In NM-2, Will Wilson be Redistricted?

[Adlai Stevenson]

According to Roll Call, New Mexico Democrats, "frustrated by their inability to defeat Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM), now are openly talking about redrawing the state’s Congressional district boundaries prior to the 2008 elections."

"In New Mexico, Democrats have held all the levers of power since Gov. Bill Richardson (D) was elected in 2002. Richardson has resisted legislators’ calls to redraw the boundaries of the state’s three House districts in the past, but a spokesman said Wednesday that the governor is at least willing to consider the prospect this time."

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/12/16/in_nm2_will_wilson_be_redistricted.html

[Sam Spade]

Problem is that NM-02 is Pearce's CD, not Wilson's (NM-01).

I love pointing out obvious errors by professionals. 

[Verily]

Well, if NM-02 is redrawn, NM-01 will have to be redrawn, too.

[Rob]

Illegal Alcon Registrations

Stupid Alcon, stealing elections in New Mexico.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Illegal Alcon Registrations

Stupid Alcon, stealing elections in New Mexico.

He tried to have his comrades in New Mexico do a better job of stealing the election, but they said that "stealing an election is like a bad acid trip".

[The Duke]

Isn't Wilson expected to try and succeed Domenici in 2008 anyway?  And wouldn't it be unnecessary to redraw NM-1 if that happens because Wilson is the only Republican who can win there so once she tries for a Senate seat the Democrats will be overwhelmingly favored in NM-1 anyway?

[Sam Spade]

Isn't Wilson expected to try and succeed Domenici in 2008 anyway?  And wouldn't it be unnecessary to redraw NM-1 if that happens because Wilson is the only Republican who can win there so once she tries for a Senate seat the Democrats will be overwhelmingly favored in NM-1 anyway?

Domenici is supposedly running again in 2008 from all NM sources I know of.  Besides, even if he didn't run, you might get a "battle royale" between Wilson and Steve Pearce (congressman of NM-02) for the GOP nomination of which I wouldn't know who would win.

And don't be so sure that NM-01 would switch if Wilson left.  That CD's been in GOP hands for nearly 40 years now (ever since NM switched to districts from at-large seats), even though Dems always have the registration advantage and have been trying to knock the Republican out since the beginning of time.

[Alcon]

Illegal Alcon Registrations

Stupid Alcon, stealing elections in New Mexico.

He tried to have his comrades in New Mexico do a better job of stealing the election, but they said that "stealing an election is like a bad acid trip".

haha

I'm never living that down.

[Padfoot]

What needs to happen is that the major parties quit trying to undermine the will of the voters.  This is the ultimate sore loser situation.  I'm really bitter about Ohio's congressional results as well.  53% of voters voted for Democratic candidates for Representative yet Republicans still won 11 of the 18 districts.  When a party receives over 50% of the vote they should hold more than 40% of the seats.

[WMS]

Isn't Wilson expected to try and succeed Domenici in 2008 anyway?  And wouldn't it be unnecessary to redraw NM-1 if that happens because Wilson is the only Republican who can win there so once she tries for a Senate seat the Democrats will be overwhelmingly favored in NM-1 anyway?

Domenici is supposedly running again in 2008 from all NM sources I know of.  Besides, even if he didn't run, you might get a "battle royale" between Wilson and Steve Pearce (congressman of NM-02) for the GOP nomination of which I wouldn't know who would win.

And don't be so sure that NM-01 would switch if Wilson left.  That CD's been in GOP hands for nearly 40 years now (ever since NM switched to districts from at-large seats), even though Dems always have the registration advantage and have been trying to knock the Republican out since the beginning of time.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What Sam said.

Also, two bits:
1 - The effort is being led by Super-Leftist State Senator Gerald Ortiz y Pino, one of my least favorite state politicians. They're not even trying to hide this, are they?
2 - Pino is said to be trying to explain away the effort as "making the district more urban". If that's true, then I will eagerly await the addition of the Republican-leaning NW precincts of Albuquerque to NM-1! Oh, wait, I bet that will be 'different'.

[Sam Spade]

Isn't Wilson expected to try and succeed Domenici in 2008 anyway?  And wouldn't it be unnecessary to redraw NM-1 if that happens because Wilson is the only Republican who can win there so once she tries for a Senate seat the Democrats will be overwhelmingly favored in NM-1 anyway?

