Redistricting Illinois, part 2

Yesterday, I covered the downstate part of my plan to gerrymander Illinois to elect more Democrats (see it here).

Today, I cover the Chicagoland part, with the 12 remaining districts. The principle is still the same: try to elect as many Democrats as possible, while trying to keep townships and Community Areas (within the City of Chicago itself) and NOT violating the 1965 Voting Rights Act to protect Majority-Minority districts.

Maps and more, after the flip.

The state of Chicagoland is this: Democratic strength is concetrated in the city and close suburbs (Evanston, Cicero, etc). Suburban Cook County leans Dem, with Republican pockets in the far Northwest (Barrington, Palatine) and far Southwest areas (Orland Park, Palos, Lemont).

Going out further, DuPage is known for being heavily Republican, but features Republican strength spread out through the entire county, with Bush having recieved no more than 58% in any one of 9 DuPage townships.

Lake County is split rather evenly (voted for Bush by 2%, but also for Blago by 3%), very Dem-leaning in the southeast corner, gets more Republican the more west and north you travel; the exceptions are heavily Democratic Waukegan(65-34 Kerry) and Dem leaning Zion(53-46 Kerry) in the north along Lake Michigan.

Kane County is rather rural/exurban in the west and consequently Republican. Offsetting this is, in the Southeast has Dem-leaning Aurora (57-43 Kerry), and in the Northeast slightly Republican Dundee and evenly split Elgin (49.8-49.4 Bush).

McHenry County has is by far the most Republican jurisdiction...no surprise, it is also the most rural and exurban, having given Bush more than 60%.

Sadly, I'm pretty much clueless about Will County another rather evenly split county(52% to Bush, a plurality of 46% to Blago), other than Monee Township/University Park would lean Dem. The majority of the population, however, lies in Joliet, Naperville, and Bolingbrook, which I have just about no knowledge (or data) about. (Will County residents/anybody familiar with the area please fill us in.)

I would not be surprised if the Dem nominee in '08 carried either Will, Lake, or both. (DuPage...needs some work.)

Electing 8 Dems and 4 Republicans isn't awful, but this ratio could be changed to 10-2, or even better.

For a map of the entire state, please refer to yesterday's diary.

The new map of Chicagoland would look as follows:

A close up of Chicago City, by community area, for you Chicagoans (right click/ctrl+click and "hit view image" to see it in its full detail):

A District by District Analysis

District 8 (the old 11th), Jerry Weller(R):
The new 8th (the three-pronged orange district) is rearranged, with the downstate portions being recentered on Kankakee County, "incumbent" Jerry Weller lives one county over, in Grundy. The district starts in Kankakee, taking in only the city and nearby areas before moving to the vast majority of Will County (minus Monee Township given to Jesse Jackson, and Lockport, Homer, New Lenox, and parts of Manhattan Townships). The district then takes in Naperville Township in DuPage County and Dem-leaning Aurora Township in Kane County. The net result is a roughly 51.6% to 47.6% Bush district, but this is unverified (I have no Will or Kankakee County township data!) A Democrat could easily win here though, given Naperville and Aurora generated a +1,000 vote margin for Kerry, and Kankakee City probably leans Dem. Furthermore, Will County voted for Blago in November.

District 9 (the old 13th), Judy Biggert(R):
It's no secret that DuPage County is rather Republican, and this district (the roughly L-shaped blue one) attempts to force the more Republican areas together. Included are Downers Grove and Milton Twps (the two most Republican in DuPage). Without Milton Twp, we'd probably call her "Congresswoman" and not Tammy. Joining them is Lisle, Winfield, and part of Wayne. In the west, this district takes in Kane County between Elgin and Aurora, most notably Batavia. In the south, this district picks up the remaining Will County townships, connected through Lemont Twp, the 61% Bush township in Southwest Cook County. Best of all, the odious Peter Roskam's home in Wheaton (Milton Twp) is included here, as is Judy Biggert's Hinsdale residence (Downers Grove). Even with all that Republican-ness, this district gave Bush only about 55.8% to Kerry's 43.3%.

A slightly important note, before we move on:
(While we're free to discuss what the VRA means, and how many African-Americans or Hispanics must reside in a district, I played it safe, especially in light of LULAC/Travis County/GI Forum v. Perry, I didn't want to risk it and aimed for at LEAST 55% minorities, since TX-23 contained 51% Hispanics but was ruled illegal anyway. I am well aware that that may be because of the closeness of the Cuellar-Bonilla matchup in 2002, among other factors. Feel free to dispute my interpretation of the VRA, Shaw v. Reno, Hunt v. Cromartie, LULAC v. Perry, and what is explainable on grounds of race and what is not, but this is also not the focus of this diary. Furthermore, ensuring that minority Democrats can get elected in will more likely sustain Democratic loyalty among these minority groups.)

