Why does Oklahoma have so many registered democrats?

[GlobeSoc]

The state doesn't appear to have an ancestral democratic domination like many areas in the south, so why are there so many registered democrats there?

[Hydera]

The state doesn't appear to have an ancestral democratic domination like many areas in the south, so why are there so many registered democrats there?

Oklahoma abandoned the Democratic party a lot earlier than other Southern states in Presidential elections. But local offices were still competitive between democrats and republicans despite that. As with the national geographic realignment and the Southern local parties. The local branch declined eventually but a lot slower than the national democratic party. However a lot of people who registered democrats who might not of voted democrats they changed registration a lot slower than for example neighboring Texas which also used to have a democratic plurality of the registered voters. And thats mainly because the process in Oklahoma was for a long time having to go to a court house to change registration which for many people wasnt worth the process. However if i hear this right, the state government made it a lot easier and the number of registration changes to the GOP from longtime republican voting registered dems is going really fast which made the registration difference from double digits to single digits as of current.

[VPH]

Parts of Oklahoma (NC part of the state, Tulsa area) have always been pretty Republican. Settlement patterns are part of it. Some of OK was settled by the Yankee types that settled Kansas and Nebraska. Other portions were settled by migrants from the South and thus retained ancestrally Democratic roots.

[morgieb]

The state doesn't appear to have an ancestral democratic domination like many areas in the south, so why are there so many registered democrats there?

The simplest explanation is the rule of party registration itself. Most of the South don't have party registration, Oklahoma (and Louisiana, which also has a very high amount of registered Democrats) do and therefore still have lots of registered Democrats who cbf changing their registration.

[Indy Texas]

The state doesn't appear to have an ancestral democratic domination like many areas in the south, so why are there so many registered democrats there?

Oklahoma abandoned the Democratic party a lot earlier than other Southern states in Presidential elections. But local offices were still competitive between democrats and republicans despite that. As with the national geographic realignment and the Southern local parties. The local branch declined eventually but a lot slower than the national democratic party. However a lot of people who registered democrats who might not of voted democrats they changed registration a lot slower than for example neighboring Texas which also used to have a democratic plurality of the registered voters. And thats mainly because the process in Oklahoma was for a long time having to go to a court house to change registration which for many people wasnt worth the process. However if i hear this right, the state government made it a lot easier and the number of registration changes to the GOP from longtime republican voting registered dems is going really fast which made the registration difference from double digits to single digits as of current.

Except that Texas doesn't register people with parties.

But in terms of primary participation, yes, Democratic primary turnout was usually higher than Republican primary turnout in Texas up until the 2000s.

[NOVA Green]

The state doesn't appear to have an ancestral democratic domination like many areas in the south, so why are there so many registered democrats there?

Oklahoma abandoned the Democratic party a lot earlier than other Southern states in Presidential elections. But local offices were still competitive between democrats and republicans despite that. As with the national geographic realignment and the Southern local parties. The local branch declined eventually but a lot slower than the national democratic party. However a lot of people who registered democrats who might not of voted democrats they changed registration a lot slower than for example neighboring Texas which also used to have a democratic plurality of the registered voters. And thats mainly because the process in Oklahoma was for a long time having to go to a court house to change registration which for many people wasnt worth the process. However if i hear this right, the state government made it a lot easier and the number of registration changes to the GOP from longtime republican voting registered dems is going really fast which made the registration difference from double digits to single digits as of current.

Except that Texas doesn't register people with parties.

But in terms of primary participation, yes, Democratic primary turnout was usually higher than Republican primary turnout in Texas up until the 2000s.

Also, it is interesting to note that when Texas Republicans tried to ram through a massive Gerrymandering of state districts, that Texas Democrats fled over the border to Oklahoma...

It was actually kind of a legendary action from an historical perspective, and things got a bit crazy when the Texas Rangers were deployed to fetch Dem lawmakers out of their hotel in Oklahoma...

http://www.voanews.com/a/a-13-a-2003-05-15-27-texas-67309472/381313.html

Interestingly enough, historically both Texas and Oklahoma used to have the most active Socialist support way back in the '20s and '30s.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

The state doesn't appear to have an ancestral democratic domination like many areas in the south, so why are there so many registered democrats there?

Oklahoma abandoned the Democratic party a lot earlier than other Southern states in Presidential elections. But local offices were still competitive between democrats and republicans despite that. As with the national geographic realignment and the Southern local parties. The local branch declined eventually but a lot slower than the national democratic party. However a lot of people who registered democrats who might not of voted democrats they changed registration a lot slower than for example neighboring Texas which also used to have a democratic plurality of the registered voters. And thats mainly because the process in Oklahoma was for a long time having to go to a court house to change registration which for many people wasnt worth the process. However if i hear this right, the state government made it a lot easier and the number of registration changes to the GOP from longtime republican voting registered dems is going really fast which made the registration difference from double digits to single digits as of current.