Domenici is supposedly running again in 2008 from all NM sources I know of.  Besides, even if he didn't run, you might get a "battle royale" between Wilson and Steve Pearce (congressman of NM-02) for the GOP nomination of which I wouldn't know who would win.

And don't be so sure that NM-01 would switch if Wilson left.  That CD's been in GOP hands for nearly 40 years now (ever since NM switched to districts from at-large seats), even though Dems always have the registration advantage and have been trying to knock the Republican out since the beginning of time.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What Sam said.

Also, two bits:
1 - The effort is being led by Super-Leftist State Senator Gerald Ortiz y Pino, one of my least favorite state politicians. They're not even trying to hide this, are they?
2 - Pino is said to be trying to explain away the effort as "making the district more urban". If that's true, then I will eagerly await the addition of the Republican-leaning NW precincts of Albuquerque to NM-1! Oh, wait, I bet that will be 'different'.

I have a question:   In everything I've read about the possible redistricting, they talk about placing the rest of Valencia County in NM-01 and taking Torrance County into NM-02.  But the numbers don't fit according to my math; there are many more people in the remaining parts of Valencia County than Torrance County.  Does that mean they're taking more of NM-01 into NM-02 or less of Valencia into NM-01?

Secondly, if I am doing my math right in 2004 & 2006, the numbers looked like this:

2004 - Valencia County
Bush 55.6%

2004 - NM-01 part of Valencia County
Bush 55.9%
Wilson 61.4% (under CD margin by 1% vis a vis Bush)

2006 - NM-01 part of Valencia County
Wilson 53.0% (about a 4% loss vis a vis 2004 in comparison with CD totals)

2004 - NM-02 part of Valencia County
Bush 55.5%
Pearce 56.8%

2006 - NM-02 part of Valencia County
Pearce 60.0% (an odd gain, quite impressive)

2004 - Torrance County
Bush 61.9%
Wilson 66.5% (under CD margin by 1% vis-a-vis Bush)

2006 - Torrance County
Wilson 60.9% (about a 3% loss vis-a-vis 2004 CD totals)

So, I see maybe a 5%-8% switch within the two counties that might be amplified to 10% under best circumstances (maybe 15% with a person from Valencia running).  Depending on how much is changed, that's probably maximum a 600-1600 vote switch.  That might have not even helped Madrid win in 2006 under correct circumstances.

So, is there something grand here that I'm missing.  I think there might be ways to draw the CD to get Wilson out, but it would involve carving up Albequerque even more.  Would the Dems do that?

Maybe my issue with the earlier numbers means that Wilson would get the more Democratic-leaning precincts, but there don't appear to be hardly any within Valencia.  They appear to be all swing precincts or slightly Republican ones vis-a-vis 2004.

[WMS]

Isn't Wilson expected to try and succeed Domenici in 2008 anyway?  And wouldn't it be unnecessary to redraw NM-1 if that happens because Wilson is the only Republican who can win there so once she tries for a Senate seat the Democrats will be overwhelmingly favored in NM-1 anyway?

Domenici is supposedly running again in 2008 from all NM sources I know of.  Besides, even if he didn't run, you might get a "battle royale" between Wilson and Steve Pearce (congressman of NM-02) for the GOP nomination of which I wouldn't know who would win.

And don't be so sure that NM-01 would switch if Wilson left.  That CD's been in GOP hands for nearly 40 years now (ever since NM switched to districts from at-large seats), even though Dems always have the registration advantage and have been trying to knock the Republican out since the beginning of time.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What Sam said.

Also, two bits:
1 - The effort is being led by Super-Leftist State Senator Gerald Ortiz y Pino, one of my least favorite state politicians. They're not even trying to hide this, are they?
2 - Pino is said to be trying to explain away the effort as "making the district more urban". If that's true, then I will eagerly await the addition of the Republican-leaning NW precincts of Albuquerque to NM-1! Oh, wait, I bet that will be 'different'.

I have a question:   In everything I've read about the possible redistricting, they talk about placing the rest of Valencia County in NM-01 and taking Torrance County into NM-02.  But the numbers don't fit according to my math; there are many more people in the remaining parts of Valencia County than Torrance County.  Does that mean they're taking more of NM-01 into NM-02 or less of Valencia into NM-01?