District 10 (the old 4th), Luis V Gutierrez(D):
Now we move into the city of Chicago itself, this district (the small U-shaped blue) is a revision of the Hispanic-majority "fuzzy earmuffs", since the Lower West Side and the Near Northwest Side around Logan Square have high concentrations of Hispanic residents. The old district stretched all the way to the Cook-DuPage line, but that really isn't necessary: the two pockets are connected by Cicero, Berwyn, Forest Park, River Forest, and Elmwood Park. This district, while still U-shaped, is not nearly as egregious as before...the narrowest parts of this distrct before were about one city block wide! It gave Kerry about 76.9% to Bush's 22.6%, subject to slight adjustment. The district is about 63.4% Hispanic, well enough to satisfy the VRA.

asideChicago's presidential numbers are also subject to adjustment, since while I do have precinct data, I do NOT feel like finding which precincts lie in which Community Areas, and calculating vote totals that way. So I assumed all of Chicago's community areas voted for Kerry 81-18. I'm well aware this underestimates Dem performance on the South Side and West Side (since these areas are more Dem) while overestimating it on the Northwest Side and Far Southwest Side (since these areas are more Republican). This aside applies ONLY to the City of Chicago, and not suburban Cook County. end aside

District 11 (the old 7th), Danny K Davis(D):
The district is the "head" between the "earmuffs" (the L-shaped orange). This district starts in the west in Oak Park and the neighborhood of Austin, heads east to the Near North Side and the Loop, and then proceeds South to Kenwood and Washington Park. This district voted 81.0%-18.5% for Kerry (numbers unverified, read the aside). Exactly 57.55% of the district's residents (or 376,189 persons) is African-American.

District 12 (the old 1st), Bobby Rush(D):
This district (the bell-shaped green) is one of two South Side-based constituencies. Starting in Englewood, taking in a wide swath of the western part of the South Side, leaving Chicago and entering Worth and Calumet Townships, as well as Markham in Bremen Township. This district is about 58.7% African-American, and voted for Kerry 73.4% to 26.1% (an underestimate of Dem performance, read the aside).

District 13 (the old 2nd), Jesse Jackson Jr.(D):
This distrct (the easternmost yellow) is the last majority-minority district. It takes in the remaining sections of the South Side and Bloom, Thornton, and Rich Twps in Cook County and Monee Twp in Will County (home to University Park). This district voted 77.0% to 22.5% for Bush...No, not really, it voted that for Kerry. The district is about 60.01% African-American.

District 14 (the old 3rd), Dan Lipinski(D):
This district (the middle pink) is a Southwest-side centered district; it reaches from Armour Square and Chinatown out to the Southwest suburbs in Palos, Orland, and Bremen Twps. This district voted for Kerry 61.8% to 37.6% (subject to readjustment since the Southwest Side is more Republican than Chicago on average).

District 15 (the old 6th), Peter Roskam(bleachhhh, er...R):
This district is substantially altered, with its Republican core in DuPage removed. What remains of DuPage in this district (Bloomingdale, York, Addison and part of Wayne Twps) voted for Bush by less than 7%. Proviso and the majority of Leyden Twp, with a small section of Schaumburg Twp (which combined gave Bush only 29.7% of the vote), and 54,120 Chicagoans are added, generating a 55.0% to 44.3% Kerry constituency (a slight overestimate, read the aside). Incidentally, Tammy Duckworth actually lives in this district now, her residence in Hoffman Estates (in Schaumburg Twp) is added to this district. Peter Roskam (being one of the members of Congress more disagreeable to me) wouldn't stand a chance here, even though his home is actually now in the 9th.

District 16 (the old 8th), Melissa Bean(D):
Melissa Bean may not be one of our favorite members of Congress, but she's a Democrat who should be protected, at least a little. The reconfigured 8th (the northernmost pink), loses some northeast Lake County townships (Zion, Benton, Warren), removes part of Schaumburg Twp, adds the part of Palatine that had been Mark Kirk's, and the part of Hanover Twp that had been Roskam's. Bean's base in Barrington is kept, and added are Dundee and Elgin Twps in Kane County. Though Kerry was punished 58-41 in the Lake County part of this district, Bush beat Kerry here 54.33-44.86%, a full 1% better than what Bean had been dealing with. Additionally, Republican-heavy exurban McHenry County is removed. Dundee and Elgin have more suburban-ish Republicans, the kind that is open to voting for Democrats (like the Philly 'burbs) and are trending Dem rather quickly. McHenry has more exurban Republicans...the kind that stay Republican (like the Twin Cities 'burbs beyond Hennepin County in Minnesota). This should be enough protection in the short run and has an even better long-term outlook for Bean (and any pro-business Democrat after her).

District 17 (the old 10th), Mark S Kirk(R):
This district (the northernmost blue) had already been in serious jeopardy for the Republicans with the coming of Dan Seals, but eluded us barely in 06. The new district picks up the townships that Bean's district loses (which are slightly Republican leaning). However, a large section of Republican leaning-Libertyville Twp is removed, the district now extends further south, taking in slightly Dem leaning Wheeling and Northfield Twp, but more significantly, Niles Twp, where Kerry scored 65%. This results in a 53.86% to 45.51% Kerry district, a 2 point improvement that should make the difference.

District 18 (the old 9th), Jan Schakowsky(D):
While I probably could have been more ambitious in taking Dem votes from Schakowsky and giving them to Kirk, Schakowsky is my adopted representative (better than my other representative, Al Wynn...), and I wanted to make sure her district (the orange one along Lake Michigan) was safe. She takes Shields and most of Libertyville Twps in Lake County, and New Trier Twp from Kirk. She loses the western portion of her current district west of Jefferson Park, but keeps part of her Evanston and Chicago base, south from the Evanston line to Albany Park and Uptown. This keeps her district 73.7% to 25.7% Kerry, and perhaps best of all, one particular Mark Steven Kirk becomes one of her constituents (as do the rest of his neighbors in Moraine Township).

