In 2004, George W. Bush won the electoral college by a 286-251 margin; four years later, Barack Obama’s prevailed by a more decisive 365-173. Yet, if the elections had been fought within the electorate college as it will look after the next census is completed, the GOP candidates would have received substantially more electoral votes. Based on the U.S. Census Bureau’s latest state population estimates, Bush’s margin would have grown to 291-246 while Obama’s would have been reduced to 359-179.
Polidata uses the Census Bureau’s numbers to project 2010 population estimates, and reaches a slightly different reapportionment which would push things further in the GOP’s direction: A 292-245 margin for Bush (+12 compared to 2004) and a 358-180 margin for Obama (-14 compared to 2008).
So what states will see changes to the size of their congressional delegation? Texas is certain to the biggest winner of the next reapportionment. Based on the Census Bureau’s 2009 estimates, it would gain 3 seats. The current estimates also grant one additional seat to: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah and Washington. But 8 states lose one seat (Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachussetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania) while Ohio loses two.
As I mentioned above, firms use Census numbers to project 2010 estimates. They found is that the fate of most of these states seems decided. Yet, there could be slight differences by the end of the decade: In particular, Texas seems more than likely to gain a 4th seat, which should come at the expense of either Missouri or Minnesota. (Interestingly, changes in migration patterns due to the recession altered the projections that had been made earlier this decade. Indeed, it long looked like AZ would gain two seats rather than one and that NC and OR would increase the size of their congressional delegation. It also looked at one point that New York would lose two seats rather than one. None of these changes now seem likely.)
Just a cursory look at these lists leaves no doubt that Republican states stand to gain while Democratic states stand to lose. 5 of the 8 states that will be gaining seats are strongly Republican, two are swing states and only one is strongly Democratic. 4 of the 9 states that will be losing seats are strongly Democratic, an additional 2 are competitive but decisively lean Democratic and 2 are swing states; only 1 is strongly Republican.
The paradox, of course, is that many of the red states that are gaining electoral votes are increasing their population because of voters are moving who are decidedly non-Republican. The fact that Texas is set to gain 3 to 4 congressional seats, for instance, speaks to immigration patterns that are making the state more diverse, and consequently more Democratic.
That is of little comfort to Democrats at the presidential level, at least not in the short term: While at some point in the future Texas and Arizona will be highly competitive swing states while Nevada should grow more reliably Democratic, 2012 (and perhaps even 2016) is probably too early. But it makes a big difference at the congressional level, and leads us to this paradox: Reapportionment should be good for Republicans in the winner-take-all electoral college system, but it might be hard for them to draw good news out of it at the House level.
The 2010 stakes
In particular, some of the Texas’s new districts will have to be drawn in the increasingly Hispanic and increasingly Democratic metropolitan areas. Since the state’s current congressional map is already a GOP gerrymander aimed at maximizing Republican performance, especially in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, it will not be easy to squeeze additional seats. In other words, 4 new seats for Texas certainly does not mean 4 new Republican districts. Similarly, that Georgia’s additional seat will have to be drawn somewhere in the Atlanta area means we should not take it for granted that it will go to Republicans; and whatever happens to Nevada’s new seat, redistricting should allow Democrats to solidify their hold on the two districts they already have.
In LA and NY, meanwhile, Republicans are more likely to be the ones bearing the brunt of the lost seats. The current delegation is 5-1, and come 2012 Democrats are virtually certain to still hold one (albeit a different one: The New Orleans-based district should go back to Democrats, while the district vacated by Charlie Melancon will likely be eliminated). In NY, Democrats will probably control the redistricting process, which will allow them to target Chris Lee’s upstate district or Peter King’s downstate district.
Needless to say, however, who controls the next round of redistricting will be very important in most states on this list. That’s nowhere so more the case than in Texas: The GOP cannot win it all, but it can still win more than it should - not to mention make life even more difficult for Rep. Chet Edwards. Republicans currently control the entire system, but Democrats are hoping they have a shot at seizing the state House: They need to pick-up 3 seats because they are currently down 77-73. (The party also has an uphill shot at reclaiming the Governor’s Mansion.)
Of the other states in which redistricting will require drawing in or deleting a district:
- 4 have an independent commission in charge of the process: Arizona, Iowa, New Jersey and Washington.