Except that Texas doesn't register people with parties.

But in terms of primary participation, yes, Democratic primary turnout was usually higher than Republican primary turnout in Texas up until the 2000s.

Also, it is interesting to note that when Texas Republicans tried to ram through a massive Gerrymandering of state districts, that Texas Democrats fled over the border to Oklahoma...

It was actually kind of a legendary action from an historical perspective, and things got a bit crazy when the Texas Rangers were deployed to fetch Dem lawmakers out of their hotel in Oklahoma...

http://www.voanews.com/a/a-13-a-2003-05-15-27-texas-67309472/381313.html

Interestingly enough, historically both Texas and Oklahoma used to have the most active Socialist support way back in the '20s and '30s.

-Texas's 2003 redistricting wasn't gerrymandering; it was simply removing an archaic highly pro-Democrat gerrymander.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Oklahoma always had more registered Democrats than Democratic voters. This was due to most officeholders running as Democrats, making the Democratic primary the more competitive one.

[Indy Texas]

The state doesn't appear to have an ancestral democratic domination like many areas in the south, so why are there so many registered democrats there?

Oklahoma abandoned the Democratic party a lot earlier than other Southern states in Presidential elections. But local offices were still competitive between democrats and republicans despite that. As with the national geographic realignment and the Southern local parties. The local branch declined eventually but a lot slower than the national democratic party. However a lot of people who registered democrats who might not of voted democrats they changed registration a lot slower than for example neighboring Texas which also used to have a democratic plurality of the registered voters. And thats mainly because the process in Oklahoma was for a long time having to go to a court house to change registration which for many people wasnt worth the process. However if i hear this right, the state government made it a lot easier and the number of registration changes to the GOP from longtime republican voting registered dems is going really fast which made the registration difference from double digits to single digits as of current.

Except that Texas doesn't register people with parties.

But in terms of primary participation, yes, Democratic primary turnout was usually higher than Republican primary turnout in Texas up until the 2000s.

Also, it is interesting to note that when Texas Republicans tried to ram through a massive Gerrymandering of state districts, that Texas Democrats fled over the border to Oklahoma...

It was actually kind of a legendary action from an historical perspective, and things got a bit crazy when the Texas Rangers were deployed to fetch Dem lawmakers out of their hotel in Oklahoma...

http://www.voanews.com/a/a-13-a-2003-05-15-27-texas-67309472/381313.html

Interestingly enough, historically both Texas and Oklahoma used to have the most active Socialist support way back in the '20s and '30s.

-Texas's 2003 redistricting wasn't gerrymandering; it was simply removing an archaic highly pro-Democrat gerrymander.

The maps passed in 2001 were agreed to by a divided legislature (Democratic House, Republican Senate) and a Republican governor (Rick Perry). If it was a "pro-Democrat" gerrymander, that's more of an indictment of the competence of Perry and the Republicans than it is any perfidy on the Democrats' part.

In pre-2003 Texas, you could have Democrats get a majority of CDs while losing the statewide House PV for the same reason Democrats today can win a presidential vote by 2% but lose the EC. Geography, geography, geography.

[NOVA Green]

The state doesn't appear to have an ancestral democratic domination like many areas in the south, so why are there so many registered democrats there?

Oklahoma abandoned the Democratic party a lot earlier than other Southern states in Presidential elections. But local offices were still competitive between democrats and republicans despite that. As with the national geographic realignment and the Southern local parties. The local branch declined eventually but a lot slower than the national democratic party. However a lot of people who registered democrats who might not of voted democrats they changed registration a lot slower than for example neighboring Texas which also used to have a democratic plurality of the registered voters. And thats mainly because the process in Oklahoma was for a long time having to go to a court house to change registration which for many people wasnt worth the process. However if i hear this right, the state government made it a lot easier and the number of registration changes to the GOP from longtime republican voting registered dems is going really fast which made the registration difference from double digits to single digits as of current.

Except that Texas doesn't register people with parties.

But in terms of primary participation, yes, Democratic primary turnout was usually higher than Republican primary turnout in Texas up until the 2000s.

Also, it is interesting to note that when Texas Republicans tried to ram through a massive Gerrymandering of state districts, that Texas Democrats fled over the border to Oklahoma...

It was actually kind of a legendary action from an historical perspective, and things got a bit crazy when the Texas Rangers were deployed to fetch Dem lawmakers out of their hotel in Oklahoma...

http://www.voanews.com/a/a-13-a-2003-05-15-27-texas-67309472/381313.html

Interestingly enough, historically both Texas and Oklahoma used to have the most active Socialist support way back in the '20s and '30s.

