US: House Redistricting Massachusetts

[Brittain33]

Hmm, that sounds like a Cape and Islands district. Seems to ruffle more incumbents than is  needed, though.

Would this mean attaching the Cape to New Bedford and expecting Barney Frank to run there? That seems like a tall order. Is this for Therese Murray to run in when he retires or something? Because the other part of it, attaching Quincy and other nearby Norfolk County towns, to the 9th does make a lot of sense from a COI point of view, as does putting Newton in with the 8th or 7th and Brookline with the 8th.

[krazen1211]

Hmm, that sounds like a Cape and Islands district. Seems to ruffle more incumbents than is  needed, though.

Would this mean attaching the Cape to New Bedford and expecting Barney Frank to run there? That seems like a tall order. Is this for Therese Murray to run in when he retires or something? Because the other part of it, attaching Quincy and other nearby Norfolk County towns, to the 9th does make a lot of sense from a COI point of view, as does putting Newton in with the 8th or 7th and Brookline with the 8th.

Could be. Would they be confident in Frank winning without half of Falls River (if he ditches that half to the expanding 3rd), and without Newton?

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

If Quincy is not a part of a Cape & Islands district, then almost certainly Brockton and New Bedford have to be. Plymouth is just getting too Republican.

Because the other part of it, attaching Quincy and other nearby Norfolk County towns, to the 9th does make a lot of sense from a COI point of view, as does putting Newton in with the 8th or 7th and Brookline with the 8th.

If they're combining Lynch and Keating, then this new district is going to be taking in some very un-Norfolk-like chunks of Boston.

Is this for Therese Murray to run in when he retires or something?

Redistricting will be very interesting so far as Therese Murray is concerned. She barely won re-election in 2010, and it's going to be hard to make that district more Democratic, since it'll need to pick up more Plymouth territory (the Cape & Islands seat needs to expand -- it lost population).

It'll be a very interesting race if Romney winds up on the ticket.

Could be. Would they be confident in Frank winning without half of Falls River (if he ditches that half to the expanding 3rd), and without Newton?

Fall River is in McGovern's district, not Frank's.

[whaeffner1]

Is there even a slight chance that Democrats will just create a winnable district for the GOP (come on, just throw them a bone) in order to make their other districts even more safe?

[krazen1211]

If Quincy is not a part of a Cape & Islands district, then almost certainly Brockton and New Bedford have to be. Plymouth is just getting too Republican.

Because the other part of it, attaching Quincy and other nearby Norfolk County towns, to the 9th does make a lot of sense from a COI point of view, as does putting Newton in with the 8th or 7th and Brookline with the 8th.

If they're combining Lynch and Keating, then this new district is going to be taking in some very un-Norfolk-like chunks of Boston.

Is this for Therese Murray to run in when he retires or something?

Redistricting will be very interesting so far as Therese Murray is concerned. She barely won re-election in 2010, and it's going to be hard to make that district more Democratic, since it'll need to pick up more Plymouth territory (the Cape & Islands seat needs to expand -- it lost population).

It'll be a very interesting race if Romney winds up on the ticket.

Could be. Would they be confident in Frank winning without half of Falls River (if he ditches that half to the expanding 3rd), and without Newton?

Fall River is in McGovern's district, not Frank's.

Hmph, pulling it up on DRA shows it split between the 3rd and the 4th. Is that incorrect?

[Brittain33]

Is there even a slight chance that Democrats will just create a winnable district for the GOP (come on, just throw them a bone) in order to make their other districts even more safe?

Republicans are too few and too scattered to do this without gerrymandering. There's no need.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

If Quincy is not a part of a Cape & Islands district, then almost certainly Brockton and New Bedford have to be. Plymouth is just getting too Republican.

Because the other part of it, attaching Quincy and other nearby Norfolk County towns, to the 9th does make a lot of sense from a COI point of view, as does putting Newton in with the 8th or 7th and Brookline with the 8th.

If they're combining Lynch and Keating, then this new district is going to be taking in some very un-Norfolk-like chunks of Boston.

Is this for Therese Murray to run in when he retires or something?

Redistricting will be very interesting so far as Therese Murray is concerned. She barely won re-election in 2010, and it's going to be hard to make that district more Democratic, since it'll need to pick up more Plymouth territory (the Cape & Islands seat needs to expand -- it lost population).

It'll be a very interesting race if Romney winds up on the ticket.

Could be. Would they be confident in Frank winning without half of Falls River (if he ditches that half to the expanding 3rd), and without Newton?

Fall River is in McGovern's district, not Frank's.

Hmph, pulling it up on DRA shows it split between the 3rd and the 4th. Is that incorrect?

Oh, it looks like it's split between the two. My mistake.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Is there even a slight chance that Democrats will just create a winnable district for the GOP (come on, just throw them a bone) in order to make their other districts even more safe?

There's already a winnable district for Republicans: MA-10. It's just that they did a pretty lousy job of winning it last time around.

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

I don't expect fair maps, persay, just ones that aren't hideously gerrymandered like Ohio this year or Maryland or Massachusetts last time around. I think we ought to be drawing Indiana/Wisconsin type maps that do favor the party who drew them but aren't ridiculous. As for Illinois, I'd like to have seen something a little more even-handed, but it wasn't truly awful.

As ugly as Massachusetts is, it's obviously not for partisan gain. You'd get the same result on a fair map.

[TJ in Oregon]

I don't expect fair maps, persay, just ones that aren't hideously gerrymandered like Ohio this year or Maryland or Massachusetts last time around. I think we ought to be drawing Indiana/Wisconsin type maps that do favor the party who drew them but aren't ridiculous. As for Illinois, I'd like to have seen something a little more even-handed, but it wasn't truly awful.

