-
Recent Posts
- Remaining Races and Recounts
- Election Recap
- Electoral College Anachronism
- Election Security
- Election Night Preview — Part Six (Post-Midnight Eastern)
- Election Night Preview — Part Five — The Local News and the West Coast (11:00 To 11:59 P.M. Eastern)
- Election Night Preview — Part Four — Prime Time Hour Three (10:00 to 10:59 P.M. Eastern)
Search
Welcome to DCW
Upcoming Events
7/15/24 - GOP Convention
TBD - Democratic Convention
11/5/24 - Election DayTools
Archives
Tag Cloud
2008 Democratic National Convention 2012 Democratic National Convention 2012 Republican National Convention 2016 Democratic National Convention 2016 Republican National Convention 2020 Census 2020 Democratic Convention 2024 Democratic Convention 2024 Republican Convention Abortion Affordable Care Act Alabama Arizona Bernie Sanders California Colorado Donald Trump First Amendment Florida Free Exercise Clause Free Speech Georgia Hillary Clinton Immigration Iowa Joe Biden Kansas Maine Marco Rubio Michigan Missouri Nevada New Hampshire North Carolina Ohio Pennsylvania redistricting South Carolina Supreme Court Ted Cruz Texas United Kingdom Virginia Voting Rights Act WisconsinDCW in the News
Blog Roll
Site Info
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- tmess2 on Election Recap
- Anthony Uplandpoet Watkins on Election Recap
- Anthony Uplandpoet Watkins on Election Recap
- DocJess on Don’t think we’re getting a contested convention
- Matt on Dems to nominate Biden early to avoid GOP Ohio nonsense
Archives
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- November 2014
- September 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- March 2014
- January 2014
- August 2013
- August 2012
- November 2011
- August 2011
- January 2011
- May 2010
- January 2009
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
Categories
- 2019-nCoV
- 2020 Convention
- 2020 General Election
- 2020DNC
- 2024 Convention
- 2028 Convention
- Anti-Semitism
- Bernie Sanders
- Charlotte
- Chicago
- Civil Rights
- Cleveland
- Climate Change
- Coronavirus
- Coronavirus Tips
- COVID-19
- Debates
- Delegate Count
- Delegates
- Democratic Debates
- Democratic Party
- Democrats
- DemsinPhilly
- DemsInPHL
- Disaster
- DNC
- Donald Trump
- Economy
- Elections
- Electoral College
- Federal Budget
- Freedom of the Press
- General Election Forecast
- GOP
- Healthcare
- Hillary Clinton
- Holidays
- Hotels
- House of Representatives
- Houston
- Identity Politics
- Impeachment
- Iowa Caucuses
- Jacksonville
- Joe Biden
- Judicial
- LGBT
- Mariner Pipeline
- Merrick Garland
- Meta
- Milwaukee
- Money in Politics
- Music
- National Security
- Netroots Nation
- New Yor
- New York
- NH Primary
- Notes from Your Doctor
- NoWallNoBan
- Pandemic
- Philadelphia
- PHLDNC2016
- Platform
- Politics
- Polls
- Presidential Candidates
- Primary and Caucus Results
- Primary Elections
- Public Health
- Rant
- Republican Debates
- Republicans
- Resist
- RNC
- Russia
- Senate
- Snark
- Student Loan Debt
- Sunday with the Senators
- Superdelegates
- Syria
- The Politics of Hate
- Uncategorized
- Vaccines
- War
- Weekly White House Address
Meta
Tag Archives: 2020 Census
Redistricting — Colorado
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.
Posted in Elections, House of Representatives
Also tagged 2008 Democratic National Convention, Colorado, redistricting
Comments Off on Redistricting — Colorado
Redistricting — Montana
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.
Posted in Elections, House of Representatives
Also tagged Montana, redistricting
Comments Off on Redistricting — Montana
Redistricting — Oregon
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%.
Posted in Elections, House of Representatives, Uncategorized
Also tagged Oregon, redistricting
Comments Off on Redistricting — Oregon
Redistricting — Texas
Texas is up first on the list of first looks at redistricting. This look at Texas will feature some issues that are going to be recurring throughout this discussion and one issue that will impact Texas the most but might come into play in some other states.
