Redistricting 2020, doomed incumbents

[Skill and Chance]

If Horn survives in 2020 and there's still no commission the OKC seat is almost certainly getting destroyed.

How did I forget her

Also Cunningham too
Maybe Utah 4th too its possible to perfectly crack it.

Utah actually has a commission now, but it's only a statute and the legislature can repeal/edit it by passing a new law if they want to.  I do think they won't completely repeal it and the other reps may not want to take McAdams's Dem territory, particularly if Trump loses Salt Lake County convincingly again.   

If a Dem wins NE-02 next time, they can be drawn out by the Nebraska legislature (and the EV made safer GOP) unless the redistricting reform referendum passes.  Though Maine (Dem trifecta) could retaliate by just ending their EV splitting altogether if the 2020 Dem wins convincingly statewide.  Maine requires a 2/3rds majority to pass a map, so they don't have the votes to make 2 Clinton CDs.

[Skill and Chance]

NY has a commission now.  It's a system where the legislature can edit within certain limits, but there definitely won't be an explicit MD style Dem gerrymander coming out of NY in 2021.  It's not even clear if the legislature would have enough say to pick whose seat(s) get cut.

[Skill and Chance]

NY's commission is rather toothless when it comes to fair maps. The law was put into place seemingly with the expectation that the state senate and state house would continue to be divided via shenanigans.

The entire commission body is made up of people chosen by the legislature, or chosen by those chosen. This means that they know the partisanship of their state, and when commissions are set up like this they HEAVILY trend towards incumbent protection plans, in all but the most obvious COI situations. But you know, there are republicans at the table, so why not just ignore the commission. If the legislature rejects two commissions plans, they get their power back. Guess what, both chambers are now reliably blue.

It's a situation like Ohio where the maps trend towards fair, but can very easily be unfair if those holding the pen desire it, aka a black box.

I didn't know it was that explicit that they can reject the commission and do as they please.  Similarly, R's have stated plans to do the same in Utah, where the legislature can ignore/even repeal the commission passed last year (though I have some doubt as to whether the next gov would sign off on that, they are currently veto-proof by a substantial margin).  With that in mind, this is the current national state of affairs.  50% Blue = Republican controlled process, Red = Democrat controlled process, 60% Blue or Red shading = veto-proof majority for that party, Green = split control, 60% Gold = commission with the final say, 30% Gold =  significant constitutional/judicial restrictions:

Using ballot initiatives and state supreme court elections alone (and flipping at least 2/125 seats in the Kansas lower house+JBE and enough D/I legislative seats holding on tomorrow+MN Senate R's and Sununu holding on next year), it would be possible to achieve this by the mid 2020's:

That would get us to the point where gerrymandering basically can't determine the nationwide US House outcome and would basically be a historical curiosity preserved in a few Eastern states.

[Skill and Chance]

I don't think Oregon has any commission, it's just a bunch of state laws the legislature has to follow.

Yeah  Oregon has normal legislative powers but some serious rules and restrictions regarding what can be drawn. What gerrys do occur are rather limited. I expect dems to try and push the envelope though since they now have supermajorities.

Yes, OR on the first map was an error.  It is currently under legislative (Dem) control with the restrictions you mentioned, but there is a group pursuing a commission initiative for the 2020 ballot.

[Skill and Chance]

The Indiana GOP would be stupid to try and destroy the Marion County or Lake County districts.

For all the talk about gerrymanders, Rokita when he was Secretary of State and drew the districts made them really common sensical drawn districts when you look at a map. The number of counties split is incredibly minimal, which if you're an anti-gerrymandering individual, is a good measure to have. My district the 3rd has 2 split counties for the whole district. I know the Democrat that lost in the 3rd (NE Indiana - includes the whole of Fort Wayne) in 2018 said in her defeat speech "always going to be difficult with gerrymandered districts", my response was "take a look at the red counties on the border of this district, from where were you going to get votes to take you from 35% to 50%?

The 2 districts at current that are Republican-held but are challenge-able for the Democrats are the 2nd district of Jackie Walorski (South Bend-based) and the 5th of Hamilton County (open race in 2020).

This annoys me as well. Gerrymandering has become a catch all excuse for every defeated Democrat. In some cases it is correct and there are indeed several states (declining number thanks to courts) that are R gerrymanders. However, just because a state is gerrymandered doesn't mean your seat is the one that is affected. In fact your seat might be made closer because of the gerrymandering.

If NC-09 was still centered in the Charlotte suburbs and exurbs, Pittenger would still be in  Congress and winning general elections with ease. NC-08 was the seat that was gerrymandered to become more Republican.

This is true and it will be hugely hypocritical if VA legislative Dems don't act to end gerrymandering now that they have the chance.  It is, after all, impossible to force fair maps any other way in a state  with no initiative/referendum provisions and state judges chosen by the legislature alone.

