Category Archives: House of Representatives

Redistricting — Utah

By tmess2 | Published June 12, 2021

Utah, like Nebraska and Kansas, is a state in which Republicans technically control the redistricting process, but geography gives the Democrats some hopes.  Where in Nebraska it was the Omaha area and in Kansas it was the Kansas City suburbs, the problem in Utah is Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County.  As in other states, the 2019 estimates from the Census bureau have the more urban Fourth District (central Utah) with too many people and the remaining districts (the First in the north, the Second in the west, and the Third in the east) with too few people.  The three less urban districts are roughly equal (with the Second having around 2,500 more people than the First and the Third), but the Fourth may need to shed over 30,000 people.

In Utah, there is an advisory commission which draws proposed maps, but the maps ultimately are drawn by the legislature.  The maps are supposed to keep communities of interest intact and minimize county splits, but Utah Republicans have already shown a willingness to blow past those state law requirements in the 2010 maps.  After 2010, the maps split Salt Lake County (large enough to have a single intact district) between three separate districts with Salt Lake City itself actually being in the Second District.  These maps carefully divide the Democratic parts of Salt Lake County and Utah County between the three districts.  In other words, the map in Utah is a perfect example of cracking.

If the map makers were trying to be proportional, it is possible to draw a district that combines the Democratic part of Salt Lake County with the Democratic part of neighboring Summit County to create a toss-up district that slightly favors the Democrats.  In short, geography gives Democrats a chance at having one toss-up district in Utah, but the Republicans are unlikely to  draw fair lines. Continue Reading...

Also posted in Elections | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Redistricting — Utah

Redistricting — Nebraska

By tmess2 | Published June 6, 2021

In Nebraska, the new lines will be drawn by the Nebraska Legislature.  Nominally, the races for the legislature are non-partisan, but the general consensus is that most of the members are Republican.  As a result, the expectation is that the legislature will try to shift the lines to favor the Republicans., but, as discussed below, that might be hard for the Republicans to achieve.

After the last round of the redistricting, the Second District (Omaha) was a toss-up district.  The First District (most of the rest of Eastern Nebraska including Lincoln) was a safe Republican district — around R+10.  The Third District (the rest of the state including the Sioux City suburbs) is a solid Republican district — around R +30.  On the map, the districts look like three semi-circles with the Second being the inner core surrounded by the First which is surrounded by the Third.  It can be expected that the legislature will, where possible, try to move Republicans from the Third District into the First and from the First into the Second and to move Democrats from the Second into the First and from the First into the Third.  While not absolutely required, in the last round of redistricting the Nebraska legislature tried to honor county lines.  In the last round, that meant that the First District had a very slim sliver of Dixon County (otherwise in the Third District) and that Sarpy County was split into two halves (the eastern half  in the First District and the western half in the Second District

As has been true in other states, urban and suburban areas have grown faster than rural areas.  So the current estimates reflect that the Third District is underpopulated with the Second District being overpopulated.  (The First District is slightly overpopulated.)  The first, and easy step, is to move the part of the First that is in Dixon County into the Third District, but that is less than 800 people.  Even without those people, the Third is over 36,000 short with the First having around 7,000 excess people and the Second having around 29,000 excess people. Continue Reading...

Also posted in Elections | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Redistricting — Nebraska

Redistricting — Maine

By tmess2 | Published June 5, 2021

In a lot of ways, the redistricting process in Maine is simple.  The Maine Constitution requires that the district lines split as few political subdivisions as possible.

The hard part of redistricting is that the process requires consensus.  The initial draft is drawn by a bipartisan commission but has to be approved by a supermajority of the state legislature.  That limits the opportunity for political gamesmanship.

Maine only has two congressional districts.  Currently, the only split county in Maine is Kennebec County, home to the state capitol of Augusta.  Currently, the First District is about 50% urban, but the Second District is only around 28% urban.  As one would expect, the current population estimates for the districts has the First District with some excess population and the Second District is a little bit short.  Assuming that the estimates are correct, that will require moving about 14,000 people from the First District into the Second District.  The only question is which precincts to move, and what might control that decision is the requirement to avoid splitting political subdivisions. Continue Reading...

Also posted in Elections | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Redistricting — Maine

Redistricting — Kansas

By tmess2 | Published May 31, 2021

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. Continue Reading...

Also posted in Elections | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Redistricting — Kansas

Redistricting — Florida

By tmess2 | Published May 30, 2021

Florida is the last of the states with the happy task of creating a new congressional district.  In states in which legislatures draft the new lines, one of the motivating factors in the new lines is legislators thinking about their future plans.   If your state house or state senate district (in other words, your base) is the core of a congressional district, you have a decent shot of winning that district if you choose to run.  And the best time to run is when the congressional seat is open.  While the decision of the incumbent to retire (or run for higher office) is one way that the seat can become open, a new seat is automatically an open seat.