District 19 (the old 5th), Rahm "Rahmbo" Emanuel(D):
Rahm's district (the long yellow district) probably experiences the most changes. While he keeps Lake View and Lincoln Park, his home in North Center, he takes on Norwood Park (the most Republican neighborhood in Chicago...which doesn't really say much). More significantly, Chicago city neighborhoods are swapped for Elk Grove, Maine, and part of Schaumburg Twps, making the district (much) more suburban in nature. But since Kerry defeated Bush by a 5,500 vote margin in suburban parts of the district and the Chicago city portions would only add to that margin, Rahmbo should be ok, my current (overly optimistic, read the aside) prediction is 67.5% to 31.9%.

So say bye-bye to Roskam and Kirk, and possibly to Weller. That could, concievably, shift the Chicagoland delegation from 8-4D to 11-1D. Concievably. That, paired with a +1D shift in the Downstate delegation means that Illinois could potentialy be 14-5D delegation...not bad for a state that was 10-9R just 4 years ago.

So there you have it...Speaker Madigan, Governor Blagojevich, Mayor Daley...there's the plan, now can we use it?

In the works are both cleaner and Democratic gerrymanders of other states. Stay tuned, consider this an occasional series?

•  Tip Jar...

  Tips, Comments, Questions, Suggestions, and Criticism welcome, as usual.

  by jeff06dem on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 05:31:56 PM PDT

  •  Kudos Dude, love seeing work like this

    as Redistricting is our life-blood. Kudos also for dealing with Illinois BoE Elections Results sites, they leave alot to be desired.

    Sorry I missed your Diary yesterday but I was able to give it a Rec anyway.

    I started producing Congressional/Legislative Redistricting Plans in the 70's for New Jersey, starting in High School and continuing through College, also worked Virginia (Stuck with the states I knew the best).
    Although you've probably got access to Elections Results info, if you'd ever like any input on those States or if you feel like tackling say,California, don't hesitate to contact me.

    by Predictor on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 06:49:39 PM PDT

•  From somebody who knows what he's talking about..

  You've got some kick-ass GIS to be able to post this stuff on Kos.

  by DC Pol Sci on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 05:32:18 PM PDT

•  I disagree in one respect

  DuPage County has enough people to hold one district entirely within its borders. Why not create a super-Republican district that includes both Roskam and Biggert's hometowns without going into other counties? Also IL will lose a district in 2010, so why not have IL-6 disappear?

  One district that I don't see mentioned here is the Lipinski seat. Or is that the one you eliminate as IL is going to lose a district?

  I'd like to see what you would do with other states.

  by jiacinto on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 05:36:39 PM PDT

  •  Illinois is too easy.

    Try a Section 5 state and do it without retrogressing or superpacking.

    by DC Pol Sci on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 05:37:27 PM PDT

    •  I'll admit...

      I like states with townships. They're a lot easier to deal with. Shame the only big ones (that would be interesting to analyze) are Illinois, Pennsylvania, NJ, NY, Michigan, and Ohio.

      This is also why I chose to do Chicago by community areas (as opposed to wards), they had race statistics easily accesible.

      by jeff06dem on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 05:45:31 PM PDT

      •  What I find strange...

        ...is that none of the Websites for either the state or any of the counties give you a spreadsheet with results by precinct.  A statistician can't do a racial bloc voting analysis to see if Gingles II is satisfied or not without them.

        by DC Pol Sci on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 05:48:17 PM PDT

      •  Michigan

        should be monumentally easy.  Just go back to the old pre-2000 map and you'll get 2-3 more dem seats.  It's 9-6 R right now, yet D's won the majority of Congressonal seats in Nov.  It could easily be 9-6 or even 10-5 Dem if it was done right.  I wonder if MI is to lose another seat in 2010.  I haven't followed too close since I left in 2004, but I know things aren't going well, population-wise with the economy being in the crapper.  I don't know if this is typical in many large cities, or even in Los Angeles, but in my 47-unit building in West LA, at least three units (including us) have Michigan transplants.

        by Slartibartfast on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 07:33:41 PM PDT

        •  MI is going to probably lose a district

          or two.

          by jiacinto on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 08:34:25 PM PDT

        •  From my superficial understanding...

          Michigan won't be too easy since almost all Democratic strength is concentrated in Detroit, Ann Arbor, Oakland County, Southern Macomb County, Flint, and Saginaw.

          There are a few Dem pockets in other places (ie Lansing, Kalamazoo), so the challenge for me would be to figure out how to string these Dem pockets together into reliably Democratic districts.

          by jeff06dem on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 09:09:02 AM PDT

  •  Lipinski's seat...

    is the pink one, now numbered the 14th District.

    The reason I had Weller's seat protrude into Naperville Twp is to access the Dem votes of Aurora, since I don't know what Will County is like, other than overall it voted 52-47. Plus, it seemed like a waste to toss Addison and Lombard into an ultra-Republican district, since Dems have made significant inroads in that area. I also felt Lemont Twp of Cook County would be troublesome for a Democrat to deal with, given its 61-38 Presidential vote count: more Republican than any DuPage county township.

    The other reason is slightly less justifiable...I just wanted to make sure Weller's seat could take in all southern Will County (so I wouldn't have to deal with another district protruding into Chicagoland).

    by jeff06dem on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 05:42:49 PM PDT

  •  Your plan is flawed.

