(Crossposted at Attack of the Machine Elves)
The 2010 Census is looming on the horizon, which means that redistricting, and the nasty political battles that come with it, is not far behind. Politics magazine has a couple of interesting articles posted about the impending redistricting process, and how it's likely to play out differently than it has in the past few decades.
On the national front, Shane D'Aprile points to four key differences in the lay of the political/legal landscape which could work to the Democrats' favor. For one things, the Democrats appear to be better prepared for redistricting this time around:
The year 2000 marked the second straight decade when Republicans headed into the process better prepared and, regardless of how dirty Democrats accused the GOP of playing, ultimately got the best of their opposition. It's something Democrats are determined to not let happen again. Heading into the 2010 Census, Democrats have rebuilt their redistricting machine to match the Republican one.
"This is really the first time that both congressional and state legislative redistricting are being done under one umbrella," says Bill Burke, executive director of Foundation for the Future, a 527 formed back in 2004 to plan next year's Democratic redistricting effort. "In the past, Democrats got started late, were underfunded and most of the interest here in D.C. was with the congressional level, as opposed to what was happening in state legislatures."
One of the earliest, and most crucial, steps for both parties is readying the infrastructure to equip state and national operatives to deal with everything from the census count to the inevitable post-map-drawing legal challenges. Burke's group came together as a direct result of the Texas redistricting led by Republicans in 2003, which most Democrats are convinced wildly flouted the Voting Rights Act. "There was a real concern that what was going on in Texas, would spread all across the country," says Burke. "We realized that Democrats needed a long term strategy and a permanent redistricting presence."
What emerged was a plan that called for two entities: one that would handle the political and data gathering tasks related to redistricting and another that would handle the legal aspects of the party's strategy, which also fell short during the last re-draw. Working on the latter part is former Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee political director Brian Smoot. He's heading up The Democratic Redistricting Trust, the entity put together to prepare for those eventual legal battles.
This is also the first redistricting to take place since the passage of McCain-Feingold, which could also work in favor of Democrats. In the past, the parties were able to use soft money donations that weren't subject to campaign finance laws to fund their redistricting efforts, but now the parties will forced to divert hard money in an election year when Republicans are trying to overcome low approval ratings are retake control of Congress:
"McCain-Feingold tipped the scales to the model that works for the Democrats and redistricting is no different," says Cleta Mitchell, a longtime Republican campaign finance lawyer. "It's an alien concept for Republicans, to raise money outside of the party to do things that the party has traditionally done. It was only [Sen. John] McCain and the morons at the Bush White House who didn't realize the ultimate impact of the soft money ban."
Another key difference in post-2010 redistricting is that this time around, the Democratic Party holds the White House, as well as more governorships and control of more legislative chambers at the state level. Increased political control at the state level is crucial, as any Texan can attest to, because so much of how the redistricting process plays out is determined by elected state officials. And having control of the White House means having control of the Justice Department and its Civil Rights Division, which is likely to result in better enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. This could be big, as this will be the first time since passage of the Voting Rights Act that a Democratic administration has held the DOJ:
Under section five of the voting rights act, any change in election law in Southern states, including re-drawing district lines, must be pre-cleared by DOJ's Civil Rights Division.
"So, when pre-clearance happens it's not going to be assessed through Republican political eyes, but through Democratic political eyes," says Keith Gaddie, a redistricting expert at the University of Oklahoma who has served as an expert witness in several redistricting-related court cases. Last time around, Gaddie defended the controversial Texas map in court. "This means that for Republican controlled Southern states, they're going to be encountering a fairly hostile Justice Department."
On the judicial front, two key Supreme Court rulings will likely have a significant impact on redistricting. Bartlett v. Strickland, which was handed down earlier this year, held that the Voting Rights Act does not require the creation of a new legislative district as a remedy when minority voters' rights have been diluted, if that minority group has less than 50 percent of the population. In Larios v. Cox, the Court upheld the principle of population equity by rejecting a Georgia redistricting plan, going against a precedent that allowed for up to a 10% deviation in district population. These rulings are likely to lead to more redistricting-related litigation:
The most practical result of the post-2001 litigation on next year's re-draw is that it will give both parties greater license to challenge maps in court and potentially offer a more sturdy legal leg to stand on when it comes to the one-person, one-vote principle. It also puts more pressure on each party's data gatherers, who are tasked with ensuring the accuracy of the database, right down to the precinct level.
"This is why the databases are so important," explains Kimball Brace, president of Election Data Services, a consulting firm that provides redistricting assistance to state governments. "If it's not put together properly, once you get into court, it's easy for the other side to say it doesn't comply with one-person, one-vote. And that can overturn a plan in court if you're not careful."
So how will redistricting play out? With their recent electoral gains, the Democrats appear poised to emerge from redistricting better off than they entered it, especially if the groundwork they've laid in preparation for redistricting this time around pays off. And it will be very helpful to have a Civil Rights Division that is actually committed to fully enforcing the Voting Rights Act. Here in Texas, there will be a few extra variables in the redistricting process: the state has been trending more Democratic for the last several years, and if Democrats can continue the trend they could be poised to do significant damage to the death grip that Republicans have held on the state for the last several years. The party is three votes away from retaking the Texas House, and has a strong candidate in former Houston mayor Bill White likely to win the gubernatorial nomination and face off against a weak incumbent. If Democrats can either retake the House or win the governor's race, they'll be in much better position to prevent a repeat of the 2003 redistricting fiasco – hell, they might not even have to run off to Oklahoma this time around. If they can pull off both, they could position themselves for future growth in the state. Texas is poised to gain three or four Congressional seats and electoral votes thanks in large part to its rapidly expanding Latino population, so a sea change in the Texas political landscape could have profound consequences at the national level.
Ultimately, of course, I'd like to see us work toward a redistricting regime that minimizes political considerations in how district lines are redrawn and leads to more representative districts. But in the interim, from my perspective as a progressive independent, I think our prospects for political reform are marginally better with more Democrats in office despite my anger and disappointment with the dysfunctional mess that the party currently is. I am therefore at least somewhat hopeful that the Democrats can benefit from the opportunity provided by redistricting and the advantages that they have at their disposal this time around.