NOTE: UPDATED TO REFLECT THE RELEASE OF CENSUS DATA.
There’s been a lot written about redistricting, much of it thoughtful, but my view is that its easiest to just look at each state as either a) likely to get better for us, b) likely to get worse for us, c) unlikely to change or d) unclear. With that lens in mind, here are my thoughts:
Likely to get much better for us (6 states, 64 seats)
- New York (26) – This assumes D’s override the commission, which I believe they will. A pleasant surprise to only lose 1 seat as well.
- Illinois (17) – We’ll likely axe an R seat and shore up our most vulnerable members. Ironically, Bustos’ retirement probably helps us.
- Colorado (8) — Commission drawn map, but hard to see how the new seat isn’t a D one.
- Maryland (8) – I come down slightly on the 8-0 side of the 8-0 vs. 7-1 debate, but this could easily be in the next category.
- New Mexico (3) – I think we can create a 3-0 map.
- West Virginia (2) - Has to lose an R seat.
Likely to get slightly better for us (5 states, 38 seats)
- Michigan (13), Wisconsin (8) – Assuming court-drawn maps, those will be better for us than the current gerrymanders (particularly WI’s). The impact on legislative maps could be even more profound.
- Virginia (11) – Commission drawn map likely to be more favorable to us than last decade’s R gerrymander, but I don’t think the actual composition of members will change. Still annoyed we have a commission here.
- Nevada (4) - Maybe a 4-0 map is possible (I’ve seen a few) but I think it’s more likely that we shore up our reps (and it’s probably wiser to do so).
- Montana (2) – 1 Safe R/1 Lean R is still an improvement on the current Likely R at-large scenario.
Likely to get much worse for us (6 states, 102 seats)
- Texas (38), Florida (28), Georgia (14) – The absolute killers. Big states where R’s are in full control and they will add seats for them, subtract them for us and shore their people up.
- Tennessee (9), Indiana (9), Kansas (4) – These are still up for some discussion but I believe the R’s will be ruthless and crack Indianapolis, KC and Nashville.
Likely to get slightly worse for us (11 states, 75 seats)
- Ohio (15) - Ryan running statewide frees up his seat for the R’s to cut and they will make sure it happens, aided by the demographics in that part of the state. They will also make sure their Cincy & Columbus area reps are shored up. The only thing keeping this out of the “much worse” category is the unclear impact of the redistricting “commission.”
- North Carolina (14) – I know the R’s will pull all the tricks they can, but the specter of the court-drawn map from a few years ago may prevent too much damage. No matter what, though, they will make sure they pick up the new seat.
- Missouri (8), South Carolina (7), Alabama (7), Kentucky (6), Oklahoma (5), Utah (4), Arkansas (4), Nebraska (3) – All states where R’s have full control (with the super-majority in KY) but cannot realistically add or subtract numbers for either side (obviously particularly true in UT, OK, AR). They will, however, almost certainly shore up any vulnerable incumbents of theirs (e.g. Wagner, Bacon, Mace etc.) IN and TN go here if the R’s decide to play it safe there.
- New Hampshire (2) – I don’t think R’s can draw a Safe R seat, but they can make sure at least one of the seats is highly competitive. Still can’t believe we lost control here.
No impact (15 states, 46 seats)
- Massachusetts (9), Connecticut (5), Mississippi (4), Idaho (2), Hawaii (2) – States where, regardless of who is in control or the presence of a commission (there are some of each on this list), there aren’t really any viable changes to make.
- Minnesota (8) – Keeping the 8th seat (barely) was a surprise and moves MN to the “no change” bucket with a likely incumbent protection map to be drawn by the courts (yet again).
- Oregon (6) – Ugggh….unilateral disarmament by the D legislature. Hopefully we at least gerrymander the crap out of the State Legislature maps so we don’t have to go through this again.
- Maine (2) — Would be great to shore up Golden, but that requires a 2/3 majority, which we don’t have.
- Rhode Island (2) – Can’t believe it held onto it’s 2nd district.
- Wyoming, Vermont, South Dakota, North Dakota, Delaware, Alaska (1) – At-large seats
Unclear (7 states, 110 seats)
- California (52), New Jersey (12), Washington (10), Arizona (9) – No idea what the commissions will do here, particularly in AZ (surprisingly staying at 9 seats) and NJ. My guess is seat counts remain largely unchanged in CA & WA (although changes may make it easier for us to take back seats from Garcia, Kim and Steel.)
- Pennsylvania (17) – Split control and a recently court-redrawn map sounds like incumbent protection to me. That said, the impact of the lost seat is unclear so it goes here.
- Louisiana (6) – R’s don’t have a super-majority to over-ride Edwards, so I would guess we’d wind up with an incumbent protection, but I’ve moved this to the “unclear” category because of the possibility of litigation forcing a 2nd VRA seat.
- Iowa (4) – My guess is this stays as 3-1 R, but hard to say what winds up happening.
So, overall not great for us as the R’s have a roughly 75 seat edge in total number of seats that are “positive” for them. It’s considerably better than in 2010, however, when OH, MI, PA, WI and MO would all have been in the “get much worse for us” category and NY would not have been in the “get much better for us” bucket.
There is also a great deal of uncertainty in the “Unclear” bucket and things like who the NJ tie-breaker picks and how aggressive NC R’s can get away with being will have a profound impact on the outcome. It’s also worth pointing out that, without the CA commission, we’d be pretty close to parity on the number of seats where things will likely get better for us vs. worse for us.
Would love to hear from people on this – where I am off-base? What am I not considering?