Politics/Law/Government

Beyond 2010 census: Will redistricting help Democrats? (Hint: Maybe not.)

Beginning in 2010, the number 722,000 will rule state-by-state congressional politics. When the Census Bureau finishes counting Americans, it’s expected to find that the U.S. population will have increased from about 281 million in 2000 to 315 million. Many states will face reapportionment based on about 722,000 residents per district — gaining or losing seats in the House of Representatives according to the states’ populations as determined by the 2010 census.

State populations in the South and Southwest will have grown appreciably more than in the Midwest and Northeast, reflecting immigration and migration trends that took root after World War II. Consequently, the shift of political power from the latter to the former will continue (see map). For example, the population of California, the most populous state in the union and larger than all but 34 nations, will grow nearly 8 percent from 2000 to 2010 — but California will lose a seat in the House.

Following redistricting is important because reapportionment and redistricting may shift power in the House of Representatives. How great a shift depends on an intricate political calculus involving party control of legislatures and governorships.

This decennial dance may determine which party is best positioned to retain or regain control of the House following 2012 elections. That’s why Howard Dean, chair of the Democratic National Committee, pushed his “50-State Strategy” to rule as many state legislatures as possible to take control of mapping new congressional district boundaries. The Democrats now control both chambers in 27 states. But did it really work? In the 21 states expected to gain or lose House seats, 16 seats are at issue with the GOP holding the upper hand for more than half.

In this post, S&R examines states likely to lose or gain House seats through reapportionment and the role and influence of state legislatures and governors in redistricting.

Redistricting is complex, controversial

Given the recent gerrymandering debacles in one state alone — Texas — the early months of the next decade are likely to show American politics at its worst. After all, the deposed speaker of the House, Tom DeLay, demonstrated how to redraw congressional district lines to unduly influence the ability of Texas Republicans to gain seats in the House. Now, here’s the bad news — after reapportionment following the 2010 census, Texas is expected to gain four seats in the House. And you betcha that they’ll be carved out to add four Republican seats in the House that could erode the current Democratic majority. Think Mr. DeLay’s still out of politics? He may be, but the political processes he used are assuredly not.

Redistricting is perhaps the most complicated and mysterious of American political processes because 1) it may differ from state to state due to law and what party controls what arms of government, 2) it is often involves horse-trading out of the public eye, and 3) it has habitually been inadequately covered by the press because of the previous two reasons. As John Dean wrote in Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches:

Political pundits and commentators dismiss “process issues” by claiming they are of no interest to Americans. They are wrong. … Today, in Washington, process is the name of the game, and those who do not understand this fact are operating in ignorance. Political observers who do not make an effort to understand process matters will remain uninformed.

To understand redistricting, a useful text is “A Citizen’s Guide to Redistricting” by Justin Levitt and Bethany Foster of the Brennan Center for Justice, available as a pdf.

Mr. Levitt and Ms. Foster point out that redistricting matters because it allows politicians to choose their voters, eliminate incumbents — or challengers — from opposing parties, pack districts with partisan supporters, dilute the influence of minority voters, and split communities along unnatural lines.

Therefore it’s important for political observers in any state to be aware of who redraws district lines. In each state, the usual recipe of influences includes the governor, the leaders of the state House and state Senate, and, sometimes, members of “advisory commissions” on redistricting. In most states, the legislature redraws districts with the governor enjoying veto power, which, in turn, can be overridden by the legislature. And, of course, when no one agrees, the courts step in.

Now, imagine differing combinations of party control in a state: One party holding the governorship and both chambers of the legislature; one party holding the governorship but neither chamber of the legislature; and one party holding the governorship but the legislature divided by party. This is where redistricting can get messy.

Reapportionment after 2010: Winners and losers

Here’s a look at the states expected to gain or lose House seats following the 2010 census. (Clark Benson of Polidata, a political research firm, provided the estimates of gain or loss. Redistricting schemes are primarily drawn from the Brennan Center guide.)