-Texas's 2003 redistricting wasn't gerrymandering; it was simply removing an archaic highly pro-Democrat gerrymander.

That might well be true, but I don't agree with the concept of gerrymandering period, regardless of political party involved....

Texas should move in the direction of what California has done, and take the Politicians out of the mix altogether... there is no reason why my old US-HD in NW Harris County Texas should have the same US-Rep as my mother in Austin, Texas.....

[RINO Tom]

Don't be silly guys, the old Southern Democrats were quite literally clones of modern day Republicans, why would they disagree on anything in their legislatures?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

The state doesn't appear to have an ancestral democratic domination like many areas in the south, so why are there so many registered democrats there?

Oklahoma abandoned the Democratic party a lot earlier than other Southern states in Presidential elections. But local offices were still competitive between democrats and republicans despite that. As with the national geographic realignment and the Southern local parties. The local branch declined eventually but a lot slower than the national democratic party. However a lot of people who registered democrats who might not of voted democrats they changed registration a lot slower than for example neighboring Texas which also used to have a democratic plurality of the registered voters. And thats mainly because the process in Oklahoma was for a long time having to go to a court house to change registration which for many people wasnt worth the process. However if i hear this right, the state government made it a lot easier and the number of registration changes to the GOP from longtime republican voting registered dems is going really fast which made the registration difference from double digits to single digits as of current.

Except that Texas doesn't register people with parties.

But in terms of primary participation, yes, Democratic primary turnout was usually higher than Republican primary turnout in Texas up until the 2000s.

Also, it is interesting to note that when Texas Republicans tried to ram through a massive Gerrymandering of state districts, that Texas Democrats fled over the border to Oklahoma...

It was actually kind of a legendary action from an historical perspective, and things got a bit crazy when the Texas Rangers were deployed to fetch Dem lawmakers out of their hotel in Oklahoma...

http://www.voanews.com/a/a-13-a-2003-05-15-27-texas-67309472/381313.html

Interestingly enough, historically both Texas and Oklahoma used to have the most active Socialist support way back in the '20s and '30s.

-Texas's 2003 redistricting wasn't gerrymandering; it was simply removing an archaic highly pro-Democrat gerrymander.

The maps passed in 2001 were agreed to by a divided legislature (Democratic House, Republican Senate) and a Republican governor (Rick Perry). If it was a "pro-Democrat" gerrymander, that's more of an indictment of the competence of Perry and the Republicans than it is any perfidy on the Democrats' part.

In pre-2003 Texas, you could have Democrats get a majority of CDs while losing the statewide House PV for the same reason Democrats today can win a presidential vote by 2% but lose the EC. Geography, geography, geography.

-Bush 2000 was the first presidential election in which the four-county Dallas metro area was more Democratic than the surrounding rural counties. That pattern has only grown stronger since.

Of my many sins, overestimating Perry's competence is not one of them.

[Hydera]

The state doesn't appear to have an ancestral democratic domination like many areas in the south, so why are there so many registered democrats there?

Oklahoma abandoned the Democratic party a lot earlier than other Southern states in Presidential elections. But local offices were still competitive between democrats and republicans despite that. As with the national geographic realignment and the Southern local parties. The local branch declined eventually but a lot slower than the national democratic party. However a lot of people who registered democrats who might not of voted democrats they changed registration a lot slower than for example neighboring Texas which also used to have a democratic plurality of the registered voters. And thats mainly because the process in Oklahoma was for a long time having to go to a court house to change registration which for many people wasnt worth the process. However if i hear this right, the state government made it a lot easier and the number of registration changes to the GOP from longtime republican voting registered dems is going really fast which made the registration difference from double digits to single digits as of current.

Except that Texas doesn't register people with parties.

But in terms of primary participation, yes, Democratic primary turnout was usually higher than Republican primary turnout in Texas up until the 2000s.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/1998/states/TX/polls/TX92PH.html


37% of Texas were registered democrats and 36% were registered republican in 1992. Since texas on the local level moved more faster towards the GOP than Oklahoma on the local level. I think we can assume Texas also used to have a large plurality of voters registered as democrats just like Oklahoma.

[jimrtex]

-Texas's 2003 redistricting wasn't gerrymandering; it was simply removing an archaic highly pro-Democrat gerrymander.

The maps passed in 2001 were agreed to by a divided legislature (Democratic House, Republican Senate) and a Republican governor (Rick Perry). If it was a "pro-Democrat" gerrymander, that's more of an indictment of the competence of Perry and the Republicans than it is any perfidy on the Democrats' part.

There were no congressional or legislative maps passed in 2001. A state district court drew a map that was probably the fairest ever drawn. The judge then said he had a few "tweaks" that Democratic House Speaker Pete Laney had requested. When the judge released his final maps there had been major changes. The Texas Supreme Court overturned his decision on grounds that it violated due process.