The first issue is that we do not yet have the actual precinct and block level counts from the 2020 census. That means that this first look is based on the 2019 estimates. And, of course, estimates are not necessarily exact (as the state level numbers for 2020 showed). While the far right is upset about the national numbers and want to raise sinister suggestions that something happened behind the scenes to fudge the real numbers, it is equally likely that the previous administration was fudging the numbers in the estimates. What is most likely is that certain steps by red state governments and anti-government rhetoric led to an undercount of certain groups in red states in 2020 when the Trump Administration was running the Census. So, we have to expect that there will be some unexpected deviations within states when we get the numbers in November.
The second issue is the Donald Trump had a big impact on voters. There are various ways to measure partisan lean in a state. Most involve taking a composite of recent state-wide elections. The software that I am using is currently based on the 2012 through 2016 elections. In Texas, in 2012, both Senator Ted Cruz and Senator Mitt Romney carried the state by around 16%. In 2014, Senator Cornyn carried the state by about 27% and other Republicans were winning by around a 22% margin. In 2016, Donald Trump won by around 9%. In 2018, however, Senator Cruz only won by 2%. While Governor Greg Abbott won by around 13% with the other state-wide Republicans ranging between 3% and 11%. Finally, in 2020, President Trump only won by 6% and Senator Cornyn won by around 10%. In other words, what my software is showing as a 60-40 state based on the 2012-16 results is actually something more like a 54-46 state. And a good chunk of that swing was in suburban districts which probably went from something like 60-40 to very close to 50-50. Overall, there were three congressional districts (Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Sixteenth) in which the Republican House candidate beat the 2012-16 Republican composite numbers in their district, and in some districts the Republican underperformed by around 10%.
Posted in Elections, Politics
Also tagged Citizen Voting Age Population, Equal Protection Clause, redistricting, Texas
Comments Off on Redistricting — Texas
Redistricting 2021 — The Numbers
On Monday, four days ahead of its latest target date and almost four months behind the statutory date, the Census Bureau released the national and state-level results from the Census including the apportionment numbers that determine how many representatives each get. As can be expected, there are multiple different tables summarizing the data in different ways for us number geeks.
The bottom line table shows the apportionment population (both those living in the state and those residing overseas — like military personnel — who call that state home), the number of representatives that each state is getting, and the change in representation. We will get back to the change in a minute, but the big level number is that the apportionment population is slightly over 331 million. As such, the average size (mean) of each congressional district is just under 761 thousand. Alaska, Vermont, and Wyoming have fewer people than the average congressional district. While the apportionment formula does not work for calculating the population needed for the first representative, even Wyoming has enough population to be entitled to three-quarters of a representative.
If, D.C. and Puerto Rico were states, Puerto Rico would be just ahead of Utah (which has four representatives) and just behind Connecticut (which has five representatives) and D.C. would be between Vermont and Alaska. Given that Puerto Rico is only slightly larger than Utah (which was not close to getting a fifth representative and far enough behind Connecticut, Puerto Rico would be due for four representatives. If both were states, the five states that would lose a representative would have been Oregon, Colorado, and Montana (all of which gained a seat), California (which lost a seat), and Minnesota (which barely avoided losing a seat). The chart of priority values that allows us to consider the impact of adding Puerto Rico and D.C. also shows that Minnesota barely held onto its last seat and New York barely lost its seat. Apparently, given the formula, Minnesota would have lost that seat if it had 24 fewer people, and New York would have kept its seat if it had 89 more people. (The disparity in numbers is caused by the fact that the two states have different number of seats.
Posted in House of Representatives
Also tagged apportionment, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, redistricting, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia
Comments Off on Redistricting 2021 — The Numbers
Redistricting 2021 — A Preview
As long time readers of this site know, back in 2011, we took a rather detailed look at the redistricting process. While we will once again be looking at redistricting, redistricting is going to be a little bit different in 2021 than it was in 2011.