ARIZONA: currently 8 seats; gains 2. Voted for Sen. McCain, 54 percent to 45. Senate: even; House: GOP. DEM Gov. Janet Napolitano. Uses a commission (two DEM, two GOP, one Independent) with exclusive authority. Governor cannot veto. (If Gov. Napolitano gives up her seat to become head of the Department of Homeland Security, GOP Secretary of State Jan Brewer will automatically become governor.) Current seats: 5 DEM, 3 GOP.

CALIFORNIA: currently 53 seats; loses 1. Voted for president-elect Obama, 61-38. Senate: DEM; House: DEM. GOP Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Legislature draws districts; governor can veto. Current seats: 34 DEM, 18 GOP.

FLORIDA: currently 25 seats; gains 2. Voted for president-elect Obama, 51-49. Senate: GOP; House: GOP. GOP Gov. Charlie Crist. Legislature draws districts; governor can veto. Current seats: 15 GOP, 10 DEM.

GEORGIA: currently 13 seats; gains 1. Voted for Sen. McCain, 52-47. Senate: GOP; House: GOP. GOP Gov. Sonny Perdue. Legislature draws districts; governor can veto. Current seats: GOP 7, DEM 6.

ILLINOIS: currently 19 seats; loses 1. Voted for president-elect Obama, 62-37. House: DEM; Senate: DEM. DEM Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Legislature draws districts; governor can veto. Current seats: 12 DEM, 7 GOP.

IOWA: currently 5 seats; loses 1. Voted for president-elect Obama, 54-45. Senate: DEM; House: DEM. DEM Gov. Chet Culver. Nonpartisan legislative staff draw district maps sans political or election data that are submitted to the legislature for approval. If the legislature cannot agree, the state Supreme Court may approve the maps. Current seats: 3 DEM, 2 GOP.

LOUISIANA: currently 7 seats; loses 1. Voted for Sen. McCain, 51-49. Senate: DEM; House: DEM. GOP Gov. Bobby Jindal. Legislature draws districts; governor can veto. Current seats: 4 GOP, 1 DEM.

MASSACHUSETTS: currently 10 seats; loses 1. Voted for president-elect Obama, 62-36. Senate: DEM; House: DEM. DEM Gov. Deval Patrick. Legislature draws districts; governor can veto. Following the 2000 census, the Democratically controlled Legislature overrode the then-Republican governor’s veto of new district maps. Current seats: 10 DEM.

MICHIGAN: currently 15; loses 1. Voted for president-elect Obama, 57-41. Senate: GOP; House: DEM. DEM Gov. Jennifer Granholm. Legislature draws districts; governor can veto. (If Gov. Granholm is tapped for a post in the Obama administration, her seat would be filled by DEM Lt. Gov. John Cherry, but the new lieutenant governor would be chosen by the GOP-controlled state Senate.) Current seats: 8 DEM, 7 GOP.

MINNESOTA: currently 8; loses 1. Voted for president-elect Obama, 54-44. Senate: DEM; House: DEM. GOP Gov. Tim Pawlenty. Legislature draws districts; governor can veto. Following the 2000 census, with no legislative agreement, state Supreme Court drew lines. Current seats: 5 DEM, 3 GOP.

MISSOURI: currently 9; loses 1. Voted for Sen. McCain, 50-49. Senate: GOP; House: GOP. GOP Gov. Matt Blunt. Legislature draws districts; governor can veto. Following the 2000 census, absent legislative agreement, a court drew district lines. Current seats: 5 GOP, 4 DEM.

NEVADA: currently 3 seats; gains 1. Voted for president-elect Obama, 55-43. Senate: DEM (change); House: DEM. GOP Gov. Jim Gibbons. Legislature draws districts; governor can veto. Current seats: 2 DEM, 1 GOP.