I really like the idea of elected state courts getting involved in redistricting though, even if it arguably just moves the partisan battle to a different election, because at least in states where the highest court is elected statewide (or chosen from districts that aren't drawn by the legislature), it takes away the conflict of interest where the legislative majority is choosing its own voters.  It's equivalent to subjecting gerrymandered maps to a statewide referendum.

[Skill and Chance]

Regarding potential impact on 2021 redistricting from state supreme courts:

CT: gubernatorial appointment with state senate confirmation and term limits, Malloy (D) filled 6 of the 7 seats during his 2 terms as governor*
FL: appointment process functionally controlled by the governor, retention elections every 10 years (an incumbent has never lost), history of being highly ideological, currently 6 Right/1 Left after 3 DeSantis appointments, was 5 Left/2 Right when it struck down Republican-drawn congressional lines under the 2010 Fair Districts amendment, expect significantly more leniency this time.
KY: nonpartisan elections in districts, history of active involvement in redistricting, it struck down the 2011 state legislative redistricting and recently made high profile 5/2 decision striking down Governor Bevin's teacher pension reform law
LA: partisan elections in districts, 5R/2D, 10 year terms and often uncontested, one R is a former D**
NC: statewide partisan elections, 6D/1R, with 2 D seats up in 2020***
NM: complex system with statewide partisan elections 1st time, then a retention vote where they need to get approval from a merit panel and then win 57% statewide to keep their seat, currently 4D/1R, 3 of the seats are up in 2020, 2 Dems in partisan elections and the one Republican in a retention election
OH: statewide de facto partisan elections, 5R/2D, with 2 R seats up in 2020
PA: partisan 1st election, then retention elections every 10 years (only one justice has ever lost), currently 5D/2R, next open seat due to mandatory retirement is an R in 2021, then a D in 2023
TX: statewide partisan elections, 9R/0D, with 3 seats up every even numbered year
WI: statewide non-partisan, but historically highly ideological elections, 5 Right/2 Left, with one right wing seat up in 2020 (on primary day), next seat up is in 2023 and also from right wing of the court

*The CT constitution sends state legislative redistricting directly to the state supreme court if the legislative proces deadlocks
**The LA constitution sends state legislative (but not congressional) redistricting directly to the state supreme court if the legislature cannot agree on a plan or cannot override the governor's veto of the plan they passed, which is likely to happen now that JBE has been reelected
***The NC constitution sets a maximum of 9 seats on the court, meaning that if one party controls the court 4/3 and the other party controls the legislature and the governor's office, they could pass a law adding 2 seats, making the court 5/4 in their favor after the governor fills them.  Republicans already threatened to do this in the lame duck in 2016, but then Democrats won a 5/2 majority, making it a moot point.  This could come back in play if Republicans flip the governorship and defeat the 2 Democratic justices up next year.  Packing the court in 2021 would effectively give Republicans unilateral control over redistricting again. 

[Skill and Chance]

Also Illinois Supreme court has a small chance of flipping. Theres two seats up in 2020. Illinois supreme court works with 7 seats total with 3 going to one district which is Cook and 4 more districts for the rest of the state. The cook district is Titanium D of course.
District 5 is southern IL and +30 Trump which is Titanium R, District 4 is also Safe R at +19 Trump with it covering Central Il.
https://twitter.com/PoliticsWolf/status/1082390573665972225
But these are the remaining districts. District 2 and 3 are more competetive. District 2 is obama clinton Pritzker but because of the suburbs it was only narrowly obama and Pritzker although Clinton won it by 9. However it has a GOP incumbent currently for its district.
District 4 is Obama Trump at +3 obama and +5 Trump. It includes Will county which is suburban but isn't really moving left unlike Kane,Dupage, or Lake.
A D incumbent holds this seat. So if the GOP somehow holds onto district 2 while flipping 3 they could get a majority in IL. Also both district 2 and 3s incumbents could retire. The important thing to note about district 3 is that even if its obama trump its not really ancestrally D.

Yes, forgot about IL.  That is potentially a big one as the current court blocked the redistricting commission amendment from the 2018 ballot in a 4/3 party line vote.

Wild that there is is both a Trump Dem and a Clinton R on the court.  I think the most likely outcome is that both of those seats flip, preserving the current 4D/3R split, but a shift to 4R/3D would be momentous.  On a note similar to NC, legislative Dems currently have the 3/5ths majorities needed to propose alternative constitutional amendments, but voters would have to then approve them.

There is also Maine, which does gubernatorial appointments with state senate confirmation and term limits.  Currently it has 3 Baldacci (D) appointees, 2 LePage (R) appointees, and 2 Angus King (I/de facto D) appointees.  There is likely to be a deadlock on at least one of the maps due to the 2/3rds majority requirement in the state constitution.

EDIT: Nevermind, both of the "wrong party" seats on the court are only up for nonpartisan retention elections.  Incumbent judges basically never lose those except in cases of serious misconduct. 