The Federal District Court which had held off considering the case had to act. They admitted that as a federal court, they did not have the authority to totally disregard the 1991 Democrat gerrymander since that had been passed by Texas. They drew two new Republican seats and unkinked a few of the more bizarre borders, but they admitted they were preserving the Democratic gerrymander.

Meanwhile the Legislative Redistricting Board drew new House and Senate boundaries, undoing decades of Democratic gerrymanders. The legislative boundaries were the first since the 1960s to remain unchanged by legal action for the remainder of the decade.

In 2003, the legislature fulfilled their obligation to draw congressional districts, despite efforts by the Democrats to break quorum.

[jimrtex]

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/1998/states/TX/polls/TX92PH.html

37% of Texas were registered democrats and 36% were registered republican in 1992. Since texas on the local level moved more faster towards the GOP than Oklahoma on the local level. I think we can assume Texas also used to have a large plurality of voters registered as democrats just like Oklahoma.

You misread the poll question. It didn't say anything about registration. It asked about identification. If you look at the poll results at the 1992 general election, you will notice a high correlation between party ID and who they voted for. More "independents" said they had voted for Perot. But if you had asked if they had voted in the primary, at least some of them would have said yes.

In Texas, primaries are administered by (county) political parties. The Secretary of State is not notified of whom the parties nominated until after the primary and primary runoff. On primary election day, you would go to the Democratic polling place, or the Republican polling place and vote. You could not (legally) go to both. Since the parties were required to report their voting rolls to the county clerks, cheaters could be detected. The restriction applied to the primary runoff as well. After the runoff ordinary decent citizens don't have a party affiliation.

[jimrtex]

The state doesn't appear to have an ancestral democratic domination like many areas in the south, so why are there so many registered democrats there?

Only the wheat-growing area of north-central and north-west Oklahoma are ancestrally Republican. The areas along the Red River are extremely Democratic-leaning. Tulsa was competitive because of the oil industry. In the 1970s it was noteworthy when there was at least one registered Republican in every county.

While somewhat competitive at a statewide level (the gubernatorial and senatorial candidates wouldn't be embarrassed, but wouldn't be close to winning. Harding (1920) and Hoover (1928) carried the state. In 1920, Republicans took control of the House 73:36, which they would not repeat until 2004. In 1928, they managed a 56D:47R split.

Oklahoma is generally too far west to have enough rainfall for non-irrigated agriculture, and the east is too hilly. The Dust Bowl was devastating to Oklahoma, and the population in 1960 was not quite back to that of 1930. By 1936, the senate was 44D:0R, and the house 114D:3R.

The Democratic Party was so dominant that the primary was decisive. If you wanted to have an effective choice, you had to vote in the Democratic primary, and to vote in the Democratic primary, you had to be a registered Democrat. Nonetheless, Republican gubernatorial candidates were almost successful, and Republican presidential candidates were successful (1920, 1928, 1952, and 1956).

The Democratic Primary for governor would be wide open, with a dozen or so candidates, and usually requiring a runoff.

1942: Primary: D394K:R35K; Governor D197K:R180K
1946: Primary: D385K:R41K; Governor D259K:R227K
1950: Primary: D508K:R55K; Governor D329K:R313K
1954: Primary: D522K:R55K; Governor D357K:R251K
1958: Primary: D514K:R62K; Governor D399K:R107K
1962: Primary: D534K:R62K; Governor D315K:R392K (Henry Bellmon)
1966: Primary: D509K:R94K; Governor D296K:R377K (Dewey Bartlett)
1970: Primary: D402K:R(no*); Governor D338K:R336K (Dewey Bartlett*)
1974: Primary: D633K:R151K; Governor D514K:R290K
1978: Primary: D554K:R108K; Governor D402K:R367K
1982: Primary: D459K:R114K; Governor D548K:R332K
1986: Primary: D517K:R159K; Governor D405K:R431K (Henry Bellmon)
1990: Primary: D543K:R189K; Governor D523K:R298K
1994: Primary: D442K:R205K; Governor D294K:R466K:I233* (Frank Keating*)
1998: Primary: D284K:R118K*; Governor D358K:R505K (Frank Keating)
2002: Primary: D350K:R206K; Governor D448K:R441K:I136K
2006: Primary: D264K:R182K; Governor D616K:R310K
2010: Primary: D264K:R249K; Governor D409K:R626K (Mary Fallin)
2014: Primary: D163K*;R265K; Governor D338K; R461K (Mary Fallin)

Henry Bellmon in 1962 was the first Republican governor of Oklahoma. The Democratic candidate only received 59% of turnout in the Democratic primary. The dropoff may have been due to voters who didn't accept the outcome in the primary, or voters who wanted to vote in legislative elections, and went ahead and voted for governor, or people who didn't realize there was another election in November since it never mattered. At the time, governors were limited to a single term, so that there was never an incumbent running, and lots of candidates would take a shot at making it into the Democratic runoff. Between 1946 and 1994, for 13 elections there was a Democratic runoff, eight of which the winner had less than 55%, and four less than 51%.