NEW JERSEY: currently 13 seats; loses 1. Voted for president-elect Obama, 57-42. Senate: DEM; House: DEM. DEM Gov. Jon Corzine. Uses political commission selected by majority and minority leaders and state major party chairs; governor cannot veto. (If Gov. Corzine, a former U.S. senator, takes a post in the Obama administration, DEM Senate President Dick Codey would succeed him.) Current seats: 8 DEM, 5 GOP.

NEW YORK: currently 29; loses 2. Voted for president-elect Obama, 62-39. Senate: DEM (change); House: DEM. DEM Gov. Paterson. Uses an advisory commission; governor can veto. Current seats: 26 DEM, 3 GOP.

NORTH CAROLINA: currently 13 seats; gains 1. Voted for president-elect Obama, 50-49. Senate: DEM; House: DEM. DEM Gov. Mike Easley. Legislature draws districts; governor cannot veto. Current seats: 8 DEM, 5 GOP.

OHIO: currently 18 seats; loses 2. Voted for president-elect Obama, 51-47. Senate: GOP; House: DEM (change). DEM Gov. Ted Strickland. Advisory commission draws districts; governor can veto. Redistricting, controlled by the GOP in 2001, may be more contentious with a divided legislature. (If Gov. Strickland, a prominent early supporter of president-elect Obama, leaves office for an Obama administration post, he would be succeeded by DEM Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher.) Current seats: 9 DEM, 8 GOP.

OREGON: currently 5 seats; gains 1. Voted for president-elect Obama, 57-41. Senate: DEM; House: DEM. DEM Gov. Ted Kulongoski. Legislature draws districts; governor can veto. Following the 2000 census, DEM Gov. John Kitzhaber vetoed a Republican-backed redistricting bill; a court drew the lines. Current seats: 4 DEM, 1 GOP.

PENNSYLVANIA: currently 19 seats; loses 1. Voted for president-elect Obama, 55-44. Senate: GOP; House: DEM. DEM Gov. Ed Rendell. Legislature draws districts; governor can veto. Current seats: 12 DEM, 7 GOP.

SOUTH CAROLINA: currently 6 seats; gains 1. Voted for Sen. McCain, 54-45. Senate: GOP; House: GOP. GOP Gov. Mark Sanford. Legislature draws districts; governor can veto. Following the 2000 census, DEM Gov. James Hovis Hodges vetoed a GOP-backed legislative plan; a court drew district lines. Current seats: 4 GOP, 2 DEM.

TEXAS: currently 32 seats; gains 4. Voted for Sen. McCain, 55-44. Senate: GOP; House: GOP. GOP Gov. Rick Perry. Legislature draws districts; governor can veto. Following the 2000 census, no agreement was reached by the GOP governor, GOP Senate, and DEM House; the redistricting battle was partly settled by the U.S. Supreme Court and cemented Rep. Tom DeLay’s iconic reputation through what writer Jeffrey Toobin called “a Promethean display of political power.” Current seats: 20 GOP, 12 DEM.

UTAH: currently 3 seats; gains 1. Voted for Sen. McCain, 63-34. Senate: GOP; House: GOP. GOP Gov. Jon M. Huntsman Jr. Legislature draws districts; governor can veto. Current seats: 2 GOP, 1 DEM.

Some states, while not gaining or losing House seats through reapportionment, may have to redistrict because of changes in population density within the states, perhaps producing changes in which party holds specific seats.

The struggle to control state legislatures

The 2006 and 2008 elections left America with the fewest number of politically divided legislatures since 1982, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Democrats control 27 statehouses, the Republicans control 14, and 7 statehouses are split. (Nebraska is unicameral.)