We are nearing the end of the pre-redistricting period. This period roughly covers the four years preceding redistricting (Summer of the year ending in 7 through January of the year ending in 1). There are two basic things happening during this period.
On the political side, during these four years, we are, in most states, electing the state representatives, state senators, and governors who will pass the new redistricting plans. In other states, we are making decisions about the laws that will govern “independent” commissions that will draw up the new districts. We are now, with limited exceptions for filling vacancies, past this phase. It is too late to make changes to state constitutions to alter the rules for redistricting. In states that leave it to the legislative process, the elections for those positions are done and the winners are in office and have the power.
Posted in House of Representatives
Also tagged redistricting
Comments Off on Redistricting 2021 — A Preview
Census Sabotage
Most of the Constitution consists of “cans” and “can’ts.” There are only a few “musts” — things that the government has to do. One of the big musts is that, at least once every ten years” the government must conduct the census — or, as the Constitution phrases it in Article I and the Fourteenth Amendment, an enumeration of the whole number of persons in the United States. The sole exception to being counted is “Indians not taxed.”
Now despite this plain language, Republicans do not like that persons includes those who are not citizens, particularly those who have not lawfully entered this country. While the total number of unlawful immigrants is small, they tend to be concentrated in urban areas that elect Democrats. (Of course, this tendency is offset by the large margins by which Democrats win urban areas.) While there may be some electoral college disadvantages to not counting unlawful immigrants, Republicans have tended to conclude that the advantage in terms of the U.S. House and state legislatures outweighs any electoral college disadvantages. Despite this clear command, the lawbreaker-in-chief has issued a memorandum asking the Census Bureau to exclude unlawful immigrants from the count used to apportion the House of Representatives.
Aside from the lack of legal authority for this directive, it is also unconstitutional. Most of the arguments that I have seen out there supporting this position are simply misplaced. Yes, other countries use different mechanisms for apportioning their legislation (for example, many use registered voters), but that is a policy argument supporting a constitutional amendment. Policy arguments over what the Constitution should say (whether about redistricting or the electoral college) does not alter what the Constitution actually says.
Posted in Uncategorized
Also tagged Donald Trump, Immigration, redistricting
Comments Off on Census Sabotage
Census Update
I am almost reluctant to post this as things are changing daily since the ruling on the 27th.
First, some background. When the Commerce Department first decided to add the question to the Census, cases were filed in multiple districts. (The federal judiciary is divided into districts (the trial courts) and circuits (the appellate courts). Each state has at least one district and the larger states have multiple districts. When a case is filed in a district it is randomly assigned to one of the federal judges appointed for that district). The case before the Supreme Court was a consolidate case filed by two separate sets of plaintiffs in the Southern District of New York which the Supreme Court decided to review before the Second Circuit could. There was also a Ninth Circuit case arising from the Northern District of California that the Supreme Court was holding and a Fourth Circuit case from the District of Maryland. While all of these cases challenged the decision to add the citizenship question to the census, each set of plaintiffs raised different legal arguments.
In its decision on June 27, the Supreme Court split into three general groups — one holding that the question was valid, one holding that the question was not supported by the evidence, and a third group composed of one justice — Chief Justice Roberts. Because the other two groups had four justices each, Chief Justice Roberts had the deciding vote. And he decided that while the record might have supported some reasons for adding the citizenship question to the census, the reason given by the Commerce Department for the question was a lie. Based on this conclusion, the Chief Justice sent the case back to the Second Circuit to send it back to the trial court to strike the question from the census but also send the issue back to the Commerce Department to give the Commerce Department the opportunity to reconsider the matter and — if the Department opted to reinstate the question — give a valid reason. The Supreme Court, by order, directed the Ninth Circuit to consider the Supreme Court’s ruling in its decision on its case.
