State Legislatures and Redistricting

[JohnnyLongtorso]

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.

It's now 20-18 in the Senate with a vacancy (a D-to-I switcher resigned, apparently) that the Republicans are expected to win in January.

One of the party switchers was at least honest about why: he wants to be the Senate President.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Party switchers tend to be blatant opportunist pricks in Louisiana. Well I suppose everywhere, but in Louisiana especially so. That guy who ran against Landrieu in 2008 wasn't even a conservative Democrat initially, he ran for Senate in 2004 as the more liberal candidate.

[rbt48]

I wonder if there are three Arkansas state senators who might switch from D to R to flip that chamber?

[Хahar 🤔]

I wonder if there are three Arkansas state senators who might switch from D to R to flip that chamber?

Not likely. The Arkansas Democratic Party is almost as strong as that in West Virginia.

[Nichlemn]

I wonder if there are three Arkansas state senators who might switch from D to R to flip that chamber?

Not likely. The Arkansas Democratic Party is almost as strong as that in West Virginia.

What do you mean, "strong"? In terms of electoral strength, clearly not. Democrats retained strong majorities in the West Virginia legislature, whereas they had much reduced majorities in Arkansas even as Republicans failed to contest many seat (I believe the Republicans in fact won every single statewide race or state legislative seat they contested, indicating they almost certainly could have won more if they had contested them).

[rbt48]

I wonder if there are three Arkansas state senators who might switch from D to R to flip that chamber?

Not likely. The Arkansas Democratic Party is almost as strong as that in West Virginia.

What do you mean, "strong"? In terms of electoral strength, clearly not. Democrats retained strong majorities in the West Virginia legislature, whereas they had much reduced majorities in Arkansas even as Republicans failed to contest many seat (I believe the Republicans in fact won every single statewide race or state legislative seat they contested, indicating they almost certainly could have won more if they had contested them).

... And, the Republicans won every statewide race in Arkansas except the governorship.

[Frodo]

I wonder if there are three Arkansas state senators who might switch from D to R to flip that chamber?

Not likely. The Arkansas Democratic Party is almost as strong as that in West Virginia.

What do you mean, "strong"? In terms of electoral strength, clearly not. Democrats retained strong majorities in the West Virginia legislature, whereas they had much reduced majorities in Arkansas even as Republicans failed to contest many seat (I believe the Republicans in fact won every single statewide race or state legislative seat they contested, indicating they almost certainly could have won more if they had contested them).

... And, the Republicans won every statewide race in Arkansas except the governorship.

And don't forget to add the offices of Attorney General, Treasurer, and Auditor to that list of positions still held by Democrats. 

[nclib]

Can anyone make a map of the relative GOP gains per state legislature (i.e. percent of Democratic seats that changed hands), since some states where control of chamber flipped, it was already close before the election, and also some states have different numbers of Representatives in their legislature.

[Хahar 🤔]

I wonder if there are three Arkansas state senators who might switch from D to R to flip that chamber?

Not likely. The Arkansas Democratic Party is almost as strong as that in West Virginia.

What do you mean, "strong"? In terms of electoral strength, clearly not. Democrats retained strong majorities in the West Virginia legislature, whereas they had much reduced majorities in Arkansas even as Republicans failed to contest many seat (I believe the Republicans in fact won every single statewide race or state legislative seat they contested, indicating they almost certainly could have won more if they had contested them).

The fact that they contested so few seats shows the institutional strength of the Democratic Party in Arkansas compared to the rest of the South.

[Lunar]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1210/Two_black_Democrats_switch_party.html?showall

[Nichlemn]

I wonder if there are three Arkansas state senators who might switch from D to R to flip that chamber?

Not likely. The Arkansas Democratic Party is almost as strong as that in West Virginia.

What do you mean, "strong"? In terms of electoral strength, clearly not. Democrats retained strong majorities in the West Virginia legislature, whereas they had much reduced majorities in Arkansas even as Republicans failed to contest many seat (I believe the Republicans in fact won every single statewide race or state legislative seat they contested, indicating they almost certainly could have won more if they had contested them).

The fact that they contested so few seats shows the institutional strength of the Democratic Party in Arkansas compared to the rest of the South.

And/or that that Republicans overestimated the Democratic Party's strength. The fact that they would likely have won more seats had they bothered to contest them makes it more likely for Democrats to switch, either because they're afraid they could lose if their seat was contested or that other losses will cause them to fall into the minority next time.

[Capitan Zapp Brannigan]

I wonder if there are three Arkansas state senators who might switch from D to R to flip that chamber?

Not likely. The Arkansas Democratic Party is almost as strong as that in West Virginia.

What do you mean, "strong"? In terms of electoral strength, clearly not. Democrats retained strong majorities in the West Virginia legislature, whereas they had much reduced majorities in Arkansas even as Republicans failed to contest many seat (I believe the Republicans in fact won every single statewide race or state legislative seat they contested, indicating they almost certainly could have won more if they had contested them).

The fact that they contested so few seats shows the institutional strength of the Democratic Party in Arkansas compared to the rest of the South.

And/or that that Republicans overestimated the Democratic Party's strength. The fact that they would likely have won more seats had they bothered to contest them makes it more likely for Democrats to switch, either because they're afraid they could lose if their seat was contested or that other losses will cause them to fall into the minority next time.

Yeah, pretty much this. I doubt they switch while they're still in the majority though. If the Republicans ever get the majority there, I could see a lot of switches happening.

The West Virginia Democratic party really impressed me a lot more than the dems in Arkansas this cycle.

[Lunar]

Sen. Antoine Thompson, who lost to a Republican in one of the most Democratic districts in the state, ended the campaign with some $120,000 in the bank.