    It fails to take into account areas where population is growing faster than the rest of the state (like DuPage County; which is why talking about combining the 6th and 13th CDs is nonsense).

    The Democrats could have picked up two or three House seats in Illinois this past election, were it not for the dead weight around the party's neck created by Gov. Sleazy Blagojevich, who wiped out any chance of effectively using the corruption in government issue against incumbent House GOP candidates here.

    It's not like the seven Democrats who represent the City of Chicago are worth writing home about.  I'd trade the lot of them for a good deep-dish pizza, an Italian Beef sandwich and a couple of all-beef hot dogs with mustard and celery salt (but no ketchup, as Chicagoans know that combination is reserved for children, Communists and Californians).

    by Randall Sherman on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 09:42:50 AM PDT

    •  You're right about the first part...

      but I'm using 2000 Census data (yes, a flaw, but I just don't have 2010 Census data...). But I didn't combine the 6th and 13th, I made the 13th more Republican and the 6th more Democratic.

      I also agree with the 2nd part...Blagojevich was not my favorite, and probably hurt Duckworth, Seals, and Pavich, all who could have easily won (although Seals and Pavich probably needed more D-trip/national support).

      And yes, the Dems who represent Chicago aren't absolutely wonderful. Schakowsky's great though, and  Rahm's decent if you forgive his primary involvement while at the D-trip.

      Like them or not, there's not much we can do about Gutierrez, Jesse Jackson, Bobby Rush, or Danny Davis - they're protected by the VRA and probably won't get a decent primary challenge anytime soon.

      Which leaves Lipinski...who needs a good primary challenger, stat. His issue positions don't actually bug me that much (many disagree with me on this point)...just how he got into office.

      And lastly, incidentally, Giordano's or Lou Malnati's, or other?

      by jeff06dem on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 10:13:41 AM PDT

•  Here's a better idea

  We stop worrying about who might win a particular seat, eschew gerrymandering the districts to ensure a particular party will have an advantage therein, and do what the elections code actually calls for--contiguous, rationally drawn districts that are at least approximately equal in population. I find the notion that when we control the legislature we should use it to entrench ourselves all the more firmly in those chairs both absurd and patently incompatible with the principles on which this nation was founded. We scream bloody murder when the Republicans do it--why would we want to turn around and emulate them now, just because we can?

  by musing85 on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 07:02:54 PM PDT

  •  Well, that's what the Republicans did.

    Look at Texas where they picked up 5 seats.  This is inherently a political process.  Taking the high road is surrendering to the opposition.

    by letsbepragmatic on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 07:34:49 PM PDT

    •  Uh-huh

      Then the Republicans have already won. The moment we sacrifice the principles we've always stood for simply in order to win, the game's over.

      "Because the Republicans did it first" is never good enough reason to do anything. That goes double if it's something we would ordinarily be steaming mad about if they'd done it to us.

      by musing85 on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 08:54:07 PM PDT

      •  We can't unilaterally disarm

        I think the gerrymandering that goes on in this country is ridiculous.  The GOP did ridiculous amounts of gerrymandering in 2001.  And then Tom DeLay got away with his 2003 redistricting.  Let's not forget 2005 either with Georgia doing even more Republican redistricting.  It didn't work but only because we had an amazing Democratic year.  

        by SoCalLiberal on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 09:56:19 PM PDT

        •  In other words

          we have to be as filthy as the Republicans if we want to continue playing their corrupt game. Yeah, that's a strategy that's going to help us convince a skeptical voting public that we're any different from the other guys.

          Not.

          by musing85 on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 06:12:10 AM PDT

          •  No, we must show the Repubs we are

            willing and able to use the same tactics.  Then they will be much more likely to act in good faith.

            There is a reason no state did a voluntary mid-decade redistricting prior to DeLay and Texas in 2003.  Each side knew that if they tried it, the other side would do it in another side.

            DeLay knew that the Dems of 2003 would not fight back.  And they haven't.  Same thing in Georgia.

            If I understand correctly, Illinois currently has had a Dem Governor and Dem state legislature since 2003.  Even after the Texas and Georgia redistricting, IL Dems refused to re-district the state.  "We don't want to be like the Republicans." Hastert and Hyde probably could have gerrymandered out of office in 2004, and Hastert almost certainly would have lost in 2006 in a less friendly district.

            Any state that currently has a Dem governor and Dem state legislature should be at least talking about redistricting for 2008 and 2010.  That will help keep the Repubs in line.

            by Buckeye Terry on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 09:05:37 AM PDT

            •  Yeah, 'cuz that's worked so well

              the last 12 years. I don't think so.

              by musing85 on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 11:24:22 AM PDT

              •  What are talking about?

                What has worked so well in the last 12 years?  Remaining in the minority?  Allowing the impeachment of Bill Clinton?  

                No Democratic leg and Governor have tried mid-decade redistricting.  Repubs picked up 4-5 seats in Texas in 2004.  (2 of them since lost in 2006, but I wouldn't put a lot of money on Nick Lampson's future in that district.)  Without that redistricting, the Dems would have an additional 2 seats in the House.