Posted in Judicial
Comments Off on Census Update
A Nation of Immigrants
The United States has always been a nation of immigrants. Except for the very small percentage who can claim to be “pure-blooded” members of one of the Native American tribes, most people have a family tree with roots in immigrants. And these immigrants came to this country for a variety of reasons — some involuntarily, some for economic reasons, some to escape religious persecution, some to escape ethnic persecution, some to escape political persecution, and some just fleeing political strife (whether internal to a given country or a conflict between countries). Some of these immigrants came from English-speaking area. Others came from areas that were not English-speaking and arrived with little, if any, fluency in English. Many immigrants tended to settle in communities with significant populations from their home regions (and, if they did not arrive with much fluency in English, were able to cope by living in a community in which their native tongue was the predominant language). Today’s immigrants are no different.
However, other than during the early years of this country (when we desperately needed immigrants to fill the areas otherwise occupied by Native Americans), this country has had a love-hate relationship with new immigrants. In fact, one of the immediate precursors of the Republican Party was the All-American Party, a political party which was opposed to immigration by Irish Catholics. Each generation, the undesirable group of immigrants was different, but there were defining characteristics of the anti-immigration sentiment. First, it was almost always the “new group” of immigrants. Second, the claim was always that this new group would not fit in and would somehow change the country if we didn’t keep them out. Third, they were almost always predominately non-Protestant — sometimes Jewish, sometimes Muslim, and all too often Catholic. So the immigrant haters have moved the target of their hatred from the Irish to the Chinese to Eastern/Southern European to Latin Americans to Indochinese and back to Latin Americans. (And the shame is that some of the modern supporters of this agenda are the descendants of the earlier targets who are undoubtedly rolling over in their graves at the dishonorable conduct of their descendants.)
This Fourth of July immigration is at the center of the news again. On the one hand, we have an administration that sees anti-immigrant hatred as a way of winning elections. And because immigrants have always tended to flock to urban centers (a/k/a blue areas in today’s politics), they are willing to tamper with the accuracy of the census in the hopes of being able to use an undercount of the immigrant population to stack the deck in redistricting in favor of the Republican Party.
Posted in Civil Rights, Donald Trump, Holidays, The Politics of Hate
Also tagged Border Detentions, Citizenship Question, Immigration
Comments Off on A Nation of Immigrants
The Supreme Court and Republican Lies
As we approach Independence Day, I tend to listen to my version of patriotic songs. One of those songs is a Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young track that they labeled as “49 Bye-Byes/America’s Children” (basically a modified live version of the Buffalo Springfield song “For What It Is Worth” a/k/a “There’s Something Happening Here” with an intro.) Thursday’s Supreme Court Opinions brought to mind that intro — “Forty-nine reasons all in a line. All of them good ones. All of them lies.”
The most prominent example of this concept is the decision in the Commerce Department case concerning the census question. The ultimate decision in this case was a 4-1-4 split. On the one side, you had the four most conservative members of the Supreme Court. These four did not care to look at the truthfulness of the reasons given for asking a citizenship question on the 2020 census. It was enough that they thought that it was possible to make an argument with a sort of straight face that those reasons would justify adding the question to the census. The four most liberal members thought that it was clear that the Administration had a solution designed to achieve a political end and went searching for a problem that would justify their proposal. The deciding vote was Chief Justice Roberts who continued a history of occasionally throwing liberals a bone while pushing a conservative agenda. Because he had the four conservative justices joining him on the conservative part of the opinion and the liberal justices joining him on the liberal part of the opinion, the Chief Justice’s opinion is an opinion of the “Court” (i.e. it had five votes, so it is precedent for lower courts).
The Chief Justice’s opinion first gives this Administration broad authority to act. It finds few if any limits on the Census Bureau’s ability to place questions on the census in the statutes governing the census. It also recognizes that the Census Bureau is entitled to use the census to obtain whatever information the Census Bureau (or the Commerce Secretary) deems is useful. It also gives broad authority to the Commerce Secretary to determine what weight to put on the information developed by the experts in evaluating the potential questions. So even though the best characterization of the record is that the question is likely to interfere with the primary goal of the census (an accurate enumeration of all people in the United States), the Commerce Secretary has the power to disregard that evidence as “speculative.”
Posted in Elections, Judicial
Also tagged partisan gerrymander, Supreme Court
Comments Off on The Supreme Court and Republican Lies