[Skill and Chance]

Lucy McBath, Kendra Horn,

The Georgia GOP would be opening themselves up for a dummymander if they try to strip McBath's seat and GA-07. They will have to leave at least one D northern Atlanta suburban seat, which McBath would likely run for.

Also Oklahoma has an independent commission referendum in progress.  These reforms do occasionally fail in very one-sided states (a commission amendment failed to get on the ballot in South Dakota, Maryland voted to keep the gerrymander in a 2012 referendum), but they are overwhelmingly likely to pass if they make the ballot.  Even Utah narrowly voted for a redistricting commission last year.

[Skill and Chance]

Interesting question is Utah with the commission which the legislature can ignore but what if the governor feels the need to have good government and refuses a gerrymander with some moderates in the legislature?

Hmmm... Huntsman in particular seems unlikely to sign a commission override bill if he is the next governor, but it may not matter.  Republicans have nearly 80% of the seats in both chambers (and only 1 seat flipped in each last year), so they can lose a lot of votes and still do a veto override. 

The optics of repealing the commission outright would be really, really bad.  I don't think that is what will happen.  It's more likely that they edit the commission's criteria/procedure in a way that would lead to a more Republican-leaning map.  For example, removing the COI criterion, or removing the  municipality (SLC) splitting provision but keeping the minimal county splits one.   

[Skill and Chance]

I played around with Utah a bit. If Republicans can't pizza slice Salt Lake County, they could actually risk a 2-2 delegation. A district entirely within Salt Lake County, but starting from the far more Republican south and moving up and taking in the most Republican areas, you get a district that voted for McCain by about 56-41 (R+13 2012/2016 PVI). That's a couple points to the left of Matheson's old seat, but entirely urban/suburban and very winnable for certain Utah Democrats. The problem for Republicans if they can't pizza slice SLC is that the county in its entirety is about 1.5 districts. If you take the remainder of Salt Lake County and combine it with most of ultra-Republican Utah County, you end up with a 55-42 McCain district (R+10). Once again, absolutely winnable for Utah Dems. On the other hand, a Salt Lake County district that takes in all of SLC and the more Democratic areas and moves south ends up at about 56-41 Obama (D+5) and basically safely Democratic. In that case, the rest of the state is extremely off-limits for Democrats.   

The crucial question in all of this is what happens in UT-04 next year.  If McAdams loses, they will face the most pressure to go for broke and try to draw 4 districts that match the statewide PV.   On the other hand, if McAdams wins by 10 and UT-02 is close or even flips because SLC is voting 2:1 Dem, they will be happy to approve a 60% Dem UT-04 with all of SLC in it.

[Skill and Chance]

We talked about this in the Georgia thread, but here is the situation. I don't think we have ever seen Redistricting mappers destroy an AA opportunity/VRA seat at any level when the state was gaining AA pop, unless it was ordered by a court. Republicans in the past loved AA seats since they packed in Dem votes, and Dems are always happy to appease their coalition, though their AA seats are not as pack-y as the Republicans ones. Therefore, Georgia would stick out, and not in a good way. Cutting GA02 and trying for 11-3 would not just end up as a dummymander, it would likely be quickly invalidated by the courts. However, they really want to get rid of GA02: the rural parts of the belt are losing AA pop, the seat was not 50% AA to begin with, Bishop seems unlikely to continue serving in Congress after 2022 (health hopefully, but he may die unfortunately), and the surrounding districts are all blood red. The only way the GOP could potentially survive the case that will come if GA02 is cut up is if they improve AA opportunity in another part of the map. This would ideally be a 4th performing VRA seat in Atlanta.

Therefore, GA indirectly will have 4 AA seats at minimum in 2022. Cutting GA02 is suicidal unless it is replaced with a additional seat. Therefore GA will always have the three Atlanta AA seats, and either the belt or the 4th Atlanta seat. This also is not factoring in the possibility of a 5th Atlanta seat, likely a mixed opportunity seat somewhere in Gwinnett or a belt-to-atlanta AA seat. Such a seat would both improve the maps ability to survive the courts, and improve the odds of surviving a decade of democratic growth into the city and suburbs. The odds of that seat emerging likely depend upon how blue the GA elections are in 2020.

I think you are way underestimating how aggressive things could get.  Expect a lot of test cases with states asking federal courts for more latitude.  For example, Alabama is expected to lose a CD.  I would not be surprised if it passed a map eliminating AL-07 and then asked SCOTUS to rule that VRA Section 2 does not apply to redistricting at all.   

If Breyer and/or RBG are replaced by new Justices with Thomas/Gorsuch/Alito views between now and 2022, I wonder if even Wesberry v. Sanders and Reynolds v. Sims (CD and state senate district population equality within narrow limits) are safe?  I don't think Kemp would actually sign a map drawing one giant Dem CD covering all territory within 40 miles of Atlanta and/or one giant Fulton County state senate district, because he doesn't want the area voting 90%+ against him in 2022, but in a state where the statewide officials are completely safe in the GE, someone might try something similar?