Not certain. The Dems are holding their cards close to their chest on this one...which suggests to me they're planning something sneaky. I was wondering about the numbers and am glad to see that they don't match...that might mean they will also try to remove Wilson's precincts in Edgewood (Santa Fe County) and maybe some of the East Mountains in Bernalillo as well, all designed to remove areas she did well in. Actually, that sounds eerily like what they're going to do...while still not including all of NW Albuquerque.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Pearce had a less-serious opponent this year.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thanks for doing the math. I bet the Dems think it would have been enough to sway the margin this year. BUt then again maybe they have more in mind...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In a heartbeat. That's what they tried to do in 2001 with their "pinwheel" redistricting. Whether they think they can get away with it is another matter...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think the Dems are banking on the small cluster of Kerry precincts being added in the center of Valencia. But Valencia is not that Democratic in voting patterns, true. As I said before, I suspect some other changes are in store as well...

[minionofmidas]

I oppose this remap.

[Padfoot]

I oppose this remap.

Who wouldn't.  The fact the the Supreme Court has held up mid-decade partisan redistricting is really disheartening.  Actually the fact that partisan districting is legal at all is disheartening to me.  I would much rather things were done by an independent commission.  (although I'm not sure how you get AZ-1 and AZ-2 out of an independent commission)

We could let the Greens or Libertarians do it.  lol.  I don't think any amount of gerrymandering and odd shaped districts would help them at all.

[WMS]

Just so y'all know, from an Albuquerque Journal article that has mysteriously not been posted on the online site Ortiz y Pino would also remove the pro-Wilson areas of Santa Fe County from the new CD1. Funny how he wouldn't remove the pro-Madrid areas of Sandoval County from it, despite those being even less "urban" than the "not-urban" areas he wants to remove.

More on this when the Legislature convenes.

[ottermax]

How can Dems make stronger districts for themselves? District 1 voted for Kerry, and so did district 3 even though Bush won (although be a very slim margin). I guess you could make a very gerrymandered set of districts, but it would be difficult, and a waste of time.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Isn't Wilson expected to try and succeed Domenici in 2008 anyway?  And wouldn't it be unnecessary to redraw NM-1 if that happens because Wilson is the only Republican who can win there so once she tries for a Senate seat the Democrats will be overwhelmingly favored in NM-1 anyway?

Domenici is supposedly running again in 2008 from all NM sources I know of.  Besides, even if he didn't run, you might get a "battle royale" between Wilson and Steve Pearce (congressman of NM-02) for the GOP nomination of which I wouldn't know who would win.

And don't be so sure that NM-01 would switch if Wilson left.  That CD's been in GOP hands for nearly 40 years now (ever since NM switched to districts from at-large seats), even though Dems always have the registration advantage and have been trying to knock the Republican out since the beginning of time.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What Sam said.

Also, two bits:
1 - The effort is being led by Super-Leftist State Senator Gerald Ortiz y Pino, one of my least favorite state politicians. They're not even trying to hide this, are they?
2 - Pino is said to be trying to explain away the effort as "making the district more urban". If that's true, then I will eagerly await the addition of the Republican-leaning NW precincts of Albuquerque to NM-1! Oh, wait, I bet that will be 'different'.

Why the hell shouldn't the Democrats do a partisan mid-decade redistricting in New Mexico? The Republicans did ones in Texas AND Georgia, and the voters and the media in those states obviously didn't care. It's time to fight fire with fire.

[Padfoot]

Rather than going through a rash of "eye-for-an-eye" redistricting revenge I would much rather see Congress pass a law banning redistricting that doesn't occur concurrently with the Decennial Census.  Possible exceptions could be made for dramatic population shifts such as the sudden mass migration caused by Hurricane Katrina or if annual census estimates indicate that the populations of the smallest and/or largest district in a state differ from the state's average by more than 15%.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Why the hell shouldn't the Democrats do a partisan mid-decade redistricting in New Mexico? The Republicans did ones in Texas AND Georgia, and the voters and the media in those states obviously didn't care. It's time to fight fire with fire.

Ever heard of the idea of taking the moral highground? Besides, if last year's elections show anything, it's that the Democrats don't need to stoop to that level to win.

[WMS]

Isn't Wilson expected to try and succeed Domenici in 2008 anyway?  And wouldn't it be unnecessary to redraw NM-1 if that happens because Wilson is the only Republican who can win there so once she tries for a Senate seat the Democrats will be overwhelmingly favored in NM-1 anyway?

