1
   

GOP Looks To Redistrict Itself Back Into Power

 
 
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 08:10 am
GOP Looks To Redistrict Itself Back Into Power
by Sam Stein
July 7, 2008

For months, a sense of dread has been percolating within Republican circles over potentially massive congressional losses in 2008. Facing the possibility of a more pronounced minority status in the House and more than a couple seats lost in the Senate, the GOP has begun setting its sights on a contingency plan: redistricting.

Republican officials now believe that the party's best hope for retaking seats in Congress may come during gubernatorial elections in 2010. Should the GOP win back the majority of these seats (Democrats currently occupy 28 state capitols), they would be extremely well positioned to influence the redistricting of the political map that will come after the 2010 census.

"The 2010 elections are almost as important or equally important as the elections this year. After redistricting in 2011, the governors are going to have a huge influence in determining the political makeup of this country," said Chris Schrimpf, a spokesman for the Republican Governors Association. "We could feasibly see 25 to 30 congressional seats swing as the result of redistricting. And the state legislatures and governor could determine that swing. Can the National Republican Congressional Committee make a statement like that with a straight face? It would be harder for them."

The suggestion that the elections of 2010 could be as important as those in 2008 may seem like hyperbole or distraction from a Republican Party bracing for big losses. But Democratic officials are also smarting to the premise. One insider, who described the idea as a "pretty sad reflection of the Republican Party's state of affairs," nevertheless conceded that it was on everyone's radar.

Brian Namey, spokesman for the Democratic Governors Association described Democratic governors as "a formidable line of defense against Republicans who would like to Tom Delay us out of congressional seats."

An abundance of seats are in play. There will be 36 gubernatorial races in 2010, compared to 11 such elections this cycle. Of those 36, 19 are for state houses currently held by Democrats. And of those 19, ten will involve Democratic governors who won't be running for reelection (either because of term limits or retirement).

Because redistricting follows the 2010 census, each state will be reevaluating its congressional map in 2011. And in almost every one of these states, a tremendous amount of authority for this endeavor is placed in the governor's hands.

In 28 states, the governor has the authority to veto any redistricting plan. In eight separate states, the governor can veto only a congressional plan. In another five states, the governor is responsible for appointing members to the redistricting board. And in three states -- not separate -- the governor is directly involved in redrawing the district him or herself. In only eight states does the executive body actually not play a role. As both Democratic and Republican officials readily acknowledge, the partisan makeup of a newly shaped congressional district will almost certainly reflect the politics of the sitting governor.

"The odds are, if it is a Republican in the governor's chair, the seat will end up in GOP hands," said Schrimpf.

So what, exactly, are the stakes at play? Namey calculates that of the 36 gubernatorial races in 2010, 32 will involve governors who will impact their state's redistricting in some way or another.

Meanwhile, because of shifting populations, there is likely to be one more congressional seat added in Georgia, California, Nevada and Utah; possibly two more added in Florida and Arizona; and the chance of four more seats added in Texas. Every state on this list, except for Arizona, currently has a Republican governor. All but Utah will hold a gubernatorial election in 2010. If Republicans hold their power they will be well positioned.

Conversely, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, and Pennsylvania all seem likely to lose a congressional seat as a result of diminishing populations. New York and Ohio could lose two. Every state on this list, except Louisiana, is both run by a Democrat and will have a gubernatorial election in 2010.

Of course, in almost every state, the legislative chambers will have a say into how the congressional districts are re-drawn. And in this regard the governor's power is limited. Oftentimes, in fact, redistricting plans get sent to state courts to adjudicate disagreements.

In 2010, there will be more than 1,150 state senate races and more than 4,950 state house races held nationwide. Here, too, Democrats and Republicans are cognizant of any edge.

"A flip of 50 state seats in key chambers could mean a gain -- or a loss -- of 15 Democratic Congressional seats in the next round of redistricting," said Michael Sargeant, executive director of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee. "We need to continue winning statehouses so that we can be at the table when these district lines are drawn."

With all these elections coming at once, Republicans are clearly looking to the states as a golden opportunity to make national advances. And with a political brand that is, by their own accounts, poisonous, and with the odds currently favoring the possibility of a Democratic White House, the gubernatorial races of 2010 could very end up representing the GOP's lifeline.