Of course, new/open is not the number of the district.  It’s the geography of a district.  If an incumbent is seeking another term, they are most likely to file in the district that has their old district as the core even if the district has a new number.  (unlike Texas which has just tended to give the “new” districts the new number leading to numbers leapfrogging all over the map, Florida has tended to have the districts flow somewhat logically from the northwest to the southeast.)  If you are a member with influence wanting to run for Congress, you want:  1) no incumbent members of Congress residing in your district (although it is possible to run for a district that you do not live in); 2) no incumbent member of Congress who represented the majority of the district; 3) to have the entirety of your current legislative district in the congressional district; and 4) to have the district favor your party as strongly as possible.  In theory, under the Florida Constitution, the new lines are not supposed to be drawn to unfairly favor either party or to protect incumbents.  And while courts can intervene if the legislature goes too far, the odds that any partisan legislature will strictly obey those constitutional provisions are slim approaching none.

These types of concerns influence redistricting in every state.  Unfortunately, to address those personal concerns of those drawing the lines would require knowing the local politics of every state.  Instead, these articles assume that the main concern is the battle between maximizing partisan advantage (in those states with legislatures in charge) versus trying to draw proportional and competitive lines (in those states with commissions in charge).    With the current map (drawn after the courts struck down the previous map as too partisan), the state is actually roughly proportional.  The Republicans have a 16-10 advantage (with one Democratic seat vacant), but the map is theoretically 14-13. Continue Reading...

Also posted in Elections | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Redistricting — Florida

Redistricting — North Carolina

By tmess2 | Published May 29, 2021

North Carolina could very well be ground zero of litigation over partisan gerrymanders in this cycle.  In North Carolina, bills changing district lines are not subject to veto by the Governor.  When they had to redraw district lines in 2016, the state legislature was brutally honest that their main criteria was to maximize the number of Republican districts — drawing a 10-3 map only because it was impossible to draw an 11-2 map.  The North Carolina courts struck down that map.  The legislature then drew a map that resulted in an 8-5 delegation that survived review.  In short, what we will see happening in North Carolina this year is likely to be the Republicans in the legislature drawing the most aggressive map that they think can survive a court challenge followed by the state courts deciding if the map was an improper partisan gerrymander.

Given that the current lines are what the Republicans drew after the previous lines were struck down in 2019, they probably represent a base map for what the new map will look like.  (The software that I use to guesstimate maps does not have these new lines as an overlay.  So I had to eyeball the lines from the map.  There are a lot of split counties so the below combines districts with split counties together rather than trying to guess exactly how much each district is over or under the new average district — i.e. the target number.  In addition, as noted in previous posts, as the official county, city, and precinct populations have not been released by the Census Bureau yet, this software uses the last population estimate from the Census Bureau which will be somewhat off.)

Over in the eastern part of the state, the First District (lean Democrat) and the Third District (solid Republican) are a combined 5,000-10,000 over the target number for a fourteen-district map.  In other words, there might be a minor adjustment of where the lines are in Pitt County (currently split between the two) and some of Vance County (currently split between the First and the Fourth) will get bumped into the Fourth (which will then need to shed some population to the south and west). Continue Reading...

Also posted in Elections | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Redistricting — North Carolina

Redistricting — Colorado

By tmess2 | Published May 22, 2021

Colorado, to a certain extent, resembles Oregon.  Like Oregon, the census estimates show that all of the districts will need to shrink and shift to make room for the new district.   The good news for Democrats is that the least growth is in the Third District (Western Colorado) and the biggest growth is in the First District (Denver).  The potential bad news is the change to the rules in Colorado.

Since the last redistricting cycle, Colorado has taken the responsibility for drawing district lines away from the legislature and assigned it to a new nonpartisan commission.  In short, that means that the new map may not resemble the old map.

Under the new rules, the commission will be composed of twelve people — four Democrats, four Republicans, and four nonpartisan members.  The process for choosing these people also limit the influence of the political parties on the members.  The new rules required the commission to justify any deviation from absolute equality.  It also requires the commission to consider geographic and ethnic communities of interests.  The rules also direct the commission to maximize the number of competitive districts.  Currently, none of the districts are that competitive.  There are two solid Democratic districts (one of which is ubersolid) and two solid Republican districts.  Two of the districts are safe/lean Democratic districts and one safe/lean Republican districts. Continue Reading...

Also posted in Elections | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Redistricting — Colorado

Redistricting — Montana

By tmess2 | Published May 16, 2021

Montana is unique among the  states that gained a seat from reapportionment in that it will only have two seats in Congress.  With only two districts, there is limited room for playing games with district lines — every move to make one district safer makes the other district less safe.  By contrast, as the number of districts grow, it’s possible to offset big changes in one district with small changes in multiple districts.  In other words, while it’s possible to pack (putting a lot of members of the other party in a small number of districts) and crack (splitting potential pockets of support for other parties among multiple districts) when you have a large number of districts, you have to either pack or crack when you have two districts.  Simply put, the choice is do you have two roughly similar districts (with the majority party favored in both by cracking the supporters of the other voters among two districts) or do you go for one safer district and one somewhat vulnerable district (with the supporters of the minority party packed into one district).