- 2 will have a bipartisan map: Louisiana (GOP will control governorship, Democrats the legislature) and Michigan (the state legislature is sure to be divided)
- 1 is sure to be a Republican-only map: Utah
- 2 states will probably be under full GOP control, but Dems have a shot at forcing bipartisan map: Georgia, South Carolina
- 2 are currently under full Dem control, but GOP has a shot at forcing bipartisan map: Illinois, Massachussetts, New York
- 5 are up-for-grabs depending on who wins toss-up Governor’s races and closely divided state Houses: Florida, Minnesota, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Ohio
Let’s take a closer look at these 10 states (other than Texas) in which the 2010 midterms will determine which party controls the redistricting process:
- Florida: The GOP will control the legislature, so the open Governor’s race will determine whether redistricting is once again a GOP gerrymander or if Democrats can get a better deal.
- Illinois: Democrats will control the legislature, but Republicans have a small chance at picking-up the governorship.
- Georgia: The GOP will control the legislature, but Democrats have a somewhat uphill shot at picking-up the governorship.
- Massachussetts: Democrats will control the legislature, but Republicans have a somewhat uphill shot at picking-up the governorship.
- Minnesota: Democrats will control the legislature, and they have an opportunity to draw themselves a favorable map if they can pick-up the Governor’s mansion.
- Nevada: Democrats are likely to control the state legislature, but Republicans are favored to retain the governorship. That should force a bipartisan map, but Democrats could still seize all control.
- New York: Democrats will control the state Assembly and most probably the legislature, but Republicans are hoping to have a voice in the process by recapturing the state Senate. Democrats currently have a 32-30 edge.
- Pennsylvania: Republicans are likely to keep the state Senate, so the stakes are whether the map will be bipartisan or whether the GOP will be able to seize full control by winning the Governor’s Mansion and by closing its 104-99 deficit in the state House.
- Ohio: Republicans are likely to keep the state Senate, so the stakes are whether the map will be bipartisan or whether the GOP will be able to seize full control by winning the Governor’s Mansion and by closing its 53-36 deficit in the state House.
- South Carolina: The GOP will control the legislature, but Democrats have a small chance at picking-up the governorship.
That’s quite a lot for the upcoming midterms to decide - and there’s more, since redistricting does not just occur in states that are gaining or losing a district. All 50 states will redraw their congressional maps, which heighten the gubernatorial and legislative stakes of most elections across the country. In particular, if Democrats win California’s gubernatorial election they could significantly damage Republicans: While they controlled the process at the start of the previous decade, they adopted a map that largely protected incumbents from both parties. Will they do the same in 2011, or can they be convinced to maximize Democratic performance? Since this is a post about reapportionment in particular rather than redistricting in general, I will leave that discussion for another day.
Great analysis…Somebody correct me if I’m wrong…but since MA is losing a seat and the Dems have every seat in MA, the Dems automatically lose a seat, correct? I guess it depends on where the seat is re-apportioned to I guess.
Mike, you are correct. Dems are sure to be the ones suffering from the loss of a Massachussetts seat.
Ironically I don’t think in totality much will change nationally. Most states will have the same level of gerrymandering as the political parties in charge are the same as 10 years ago.
For whatever reason, I’m hopeful for Texas. Its only a matter of time I suppose for it to become more competitive. I’d like to see it sooner though.
If Texas gains four seats, that works out to around two and a half million new voters. How many of those are newly naturalized hispanic voters, and how many are from other states? While the demographic trends toward greater racial diversity are indisputable, it seems unlikely that all this is due to immigration. (Unless you want to agree with the hard right that illegal immigrants are being added to the voter rolls.) If those voters come from other states, then the overall trend won’t be to make the country more liberal (if liberals move to Texas, their home state becomes more conservative). And I find it hard to believe they all come from overseas.
Nathan, I believe that all residents (citizens or not, documented or undocumented) are counted towards determining congressional apportionment. Someone doesn’t have to be be on the voter rolls (or be eligible to be on the voter rolls) to be counted by the Census Bureau. So Texas gaining four seats doesn’t necessarily mean anything in terms of number of new voters. Please, someone correct me if I am wrong on this.
(Similarly, I believe that the redistricting process has to reach some equality between districts’ number of residents rather than districts’ number of voters, and the fact that many Hispanics might not be naturalized shouldn’t prevent Hispanic-majority districts from being drawn.)