"In the worst case scenario, 2010 would be the first, most important evidence that there is life in the Republican Party," said Craig Shirley, a longtime Republican strategist. "The elections that year will be vitally important because it will put on stage the worst creative skills of ever politician... Members of Congress aren't bright about handling Social Security, Medicare and the budget but they are astonishing bright at self-preservation... and drawing favorable [political] districts."
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 459 • Replies: 8
No top replies

 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 08:50 am
GOP's suburban advantage fading with time?
ROBERT DAVID SULLIVAN
GOP's suburban advantage fading with time?
By Robert David Sullivan, managing editor of CommonWealth magazine.
July 7, 2008

IT'S OFTEN said that people get more conservative as they grow older, but places seem to get more liberal or, at least, more Democratic as they mature.

For several decades, the Republican Party has thrived in fast-growing communities, first in the West and then in the South. In 2004, President Bush won 84 of the 100 counties with the greatest percentage increase in votes since the previous presidential election, doing especially well in the low-density "exurbs" of Atlanta, Dallas, and Nashville. In Georgia's Paulding County, the number of votes was up 67 percent (from 24,000 to 40,000), and Bush won by almost 3 to 1. Statistics like these reinforce the impression of the GOP as the party of the future, ready to take advantage of American migratory trends.

So why is the Republican Party in danger of losing the White House? One reason is that while the GOP is popular in settlement suburbs, it seems to lose appeal when those suburbs mature and become more crowded. Consider another statistic from 2004. The 100 counties with the greatest raw increase in votes like Los Angeles, where a 9 percent increase in turnout meant 250,000 more ballots, split down the middle, with Bush winning 50 percent of them. Not only did Senator John F. Kerry win central cities, he also won older suburban areas such as Oakland County (close to Detroit) and DeKalb County (next to Atlanta). There seems to be a tipping point for suburban counties; when they get dense enough, Democrats promising mass transit become more appealing than Republicans promising to protect gun ownership.

The accompanying map shows where the electorate has grown the most over the past half-century - counties that in 2004 cast at least 10,000 votes and at least double the votes cast in the 1960 race between John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon. In just about every major metropolitan area, Democrats are strongest in the center and Republicans fare best farther out, but the patterns depend on how long ago the suburbs began to grow.

In the oldest metropolitan areas, there are outlying counties that were solidly Republican in the 1960s and 1970s, but have trended Democratic as development has cooled down. (They include Barnstable County in Massachusetts. Southern New Hampshire, past its peak rate of growth, is heading in the same direction.) This phenomenon has had a significant impact on presidential elections. When California was one of the fastest-growing states, it was reliably Republican, but it became safely Democratic in the 1990s, when its population growth rate fell sharply.

This year, Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate, hopes that Virginia goes down the same road, though its slowdown has been more gradual.

Other areas are at earlier points in the process. Minneapolis and Indianapolis had relatively late population bursts in their suburbs, and Bush was still able to carry their "ring counties" in 2004. In Atlanta, as noted above, there's a political arms race, in which every Democratic gain in older suburbs has been more than matched by Republican gains in the ever-expanding outer area of the region; that's kept once-Democratic Georgia solidly Republican in presidential races.

Sprawl has kept Republicans competitive at the national level, but the "frontier vote" may be reaching its limit. The rising price of gasoline and a soft housing market (made worse by the foreclosure crisis) have had more people questioning the value of long commutes and mansion-sized houses.

A sharp reduction in exurban development would also choke off the GOP's most reliable source of new votes. The question would then be whether Republican candidates can modify their views enough to win back votes in close-in suburbs, such as those within Route 128 in Massachusetts.

If John McCain starts promising federal funds for subways, or comes up with a tax plan to benefit apartment dwellers, we'll know that we've reached the end of a political era.
---------------------------------------

Correction: The quote attributed to Pauline Kael in my June 30 column ("I don't know how Richard Nixon could have won. I don't know anybody who voted for him.") is in dispute and is probably apocryphal. According to The New York Times, she did tell an audience, "I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don't know."
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 08:55 am
The cut-n-paste queen is at it again Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 09:42 am
Why don't you do what most republicans do and stick your head in the sand and refuse to read them.
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 11:02 am
What is left unsaid is that if the democrats retain the governorships, they will be doing the same thing to try to strengthen (or regain, as the case may be) their power.

Politics as usual.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 11:19 am
ah, Rat, now you went and spilt the beans

you mean Democrats are politicians too?

I thought they were selfless benefactors, lifting us from our ignorance.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 01:21 pm
Well, redistricting worked for a couple of years in Texas. At least until Tom Delay was handed his hat.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 01:47 pm
If it's Tuesday, it's time to redistrict.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 01:53 pm
Redistricting is a fact of life. Neither party is interested in setting sound rules to the process.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » GOP Looks To Redistrict Itself Back Into Power
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/29/2024 at 10:31:59