As ugly as Massachusetts is, it's obviously not for partisan gain. You'd get the same result on a fair map.

Half the districts in the state seem to find their way into Boston so it's not exactly a fair map. Still, you're likely right that Massachusetts would have a straight-Dem delegation regardless, but they have effectively removed the potential for contested elections. They might otherwise have to spend money or actually campaign in some seats.

[RI]

I don't expect fair maps, persay, just ones that aren't hideously gerrymandered like Ohio this year or Maryland or Massachusetts last time around. I think we ought to be drawing Indiana/Wisconsin type maps that do favor the party who drew them but aren't ridiculous. As for Illinois, I'd like to have seen something a little more even-handed, but it wasn't truly awful.

As ugly as Massachusetts is, it's obviously not for partisan gain. You'd get the same result on a fair map.

Half the districts in the state seem to find their way into Boston so it's not exactly a fair map. Still, you're likely right that Massachusetts would have a straight-Dem delegation regardless, but they have effectively removed the potential for contested elections. They might otherwise have to spend money or actually campaign in some seats.

They only do that because most of the incumbents live near Boston.

[jimrtex]

They only do that because most of the incumbents live near Boston.

The incumbents live near Boston because of the way the districts are drawn.

[Brittain33]

They only do that because most of the incumbents live near Boston.

The incumbents live near Boston because of the way the districts are drawn.

What does that mean?

Ed Markey and Barney Frank represented quite different districts when they were first elected before the 1982 redistricting. Frank's district looks the way it does because they were considering eliminating him, even though he lived close to Boston. Markey's district only later extended west.

The 10th district as drawn today, reaching up to Quincy, was represented by a Cape resident (Gerry Studds) until 1996 and the Dem primary that year was a very close contest between a Boston-area politician and a Cape politician.

I don't need to tell you where the last district eliminated in Massachusetts was, I believe.

[jimrtex]

They only do that because most of the incumbents live near Boston.

The incumbents live near Boston because of the way the districts are drawn.

What does that mean?

Because politicians don't tend to like to live in areas where their constituents live, and their constituents are too busy with ordinary lives to run for office, districts divvy up the more politically active areas.  When reapportionment is done, rather than combining areas where the politicians live, the districts are extended like toothpaste.

In 2000, in Houston, the area inside the I-610 loop was entitled to a little over 4 representatives.  There were 13 districts in the area, and 9 representatives living there.

I don't need to tell you where the last district eliminated in Massachusetts was, I believe.

Wasn't it Margaret Heckler's district?

Which is now partially included in a district stretching from Brookline to New Bedford, somehow avoiding both Brockton and Fall River (which are in districts based in Boston and Worcester), and has little more than touchpoint connectivity in two places (Wellesley-Dover and Norfolk-Foxborough).

[Brittain33]

Because politicians don't tend to like to live in areas where their constituents live, and their constituents are too busy with ordinary lives to run for office, districts divvy up the more politically active areas.  When reapportionment is done, rather than combining areas where the politicians live, the districts are extended like toothpaste.

Yes, but I think you'll find that (with some exceptions--MA-7's journey west being the main one) that this is not true of the history of Massachusetts's districts.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Residential growth patterns in Houston and the country in general are different than they are in Massachusetts. We don't have much suburban/exurban growth at all here. When it does happen, it's in established towns. This is due both to New England's history of town settlement and our anti-growth policies in most places.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wasn't it Margaret Heckler's district?
[/quote]

No, that was in 1982. (Also, her merger with Frank's district was a fair fight; the old 4th stretched out northwest to Fitchburg.) Another district was eliminated in 1992. That district's representative decided to retire from office rather than compete in a primary. Guess where he lived?

[Brittain33]

BTW, of course the 4th district is ridiculous, it's just that people offended by it usually guess wrong as to why and how it came to be.

[jimrtex]

BTW, of course the 4th district is ridiculous, it's just that people offended by it usually guess wrong as to why and how it came to be.

It would be better to merge the two adjacent districts with the smallest total population and let voters in districts with more population switch to a less populous adjacent district if they thought that would make their vote more effective.

[Brittain33]

That's one possible perspective, sure.

[Brittain33]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wasn't it Margaret Heckler's district?

No, that was in 1982. (Also, her merger with Frank's district was a fair fight; the old 4th stretched out northwest to Fitchburg.) Another district was eliminated in 1992. That district's representative decided to retire from office rather than compete in a primary. Guess where he lived?
[/quote]

Jim, are you still working on this? Have you tried sources on redistricting history?

[jimrtex]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wasn't it Margaret Heckler's district?

No, that was in 1982. (Also, her merger with Frank's district was a fair fight; the old 4th stretched out northwest to Fitchburg.) Another district was eliminated in 1992. That district's representative decided to retire from office rather than compete in a primary. Guess where he lived?

Jim, are you still working on this? Have you tried sources on redistricting history?
[/quote]

Must be Donnelly, since Atkins lost in the primary. Early and Mavroule's lost in the general, and O'Conte didn't exactly retire.  Boston?

Still working on the Gonzales-Gorman figures?

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Massachusetts should be releasing their first draft State House and State Senate maps next Tuesday.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Looks like it might be Olver or McGovern that gets the axe.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Brittain33]

Redrawing the map to make sense and not try to keep two western Mass districts with ridiculous tendrils? Too good to be true?

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I just...I...

...well at least it seems like if this happens Northampton will end up in 01. That would be something at least.

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

Olver = should retire anyway for being so old.