Politico: Republicans expand redistricting strategy for 2020

[Virginiá]

A new group, the National Republican Redistricting Trust, will focus on legal and data efforts for the next round of political map-drawing.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/29/republicans-redistricting-strategy-2020-243298

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[PoliticalJunkie23]

Let's cross our fingers and pray to deities that the Supreme Court makes the right decision on gerrymandering.

[Mr.Phips]

ROFL!!!  So only the states where Democrats have control should have "fair" district lines?  Apparently only when Republicans have full control of the process, it's fair to draw ridiculous looking maps that helps one party have as many districts as possible.  What a bunch of hypocrites.

[Blackacre]

I hope all of the members of this group are drawn into horribly gerrymandered districts by a Democratic governor.

Okay, I'm not THAT petty, but I don't wish them well in their efforts to screw things up further

[Figueira]

As long as this is legal, Democrats need to do the same.

[PragmaticPopulist]

If they think they can hold power with an iron fist in North Carolina while whining about how the districts in Maryland are unfair, they're total hypocrites. If the supreme court side with Wisconsin in Gill v. Whitford, Democrats might gerrymander the states they control even more. They can definitely make MD have an 8-0 D delegation, and make at least 2 more D-leaning seats in IL.

[MarkD]

Let's cross our fingers and pray to deities that the Supreme Court makes the right decision on gerrymandering.

I always hope that the Supreme Court will make "the right decision" based on an objective interpretation of the Constitution, and in my carefully considered opinion, the right decision is that gerrymandering is not unconstitutional. According to what I've read so far, the Court has yet to come up with at least five Justices who have clearly stated whether or not the phenomenon of gerrymandering is constitutional or unconstitutional.


PJ, if you think it is clearly unconstitutional, what provision in the Constitution prohibits gerrymandering?

[PoliticalJunkie23]

Let's cross our fingers and pray to deities that the Supreme Court makes the right decision on gerrymandering.

I always hope that the Supreme Court will make "the right decision" based on an objective interpretation of the Constitution, and in my carefully considered opinion, the right decision is that gerrymandering is not unconstitutional. According to what I've read so far, the Court has yet to come up with at least five Justices who have clearly stated whether or not the phenomenon of gerrymandering is constitutional or unconstitutional.

PJ, if you think it is clearly unconstitutional, what provision in the Constitution prohibits gerrymandering?

The Supreme Court decided in 1986 in Davis v. Bandemer that partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional and can be challenged in court. The problem is that is that it set such strict standards that hardly anything came up as gerrymandering. That is what needs to be changed, as shoving different groups into oddly shaped districts to benefit one party is clearly unconstitutional.

[Mr.Phips]

I mean, they really can't do a whole lot more than what they already did in 2011 can they? I guess they could chop off Cartwright in PA, Kaptur in Ohio and Conyers (or someone) in Michigan and crack KY-3, TN-5 and MO-5 (that one I'm skeptical will be approved by Hartzler and Graves...). And maybe get a Florida seat or two back. But that's all ASSUMING they have the trifecta in all those states (except KY where Governor doesn't matter).

Republicans have to almost run the table in high-profile gubernatorial races to avoid any impending redistricting losses/their gerrymanders coming undone. If Dems win the FL gubernatorial race, the status quo likely remains, and maybe Dems even gain FL-25 or something. If Wolf is reelected in Pennsylvania, Meehan is a goner, and possibly Costello too. It could be even worse if the Democratic-controlled PA Supreme Court draws it. A court-drawn Ohio would make OH-1 D leaning, and an R district would more than likely be lost. A D-trifecta for Illinois would be 13-3 D. Maryland (whether Hogan wins or not) would be 8-0 D or 7-1. Might as well go for the 8-0 since they're gonna get accused of gerrymandering anyway. A court-drawn Michigan would probably result in D+1, R-2.

7-1 in Maryland risks a dummymander in the Baltimore suburbs.  They should keep it at 7-1, but work to move MD-06 a little further to the left.

[krazen1211]

Redmap was a great success and we should build on that to do more gerrymandering.

[Nyvin]

They'll be a lot more limited on what they can do in Ohio and Pennsylvania due to the commissions, and potentially Wolf holding the Gov seat.

Kentucky's constitution prohibits unneeded county splits so they can't chop KY-3 either.

They aren't getting Republican gerrymanders in Illinois, Maryland, or Massachusetts regardless, so their gains there will be almost non-existent (they might even lose a seat in Maryland).

They're main targets would be TN-5, MO-5, MI-9, and I guess WI-3.    Beyond that what else is there?  A lot of the dem seats in vulnerable states are overpopulated and will mostly just shrink more into their urban cores,  like OH-3.

