State Legislatures and Redistricting

[jimrtex]

Mississippi has regular partisan primaries in July, and some really ugly legislative districts

http://www.msjrc.state.ms.us/ms_house.html

So they might not be able to get it done in time.  It would be interesting if someone were to challenge the existing districts, and force new elections before 2015.  The census bureau can compile population for existing districts if the state submits boundaries in time.

The Mississippi Constitution, last I checkd, actually says that redistricting takes place in 1982 and every 10th year thereafter, but it seems like that was igored in 1991, which was a Legislative election year in Mississippi like 2011 will be.  Legislative redistricting was delayed but because of Justice department non-preclearance (which may have been prompted by a lawsuit from Black legislators and civil rights activists under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act).  And there ended up being Legislative elections in 1992 for a three-year term.  See Mississippi Redistricting Cases:  the 1990s (Watkins v. Maubus and the first Watkins v. Fordice).

I suppose failing to hold an election on new boundaries until 5 years after the census could also be considered a violation of Section 2.

Mississippi has submitted its current legislative districts to the Census Bureau (which has retabulated the 2000 Census on the post-2000 boundaries).  So it is conceivable that someone could also sue on equal protection grounds.

The 38 (of 122) Black majority House districts average 70% Black.  Once you get that high, it may be hard to back off, if you've connecting a bunch of small concentrations of Blacks.  How do you decide which get shifted into a White district, and which White areas get placed in the Black district, if you were trying to drop it to 60?

[J. J.]

In PA Democratic Caucus, several leaders from Phila, Evans (Appropriations) and Cohen (Caucus Chair) lost their leadership positions within the party.

[Dan the Roman]

Reports of the NY Republican demise are greatly exaggerated.  If they can win back the suburbs, they will retain control of the State Senate through the decade.  That rebuilding process began in 2009 and continued to grow in 2010. 

They needed a heavily gerrymandered map and a Republican wave year to get above parity and hold onto 32-30. The next map, even if drawn by Republicans to continue to crack Long Island's minority communities and upstate Democratic districts, will be hampered by the law change making it impossible to county downstate prisoners as residents of underpopulated northern Republican districts. The Democrats aren't holding any untenable districts that I know of, considering that Aubertine and the guy on Suffolk County lost, while the Republican in Buffalo is in a weak position and there are Republicans representing places like Rochester and central Nassau who would be in tough shape even if the suburbs started voting like it was 1988 again.

We'll see what happens next year when we have new maps (likely drawn by Republicans, although with difficulty) and a Presidential election year.

Assuming the Democrat incumbent keeps her narrow lead in SD-37, Democrats hold seats in the Bronx/NYC northern suburbs that can easily go over to the Republicans if redrawn correctly (cramming minority areas of Westchester into a Democratic stronghold district and making a seat or two for Republicans out of the residual).  If I'm not mistaken, two of those seats had two Republican incumbents last time the lines were drawn to try to keep both in power (including one that contained much of the Bronx before the incumbent Republican was indicted).  Westchester and Rockland have enough Republicans that they should be able to elect at least one more Republican to the NYS Senate, if not two.

The GOP is not going to get free-reign to draw a gerrymandered w NY senate map. Everyone here is making the same mistake they are making with Virginia. Overrating the strength of a doomed majority in one chamber when the rest of the process is controlled by the other party. I told everyone here that the map with a GOP 34-28 majority would look vastly different than one with a 32-30 one, especially if in the best year for the GOP in decades they could only manage a majority at all by 400 or so votes, and with one senator in a 70% Obama district. Because there is virtually no chance of the GOP holding the chamber on anything resembling the current lines in 2012(ditto for the Dems in the VA senate) the Democrats have the ability to send the map to the courts and then revisit the issue in 2013.

Therefore like in VA, what is going to happen is that there are going to be incumbent protection maps which contrary to the above does not include a GOP gerrymander in the Senate. The current 32(or 31 Republicans) will all be strengthened, but the present 30-31 Democrats will be made safe. And there is a limit to how much the some of the current Republicans can be strengthened, so the result will be a chamber the GOP is almost guaranteed to lose in the next decade.

What the GOP will however get from this will be the promise not to re-do the Congressional or Senate boundaries when that does occur. And because the Democrats in the NYS and NYA dont give a damn about congress that is where the concessions will be.

But the idea that any Democrats are going to be targeted in any possible Senate map is as absurd as the Democrats in the VA senate getting away with drawing the GOP leadership in that chamber out of their seats.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Traditionally, each house of the legislature draws its own maps in Virginia, so there may be a Democratic gerrymander for the Senate and a Republican one for the House.

[Kevinstat]

Traditionally, each house of the legislature draws its own maps in Virginia, so there may be a Democratic gerrymander for the Senate and a Republican one for the House.

These are not traditional times.

