District.
The net effect of these changes would be to reduce the Republican majority in the First District by around six percent, but it would still be almost R+15. The Second District would become around 4% more Democratic, but it would still be lean Republican (around R+8 instead of R+10). And the net effect would be to make the Third District a swing district that favors Republicans (around R+4) rather than a swing district that favors the Democrats (D +1).
While there are potential ways for the Republicans to draw a favorable map, such a favorable map would potentially fail due to the divisions in the Republican Party. The new lines technically would put the current representative from the Second District into the First District. And bringing the eastern boundary of the Fourth District closer to Wichita is going to put in jeopardy the control that the Wichita area has on that district. And as noted above, it only takes one Republican defecting in the House to allow the Democrats to block this map.
And, if the maps have to go to the courts, you are likely to see a more natural map with the Second District taking in Miami County and the Western part of Johnson County from the Third District (in other words the most Republican parts of the Third District). The First District would get the rest of Marshall County (currently split with the Second District) and part of Jackson County from the Second District. The First District would also get the rest of Pawnee County from the Fourth District which would gain part of Montgomery County from the Second District. These lines would marginally move the Second District in favor of the Republicans and the Third District in favor of the Democrats but only by around 1%. Such a map would essentially makes only the minor changes necessary to bring the districts into balance.
In short, in Kansas, the Democrats have a shot at forcing the courts to draw the maps, and, as courts are reluctant to make major changes to the existing maps in the absence of some legal imperative, the maps drawn by the courts are likely to be as favorable as the Democrats can get. Given how red Kansas is, the best that the Democrats can hope for is one swing seat that slightly favors the Democrats. While Lawrence and Topeka are good pockets of Democrats in a sea of red, there are just too many Republicans between them and the Kansas City suburbs to draw a safer Third District. Even if one could carefully draw the lines to reach out a narrow tentacle to those areas, the resulting shape is not one that would be appealing to the judge(s) hearing any “one person, one vote” case seeking to have the courts draw the new districts if the legislature fails.
Of course, as with everything else that we are saying in these posts, the exact maps in Kansas will depend on how close the 2019 population estimates are to the actual Census. The overpopulation of the Third District allows it to shed the Republicans in Miami County and the southwestern part of Johnson County to the Second District. If the Third District is not overpopulated, it keeps those Republicans and might pick up some more Republicans in Miami County. But we will not have those numbers for several more months. For now, the Democratic plan has to be to sit tight and to rely on the courts if the Republicans in Kansas are not willing to compromise.