After Bellmon was elected, turnout in the Republican primary increased by about 50%. Dewey Bartlett was the first governor who had an opportunity to run for re-election. The Republican primary was not contested and in Oklahoma if only one candidate files, the office doesn't appear on the ballot. Not only isn't their a contest to attract attention, you can't even vote. This happened again for the Republicans in 1998, and the Democrats in 2014. The votes cast are for down-ballot races. As you can see turnout in the gubernatorial primaries has been declining. They just aren't the events they once were. Campaigns have become more "professional" dependent on targeted media. People don't read their local newspapers, and TV stations aren't going to devote much time to gubernatorial elections, given they only do a couple of hours of local news, with the bulk of their schedule entertainment from the networks.

The independent candidate in 1994 was Wes Watkins, who had been the Democratic congressman from OK-3 in southeastern Oklahoma (Little Dixie) since 1976, when Speaker Carl Albert retired. This was an overwhelmingly Democratic district, where Watkins would get 80% of the vote, if the Republicans bothered to put up a candidate. Watkins had narrowly lost the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in 1990. His 1994 run ensured that Frank Keating was elected. Watkins would return to Congress in 1996 as a Republican (the Republicans promised he would maintain his seniority and have a position on Ways&Means). In his first election as a Republican he won with 51% of the vote (remember he would get 80% as a Democrat). In the next election he got 62%, and in his final election he got 87% when the Democrats did not field a candidate. When Oklahoma lost its 6th seat in 2000, OK-3 was eliminated. The Democrats did not need a Democratic sink, particularly one that would elect a Republican.

Through the mid-90s, Democrats would control 5 of 6 seats in Oklahoma, conceding one Republican sink, and then electing conservative Democrats who would build up seniority and personal support. Generally, the only way to get rid of them would be to have them run for senator, and defeat them in a statewide race, or have them retire. As it was elsewhere, 1994 was a watershed year in Oklahoma, and with Watkins' return as a Republican gave them a 6R:0D delegation. Redistricting in 2002, made it 4R:1D, and in 2012 it became 5R:0D. This has completed the alignment of Oklahoma at the federal level.

In 1960, Democrats had an almost 5:1 registration advantage, and there were hardly any registered independents, which effectively meant: "I don't want to vote in the primary where elections are effectively decided.

1960 82.0D, 17.6R, 0.4I

1964 +1.4R, +0.0I
1968 +1.2R, +0.0I
1972 +2.6R, +0.4I

Republicans gradually chipped away at the Democratic advantage.

1972 75.8D, 22.8R, 0.8I

1976 -0.4R, +0.5I
1980 +0.4R, +0.1I

This stalled during Watergate and Carter.

1980 75.8D, 22.8R, 1.4I

1984 +4.1R, +1.0I
1988 +3.5R, +0.3I
1992 +2.7R, -0.2I

Republican registration share increased by 50% during Reagan and GHW Bush

1992 64.4D, 33.1R, 2.5I

1996 +1.1R, +2.3I
2000 +0.8R, +3.5I

It slowed some during Clinton, though independents surged, perhaps a residual Perot effect.

2000 56.7D, 35.0R, 8.3I

2004 +2.2R, +1.8I
2008 +1.9R, +0.7I

Republicans picked up again during GW Bush

2008 50.1D, 39.1R, 10.8I

2012 +2.3R, +0.7I
2016 +3.1R, +2.0I
2017 +1.3R, +1.1I, +0.2L

Republicans became a plurality in 2015 during Obama, with perhaps a large shift in order to vote in the Republican presidential primary.

2017 39.4D, 45.8D, 14.6I, 0.2L

Up through 1962, the House had about 15 to 20 Republicans in a body of 120. Larger counties elected representatives by multi-member districts. When Republicans did well in Tulsa they would elect seven, and when they did poorly they would elect zero. The other Republicans were from the northern wheat-growing areas or Washington (Bartlesville was the headquarters of Phillips 66, so Bartians tended to vote Republican).

The OMOV decisions helped the Republicans, by creating single-member districts, and shifting districts to the urban areas. While Republicans could no longer sweep Tulsa, they were certain in some districts, and they also had some districts in Oklahoma County (OkieC). In the 1964 election, Republicans elected 22 of 99 representatives. They had elected 24 in 1962, but there were 121 representatives then.