[Virginiá]

They're main targets would be TN-5, MO-5, MI-9, and I guess WI-3.    Beyond that what else is there?  A lot of the dem seats in vulnerable states are overpopulated and will mostly just shrink more into their urban cores,  like OH-3.

I think they are anticipating more Democratic-friendly maps due the inherent issues of a midterm under a Republican president, and probably want to soften Illinois up, although I'm not exactly sure how far a lawsuit will get them. If Rauner wins and they still fall short of a supermajority, they might get a much more friendly map without a lawsuit due to IL's redistricting rules. As I understand it, if the backup commission deadlocks, a tie has to be broken by members selected by the courts and there is a better chance then that they get their map instead of the democrats' map. If that is the case, they have a reasonable shot at it if Rauner hangs on - something I think will be hard for him to do this time.

In general though, it seems like they are just fine tuning their machine and upping investments to outspend Democrats, who are making their own major investments this cycle.

[Tintrlvr]

Let's cross our fingers and pray to deities that the Supreme Court makes the right decision on gerrymandering.

Even if they do, Republicans will gerrymander anyway, and the courts have been too craven on this issue to actually hear cases quickly and force elections to be on court-drawn lines.

[jamestroll]

For what its worth splitting up MO-05 could be very very risky.

[Mr.Phips]

I mean, they really can't do a whole lot more than what they already did in 2011 can they? I guess they could chop off Cartwright in PA, Kaptur in Ohio and Conyers (or someone) in Michigan and crack KY-3, TN-5 and MO-5 (that one I'm skeptical will be approved by Hartzler and Graves...). And maybe get a Florida seat or two back. But that's all ASSUMING they have the trifecta in all those states (except KY where Governor doesn't matter).

Republicans have to almost run the table in high-profile gubernatorial races to avoid any impending redistricting losses/their gerrymanders coming undone. If Dems win the FL gubernatorial race, the status quo likely remains, and maybe Dems even gain FL-25 or something. If Wolf is reelected in Pennsylvania, Meehan is a goner, and possibly Costello too. It could be even worse if the Democratic-controlled PA Supreme Court draws it. A court-drawn Ohio would make OH-1 D leaning, and an R district would more than likely be lost. A D-trifecta for Illinois would be 13-3 D. Maryland (whether Hogan wins or not) would be 8-0 D or 7-1. Might as well go for the 8-0 since they're gonna get accused of gerrymandering anyway. A court-drawn Michigan would probably result in D+1, R-2.

7-1 in Maryland risks a dummymander in the Baltimore suburbs.  They should keep it at 7-1, but work to move MD-06 a little further to the left.

You can make an 8-0 map of Maryland that is VRA compliant where the least-D district voted for HRC with 55%. They'd have to try to lose a seat like that.

55% HRC may be vulnerable in 2010/2014 scenario (i.e.  midterm under a dem president).  Look how close Delaney came.to.losing in such a district in 2014.

[PoliticalJunkie23]

It's hilarious watching partisan Democrats and Republicans talk about how they want to unfairly draw districts to benefit their corrupt parties. I really can't believe people are like this.

[progressive85]

Gerrymandering by ANY party, ANY time, ANY where should be unconstitutional.  All districts at all levels of government should be drawn independently of politics by citizens who do not have an agenda.  This is a major issue and if the Supreme Court will not outlaw it, it should be outlawed with a constitutional amendment.

Gerrymandering sucks all the fun out of politics.  It's rigging the game.  What's the point of watching a game if you know before it starts which team is going to win?

THIS is not a district, this should be thrown out by any sensible court:

[Virginiá]

It's hilarious watching partisan Democrats and Republicans talk about how they want to unfairly draw districts to benefit their corrupt parties. I really can't believe people are like this.

This is just how things are. Because gerrymandering has gone on so long, and because its use involves a concept that isn't immediately understood by the public (as opposed to ballot stuffing/etc), it basically gets a pass. I don't know if you've ever tried to explain gerrymandering to the average joe, but more times than not, you can practically see their eyes glazing over as the words come out of your mouth.

But let's be honest here - this is election theft, plain and simple. It's an egregious abuse of the system to deny fair representation to people based on their partisan choices, and an attempt to invalidate the idea of free and fair elections by hardening state legislatures and the US House against backlashes of public opinion. Watching political operatives (notably conservatives, given their vast control of redistricting last time*) talk about it so comfortably, totally unsympathetic and acting as if this is all just a game to them, is, well, maddening to say the least. This isn't a game, and there are serious consequences - sometimes life and death, that come with these games politicians are playing.

It is things like this that hurt our country and our institutions and the desire for people to be politically engaged. Why participate if your opinions, your ideas, your beliefs don't matter? It's made even worse when the dominant party doing most of the map rigging is pushing ideas that are hugely expensive and largely ineffective, and often not wanted by large swathes of the country.


