For a small group of my friends, the redistricting junkies in legislatures, the thought of redistricting tomorrow brings a rush of adrenaline and eagerness to plunge into maps and data. Yet for many legislators, the notion of imminent redistricting triggers a sense of overwhelming dread. And for almost all other Americans, it evokes a response of, "huh?"
Redistricting is really not that far away, and in fact, elections in two states this fall will establish the final lineup of who will redraw the lines using 2010 census data. Legislators and governors elected this November in Louisiana and Mississippi will be the ones to redraw state legislative maps before their next elections in 2011 and perhaps U.S. House districts as well. And some legislators elected this year in Virginia and New Jersey are guaranteed seats at the redistricting table. The critical pre-redistricting elections are upon us.
And which party is currently poised to take most advantage of redistricting in 2010?
Well, if redistricting were held tomorrow, Republican mapmakers would be smiling. Given the current partisan control of legislatures and governors, Republicans would have unchallenged (aside from the inevitable litigation) redistricting authority over 110 U.S. House districts.
The good news for Democrats is that there are still two more rounds of state elections before the lineup is final for 2010 redistricting. Even though Democrats now control more states than Republicans, they would control redistricting of only 75 congressional districts...if redistricting were tomorrow. The difference is largely due to GOP dominance in a couple of big states--Texas and Florida. This also assumes a projected reapportionment that will shift a number of U.S. House seats from midwestern and northeastern Democratic strongholds to mostly GOP southern and western states.
Because of divided partisan control in most states, the majority of congressional seats would require either bipartisan cooperation or would wind up being drawn by a court. There are 205 U.S. House seats in states with split control of state government. A projected 34 U.S. House districts are in states in which a commission does redistricting, and Iowa would employ its unique redistricting process to draw its projected four districts. And finally there are seven states that are expected to have only one House seat, thus requiring no redistricting of federal districts at all--Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming. For an overview of how states do redistricting, go to NCSL's page on redistricting commissions.
So if the partisan landscape of state governments does not change before the next redistricting, Republicans will enjoy their best position for redistricting in decades. For comparison purposes, here is the number of U.S. House seats in which redistricting was controlled by each party in 1990: Democrats--168, Republicans--5, split control--240, commissions and Iowa--15, and one district states--7.
This analysis admittedly oversimplifies the redistricting process. It is a common mistake to assume that legislatures have unlimited ability to gerrymander districts. States must comply with numerous federal and state laws that place considerable constraints on the ability to adopt purely partisan maps. However, anyone who has been through the redistricting process before will tell you that it's better to be in the majority than to be on the outside looking in.
Comments