The number was fairly static until the 1980s, when Republicans began to pick up seats, particularly in presidential election years. They gained 6 seats in 1984, when the Democrats carried only three counties. In 1992, they gained three more, which gave them enough to block a veto override (67D:34R). They picked up 7 more in the congressional landslide of 1994, making it 60D:41R. At the same time the senate became 31D:17R, so there was also enough to sustain a veto.

In 2000, they picked up 6 seats, and in 2004, they picked up eight more, giving Republicans their first majority since 1920, and second overall (55R:D46D). In 2006, they got their first tie in the senate since statehood, 99 years earlier.

They continued to expand in the House, gaining 4 in 2008, and 9 in the Tea Party 2010, which gave them a 70R:31D. They picked up 2 more in both 2012 and 2016, giving them an overwhelming 74R:27D majority. This final change has been extreme, going from the first majority in 84 years, to a 73% control in 12 years. Other than the special elections of 1994 and 2010, most of the gains occurred in presidential years, with the gains sustained in the gubernatorial election. Presumably voters who only vote in presidential election have a greater tendency to vote straight ticket.

Republicans have picked up seats in the senate for the last six elections, and now have 42R:6D hyper-majority.

Registration lags the change in control of the House. Republicans have a registration plurality in 60 of 101 districts, meaning they won fourteen seats with a Democratic registration plurality. Less than half of registered Democrats voted in the presidential primary, so many voters might not know they are "Democrats" or care.

Term limits may have delayed Republican control of the legislature, but when they took effect had a more dramatic effect. Term limits were approved in 1992, and permit a legislator to serve for up to 12 years, with service prior to 1992 disregarded. The initial effect was to increase longevity, as legislators  apparently chose to serve as long as they could, and perhaps discouraged primary challenges, since an ambitious politician could wait a few more years. If long-term Democrats were being re-elected in increasingly Republican districts, when they did quit or were term-limited there would an increased likelihood that the new representative would be Republican.

[Indy Texas]

-Texas's 2003 redistricting wasn't gerrymandering; it was simply removing an archaic highly pro-Democrat gerrymander.

The maps passed in 2001 were agreed to by a divided legislature (Democratic House, Republican Senate) and a Republican governor (Rick Perry). If it was a "pro-Democrat" gerrymander, that's more of an indictment of the competence of Perry and the Republicans than it is any perfidy on the Democrats' part.

There were no congressional or legislative maps passed in 2001. A state district court drew a map that was probably the fairest ever drawn. The judge then said he had a few "tweaks" that Democratic House Speaker Pete Laney had requested. When the judge released his final maps there had been major changes. The Texas Supreme Court overturned his decision on grounds that it violated due process.

The Federal District Court which had held off considering the case had to act. They admitted that as a federal court, they did not have the authority to totally disregard the 1991 Democrat gerrymander since that had been passed by Texas. They drew two new Republican seats and unkinked a few of the more bizarre borders, but they admitted they were preserving the Democratic gerrymander.

Meanwhile the Legislative Redistricting Board drew new House and Senate boundaries, undoing decades of Democratic gerrymanders. The legislative boundaries were the first since the 1960s to remain unchanged by legal action for the remainder of the decade.

In 2003, the legislature fulfilled their obligation to draw congressional districts, despite efforts by the Democrats to break quorum.

Yeah, districts that were in such flagrant violation of the VRA that a court had to order a new map for the 2006 elections.

[TDAS04]

Oklahoma swung heavily Republican in 1960.  Stevenson lost the state by only 10 points in 1956 but JFK lost it by 18 4 years later.  Why was that?

[freepcrusher]

Oklahoma swung heavily Republican in 1960.  Stevenson lost the state by only 10 points in 1956 but JFK lost it by 18 4 years later.  Why was that?

Oklahoma is a heavily baptist state and probably didn't like the boston-accented kennedy.

[jimrtex]

-Texas's 2003 redistricting wasn't gerrymandering; it was simply removing an archaic highly pro-Democrat gerrymander.

The maps passed in 2001 were agreed to by a divided legislature (Democratic House, Republican Senate) and a Republican governor (Rick Perry). If it was a "pro-Democrat" gerrymander, that's more of an indictment of the competence of Perry and the Republicans than it is any perfidy on the Democrats' part.

There were no congressional or legislative maps passed in 2001. A state district court drew a map that was probably the fairest ever drawn. The judge then said he had a few "tweaks" that Democratic House Speaker Pete Laney had requested. When the judge released his final maps there had been major changes. The Texas Supreme Court overturned his decision on grounds that it violated due process.

The Federal District Court which had held off considering the case had to act. They admitted that as a federal court, they did not have the authority to totally disregard the 1991 Democrat gerrymander since that had been passed by Texas. They drew two new Republican seats and unkinked a few of the more bizarre borders, but they admitted they were preserving the Democratic gerrymander.