The Democratic Party believed control of the House of Representatives could in large measure be achieved by focusing on gaining control of both chambers of state legislatures. Democrats underwrote that effort principally through the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, according to Rachel Morris, writing in Washington Monthly:

[M]any national Democrats have been turning their attention to elections for state legislatures, which in all but eight states draw the boundaries of congressional seats according to the census. The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee (DLCC), a K-Street political organization focused on state races, is helping candidates in places like Michigan with money, fundraising assistance, training, and logistical support. Emily’s List, a large political action committee that aims to elect more pro-choice women to Congress, is also pouring resources into state campaigns, and training both male and female candidates with the aim of winning legislative chambers to control redistricting. And this August, the DLCC, along with other national groups, established a tax-exempt organization called Foundation for the Future, which plans to raise and spend $17 million to coordinate Democrats’ long-term redistricting efforts. Political reporters this year have been understandably consumed with the few dozen close congressional races that could shift the balance of power in Washington after November. But they’ve missed a similarly fierce and focused battle over state legislative seats, one that could be just as important in determining control of the House in the not-so-distant future. [emphasis added]

That strategy appears, at first glance, to have succeeded. Democrats now control legislatures in 27 states, compared with the GOP’s 14. Of the 21 states (listed earlier) expected to gain or lose House seats, state legislatures draw district boundaries in 17. Of the 21 lose-or-gain states, Democrats control 11 legislatures; the GOP controls 6.

But the states held by Democrats represent a net loss of 8 seats; those controlled by the GOP represent a net gain of 9 seats. The states legislatively controlled by Democrats have a combined 113 Democratic House seats and 49 GOP House seats. The states legislatively controlled by Republicans have a combined 35 Democratic seats and 53 GOP seats.

Is it possible that despite controlling more state legislatures in gain-or-loss states, the Democrats could actually lose seats in the House through reapportionment and redistricting? State legislators are politicians. Within the limitations set by law, they will use redistricting to protect their parties’ interests. But if the Democrats control states that will have net loss of seats in the House, how will their party be best served?

The power of governors

Governors enjoy potent political influence over redistricting. As politicians, they are the titular heads of their parties. Through patronage, they can reward or punish the behaviors of others — such as legislators. They can choose to campaign — or not — for legislative incumbents or challengers. Governors simply know too many people — and have influence over them — throughout their states for their political clout to be ignored during redistricting battles.

In many states, governors, while by law not the principal author of new district lines, hold veto power over legislatively drafted districts. (Note that in cases where governors and legislatures cannot agree, courts often step in to draw district lines.) Obviously, it is to the advantage of a party to control both the governorship and both chambers of the legislature.

Following the 2008 elections, Democrats control governments in 16 states; Republicans are in charge in only 9 states. But

Democrats rule over 16 states that represent, after reapportionment, a net loss of 5 House seats; The GOP commands 9 states that represent a net gain of 9 House seats.

More change is ahead. Writes Sam Stein at HuffPo:

An abundance of [governorships] are in play. There will be 36 gubernatorial races in 2010, compared to 11 such elections this cycle. Of those 36, 19 are for state houses currently held by Democrats. And of those 19, ten will involve Democratic governors who won’t be running for reelection (either because of term limits or retirement). …

In 28 states, the governor has the authority to veto any redistricting plan. In eight separate states, the governor can veto only a congressional plan. In another five states, the governor is responsible for appointing members to the redistricting board. And in three states — not separate — the governor is directly involved in redrawing the district him or herself. In only eight states does the executive body actually not play a role. As both Democratic and Republican officials readily acknowledge, the partisan makeup of a newly shaped congressional district will almost certainly reflect the politics of the sitting governor. [emphasis added]

The Democrats have enjoyed enormous successes in Congress since 2004 and now control the federal government. A Democrat will sit in the White House. Democrats will run the Senate and the House. But the key to continuance of Democratic control lies in the states. Over the next three years, 49 states will have gubernatorial races. Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson has written that “[r]ight now, the GOP is executing a plan to take 38 governorships over the next three years. If they accomplish this, they will have the power to shrewdly alter election district borders and steal back Congress.”