                While the Repubs did not pick up any seats in GA, the 2 Dems barely won re-election.  A lot of time and money was spent in those districts, time and money that could have been spent elsewhere. Without the Democratic wave this year, those 2 probably would have lost.  Those two, along with Lampson and the Dem who won Foley's seat, will be at the top of the Repub. list in 2008.  

                And Democrats should just sit back and let this happen-just wring our hands and say, "oh, those mean Republicans, why can't they play nice."  

                We had a candidate for the Ohio Supreme Court this year who decided to protest the amount of money in politics in general and judicial races in particular.  So, he decided not to accept any contributions and he challenged his Republican opponent to do the same.  Of course, the Repub told him to buzz off.  The Dem stuck to his guns, took the "high road" and accepted no contributions.  He lost about 60-40 and the Ohio Supreme Court is now 7-0 Repub.  That race was winnable, the Repub candidate had some ethical problems, but by taking the "high road" our candidate, who received far more endorsements, lost.

                Both President Dukakis and President Kerry decided not to become "just as bad as the Republicans" by not answering any of the silly charges against them.  Losing candidate Bill Clinton, however, got down to the Republicans' level, always answered any charge within 24 hours.  Oh, I'm sorry, I got those reversed.  It's President Clinton and losing candidates Dukakis and Kerry.

                Politics is not a tea party.  Your political opponent need to know that if he hits you, you will hit back even harder.

                by Buckeye Terry on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 12:56:40 PM PDT

          •  I want to out-Delay Delay

            Yes we need to use Rethug tactics on the Rethugs.  
            Let's gerrymander every state that we can.  The difference is that they use their power to help the wealthy and big corporations, and we use it to help ordinary Americans.  And that difference justifies our use of Delay tactics in my mind.

            Either we start learning how to use the Rethug tactics, or we live in a theocratic fascist Rethug dictatorship.  Those are the only two options. You pick which one you prefer.  Picking a third option is like voting for Nader, the same as choosing a theocratic fascist Rethug dictatorship.  

            by IhateBush on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 12:03:47 PM PDT

  •  Why we'd want to do it

    Um...how about, because they're still doing it every chance they get, and we're interested in keeping a majority?

    by AdmiralNaismith on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 11:36:30 PM PDT

    •  Which would make us

      different from them how?

      by musing85 on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 06:10:40 AM PDT

      •  Um, hello?

        We use our powers to run the country efficiently, create universal healthcare, spread the wealth around, care for our veterans and senior citizens, conserve our natural resources, and protect every citizen's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

        They grab power so they can loot the treasury for themselves and kick around the gays, latinos and non-Christians.

        by AdmiralNaismith on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 09:11:58 AM PDT

        •  Oh, so now we're saying

          it's OK to use illicit means to get or to keep power, as long as we do good things with it once we've got it? Include me out on that one, thanks.

          by musing85 on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 11:23:50 AM PDT

          •  Then you choose to live

            in a Rethug theocratic fascist dictatorship.  That is all there is to it.

            You can have your opinions, but cannot alter the facts.  It is fact that we have these two options.

            by IhateBush on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 12:07:30 PM PDT

            •  In logic, we call that "false dilemma"

              And I notice that you're not denying your willingness to take power by illicit means. You, sir, are no Democrat. We don't play the game that way--that's what makes us different from the other guys. And yet we still managed to whip them this election with their gerrymandered districts. If people are presented with a choice between real Republicans and Republican-lite, they're going to pick the real Republicans, every time.

              All the more reason for us not to play the game by their rules. Not to mention the fact that it's the right thing to do.

              by musing85 on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 02:51:15 PM PDT

          •  Oh, so it's illicit, is it?

            If that's true, problem solved.  Just go to the courts and the media and reveal the startling news that the Republicans are guilty of gerrymandering.  Once it's been proved, then the courts will surely order the maps redrawn and the Republicans responsible will be impeached and removed from office for gross misuse of their office. Right?

            Or maybe there's nothing "illicit" about it.  Maybe it's just as legal as push polls and negative ads and all those other tools that will continue to be used as long as the voters continue to respond positively to them.  And we can use them to our party's advantage, or we can cast them away and say O what a great moral victory we are winning, as the Republicans clobber us with those tools.  If you won't use the tools we have available, well, let's hope someone else in the party has your back for you.

            by AdmiralNaismith on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 04:01:20 PM PDT

  •  Gerrmander to Dems benefit until we eliminate it

    Gerrymandering denies the minority party representation in the gerrymandered districts. I'll admit it, I'm an optimist. I believe that over the long run, people will elect more progressive politicians when their vote counts.

    Gerrymandering not only gives a big edge to one party, it also makes it very likely that the primary decides who will be elected. Since primary voters are the most dedicated, the most partisan, gerrymandering inevitably results in fractured legislatures and congress. This serves no one.

    Iowa is the gold standard for electoral honesty. Without gerrymandering, it is difficult (not impossible) for extremists to be elected. The decision is in the general election, not in the primary. Thus most Republicans, when elected, know that they must answer to Democrats too. Even a Republican majority, when it occurs, has most members from the moderate wing of the Republican Party, which, in Iowa, still exists.

    Gerrymandering is a cancer on the political process. It should be eradicated as soon as possible.

    by Tom Hess on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 02:38:31 PM PDT

•  re. Maryland ...

