Posted on 06/28/2006 3:03:15 PM PDT by hispanarepublicana
The entire state of California. Our state has been gerrymandered for decades in favor of the Democrats.
PPS. And I think maybe Matsui's CA-05 district too.
Oh, and you might vaguely recall that I hypothesized a sixth Dem district as well, that would basically be cobbled together by meandering along the LA freeways much like that GA-13 district, except even more spiderweb like. LOL
Some key California congressional districts to watch:
3rd
Sacramento Republican Doug Ose could be a prime Democratic target. His current district has a 42% to 39% Democratic edge.
5th
Democrats may drain off some of Sacramento Democrat Robert T. Matsui's partisan supporters to weaken Republican neighbors Doug Ose or Richard W. Pombo. Matsui has plenty to spare, with a 53% to 29% Democratic edge in his district.
10th
Democrats hope to shore up Alamo Democrat Ellen O. Tauscher. Her district is split 42% Democrat, 40% Republican. Tauscher harbors statewide ambitions.
11th
Democrats would like to oust Tracy Republican Richard W. Pombo in a district where registration is split 45% Democrat to 43% Republican. But they may need to place heavily Democratic Stockton elsewhere to bolster the party in the Central Valley.
18th
Rep. Gary A. Condit of Ceres used to be so safe Democrats figured they could siphon off votes to undermine Republicans Doug Ose or Richard W. Pombo. No more. Democrats will have to bolster this district to keep it in party hands. Registration: 46% Democrat, 39% Republican.
23rd
If the two major parties fail to sign off on an incumbent-protection plan, Democrats may target Rep. Elton Gallegly of Simi Valley by making this marginal district (41% Democratic, 40% Republican) more Democratic. The same could happen to Los Angeles-area Republicans David Dreier of San Dimas and Gary G. Miller of Diamond Bar, who may have their districts collapsed or carved up.
38th
Long Beach Republican Stephen Horn is a prime Democratic target, as strategists consider dismantling his tossup district (49% Democratic, 48% Republican) to strengthen neighboring Democrats, including Jane Harman of Redondo Beach.
Bush Mar District 2 280,054 102,254 173,528 71,274 District 3 303,200 123,671 176,512 52,841 District 4 353,863 132,267 216,838 84,571 District 1 292,004 173,926 111,754 -62,172 District 5 205,338 125,378 77,788 -47,590
I cheered when most of the GOP losses in 2000 were in California, because I knew those districts were dead ducks anyway, come 2002.
It'd be a tight fit to get both Pombo out and a new Dem district besides, but I think it'd be doable. That part of the state is full of Dem districts that can be raided for surplus Dem votes if one has total contempt for geographic coherence. What does it really matter anyhow? Even if Arnold loses the equation won't be any different than it was in 2001: The Dems can't get maps passed without the GOP taking it to a ballot referendum, and so the Dems won't try.
District 10 289,508 169,373 117,037 -52,336
Bottom line, nothing will be done in California. I don't think the Dems are too interested in bagging Drier, and while Pombo is juicy, messing around for just one seat, just isn't worth it. As I say, he might be gone soon anyway.
We agree on the bottom line. The only place where I think there's a serious possibility that the Dems might redistrict before 2010 is New York if they take a majority in the state senate. Once they got over the shock of being back in control there I think they may very well rush to redistrict while they had the chance.
The Pubbies cannot win much more than they have now, without a GOP gerrymander in California. The geographic divides are quite stark. Plus, it would entail losing a couple of Hispanic districts in such gerrymander, and the Voting Rights Act just says no to that. Just ask Justice Kennedy. He is the expert. What could be done, is create a lot more marginal districts for both parties, maybe up to say ten districts, but neither party wants that. Oh the horror!
Other than dumping Reynolds, King, and Foscella if they have the stomach to split Staten Island, the incumbent Dems won't tolerate it.
You can't create a safe Republican district in Massachusetts. I've played with the census data and it doesn't work.
You can possibly create three districts that Republicans have an even chance of winning: one in Essex County, one in Plymouth County and the Cape, and one in Worcester County. However, we have no bench, and the Democrats could put up strong candidates in any of those districts.
The real sin in the Boston map is how much of the state is represented by congressmen within a 10-mile radius of Boston. Nantucket, New Bedford, Framingham, and Taunton have Congressmen from Quincy, Newton, Medford, and South Boston.
Illinois wasn't a Democrat plan. It was drawn by Dennis Hastert and Bill Lipinski to protect incumbents--which effectively froze the Republican advantage of the mid-1990s--while sealing the fate of David Phelps downstate. The legislature was still split between the parties before the 2002 legislative redistricting (which DID favor Democrats) so this was the only option that would fly.
Lane Evans' district is a Democrat homeland for all of central Illinois.
There are all sorts of tendrils in that map that kept specific challengers out of specific districts. David Phelps lived in that little hook at the end of the line stretching down the Indiana border.
"Ironically enough, although the GOP re-redistricting was struck down in that state under the prior uncertainty before this ruling, the Dem legislature could now easily enact new maps with a few statutory tweaks, assuming Ritter gets elected governor."
I've read the section of the opinion dealing with mid-decade redistricting, and when the majority ruled against the claims that (i) political intent could be inferred ipso facto and (ii) it violated one-man, one-vote because it used Census 2000 data, it described it in both instances as being *a legislative redistricting of a valid court-approved plan* (or words to that effect). I could be wrong here, but I don't think that the opinion necessarily gives the green light to re-redistricting in a state in which the legislature has already adopted a plan. If I represented Georgia Democrats, I would take the re-redistricting case to the Supreme Court, and I don't think we should assume that possible re-redistricting in New Jersey, etc. is a fait accompli.
As for potential NJ redistricting, I think they can maybe get rid of Ferguson and maybe either Sexton or LoBiondo but that they wouldn't be able to touch Garrett. Remember, Bush got 46% in NJ in 2004 and a NJ district that gave Bush 48%+ would be uphill for a Democrat House candidate.
The State Supreme Court was the sole reason why the IL GOP lost the State Senate in 2002, when they deliberately imposed pro-'Rat legislative lines. It was also similar undemocratic crackpot judicial "decisions" that kept the NJ GOP from drawing their own lines, and even Montana (!), which is clearly a GOP state (I believe Colorado, too, if I'm not mistaken), the latter two of which are ludicrously overrepresented by 'Rats. I can't think of one judicial decision that DELIBERATELY deprived the Democrats of a legislative majority as the Republicans seem to be. Of course, these are all Democrat judges, surprise, surprise.
In Illinois, the Congressional Delegation was drawned up by Hastert and Lipinksi. The IL state legislature rubber stamped the plan. This was one good thing Hastert did as House Speaker. I doubt the RATS will redraw the lines.
As for the state level redistricting, then Gov George Ryan had the honor of picking an IL Supreme Court Justice to draw the lines. Ryan had to pick a RAT judge to redistrict. This was example of how destructive RINO Governors can be.
Most likely the Minnesota legislative redistricting hurt the 'RATs and was a contributing factor to their 2002 wipeout, along with the Wellstone pep rally. The court-ordered congressional district map was very favorable to Republicans.
Wasn't there something about a court-ordered map replacing Democrat legislative gerrymanders in North Carolina and Georgia, too?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.