Similarly, margins of Democratic control in state legislatures are often narrow. A statement on redistricting by the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee says, “Currently, of the 36 state legislatures that control Congressional redistricting, 27 chambers in 21 of these states are within 5 seats of tying or changing hands. These 21 states control 260 Congressional districts.”

Democrats and progressives may rejoice at the televised images of a chastised GOP being driven out of D.C., its tail between its legs.

They shouldn’t get too comfy, and they certainly ought to keep their eyes on coming races for state legislatures and governorships. That’s where power will be maintained — or lost.

13 replies »

  1. I like the Bill Richardson quote, especially since it was partly via redistricting that the Democrats kept control over the House for so many decades prior to 1994. “Steal back Congress” indeed.

    And this is why the Federal Government needs to legislate how redistricting works, and legislate that boundaries be redrawn to be as geographically continuous and diverse as possible – no more 8 mile long/3 feet wide corridors to include a single ranch (a la Texas, IIRC). The operation of the federal government is too important to leave to rank partisanship on the state level.

  2. Fair point. It’s not likely that the Democrats will voluntarily give away their control if they perceive a partisan advantage, but they’re far more likely to do so than the Republican party as it’s presently defined (and has been since about 1994).

    That doesn’t negate the necessity of reform, however. It just makes reform more difficult to accomplish. Putting redistricting into the hands of partisans is a nightmare, and strictly non-partisan redistricting is the only solution I can see.

  3. I’m pessimistic. I don’t believe redistricting will ever be non-partisan. Any attempt to create such a plan would itself be mired in a partisan process.

    Too much power is at stake. No one surrenders control over political power willingly. As I wrote, the Dems control states in which they’re likely to lose seats. We’re going to watch Dem-icide of the first order. It won’t be pretty.

  4. Cant see where this favors the DEMs at all.
    This is just yet another reason to throw out the
    Electoral College once and for all. With the advent
    of supercomputers that can count all of the nations
    votes in a couple of hours, the Electoral College is both
    antequated and outdated. But more alarmingly, it has
    become a way to throw election results into doubt/chaos
    (ala Al Gore in 2000). It should be done away with now,
    while there is still a chance.

  5. One of the ways that Dems can minimize the pain is unpacking and uncracking multiple urban districts that are D+20 or D+30 seats that coincidentally produces a penumbra of slightly lean GOP seats in the suburbs. This counter-gerrymander in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and potentially Illinois will first protect Dem incumbents in lean GOP seats (see PA-3 and PA-4 for instance) and then push a lot of GOP seats from R+8 or more down to a more competetive R+2 to R+5 zone. The key is the margin of control in each state, so if Dems in Pennsylvania can still hold 12 seats and force the GOP to lose a seat, they come out of PA net even, as the Republicans make up that lost PA seat with a Georgia seat for instance.

    Now onto Texas — at least two of those new seats are most likely going to be Hispanic minority-majority seats that are overwhelmingly likely to favor Democrats. Keep the VRA in mind when analyzing redistricting.