Meanwhile the Legislative Redistricting Board drew new House and Senate boundaries, undoing decades of Democratic gerrymanders. The legislative boundaries were the first since the 1960s to remain unchanged by legal action for the remainder of the decade.

In 2003, the legislature fulfilled their obligation to draw congressional districts, despite efforts by the Democrats to break quorum.

Yeah, districts that were in such flagrant violation of the VRA that a court had to order a new map for the 2006 elections.

They were not in flagrant violation of the VRA.

The State plan was precleared by the USDOJ, and was upheld by the same district court that had drawn the 2001 map, twice. Remember that the Democrats had hand picked this particular district court.

The SCOTUS in a 5:4 vote, with 6 separate opinions, overturned part of the district court decision, that a Hispanic majority seat that ran from Austin to McAllen, while one from El Paso to San Antonio was compact. The SCOTUS upheld the Dallas district formerly represented by Martin Frost, and ruled that it was not a political gerrymander.

[blacknwhiterose]

As recently as the late-90s/2000, Oklahoma's eastern district leaned Democratic.  Mostly blue dog types will have progressively become very Republican in the past 20 years.

[jimrtex]

Oklahoma swung heavily Republican in 1960.  Stevenson lost the state by only 10 points in 1956 but JFK lost it by 18 4 years later.  Why was that?

A combination of factors: a continuation of a political shift; demographic change; and unease about JFK being from the Northeast, a Catholic, and perhaps knowledge about where JFK's fathers wealth came from (Oklahoma was dry until 1959).

Oklahoma voted more Republican each of FDR's four terms, then swung more Democratic for populist, semi-southern Harry Truman. It then voted for Eisenhower twice, before voting for Nixon, the trend has continued, with minor delays for LBJ (1964), Carter (1976), Clinton (1992, 1996).

Between 1956 and 1960 there were shifts in the vote among the counties. Tulsa and Oklahoma counties had a 10%+ increase in turnout. They were more Republican than the rest of the state, but only swung more Republican by about 1%. For other groups of turnout change, the shift was about 4%. Only in the counties where turnout was down over 10% was there a shift comparable to the statewide shift. In these counties there was a huge drop off in Democratic votes. They either stayed home, or had died or moved (Pushmataha lost half its population between 1940 and 1960).

[jimrtex]

In 1996, 8 (of 77) counties had a plurality Republican registration:

Alfalfa, Beaver, Garfield (Enid), Kingfisher, Major, and Woods, wheat-growing areas in the northeast, and Tulsa (Tulsa) and Washington (Bartlesville), oil centers.

In 2000, 2 counties flipped, to make it 10 of 77.

Canadian (OKC suburb) and Kay (Ponca City), north central and original headquarters of Conoco.

2001, 1 flipped, to 11 of 77.

Woodward, northwestern.

2002, 1 flipped, to 12 of 77

Texas, in Panhandle.

2003, 2 flipped, to 14 of 77.

Grant, northern, and Oklahoma (OKC).

2004, 2 flipped, to 16 of 77.

Cleveland (Norman) OKC suburb and OU, Ellis, northwestern.

2005, 1 flipped to 17 of 77.

Logan, OKC suburb-exurb and northern wheat growing.

2006, 3 flipped to 20 of 77.

Cimarron, Panhandle; Harper, northwestern; and Payne (Stillwater) OSU.

2007, 1 flipped to 21 of 77.

Noble, northern.

2009, 3 flipped, 1 reverted to 23 of 77.

Blaine (northern), Rogers and Wagoner, Tulsa suburbs. Oklahoma (OKC) reverted to Democratic plurality. There is a relative low percentage of Blacks in Oklahoma (7.4%), but what there is concentrated in OKC, Tulsa, Lawton, and Muskogee. The annual reports are from January, so this would reflect registrations during 2008.

2010, 1 flipped, to 24 of 77,

Oklahoma (OKC) switched back to a Republican plurality.

2012, 2 flipped to 26 of 77,

Creek, Tulsa suburb; and McClain, OKC suburb.

2013, 3 flipped to 29 of 77,

Dewey, northern; Grady (Chickasha), OKC exurb; and Lincoln, OKC exurb and northern.

2015, 1 flipped to 30 of 77,

Custer, western.

2016, 1 flipped to 31 of 77,

Jackson (Altus) Altus AFB southwestern

2017, 6 flipped to 37 of 77 (almost half)

Beckham, western; Delaware and Nowata, northeastern; Pawnee, northern; Pottawatamie (Shawnee) OKC exurb; Stephens (Duncan) south central.

By 2021 with a continuation of recent trends, Carter (Ardmore), Comanche (Lawton), Garvin, Mayes, Osage, and Wash**ta will flip, and Cotton, Kiowa, Marshall, Ottawa, Pontotoc (Ada) and Roger Mills could flip.