  I noticed you mention in the poll section of your diary that Maryland is almost maximized in Democratic performance.  Almost is the key word, as I think you can easily create one more solid Democratic district in Maryland.  I discussed this in my diary yesterday:

  http://www.dailykos.com/...

  by silver spring on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 08:35:37 PM PDT

•  suburban cook

  is heavily republican.  For example, Cicero is a republican stronghold.  

  The mafia connected (and currently incarcerated) former mayor, Betty-Loren Maltese, not to mention her protege (and wanna be Cook County President) Tony Periaca, is a republican.

  Don Stephens and his city state, Rosemont, is also heavily republican.  Cook suburbs that still have a pluralty of white residents tend to be strongly republican.  And very corrupt.  And connected.  Don't assume that all of cook is Dem.  Poor assumption.

  Good try though!

  by Jerry 101 on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 09:58:12 PM PDT

  •  With all due respect, I disagree:

    Kerry pulled 65.17% in Cicero...hardly a Republican stronghold. Moreover, only 5 Cook Townships (of 30) voted for Bush: Lemont, Orland, Palos, Barrington, and Palatine.

    Many of the "suburbs with plurality of White residents" also vote Democratic. Niles Township, with 66% non-hispanic White residents, gave Kerry 63.9% of their votes. New Trier Township, 92.1% White, gave Kerry 56.3%.
    On the West side, Proviso Township, 42.7% White(still a "plurality"), Kerry earned 71.5% of their votes. In the south suburbs, 61.8% White Bremen Township gave Kerry 63.2%.

    While all of this blanches in comparison to the 81.3% Kerry earned in the city of Chicago, suburban Cook went for Kerry with 59.0%, not "Republican" by any means.

    And again, not at all I did not assume "all of Cook" is Democratically inclined...I was well aware that Bush recieved 61% in Lemont, 57% in Orland, 66% in Barrington, 55% in Palatine, and 52% in Palos when I crafted these maps.

    by jeff06dem on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 09:20:43 AM PDT

    •  Yeah, a place where a Democrat

      gets over 65% of the vote is not a Republican stronghold, regardless of how much mafia influence there is.  

      by SoCalLiberal on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 09:57:07 PM PDT

  •  Republican Cicero no longer exists.

    The town is now overwhelmingly Hispanic, and they vote Democratic.  Combine that with the scandals of the former Cicero regime of it past Town President, Betty Loren-Maltese (currently a resident of the federal prison system), and the Cicero that was a Republican rock for 80 years is no more.

    by Randall Sherman on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 09:47:22 AM PDT

•  OHIO

  We can now redistrict Ohio even though we don't have the legislature. In Ohio the redistricting is done by the Elections Board, which (after Nov) is now dominated by Democrats.

  by Nathaniel Ament Stone on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 08:32:13 PM PDT

  •  That is not correct

    Ohio Congressional districts are drawn by the state legislature, subject to the Governor's veto.  Both houses of the Ohio General Assembly are Repub, the Senate pretty heavily (like 21-12), the House much closer (like 52-47.)  The new Congressional map will be drawn prior to 2012, after the 2010 census and after the 2010 Gov election.

    You may be thinking of the state Apportionment Board, which draws the state legislative map.  The Governor (now a Dem), the State Secretary of State (now a Dem), the State Auditor (a Repub) and one state member from each party sit on the Board.  So, this Board is now 3-2 Dems.

    Some Ohio political blogs have brought up the possibility of re-drawing the legislative map in 2007.  But, IIRC, the consensus was that the Ohio state Constitution prohibits mid-decade re-apportionment.  Also, the Gov, SoS and Auditor are all up for election in 2010.  The Board that meets in 2011 will re-draw the legislative map, so it is extremely important that the Dems win in 2010.

    by Buckeye Terry on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 09:17:29 AM PDT

•  A few things

  1.  I like the redistricting plan.  I think Illinois should have redistricted this year while they had the chance.  They blew it and thus we have no Congresswoman Duckworth.  I'm with you, I hate Roskam and unfortunately there's not much that be done to get him out.  Actually, even if we could make IL-6 Democratic and get Tammy elected, I'm sure he'd just find some other district to weasel his way into (maybe Hastert's when he retires).  

  2.  Do you think Mark Kirk would switch parties?  Looking at a lot of his positions, he's pretty much a Democrat anyway.  Looking at the 2006 results I can't help but feel that the Democratic performance in 2004 was underwhelming.  Kerry won his district by 5% and it is continuing a blue trend.  His switching would probably save us having to do major redistricting and wasting money on a challenge.  

  3.  I think you should do Ohio next.  We can actually redistrict the state now and should as the legislature is threatening to stop Strickland at every turn.  It doesn't matter that he won 61% of the vote, these Republicans will do whatever it takes to thwart him and the will of the voters.  I think if we properly redistricted in Ohio, we could gain a whole slew of seats.  

  4.  New York will have to wait (because of the Republican State Senate) and actually should wait.  It's likely that New York will lose seats (which is of course very unfortunate) in the 2010 redistricting (unless Spitzer can turn it around and forgive my Colbert style glibness, the man is hot and he can start encouraging proper procreation).  Provided that the Democrats can take back the State Senate (which is no easy task since all they managed to do this year was gain one), they will be able to draw out a number of Republicans.  If we defeat all the Republicans now, we'll be ensuring that we lose Democratic seats, not Republican ones.  

  by SoCalLiberal on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 10:17:35 PM PDT

  •  The 6th district...