  6. Dr. Denny – Louisiana is governed by Jindal-R not Blanco-D also Tim Kaine-D of VA was considered as a VP for Obama not Tim Pawlenty-R MN so Pawlenty in an Obama administration is not probable.
    Having said that, the importance of who is currently Governor or who controls the state legislature currently will largely be moot in two years as a number of these individuals will no longer be in office. The 2010 election holds very little upside for the Democrats. That is not to say they will have widescale loses ala 1994 but after two strong back to back election performances and now solidly in control it is very unlikely that voters will reward them with even more seats. An even slight wind going against the Democrats in 2010 would allow the GOP to gain several Governorships and state legislative seats at a pivotal time, do to redistricting.
    Fester-the VRA is very important to consider but also makes it much more difficult to do as you suggest and unpack theses heavily DEM districts. One example: because of the VRA it would not be possible (without risking legal challenge) to add heavily African-American areas of Corrine Brown’s Jacksonville based district that snake down into Orando and add to rep-elect Grayson’s-D or Kosmas’s-D districts to help shore them up. If anything (barring a state constitutional admendment passing in 2010 taking redistricting out of legislatitve hands), Crist (who is likely to be reelected) and the overwhelmingly GOP controlled Legislature will add more minority voters to districts like Brown’s to make surrounding districts more GOP friendly.
    In Texas you could see an alliance of Latino Democrats and Anglo Republicans at the expense of Anglo Democrats. Districts like those of Chet Edwards-D will be targeted for takeover while at the same time making districts like Lloyd Doggett’s-D more Latino thus creating a primary challenge for him. The GOP will probably try to take 3 out of the 4 new districts with the other one for a Latino Dem. The result would be an increase of 4 seats for the GOP no net change for the DEMS and 1 to 2 new Latino DEMS.
    In some states where Democrats sre in control and probably will continue to be they may be a victim of their own success. In New York, for example, it would be very hard to make the 26-3 delegation 26-1 by shedding two GOP districts. The Democrats would risk several of there own members by trying to split and absorb two GOP seats. In Colorado, Democrats will be more concerned with shoring up the districts they have taken over rather then going for more gains. This may end up being the case in California too.

  7. Dman,

    Thanks very much for 1) correcting my errors and 2) adding more substance to the discussion. ‘Preciate it.

    In New York, where I live, the Dems gained a seat by taking District 29 from the GOP. I expect redistricting will enlarge what is essentially GOP terroritory, making it more difficult for Rep.-elect Eric Massa to hold his seat. Because western New York has lost population in relation to downstate, Democratic seats are vulnerable to redistricting.

  8. 2010 IL Congressional Redistricting Plan.

    1)IL-1(Rush-D)- The new IL-1 picks up the Cook County portion of the old IL-13.
    2)IL-2(Jackson-D)- The new IL-2 picks up the Eastern Will County portion of the old IL-11.
    3)IL-3(new-D)- Eastern part of the OLD IL-3 and Northern part of the old IL-1 and IL-2.
    4)IL-4(Guitteriez-D) picks up the Centeral part of the OLD -IL-7.
    5)IL-5(Quigley-D)- The new IL-5 consists the Western part of the old IL-5 and Northern Part of the OLD IL- 6.
    6)IL-6(Roskam-R)- The new IL-6 consist the Southern part of the old IL-6 and Western Part of IL-4 and IL-7.
    7)IL-7(DEM-D)- The new IL-7 consists of the Eastern Parts of the OLD-IL-7 and IL-5.
    8)IL-8(Bean-D)- loses McHenry County to IL-16 but picks up Northern Kane County from IL-14.
    9)IL-9(Schakowsky-D)- Remains the same but picks up the Eastern Cook county portion of IL-10.
    10)IL-10(DEM-D)- Remains the same but picks up Western Cook County portion of IL-9.
    11) IL-11(Halverson-D)- The new IL-11 will pick up the Will County portion of the old IL-13.
    12) IL-12(Costello-D)- The new IL-12 picks up the Springfield Portions of the OLD IL-19.
    13)IL-13(Lipinski-D vs Biggert-R)- Western part of the OLD IL-3 and DuPage County portion of OLD IL-13.
    14)IL-14(Foster-D)- loses Northern Kane County to IL-8 but picks up the Western Part of IL- 16. Jo Davis,Whiteside, Carroll, and Stephenson.
    15)IL-15 (Johnson-R vs Shimkus-R)- Southern Part of the OLD IL-15 and IL-19. (IN,KY) boarder.
    16)IL-16(Manzullo-R)-picks up McHenry County from the OLD -IL-8.
    17)IL-17(Hare-D) picks up the Peoria Portion of IL-18.
    18)IL-18 (Schrock-R vs Johnson-R)- Southern part of the OLD IL-18 and Northern Part of the OLD-IL-15.