Domenici is supposedly running again in 2008 from all NM sources I know of.  Besides, even if he didn't run, you might get a "battle royale" between Wilson and Steve Pearce (congressman of NM-02) for the GOP nomination of which I wouldn't know who would win.

And don't be so sure that NM-01 would switch if Wilson left.  That CD's been in GOP hands for nearly 40 years now (ever since NM switched to districts from at-large seats), even though Dems always have the registration advantage and have been trying to knock the Republican out since the beginning of time.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What Sam said.

Also, two bits:
1 - The effort is being led by Super-Leftist State Senator Gerald Ortiz y Pino, one of my least favorite state politicians. They're not even trying to hide this, are they?
2 - Pino is said to be trying to explain away the effort as "making the district more urban". If that's true, then I will eagerly await the addition of the Republican-leaning NW precincts of Albuquerque to NM-1! Oh, wait, I bet that will be 'different'.

Why the hell shouldn't the Democrats do a partisan mid-decade redistricting in New Mexico? The Republicans did ones in Texas AND Georgia, and the voters and the media in those states obviously didn't care. It's time to fight fire with fire.

Like a skipping record, I knew I could rely on you.

A few differences.

The Texas re-redistricting was, indeed, partisan. But the prior lines were based on the Frostocity, a Democratic gerrymandering so bad it should probably go into civics textbooks as the prime example of gerrymandering in American history. So as bad as the Republican redistricting was, it likely was fairer than the previous set of districts. Go talk to jimrtex. It could have been better of course but that would require nonpartisan redistricting. In Texas. I'm not holding my breath.

The Georgia re-redistricting can barely be called partisan, considering it made the boundaries much fairer than the considerably worse Democratic gerrymander that it replaces (remember the Atlanta amoeba?). I can't believe you actually cited this in your defense, considering how much it nullifies your own case.

Now in the case of New Mexico while the Democrats certainly have the legal right to attempt this - although I wonder if they could get it past the definite filibuster in the Legislature it would draw - it only increases electoral chaos by very little and thus is disappointing to me. Also, this is entirely an attempt to reverse an electoral result based on boundaries which came from the bipartisan compromise plans of 1981, 1991, and 2001 and has so little to do with the cited "more urban" reasoning. Furthermore, so far the new plan would be a less fair plan than the current one (which is not perfect either but of course the biggest thing that needs to be fixed would actually increase Wilson's strength a bit: the inclusion of all of NW Albuquerque), which is different from both Georgia and Texas for the reasons I stated above.

Now I shall await the inevitable partisan ad hominem attack from you because you don't really have a case.

Why the hell shouldn't the Democrats do a partisan mid-decade redistricting in New Mexico? The Republicans did ones in Texas AND Georgia, and the voters and the media in those states obviously didn't care. It's time to fight fire with fire.

Ever heard of the idea of taking the moral highground? Besides, if last year's elections show anything, it's that the Democrats don't need to stoop to that level to win.

Well, there is also that to consider.

Rather than going through a rash of "eye-for-an-eye" redistricting revenge I would much rather see Congress pass a law banning redistricting that doesn't occur concurrently with the Decennial Census.  Possible exceptions could be made for dramatic population shifts such as the sudden mass migration caused by Hurricane Katrina or if annual census estimates indicate that the populations of the smallest and/or largest district in a state differ from the state's average by more than 15%.

Quite interesting ideas.

Conversely, I'd like to increase the frequency of the Census to every five years instead of every ten, but that would probably require a Constitutional Amendment and so would be very hard to enact.

[muon2]

Rather than going through a rash of "eye-for-an-eye" redistricting revenge I would much rather see Congress pass a law banning redistricting that doesn't occur concurrently with the Decennial Census.  Possible exceptions could be made for dramatic population shifts such as the sudden mass migration caused by Hurricane Katrina or if annual census estimates indicate that the populations of the smallest and/or largest district in a state differ from the state's average by more than 15%.

Not a bad idea. My city did something similar when a new subdivision pushed one ward to be 40% larger than the others. The public and officials agreed that a mid-decade remap made sense in that case.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Why the hell shouldn't the Democrats do a partisan mid-decade redistricting in New Mexico? The Republicans did ones in Texas AND Georgia, and the voters and the media in those states obviously didn't care. It's time to fight fire with fire.