    ...is becoming more Democratic each year.  Duckworth had two problems which denied her victory.  One was the legitimate perception that she was the candidate being rammed down the district's throats by Rahm Emanuel, whose own initial election to Congress in the 2002 Democratic Primary was due to the help from convicted felon Donald Tomszack and his political henchmen, along with the help of the notorious Hispanic democartic Organization, better known as Mayor Daley's political goon squad.

    The second reason was Duckworth's inadequacies in responding to local issues.  She was an inexperienced candidate and campaigner, whereas Roskam had been a legislator and had run for Congress before.

    Given the right circumstances, Roskam can be defeated in 2008.  So can Kirk and Weller.

    by Randall Sherman on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 09:55:33 AM PDT

  •  Kirk...

    probably won't switch parties...I'm thinking back to the Dan Seals' ad where Seals says Kirk votes with Bush 90% of the time. As one of the remaining hopes for the Illinois GOP, I don't think he'll be going anywhere...he's the star of that sorry show, along with maybe Peter Roskam.

    The fastest way, I see (even faster than redistricting him out in 2011), is to entince him to a largely futile run against Dick Durbin in 2008. This would be accomplished by having Dan Seals (who was decently funded and obtained 47% of the vote) threaten to pull a Melissa Bean: that is, come close the first time, win the second. (Bean only recieved about 43% her first time, Seals did much better!)
    Faced with the prospect of a very tough campaign to keep his 10th District seat or an equally tough campaign to become Illinois' Class 2 Senator, I imagine (read: hoping) Kirk will want to opt for the latter.

    I'm not too worried about Durbin at this point...he's majority whip now, and has the added benefit of a Metro-East base. That, combined with the Democratic nature of Chicago will stomp any Republican takers, even Kirk (who would probably increase Republican margins in the Collar suburbs, but that'd be about it).

    by jeff06dem on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 04:12:42 PM PDT

•  California

  California screwed up its chance thanks to Gray Davis, Howard Berman, and a collective bunch of wimpy Democratic idiots in 2001.  Now we don't have the opportunity since Governor Gropenfuhrer is running the state.  Though there is always hope he'll leave to go compete in skiing competitions or make yet another awful movie or maybe get recalled himself.  John Gariamendi would become governor and likely wouldn't be much help.  I think that in 2010 the Democrats will have a strong chance to take back the governorship.  Now the racial gerrymandering done in 2001, which insulated Republicans and gave them safe seats, will likely not be repeated.  Especially if the governor has a name which begins with A and who's last name begins with a V (though like Rahmbo, he WILL intervene in primaries to stop Democrats who he holds grudges against from years past).  We'll have to wait till then but if we're creative enough, we can really get some Democratic gains which will offset Republican gains in the south.  

  One idea I've had is to draw a coastal district that would run from San Pedro (a neighborhood in LA) to Northern San Diego that would run in some cases just on beaches taking in only the most Democratic parts of CA-46, CA-48, and CA-50.  Only going inland to pick up Democratic communities.  So it would take in a good chunk of San Pedro, downtown Long Beach, Laguna Beach, Laguna Woods, Leucadia, Del Mar, Solana Beach, Encinitas, Cardiff by the Sea, and bits of Northern San Diego City.  If the Republicans could get away with it in Florida, we can get away with it out west.  We could also redraw CA-26 and CA-45 to make them Democratic districts and could probably squeeze out another East LA County and Inland Empire district by making some of our safe seats slightly less safe.  Surely we don't need CA-31, CA-32, CA-34, CA-37, and CA-38 to be as safe as they are.  They could all undergo some slight reduction in Democratic voters and remain heavily Democratic.  CA-24 would be tough but I could see it happenning.  Perhaps, we could shift around CA-30 and CA-33.  Perhaps we could draw out the San Fernando Valley sections of CA-30 (Woodland Hills and that strip that runs up Topanga Canyon and De Soto to the 118) and some heavily Democratic parts of CA-27 or CA-28 (I'm thinking Reseda and Encino and Tarzana)and draw them into CA-24.  Then we could take the most Republican part of CA-24, Thousand Oaks, and draw that into CA-30.  But to protect CA-30 as a liberal district, we'll draw back in some really liberal parts of CA-33 that were drawn out in 2001 (Culver City and Hancock Park come to mind).  Not sure if the population rules would work on this but just a thought.  CA-30 will likely have to get larger in order to maintain as a congressional district in 2011.  Another thing that could help us would be blanket amnesty for all the illegals.  If they became counted in the census that would likely result in several new Democratic seats for us, especially in central and downtown LA and South LA in those communities that abut the 10 freeway.  I think of the neighborhoods Echo Park, Pico-Union, Westlake, Angelino Heights, and Elysian Park.  These are all in Xavier Beccera's district and are very densely populated but I have a sneaking suspicion that a lot of those people living there are not being counted.  If they were counted that would be beneficial to us.  There has also been a boom in the housing industry in downtown LA transforming once industrial and completely barren neighborhoods into urban communities.  The loft boom has been nothing short of spectacular.  This has all happenned since the last census drawing.  Because of the general expense, there aren't that many people living there but there is enough of a population center that commercial developers are taking notice.  This new population is likely more liberal and could be drawn into any flaggeling Democratic congressional districts that we're attempting to draw.  

  by SoCalLiberal on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 10:32:23 PM PDT