    Tim Johnson’s IL-15 seat gets eliminated.
    Bean(IL-8),whoever replaces Kirk(IL-10) Halverson(IL-11),and Foster(IL-14) will get safer districts.
    Judy Biggert’s district gets carved up. – she will be forced to run against Conservative Democratic Dan Lipinski in a conservative Democratic District. A more progressive Democrat takes the new IL-3.
    Roskam’s loses re-election since he will have to face additional Hispanic and Black voters from IL-4 and IL-7. – Roskam can run against Quigley in the new IL-5 which he is most likely to lose since IL-5′ Chicago base is stronger than IL-6’s Cook County and DuPage County base.

  9. 2010 IL Congressional Redistricting .
    Make IL-6,IL-8,IL-10,IL-11,IL-13,IL-14, and IL-16 Democratic leaning Districts and get rid of a Southern IL Republican District.

    1) IL-16(Manzullo-R) who is tough to defeat can be forced in a Incumbency vs Incumbency matchup against Foster-D (IL-14).
    The Ogle,DeKalb,and Southern Winnebago portion of IL-16 goes to IL-14(Foster-D). The new IL-16 will take in IL-8(Bean-D) McHenry County base. Manzullo’s home will be in IL-14.
    2)IL-8(Bean-D) picks up the Northern Kane portion of IL-14(Foster-D).
    3) IL-13(Biggert-R) who the second Republican tough to defeat will have her District carved up.
    Cook County goes to IL-1(Rush-D).Will County goes to IL-11(Halverson-D). DuPage County goes to IL-3(Lipinski-D). Look for an Incumbency vs Incumbency matchup (Lipinski-D vs Biggert-R).
    4)A new district is created from the leftover parts of the IL-3 and the northern parts of IL-1 and IL-2.
    5)IL-2(Jackson-D) picks up the Eastern Will County portion of IL-11(Halverson-D).
    6)IL-6 (Roskam-R) picks up the Western part of IL-4(Guiteriez-D) and IL-7(Davis-D). An increase of Black and Hispanic voters in the new IL-6 will hurt Roskam’s chances of getting elected.
    7)IL-4(Guiterriez-D) takes the Centeral part of IL-7.(Davis-D).
    8)IL-7(Davis-D) takes the Eastern part of IL-5(Quigley-D).
    9)IL-5(Quigley-D vs Roskam-R)- Western Part of IL-5 and Northern part of IL-6. Quigley’s Chicago base is greater than Roskam’s DuPage base. (Roskam’s home is in the new IL-6 which has absorbed Black and Hispanic voters from the old IL-4 and IL-7.
    10)The Western portion of IL-9(Schakowsky-D) goes to IL-10. The Eastern Cook County and SouthEastern Lake Portion of IL-10 goes to IL-9.
    11)IL-12(Costello-D) Picks up the Springfield portion of IL-19.(Schimkus-R).
    12)IL-17(Hare-D) Picks up the Peoria and Springfield portion of IL-18(Schrock-R).
    13)The leftovers of IL-18 gets added to the Western Part of IL-15(Johnson-R).
    14)The leftovers of Il-19 gets added to the Eastern part of IL-15(Johnson-R).

