If you're a political junkie, you've no doubt heard the ominous predictions from political handicappers - who will go nameless cough Larry Sabato cough - that doom is coming to the Democrats after the 2010 elections where Republicans look to win most of the governorships and pick up several state houses along the way.
What these pundits forget (probably due to always looking into the future) is that doom already came in the form of the 2000 redistricting process - a doom so filled with fail that Democrats took the House in 2006. Speechwriter and author Dylan Loewe wrote a piece titled "Debunking the Redistricting Myth" on The Huffington Post and he sees a better environment for the Dems in the 2010 redistricting process even factoring in Republican gains this year.
Here was the situation in the year 2000:
The Republican Party was dominant back in 2001; conservatives saw their redistricting opportunity that year as the best in five decades. But in the years since, Democratic party popularity surged: In the last three election cycles Democrats picked up 374 state house seats and 68 state senate seats across the country, moving to a point where the party controlled twice as many state legislatures as Republicans. The GOP will cut into those gains this fall, but it won't come close to fully reversing them. And that, inevitably, will make things far better for Democrats this time around.
Of course, those gains will be mitigated by the 2010 elections:
There's no question that Republicans are benefiting from having redistricting occur after the November election and not before it. With a number of prognosticators predicting Republicans to win as many as eight governorships and a dozen state houses around the country, the GOP is all-but-certain to enter the redistricting process stronger than Democrats would have hoped.
But there is a difference between being better off and being in good shape. Things could have been worse for Republicans, to be sure, but even in this environment, the upcoming redistricting is sure to provide a boost, not for Republicans, but for Democrats. A closer look at the data suggests that Republicans will almost certainly find themselves in a worse situation after the 2011 redistricting than they were in after the 2001 redistricting.
36 states will be involved in the redistricting process. The rest either have nonpartisan redistricting or have at large seats. Loewe used Nate Silver's gubernatorial projections and governing.com's state legislature projections.
Loewe sees these states as looking better for Republicans averaging to about 8 congressional seats each:
(number shows Current Congressional Delegation before 2010)
- Alabama = 5 R and 2 D - VRA will protect one seat but Bobby Bright might be in danger even if he survives this year.
- Georgia = 7 R and 6 D - Republicans could get trifecta but Voting Rights Act should protect the Dems. We could have some losses in 2010 though.
- Indiana = 5 D and 4 R - Republicans could get trifecta. We'll also have losses in 2010.
- Missouri = 5 R and 4 D - Will Have Dem governor so that's at least a seat at the table.
- Tennessee = 5 D and 4 R - Republicans could get trifecta but again VRA should protect some Dems. We'll also have losses in 2010.
- South Carolina = 4 R and 2 D - Republicans could get trifecta. Don't know what's in Spratt's district but he could be in danger even if he survives this year.
However, Loewe lists these states that Dems will be better off with an average of 17 congressional seats each:
- Colorado - Democrats could get trifecta. Republicans had control last time.
- Florida - Non partisan redistricting on the ballot. Already heavily gerrymandered by the Republicans.
- Illinois - Democrats could get trifecta if Quinn wins.
- Massachusetts - Democrats could get trifecta even though the delegation is already all Dem. Massachussetts had a Republican governor in 2000.
- Minnesota - Democrats could get trifecta. Bye bye Bachmann!
(Jesse Ventura was governor in 2000)
- New York - Democrats could get trifecta. Pataki was governor last time. Peter King's seat will be a prime target for redistricting.
- Virginia - Control of Virginia state Senate will give us a seat at the table. No such seat in 2000.
- Michigan - The state Supreme Court controlled by the Dems (thanks Gov. Granholm!) can help out here if the Michigan legislature can't agree to a map and the Dems should hold on to the Michigan House. Republicans had full control last time.
Dems could also get the trifecta in Maryland and the big prize of California. But there is a nonpartisan redistricting ballot measure in California (Prop. 20).
What about all the new seats gained in the South and Southwest and the seats lost in the Northeast and the Midwest? Loewe says the new seats might actually be a good thing for the Dems due to growth in minority areas:
Over the last ten years, 80 percent of the population growth in this country has come from minorities, overwhelmingly in metropolitan areas. When states like Texas are awarded new congressional districts (they are expected to get four this cycle), those districts will have to be drawn in the same metropolitan areas where such high minority population growth is occurring. Barack Obama won 80 percent of the minority vote. He won every major city in Texas except Fort Worth. This means that these new districts are going to be drawn in areas that are going to be highly populated with Democrats, ones that are almost certainly going to send Democrats to Congress. This, of course, will play out beyond Texas. In fact, of the 10 new districts expected to be allocated, there is reason to believe that at least 8 of them will end up in Democratic hands.
He offers the prospect of a Blue Dog seat in the Midwest being replaced with a progressive urban district in Arizona:
That creates a surprisingly beneficial system for Democrats in which we replace a Blue Dog seat in Michigan with a progressive, minority-represented seat in Arizona. By the time redistricting is over, not only will Democrats have secured for themselves a far more favorable map, they will have also gone through a process that will unify their caucus, increasing the number of seats where progressives can win, in exchange for decreasing the number of seats where Blue Dogs can win.
One final and exciting note: Loewe gives this interesting tidbit that I completely didn't notice:
And for the first time since the Voting Rights Act was passed, the Attorney General in charge of overseeing the process will have been appointed by a Democratic president.
Think about it. VRA was signed in the 60's and Nixon was President in 1970, Reagan in 1980, Bush I in 1990, and Bush II in 2001. 2010 will be the first time EVER a Democratic Attorney General can look into the Voting Rights Act Process.
In closing, don't let 2010 and those pundits get you down. 2012 is looking a lot better than what conventional wisdom would suggest.