* no denying Democrats do it too, but liberal groups are often the only ones pushing for reform, and because Republicans rigged so many maps in 2011-2012, there are way more lawsuits, written & spoken records of them talking about stealing districts and so on

[krazen1211]

THIS is not a district, this should be thrown out by any sensible court:

A simple solution would be to repeal requirements that districts be contiguous. Then you would no longer need the squiggles to dump the undesirable voters.

[Nyvin]

THIS is not a district, this should be thrown out by any sensible court:

A simple solution would be to repeal requirements that districts be contiguous. Then you would no longer need the squiggles to dump the undesirable voters.

*facepalm*

Wow.   You really troll hard for attention here.

[krazen1211]

I always hope that the Supreme Court will make "the right decision" based on an objective interpretation of the Constitution, and in my carefully considered opinion, the right decision is that gerrymandering is not unconstitutional. According to what I've read so far, the Court has yet to come up with at least five Justices who have clearly stated whether or not the phenomenon of gerrymandering is constitutional or unconstitutional.


PJ, if you think it is clearly unconstitutional, what provision in the Constitution prohibits gerrymandering?

Redistricting is a legislative function, to be performed in accordance with the State’s prescriptions for lawmaking.

It's not me who said that but rather even Ruth Ginsberg. Some folks have this idea that they can simply get rid of laws they don't like merely because they do not like the outcome of an election.

[Virginiá]

Redistricting is a legislative function, to be performed in accordance with the State’s prescriptions for lawmaking.

It's not me who said that but rather even Ruth Ginsberg. Some folks have this idea that they can simply get rid of laws they don't like merely because they do not like the outcome of an election.

Oh, like how Republicans like to redraw maps sometimes to shore up districts? You know damn well what is going on when maps are rigged like they are. It's politicians moving voters around to find a way in which they win more seats even with large swings against their party. If Republicans were just accepting the outcomes of elections that didn't go their way, they wouldn't be so pressed to redraw maps in their favor to begin with.

Go away krazen.

[krazen1211]

Redistricting is a legislative function, to be performed in accordance with the State’s prescriptions for lawmaking.

It's not me who said that but rather even Ruth Ginsberg. Some folks have this idea that they can simply get rid of laws they don't like merely because they do not like the outcome of an election.

Oh, like how Republicans like to redraw maps sometimes to shore up districts? You know damn well what is going on when maps are rigged like they are. It's politicians moving voters around to find a way in which they win more seats even with large swings against their party. If Republicans were just accepting the outcomes of elections that didn't go their way, they wouldn't be so pressed to redraw maps in their favor to begin with.

Interesting theory.

Since someone else mentioned Davis v. Bandemer I will simply point out that Sandra Day O'connor dispensed with this line of discussion.

Indeed, there is good reason to think that political gerrymandering is a self-limiting enterprise

As long as equal population exists across districts, a voter added to a given electoral district must be plucked from a different electoral district. If a voter of political party 1 from district A is transferred to district B political party 1 has lost electoral performance in district A. Which of course leaves district A more exposed to, uh, large swing against the party.

The above is what happened to Tom Delay in the 2006 election, where he reduced the Republican performance of his district and the party lost his seat. There are plenty of other examples.

All that even sets aside that political preference is fungible, and that voters can shift to political party 2 if political party 2 actually desires new voters.

[DrScholl]

Let's take a second to remember that Republicans filed a weak lawsuit in California over fair redistricting by a commission, so it's not likely that any legal arguments they make will stand up in court.

[Virginiá]

Interesting theory.

Since someone else mentioned Davis v. Bandemer I will simply point out that Sandra Day O'connor dispensed with this line of discussion.

Indeed, there is good reason to think that political gerrymandering is a self-limiting enterprise

As long as equal population exists across districts, a voter added to a given electoral district must be plucked from a different electoral district. If a voter of political party 1 from district A is transferred to district B political party 1 has lost electoral performance in district A. Which of course leaves district A more exposed to, uh, large swing against the party.

The above is what happened to Tom Delay in the 2006 election, where he reduced the Republican performance of his district and the party lost his seat. There are plenty of other examples.

All that even sets aside that political preference is fungible, and that voters can shift to political party 2 if political party 2 actually desires new voters.

Ya I mean, let's dispense with the niceties though. You don't believe that. You're always commenting about how gerrymanders can be shored up, or made better. You're an avid lover of drawing and commenting on rigged maps.

And I'm sure her idea is just fine once a party gets greedy enough and over-extends itself. We all know it's possible to draw better maps than that, so long as there is a little self-control.

Just admit you like winning at all costs, and the system itself doesn't matter much to you so long as your 'team' wins. You are exactly the kind of person I was talking about earlier, or at least your troll persona is.