    The New IL CDs
    1) IL-1(Rush-D)- The OLD IL-13 Cook County Base.
    2) IL-2(Jackson-D)- The OLD IL-11 Eastern Will County Base.
    3) IL-3(new-D)- Eastern Part of the OLD IL-3 and Northern Part of the OLD IL-1 and IL-2.
    4) IL-4(Guitteriez-D)- The Central Part of the OLD IL-7.
    5) IL-5(Quigley-D vs Roskam-R)- Western Part of OLD IL-5 and Northern Part of the OLD IL-6.
    6) IL-6(new-D)- Southern Part of the OLD IL-6 and Western Part of OLD IL-4 and IL-7.
    7) IL-7(Davis-D)- Eastern Part of the OLD IL-7 and OLD IL-5.
    8) IL-8(Bean-D)- The OLD IL-14 Northern Kane County Base.
    9) IL-9(Schakowsky-D)- The OLD IL-10 Eastern Cook and Southeastern Lake County Base.
    10)IL-10(new -D)- The Western Part of the OLD-IL-9.
    11)IL-11(Halverson-D)- The OLD IL-13 Will County Base.
    12)IL-12(Costello-D)- Springfield portion of the OLD IL-19.
    13)IL-13(Lipinksi-D vs Biggert-R). DuPage County Portion of the OLD IL-13 and the Western Chicago portion of the OLD IL-3. Lipinksi’s Chicago base is greater than Biggert’s DuPage base.
    14)IL-14(Foster-D vs Manzullo-R)- The Southern Winnebago,Ogle,and DeKalb portion of the old IL-16. 75% of the OLD IL-14 is in the new IL-14. while 25% is from the OLD IL-16.
    15)IL-15(new-D)- Most of the Area from the OLD IL-16 plus McHenry portion of the OLD-IL-8.
    16)IL-16(Hare-D)- The OLD IL-17 plus Peoria and Springfield portion of the OLD IL-18.
    17)IL-17(Schrock-R vs Johnson-R)- OLD-IL-18 plus Western Part of OLD-IL-15.
    18)IL-18(Shimkus-R vs Johnson-R)- OLD-IL-19 plus the Eastern Part of OLD IL-15.

  10. There is no doubt that Democrats won’t lose ground in 2010 in the mid-terms if Obama gets a health care plan passed that will provide affordable care to people. I think he can give the GOP a deadline in the Senate, since it will likely pass in the house. Perhaps Snow, and Collins in Maine may consider Obama’s plan. If not, Democrats need to be vigilant. Getting affordable health care to America is not a partisan issue, and this will be a case where Democrats have to do this for the American people. Doing something is better than doing nothing. It as as simple as that. Of course historically the party in party loses some ground in mid-terms, but there are key differences in American between now and the GOP slaughter of the Democrats in 1994. Our non-white population has increased in many swing states, especially Hispanics, Obama replaced a president with a 23 percent approval rating. Bill Clinton in contrast won the election in 1992 Ross Perot got a lot of center-right voters who would have voted for George H. W. Bush. Clinton came into the White house 4 years removed from one of the most popular presidents of all time, Ronald Reagan.

    It is up to the same registered voters who supported Obama in 2008 to continue to turn out in the mid-terms. Even if Obama has had some defeats, he needs to work with Michelle Obama, Biden, Hillary and others to help win crucial senate races. The GOP has been succesful in misleading the public. Their are some smart business people in the GOP and when it comes to spin, and using fear tactics, they have had success. They helped make a tragedy like 9/11 into a quick patriotic crusade against terror, twisted the constitution and allowed many suspects of Islamic origin to be wrongfully inprisoned without an adequate defense.

    If the GOP is a success in 2010 it will likely be because progressive voters and those who are not considered likely voters failed to make the difference. It isn’t the GOP’s election to win, it is ours to lose. Lets keep the same spirit we had a year ago. Obama’s victory was the beginning. If Obama doesn’t accomplish what he hopes to in the next year, there is still time. We have to be patient and continue to bring more leaders that will help implement his policies. We have to help elect new senators like Vilsack in Iowa, Rep. Cestak in PA and be sure to keep Senators Dodd, Boxer and Harry Reid. Don’t give up!

  11. LLLLOOOOLLLL !!!! People Leaveing Blue States and entering Red States 🙂 Just shows how liberal Policeys drive people out.Its the same is people Leaveing cuba on boats to Florida. Texas has been controled by Republicans For a long time look where it has ended up ! Its BOOMING where states that are controlled by Demacratics are Bankrupt and falling apart,California NJ NY, Maybe Demacrats will et the picture some day 🙂 Rick Scott For Florida Govener Rubio For Senate 2010

Leave us a reply. All replies are moderated according to our Comment Policy (see "About S&R")

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s