  •  California is easy to redistrict

    another 2-3 seats (Jerry McNerney also will need to be protected, and Taucher's district need to be drawn into Berkeley and SF to primary her out).  But we need to worry about the VRA there, and probably needs

    But Dreier and Gary Miller can be easily eliminated, the Hispanic districts extended into San bernadino and Orange, and I'm sure we can squeeze out one more SoCal district as well as you mentioned by going down the coast.  Jane Harman is a conservative Dem anyway, so push her district to the coast and make her represent  Ranchos palos Verdes and all that Rethug junk, and eliminate Dreier and Miller in the process.    

    by IhateBush on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 10:58:31 PM PDT

•  Notice where people flock too

  Texas: where all the nobid GOP government contract money goes.  It's just a gold rush pure and simple.  Except now it's RED GOLD...red as in taxpayer deficits.  People are running Texas with visions of nobid contracts dancing in their heads.

  by jeffwtux on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 10:40:05 PM PDT

  •  Well if we could change that

    Maybe we could slow the population growth down.  One person reccomended removing NASA from both Texas and Florida.  A radical move but could be interesting.  

    by SoCalLiberal on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 10:57:20 PM PDT

    •  In Texas mobilize Hispanics

      get Hispanics voting and voting Democratic in large numbers, and with W out, this becomes a swing state.  What happened in TX-23 was exactly that, Hispanics voting Dem in large numbers, and if can get that in 2008, our candidate will be within 5% in Texas, and by 2012 it is be purple.

      by IhateBush on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 11:05:28 PM PDT

•  the southern cook area (orland, Palos)

  used to be rabid right, with W stickers on every second bumper.
  Can't find one anyplace anymore. AND, standing in line for groceries or sitting at a restaurant, some of the former strongest supporters can be overheard talking impeachment.

  I suspect that there has been a shift in political feelings here. THey may not yet be moderates, but they sure won't support another neocon, not even for sewer inspector.

  by agnostic on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 08:55:07 AM PDT

  •  I live in Palos now with my parents

    I grew up in Frankfort though and I have no greater desire than to see Weller out of office...  Pavich made a VERY impressive showing given the fact that he got little financial support from party bigwigs..  This is totally feasible.  Yes there are some republican dimwits from my hometown, but they aren't stupid, and if there's anything people from that area don't like it's having their intelligence insulted.  If they feel as though they look stupid because of a vote for Bush, they will vote for someone else solely because of their ego is hurt.

    by laurenpatrizi on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 12:16:53 PM PDT

•  I like lumping eastern Kane CO in wit Dupage

  Elgin might have made a difference for Duckworth.   Whatever Dupage is, you cannot say that Rep Hyde represented it as many people in it would have wanted.

  I'm sure Rep Hastert does not represent his Aurora and Elgin constituents very well at all.  I still recall his Soros-as-drug-dealer embarassment, err speech at the last Republican Convention.

  by Blue State 68 on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 12:50:20 PM PDT

•  Care to crosspost at SoapBlox/Chicago?

  We've got a diary up now that points here, but a crosspost would be better.

  by wegerje on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 01:53:47 PM PDT

•  gerrymandering is wrong

  I don't like the Dems or the Repugs gerrymandering. we should redistrict the entire US by cutting territory into big rectangles. And by the Dems setting the standard as being fair, clean, and easy-to-understand, it helps us to paint the repugs as the corrupt jerks they are.

  It's better to stand for something than to stand for nothing. Don't you want Dems to be seen as being honest and uncorruptable? Don't you think that's what the country needs most?

  by jsepeta on Mon Jan 01, 2007 at 01:27:52 AM PDT

  •  I disagree, with all due respect.

    First, there'd be a technical problem with drawing rectangles: it'd be difficult to make populations equal, as mandated by Baker v. Carr.

    Technical problems aside, most American voters couldn't care less about how their district is drawn: they just want a good representative who addresses their needs, with good constituent services. Just like the Perrymandering of Texas, I respectfully submit, didn't really reflect negatively on Republicans, and it wouldn't reflect negatively on us.

    That is, to say: we don't need to not gerrymander to be seen as "honest and uncorruptable": we do that by not dealing with lobbyists, not taking paid vacations, disciplining members of our own party when they step out of line (ie. Bill Jefferson), etc.

    Secondly, gerrymandering is how the game of politics is played today - it is no less an aspect of electoral politics than is campaign stops and television advertising.

    Is it honorable to not gerrymander? Yes, just as it is to not air attack ads. For better or for worse (we're free to debate this at another time), the nature of the game now is to do both, and unilaterally disarming ourselves is not playing to win, it is playing to send a largely futile message that only hurts our cause in the long run.

    Hopefully, in the future, we can shift the playing field away from these tactics, but in the meantime, we still must play.

    Republicans show no hestiation in gerrymandering states they control, and while "The Republicans Do It Too" is not a standard we should hold ourselves to, it is the reality we must deal with, and we do it for different reasons.

    This brings me to my last point, which is to say Republicans gerrymander to keep their power-hungry selves in power. Democrats do stand for many things (with all due respect, I thought this'd be obvious): responsive government, equal rights for all, a reasonable approach to international relations, fair working standards, respecting the Constitution, and all around competent government.

    You may disagree, but I would take those things over the largely symbolic act of not gerrymandering.

    by jeff06dem on Mon Jan 01, 2007 at 01:09:20 PM PDT