In 1996, there were 8 Republican plurality registration counties. Bob Dole carried 39 counties. 49 counties had a Democratic:Republican ratio of more than 2:1; 28 counties were more than 5:1; 15 counties were more than 10:1; and 3 were more than 20:1. The most extreme was Pushmataha which by registration was 93.8% Democrat, 4.1% Republican, and 2.1% independent. It voted 52.9% Clinton; 33.6% Dole; and 13.6% Perot. So about 4/9 of Democrats voted for Dole or Perot.

In 2000, Al Gore carried 9 counties, and George W Bush carried 68 counties. 67 counties had a Democratic registration plurality. The most extreme ratio was in Haskell with 92.4% Democratic, 5.3% Republican, and 2.3% independent. Bill Clinton carried the county 54.2% to 44.1% for Bush. The county with the largest margin for Clinton was Okmulgee. By registration it was 75.1% Democratic; 18.1% Republican and 6.7% independent. Clinton carried the county 54.5% to 44.0%. Okmulgee is the Creek capital, and has a not insignificant number of blacks. 2000 was the last time a Democrat carried a county in Oklahoma.

In 2004, 61 counties still had a Democratic registration plurality, 21 counties had a greater than 5:1 Democratic:Republican ratio. The most extreme was Pushmataha which was 88.8% Democratic, 6.6% Republican, and 4.6% independent. Bush carried the  county 59.7% to 40.3%, taking about 5/9 of the Democratic vote. The closest county was McIntosh, which by registration was 79.9% Democratic, 14.1% Republican, and 6.1% independent. Bush carried the county 51.1% to 48.9%.

in 2008, 56 counties still had a Democratic registration plurality, 14 counties had a greater than 5:1 Democratic:Republican ratio. Pushmataha was 86.7% Democratic, 8.3% Republican, and 5.1% independent. John McCain carried the county 71.7% to 28.3%, and received about 2/3 of the Democratic votes. The closest county was Cherokee which McCain carried 56.1% to 43.9%, while it was 65.8% Democratic, 23.3% Republican, and 10.9% independent.

In 2012, 51 counties still had a Democratic registration plurality, and 7 counties had a greater than 5:1 Democratic:Republican ratio. Pushmataha was 82.3% Democratic, 11.6% Republican, and 6.1% independent. Mitt Romney carried the county 74.8% to 25.2%, and received about 70% of the Democratic votes. The closest county was again Cherokee which Romney carried 57.0% to 43.0%, while it was 64.2% Democratic, 25.9% Republican, and 10.1% independent by registration.

In 2016, 46 counties still had a Democratic registration plurality. Pushmataha no longer was the most Democratic county in the state, but was 2nd behind Coal County. Pushmataha was 75.3% Democratic, 16.5% Republican, and 8.1% independent. Trump carried the county 79.9% to 16.7% to 3.4% Johnson. Trump carried about 7/9 of the Democratic vote. Oklahoma County was the closest county which Trump carried 51.7% to 41.1% to 7.1% for Johnson. By registration it was 39.2% Democratic, 45.1% Republican, and 15.7% independent, so Clinton actually exceeded the Democratic registration.

Counties by Registration ratio. In 1996, 3 counties had a greater than 20:1 Democratic:Republican ratio. In 2017, the maximums are greater than 3:1. The registration would match voting if Oklahoma was a 50:50 state. But it is was a 65:29 state, and Trump carried 70/77 counties by more than 2:1.

Year 4R 3R 2R 1R 1D 2D 3D 4D 5D 7D 10 15 20
1996           8 20 11  6  4  5  8  7  5  3
1997           8 22 10  8  4  4 11  5  5  -
1998           8 22 11  7  4  4 11  6  4
1999           8 21 12  7  4  5 10  7  3
2000          10 19 13  7  4  7  7  7  3
2001        1 10 20 11  8  3  9  6  7  2
2002        1 11 24  9  6  3 12  5  6  -
2003        1 13 21  9  7  3 13  4  6
2004        1 15 20  9  6  5 11  5  5
2005        1 18 21  7  6  8  9  6  1
2006        1 19 20  8  8  5  9  6  1
2007        2 19 19 10  5  8  7  6  1
2008        2 19 21  9  6  6  7  6  1
2009        2 21 19 10  8  7  4  6  -
2010        2 22 17 11  8 10  3  4
2011        2 22 17 13  8  8  5  2
2012     1  2 23 16 13  9  6  5  2
2013     2  3 24 14 15 12  3  4  -
2014     2  5 22 17 15  9  3  4
2015     2  7 21 18 17  5  4  3
2016     2 10 19 23 15  5  3   -
2017  2  0 12 23 24 12  4  -