You are correct. The census takers send out forms and go door to door for those who don’t respond. All information is private, so no illegal immigrants get reported and deported. It only works because we know it’s confidential. There are general statistics gleaned from the information gathered but that is all. After the counting is done, US Congressional districts are alloyed to each state based on population. Each individual state draws their own districts. They are generally similar in population across the country, but a small state such as Montana which is just one district, has a lot more people than the average district because it missed the cutoff for having two districts but was kinda close. Montana had two districts in years gone by. Texas gained population for several reasons, lots of legal and illegal immigrants and because it’s economy isn’t nearly as bad as elsewhere, people from other states are moving there, also. a lot of people left Louisiana after Hurricana Katrina and settled in and around Houston, where they were welcomed. The other thing that happens during reapportionment is that.voting rights districts are created when there are enough of a minority group, Patinos or Blacks, for example, to create districts. These districts have the same population as others in their respective states, but they don’t necessarily come out to vote. Wealthier more affluent areas seem to have more registered voters poorer communities.
Sorry about all the typos
“districts are allocated…”
“Latinos and Blacks …”
Gerard
Thanks for the clarifications. So Texas and other southwestern states are gaining more seats than they are voters, proportionally. Won’t this also blunt the power of the demographic trends that tend to favor Democrats? If so many of these new residents don’t vote, they won’t add to, and may even drown out, newly naturalized Hispanics, since they will simply add districts to a conservative state without making it any less conservative. Obviously it’s a complicated equation.
Taniel, I’m curious if you’ve heard any rumors that Rep. John Olver (D, MA-01) is mulling retirement? If so, would Republicans have any chance of contesting the seat?
Nathan, I’ve also heard rumours of John Olver retiring, but not in 2010. Rather he would retire in 2012, after the census in which MA loses a House seat. By retiring, the MA state legislature can simply eliminate his district and there doesn’t need to be the dicey proposition of two incumbents running against each other.
If Olver was to retire this year, I don’t think republicans would have much of a chance, as MA-01 has a Cook PVI of D+14, and I don’t believe the Republicans have anyone prominent enough to contest such a Dem leaning district in the states. Yes there are some more conservative areas, like MA-10, which is the most conservative of the MA U.S. congressional districts, yet it still has a decent Dem lean and the incumbent (Bill Delahunt) has NOT been rumoured for retirement.
It should also be known that any freshman, especially a republican, would likely lose their district and be forced to run against an incumbent so there really isn’t any incentive for strong Republicans to run in MA-01 if an opening does exist in 2010.
What is the status of the campaign to get Washington DC a seat in Congress? There was a lot of talk earlier in the year and about giving a matching seat to Utah but not much of late.
I assume there would be a Senate filibuster attempt when the bill passed the House.
This seems like the best chance in recent years to finally get this done.
Nathan, as I wrote residents are also taken into account in how districts are drawn so areas in which there are a lot of non-naturalized immigrants should (on paper) receive as much representation as they would were all these residents naturalized, so the extra seats cannot simply go to the more conservative parts of Texas.
On Massachussetts, I agree with Jaxx that Olver unlikely to retire before 2012, and he knows that will make it easier to redistrict since legislature would then try to accommodate all incumbents.
Fritz, I meant to address that in the post: The D.C. bill has been stuck because the Senate added a gun rights provision that the House is refusing to pass, so matters have been blocked for months. That’s particularly bad for D.C. because it could be far tougher to pass the bill come 2011: The reason some Republicans are now cooperating is that Utah would also gain a seat according to the law, which thus looks bipartisan; but after the next round of reapportionment Utah will no longer be the “next cut-off” state, so there’s no telling whether the appearance that this will help both parties can be maintained.
Don’t dive to conclusions about the Michigan Senate next year. There are thirty-eight senatars and nine are eligible for reelection (they are split 5-4 for Rs). But the 22-16 split won’t remain the same. Both parties occupy several of the other party’s seats, and 2/3 are competative. It will be interesting, along with the Ohio Senate.
Maurice, I didn’t realize that that many seats would be open in that chamber. However, it looks like Michigan will be one of the Dems’ toughest states next year so it will not be easy for them to make gains. (And they lost a seat in a special election last month.)
It is very important to note that in 2010 Florida voters may approve a constitutional amendment to require reditricting to be done by an independent commission instead of the Legislature.
for all those that are unaware, olvers successor in the state senate is stan rosenberg, the senate person in charge of redistricting. he is presumably the front runner for any race for olvers seat. he could potentially tailor the district in his favor.
though will olver retire and does rosenberg want the seat?