[Keystone Phil]

In PA Democratic Caucus, several leaders from Phila, Evans (Appropriations) and Cohen (Caucus Chair) lost their leadership positions within the party.

Hughes is the only Philadelphian in leadership in the entire legislature. Crazy.

[Dan the Roman]

Traditionally, each house of the legislature draws its own maps in Virginia, so there may be a Democratic gerrymander for the Senate and a Republican one for the House.

The Democrats will get a decent map, but even with one, I suspect their odds of holding on in 2011 are not good. And that in itself, is an argument not to torpedo the whole process in pursuit of said map. If the Republicans emerge feeling cheated, they are likely to be in a position to do something about it next year. Furthermore, like the Democrats in NY, the GOP wins(except on congressional districts, and only marginal there) if things are forced into the courts for one cycle.

[5280]

http://www.denverpost.com/legislature/ci_16653887

Looks like Colorado Republicans have both House and Legislature control.  That was the last race called, and it was close.

[Brittain33]

http://www.denverpost.com/legislature/ci_16653887

Looks like Colorado Republicans have both House and Legislature control.  That was the last race called, and it was close.

Hmm? Based on the "only toehold" comment in the article, I would expect the Dems still control the state senate.

[5280]

http://www.denverpost.com/legislature/ci_16653887

Looks like Colorado Republicans have both House and Legislature control.  That was the last race called, and it was close.

Hmm? Based on the "only toehold" comment in the article, I would expect the Dems still control the state senate.

Even if it's one vote more for the REPs, they still have the majority regardless.

[jimrtex]

http://www.denverpost.com/legislature/ci_16653887

Looks like Colorado Republicans have both House and Legislature control.  That was the last race called, and it was close.

In 2001, the Republicans had control of the House, Democrats had control of the Senate, each drew their own congressional plan, and the Senate refused to appoint conference committee members.  They wanted to split Denver, so might have lost some votes on a conference committee report.

A district court then drew the redistricting plan at the time appointed in the Constitution, even though nobody had ever heard of that interpretation, and it had never been followed before.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Four Dems in the Alabama House are switching to the Republicans. Shocking.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

lol

[Niemeyerite]

Four Dems in the Alabama House are switching to the Republicans. Shocking.

congratulations for them. now, they are in their party. dixiecrats aren't democrats.

[Mjh]

Four Dems in the Alabama House are switching to the Republicans. Shocking.

Well why not? The Alabama Democrats are turning into the same permanent minority that the Alabama Republicans were from 1860 to 1960s-70s.
I assume the black vote is the only thing keeping them from being completely crushed.

[Holmes]

I really don't care, I don't know what sort of agenda the Alabama Republican party would wanna pass that's already not implemented anyway. Unless they wanna go the way of Oklahoma and start banning Sharia law. But I don't understand...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What was this guy's margin of victory? Because it sounds like he cares more about what the state as a whole wants than who his district wants. It's like a Republican Californian assembly person or senator changing to Democrat after this election where Democrats swept everything... southern Democrats are weird. Power obsessed?

[Dgov]

I really don't care, I don't know what sort of agenda the Alabama Republican party would wanna pass that's already not implemented anyway. Unless they wanna go the way of Oklahoma and start banning Sharia law. But I don't understand...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What was this guy's margin of victory? Because it sounds like he cares more about what the state as a whole wants than who his district wants. It's like a Republican Californian assembly person or senator changing to Democrat after this election where Democrats swept everything... southern Democrats are weird. Power obsessed?

Sort of.  The Reason most were Democrats to begin with were because the Democrats were the majority party and being the minority sucks.

In fact the only surprising result so far is that no Democratic house members have announced plans to switch.  The GOP picked up like 9 or so after 1994 from mostly Conservative districts (though admittedly there's not many of them left)

[JohnnyLongtorso]

I really don't care, I don't know what sort of agenda the Alabama Republican party would wanna pass that's already not implemented anyway. Unless they wanna go the way of Oklahoma and start banning Sharia law. But I don't understand...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What was this guy's margin of victory? Because it sounds like he cares more about what the state as a whole wants than who his district wants. It's like a Republican Californian assembly person or senator changing to Democrat after this election where Democrats swept everything... southern Democrats are weird. Power obsessed?

He was unopposed, as was Boothe. Hurst won by 3, and Vance won by 9.

[Kevinstat]

http://www.denverpost.com/legislature/ci_16653887

Looks like Colorado Republicans have both House and Legislature control.  That was the last race called, and it was close.

Hmm? Based on the "only toehold" comment in the article, I would expect the Dems still control the state senate.

Even if it's one vote more for the REPs, they still have the majority regardless.