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial-page/columns/bob-mccarthy/article282073.ece

[Sam Spade]

For some reason, Democratic control of the NY State Senate always seems cursed.

[Capitan Zapp Brannigan]

For some reason, Democratic control of the NY State Senate always seems cursed.

Probably a mix of being completely incompetent at campaigning and especially governing, plus a great GOP gerrymander of the state senate.

[jimrtex]

The GOP in the Texas House will pick up either one or two seats this week, giving them a 2/3 supermajority.

[Brittain33]

The GOP in the Texas House will pick up either one or two seats this week, giving them a 2/3 supermajority.

In what way are they picking up seats? Run-off, party switches?

What does a 2/3 majority bring?

[Sam Spade]

The GOP in the Texas House will pick up either one or two seats this week, giving them a 2/3 supermajority.

In what way are they picking up seats? Run-off, party switches?

What does a 2/3 majority bring?

It's basically a done deal.

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/12/will-republicans-claim-100th-s.html

Basically, it means that the Republicans can do anything procedurally.

In cross-referencing threads, what happened is that any Democrat outside of the major metro areas in Texas (or South Texas) who was not uncontested got beat, as Republicans encouraged the rural voters to vote straight-party, and they did.  You see, Democrats, prior to this election, still dominated local offices in all of these rural areas.  They got completely wiped out.  This has all Democrats left in these areas running scared (for obvious reasons).

Ritter's HD is 66% McCain.  Pena's HD is 77% Obama, so me no understand that one.  But the simple point, is that rural Texas Dems were eliminated, basically in one fell swoop, in this election.  That's the "real" realignment that Al mentioned.  Ritter is the last one in the Texas House.

The only other (sort of) one left is Eiland (McCain 53%), though that's really not rural district.  And Gallego (McCain 51%), but that district is strange.

[jimrtex]

The GOP in the Texas House will pick up either one or two seats this week, giving them a 2/3 supermajority.

In what way are they picking up seats? Run-off, party switches?

What does a 2/3 majority bring?

It's basically a done deal.

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/12/will-republicans-claim-100th-s.html

Basically, it means that the Republicans can do anything procedurally.

In cross-referencing threads, what happened is that any Democrat outside of the major metro areas in Texas (or South Texas) who was not uncontested got beat, as Republicans encouraged the rural voters to vote straight-party, and they did.  You see, Democrats, prior to this election, still dominated local offices in all of these rural areas.  They got completely wiped out.  This has all Democrats left in these areas running scared (for obvious reasons).

Ritter's HD is 66% McCain.  Pena's HD is 77% Obama, so me no understand that one.  But the simple point, is that rural Texas Dems were eliminated, basically in one fell swoop, in this election.  That's the "real" realignment that Al mentioned.  Ritter is the last one in the Texas House.

The only other (sort of) one left is Eiland (McCain 53%), though that's really not rural district.  And Gallego (McCain 51%), but that district is strange.

Boyd Richie issued a rant about Ritter, so that one is a done deal.  Pena is still considering it.  But it pretty odd to have speculation, and then make a public confirmation that you are considering it.

[rbt48]

From a practical standpoint, I would think the 2/3rds majority means that the Democrats can't run to Ardmore OK to stop redistrciting from occuring.  The 100 Republicans would constitute a quorum.

[Skill and Chance]

From a practical standpoint, I would think the 2/3rds majority means that the Democrats can't run to Ardmore OK to stop redistrciting from occuring.  The 100 Republicans would constitute a quorum.

If they actually wanted to do this, they presumably could.  The Democrats still have 12 out of 31 seats in the State Senate.  I don't think they would have anything to gain by making a scene anyway, though.

[Brittain33]

From a practical standpoint, I would think the 2/3rds majority means that the Democrats can't run to Ardmore OK to stop redistrciting from occuring.  The 100 Republicans would constitute a quorum.

If they actually wanted to do this, they presumably could.  The Democrats still have 12 out of 31 seats in the State Senate.  I don't think they would have anything to gain by making a scene anyway, though.

Yes, given the status quo maps are already a Perrymander, the difference between a court-drawn map and one drawn by a Republican legislature will not compare to the differences effected by Delay's 2004 remap or the redrawing of the legislature.

[Brittain33]

Is Peña angling for a gubernatorial appointment after he's served his purpose in this term of the legislature? Was he paid off somehow? He won't be reelected in this district, so it won't serve his political career, but I could see him finding an alternative to being a minority party legislator appealing.

[jimrtex]

Is Peña angling for a gubernatorial appointment after he's served his purpose in this term of the legislature? Was he paid off somehow? He won't be reelected in this district, so it won't serve his political career, but I could see him finding an alternative to being a minority party legislator appealing.

"What I learned as a child and learned from my parents are reflected in the Republican party." -Aaron Pena, now an R.

HD 41 was only 57% for Obama, and Hidalgo County should have 4+ districts, with the partial district going into Cameron County.  HD 43, the district that is partially in Cameron County was 58% Obama, but might have been fairly competitive in Cameron county, so it might be possible to create a district that Pena could win.  He almost got beat in the primary in 2008, so he didn't necessarily have a save seat anyhow.

Legislators only get paid $7600 per year, and ordinarily only meet in odd years.  So almost all legislators have a real income elsewhere.

An appeals court seat is a possibility.  The district goes up along the coast past Corpus Christi, and is competitive for a Republican, at least in gubernatorial election years.   Another possibility is SOS, which has a function dealing with border affairs.

[rbt48]

Are the current Texas state legislative districts the ones drawn following the 2000 census?  I did not think that Delay's redistricting plan affected them--I thought his plan only redrew the Congressional districts.