Ever heard of the idea of taking the moral highground? Besides, if last year's elections show anything, it's that the Democrats don't need to stoop to that level to win.

If we bend over for the Republicans, we lose. Period.

[WMS]

Rather than going through a rash of "eye-for-an-eye" redistricting revenge I would much rather see Congress pass a law banning redistricting that doesn't occur concurrently with the Decennial Census.  Possible exceptions could be made for dramatic population shifts such as the sudden mass migration caused by Hurricane Katrina or if annual census estimates indicate that the populations of the smallest and/or largest district in a state differ from the state's average by more than 15%.

Not a bad idea. My city did something similar when a new subdivision pushed one ward to be 40% larger than the others. The public and officials agreed that a mid-decade remap made sense in that case.

Ah, that reminds me. The Albuquerque West Side representative on the local school board (glorious APS ) has tried to push for a remapping of the Board districts because of the severe population imbalances (which you can indirectly see reflected in school enrollment), with some support from the SW Mesa/South Valley representative (both the SW Mesa and the West Side have grown a LOT since 2000). Now the 2000 gerrymandering of those districts was already absurd because they crammed every possible West Side precinct into one district (it came in just under the maximum overpopulation allowed) even though by the time of the late 2001 redistricting everyone knew it was already too big, but the established (and population-stagnant or population-declining) areas went ahead. In particular, they gerrymandered a ton to give the North Valley a district at the West Side's expense. So in 2006 this was broached and of course the districts east of the river are resisting this. I strongly suspect that if there is no remapping this decade and the same thing happens again in 2011 that I'll finally see the splintering of APS. If not sooner.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The 2002 Texas lines were drawn BY A COURT. Delay's lines are a definite gerrymander.

So it's OK when there's a mid-decade pro-Republican gerrymander, but it's not OK when there's a mid-decade pro-Democratic gerrymander? I'm ashamed to have been born in the same state as you.

[WMS]

The 2002 Texas lines were drawn BY A COURT. Delay's lines are a definite gerrymander.

So it's OK when there's a mid-decade pro-Republican gerrymander, but it's not OK when there's a mid-decade pro-Democratic gerrymander? I'm ashamed to have been born in the same state as you.

"Inevitable partisan ad hominem attack", right on schedule.

Dig deeper. The 2002 lines were, as I TYPED, based on the previous lines of the Frostocity. The court decided, for purposes of both convenience (to avoid having to do all the work itself) and principle (they didn't feel it was their place to change more than they absolutely have to) to change the highly gerrymandered 1990s lines as little as possible. The districts were still highly gerrymandered after that because they were slightly modified versions of a super-gerrymander.

Now, if you had READ what I typed, you will see that I didn't claim DeLay's lines weren't a gerrymander: "The Texas re-redistricting was, indeed, partisan." And the POINT I was making about it was: "So as bad as the Republican redistricting was, it likely was fairer than the previous set of districts." But this completely went over your head, it appears, given that you failed to address it. I also will quote: "It could have been better of course but that would require nonpartisan redistricting." Funny, I don't see an indication from this that I considered the re-redistricting in Texas to be OK. I just said it was less worse than what it replaced. There's a difference, Bezerkeleyite. Oh, yes, I ALSO said that I would have preferred a nonpartisan redistricting. Funny how you failed to mention that.

I also note that you are ignoring what I said about Georgia. No case at all for you there, eh?

On top of that, I also mentioned that in New Mexico the proposed boundaries are less fair than the current ones - different than the two cases you cited. That difference was ALSO ignored by you. Instead, you somehow came up with the idea that I think Republican gerrymanders are OK - we already covered why that isn't the case, although I'm sure you'll just ignore that part again - but just to drive the point home I opposed the Pennsylvania and Ohio regular (not re-redistricting) Republican gerrymanders as well as the Illinois Democratic gerrymandering and the California incumbent-protection gerrymandering - all things anyone who has paid attention would have realized. The ONLY part of your statement that you even remotely got right this time was that I oppose re-redistricting for Democratic gerrymanders. Now let's see you take the previous sentence out of context for your next blindly partisan attack.

As for your last sentence, if you are truly a son of Missouri like me then I see God enjoys balancing out the sane with the insane to keep life entertaining. If you are a son of New Mexico that explains a lot.