I think brittain23's point was that the Democrats still have a majority in the State Senate (you had said that it "Looks like Colorado Republicans have both House and Legislature control," which one might interpret as your meaning "House and Senate").  Of course, with a Democratic Governor, the Republicans holding the State House may be more significant in the redistricting process (and in overall governance) than the Democrats holding the State Senate, even if their margin there is bigger.

[rbt48]

Here is a spreadsheet of the 2010 post-election state legislature lineup by party:

http://members.cox.net/rbt48/weather/Presidential_Elections/2010_State_Legislatures_post_election.pdf

Comments and corrections gladly welcomed.

[Kevinstat]

Here is a spreadsheet of the 2010 post-election state legislature lineup by party:

http://members.cox.net/rbt48/weather/Presidential_Elections/2010_State_Legislatures_post_election.pdf

Comments and corrections gladly welcomed.

77 Republicans, 73 Democrats and 1 Independent were elected to the Maine House of Representatives this year, but one Democrat (soon to be second-term Rep. Michael J. Willette of Presque Isle in House District 5 who is already counted and listed as a Republican here (his son Alexander (R-Mapleton), who was elected to the House in a neighboring district, apparently convinced him to switch parties)) announced he was switching parties a little over a week after his reelection (he got to vote for the Republican nominee for Speaker even though he couldn't have had his 15 day elligibilty period to vote in a Republican primary or municipal caucus, etc. finished by then), so, counting that switch, your table is correct for Maine (there were one Senate and three House recounts (all Republican requests that could only have increased their majority) but the leading Democrats hung on in all of those).

Why's the 0 for Independents and Others in the South Dakota Senate in boldface though?  At first I thought it was to represent a Republican Lt. Governor (does South Dakota even have one?), but then I saw that the Republicans have (or will have at least) an overwhelming (30 to 5!) majority in that chamber.

[rbt48]

77 Republicans, 73 Democrats and 1 Independent were elected to the Maine House of Representatives this year, but one Democrat (soon to be second-term Rep. Michael J. Willette of Presque Isle in House District 5 who is already counted and listed as a Republican here (his son Alexander (R-Mapleton), who was elected to the House in a neighboring district, apparently convinced him to switch parties)) announced he was switching parties a little over a week after his reelection (he got to vote for the Republican nominee for Speaker even though he couldn't have had his 15 day elligibilty period to vote in a Republican primary or municipal caucus, etc. finished by then), so, counting that switch, your table is correct for Maine (there were one Senate and three House recounts (all Republican requests that could only have increased their majority) but the leading Democrats hung on in all of those).

Why's the 0 for Independents and Others in the South Dakota Senate in boldface though?  At first I thought it was to represent a Republican Lt. Governor (does South Dakota even have one?), but then I saw that the Republicans have (or will have at least) an overwhelming (30 to 5!) majority in that chamber.

Thanks for the great update on Maine and for the South Dakota catch on the bold face.  I'll correct it promptly.  Yes, SD does have a Republican Lt Gov, though the bold face was just an error on my part.

[rbt48]

Looks like the Republicans have sealed a 32 to 30 edge in the New York State Senate.  I think the last losing Democrat is still talking of a court challenge, but his opponent was declared the victor.
http://members.cox.net/rbt48/weather/Presidential_Elections/2010_State_Legislatures_post_election.pdf

Also, NCSL:  http://www.ncsl.org/tabid/21253/default.aspx?stateid=vt#data

[Frodo]

Two more Democratic state legislators (this time, senators) in Louisiana have just switched to the GOP.  Before long, the entire Louisiana legislature will be under Republican control with just a few more defections.

[Dan the Roman]

Here is a spreadsheet of the 2010 post-election state legislature lineup by party:

http://members.cox.net/rbt48/weather/Presidential_Elections/2010_State_Legislatures_post_election.pdf

Comments and corrections gladly welcomed.

77 Republicans, 73 Democrats and 1 Independent were elected to the Maine House of Representatives this year, but one Democrat (soon to be second-term Rep. Michael J. Willette of Presque Isle in House District 5 who is already counted and listed as a Republican here (his son Alexander (R-Mapleton), who was elected to the House in a neighboring district, apparently convinced him to switch parties)) announced he was switching parties a little over a week after his reelection (he got to vote for the Republican nominee for Speaker even though he couldn't have had his 15 day elligibilty period to vote in a Republican primary or municipal caucus, etc. finished by then), so, counting that switch, your table is correct for Maine (there were one Senate and three House recounts (all Republican requests that could only have increased their majority) but the leading Democrats hung on in all of those).

Why's the 0 for Independents and Others in the South Dakota Senate in boldface though?  At first I thought it was to represent a Republican Lt. Governor (does South Dakota even have one?), but then I saw that the Republicans have (or will have at least) an overwhelming (30 to 5!) majority in that chamber.

I didn't realize that Alex's father was a Democratic rep. Wow, learn something everyday.