The other thing about the small states is that they fall into two categories.  Some states (like Utah, Nevada, Oregon, and Kansas) have significant metropolitan areas that are large enough to be the base of one or more districts.  Other states like Mississippi and Iowa really lack one metropolitan area that is large enough to be the base of a district.  Montana falls into this latter category.

In looking at potential maps, I did two alternatives.  One was a basic east-west divide somewhat similar to the way that Montana did when they used to have two districts.  While the exact borders can be adjusted.  A basic east-west divide will lead to one safe Republican district and one safe-lean Republican district depending on how aggressive the legislature is in moving Democrats into the western District (which would be the Democrats best chances at winning a district).    You get the same thing with a basic north-south divide.  To get a Democratic district requires something of a jagged semi-circle with tentacles reaching out to connect the Democratic pockets of the state and counter-tentacles reaching the reddest parts of the southwestern part of the state.  Since the state as a whole is safe Republican (around 53-42),  it is much easier for the Republicans to get two districts than for Democrats to get a real chance at splitting the two districts. Continue Reading...

Also posted in Elections | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Redistricting — Montana

Redistricting — Oregon

By tmess2 | Published May 15, 2021

Moving onto the states that gained a seat this cycle, we’ll start with one of the two small ones — Oregon.  Unlike the colossus that is Texas, where the three major metropolitan area each have multiple district that twist and weave around each other and it is very difficult to describe the urban districts, it is very easy to describe the current districts in Oregon.  The First is the most northwest part of Oregon; the Second is the Eastern part of Oregon, the Third is the Portland area; the Fourth is the southwest part of Oregon (containing both major state universities),  and the Fifth is the northwest part of Oregon south of the First and the Portland area (containing the state capitol region).

Oregon is a mix of good news and bad news for the Democrats.  On the good news side of the equation, the Democrats are in control of the redistricting process in Oregon.  On the bad news side of the equation, the Democrats in Oregon seem to be committed to trying to reach a consensus plan with the Republicans.  More importantly, two of the seats currently controlled by Democrats are very slim Democratic majorities.  In other words, the Democrats option in Oregon is between having three toss-up districts or having two lean Democratic districts and one lean Republican district.

Given these interests, I could see the Fifth moving toward the northeast (taking excess from the First and Third.  The northwestern part of the Second, and the eastern part of the Third and the Fifth would be the core of a new Sixth District.  Most of the western part of the Fifth would get transferred to the Fourth district which would lose its eastern and southern part (basically becoming a very small district to the southwest of Portland).  Basically, the new Sixth would stretch from just east of Portland down to the southwest coast wrapping around the other five districts in a very weird shape.  While it is probably possible to do some additional adjustments, these are the breakdowns that I got (noted there were some third party votes:  First — Democrats 57.4%, Republicans 38.1% (down from approximately 65% Democrats); Second — Democrats 32.2%, Republicans 64.0% (up from approximately 58% Republican); Third — Democrats 71.8%, Republicans 24.6% (down from approximately 75%); Fourth — Democrats 54.4%, Republicans 41.2% (up from 52% Democrats); Fifth — Democrats 56.6%, Republicans 39.5% (approximately the same as currently); Sixth — Democrats 47.4%, Republicans 48.3%. Continue Reading...

Also posted in Elections, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Redistricting — Oregon

Texas Special Election

By tmess2 | Published May 2, 2021

Some quick takeaways from the Special Election in Texas for the Sixth Congressional District.

First, Texas uses a “jungle primary” for special elections.  In plain English, that is a non-partisan primary with a run-off if nobody gets 50% of the vote.  And because multiple candidates from a party can file, the parties can be forced to the sideline in the first round when there is no “consensus” pick.  In this case, there were eleven Republicans and ten Democrats.  If you translated the votes for each party into a partisan primary, the leading candidate in each party get about 33% of the votes for that primary.  Needless to say that type of split makes it impossible for the party to push its voters to unify behind the party’s preferred candidate.

Second, as is normal for special elections, the turnout was very, very low.  The final count was fewer than 80,000 votes which is less than 25% of the people who voted in November.  For the reason noted above, the Democratic Party was not able to field a GOTV vote operation.  But it is easy to see how such an operation could have made a difference.  The Democratic candidate in 2020 got over 149,000 votes.  If even 50,000 Democrats had shown up, the leading Democratic candidate would probably have finished first.  If 75,000 Democrats had shown up, it would be two Democrats advancing to the run-off. Continue Reading...

Also posted in Elections | Comments Off on Texas Special Election