2012 Redistricting: States where the most is at stake?

[Skill and Chance]

Where do you think mapmakers will be making the most House seats change hands?  Here are some important races and possible implications for some of the larger states

1. NY: Compromise to Dem map if State Senate majority holds
2. FL: Rep map to Compromise if Sink becomes governor or the ballot referendum passes
3. CA: Compromise to Dem map if Brown wins, but gerrymandering attempt failed last time so IDK
4. TX: Rep map to Compromise if Bill White wins
5. IL: Dem map to Compromise if (when) Brady wins
6. GA: Compromise to Rep map if Deal wins
7. MI: Rep map to Compromise if State House stays D
8. WI: Dem map to Compromise if Walker wins
9. NC: Compromise to Dem map if State House and State Senate hold
10. VA: Rep map to Compromise depending on narrow D majority in the State Senate
11. MA: Compromise? to Dem map if Patrick wins (not that the map can get much more Democratic here anyway)
12. MD: Dem map to Compromise if Ehrlich wins
13. MN: Compromise to Dem map if Dayton wins
14. TN: Compromise to Rep map if R governor's candidate wins
15. CO: Rep map to Dem map if (when) Hickenlooper wins and State House stays D
16. LA: Dem map (or Compromise?) to Rep map depending on State Legislature

I think OH, IN, AZ, and PA are already Republican gerrymanders and are of course likely to stay that way.  Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

[Skill and Chance]

Where do you think mapmakers will be making the most House seats change hands?  Here are some important races and possible implications for some of the larger states

1. NY: Compromise to Dem map if State Senate majority holds
2. FL: Rep map to Compromise if Sink becomes governor or the ballot referendum passes
3. CA: Compromise to Dem map if Brown wins, but gerrymandering attempt failed last time so IDK
4. TX: Rep map to Compromise if Bill White wins
5. IL: Dem map to Compromise if (when) Brady wins
6. GA: Compromise to Rep map if Deal wins
7. MI: Rep map to Compromise if State House stays D
8. WI: Dem map to Compromise if Walker wins
9. NC: Compromise to Dem map if State House and State Senate hold
10. VA: Rep map to Compromise depending on narrow D majority in the State Senate
11. MA: Compromise? to Dem map if Patrick wins (not that the map can get much more Democratic here anyway)
12. MD: Dem map to Compromise if Ehrlich wins
13. MN: Compromise to Dem map if Dayton wins
14. TN: Compromise to Rep map if R governor's candidate wins
15. CO: Rep map to Dem map if (when) Hickenlooper wins and State House stays D
16. LA: Dem map (or Compromise?) to Rep map depending on State Legislature

I think OH, IN, AZ, and PA are already Republican gerrymanders and are of course likely to stay that way.  Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

[Skill and Chance]

Please Delete from the Polls Forum.  I have posted in the Congressional elections section, but I can't seem to make this topic go away.

[DrScholl]

Arizona is drawn by a commission, so that map will likely turn out more or less the same, with a new Republican leaning seat as Arizona is gaining a seat after the census.

In Georgia, I can see the Republicans trying to get rid of Jim Marshall again. There is also a new seat coming up here and of course they would keep that one to themselves as well. If Barnes pulls off a win, the Republicans will get the new seat for themselves and Marshall will probably be slightly strengthened by adding Athens to his district.

Louisiana's lost seat will most certainly be LA-3, as it is the easiest to eliminate. LA-02 will grab some of it's territory and pick up some of LA-6's territory to stay slightly majority black or plurality.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

OH and PA are hideous Rep gerrymanders. IN is basically a Dem gerrymander actually. AZ is drawn by an independent commission.

[Skill and Chance]

Florida and Illinois are both hugely important.  They have both been horribly gerymandered and the out party could squeeze several seats out of a compromise map in 2012.

[Mr.Phips]

Florida and Illinois are both hugely important.  They have both been horribly gerymandered and the out party could squeeze several seats out of a compromise map in 2012.

Illinois was actually a Republican/compromise map in 2001.  It eliminated downstate Democrat Dan Phelps by throwing him in a Republican district with John Shimkus. 

[Skill and Chance]

VA is also intriguing.  If it ends up being a compromise map, I can see Connolly getting a second safe D NOVA district which would make the neighboring districts Safe R instead of lean R.  In the SW, Perriello won't survive, but Boucher probably will.  Maybe Boucher could be given Charlottesville to make things easier for him and make VA-05 Safe R for Hurt?  I don't know if that would hold up in court, though.  If Nye survives, his Eastern Shore district can be made more Dem friendly by giving it a bit of territory from the African-American majority VA-3.    

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Wisconsin was a compromise map, the legislature was split.

Georgia's current map is a Republican gerrymander enacted in 2005.

North Carolina's current map is a Dem gerrymander, as far as I know.

Mass and Maryland wouldn't matter -- the Democrats have veto-proof majorities.

[Mr.Phips]

Wisconsin was a compromise map, the legislature was split.

Georgia's current map is a Republican gerrymander enacted in 2005.

North Carolina's current map is a Dem gerrymander, as far as I know.

Mass and Maryland wouldn't matter -- the Democrats have veto-proof majorities.

Is there anyway Republicans could make Wisconsin any worse for Democrats?

WI-02 is fairly packed with Democrats in order to make the formerly Democratic WI-01 safer for Ryan.  WI-04 is already packed with Democrats.  There really isnt a source of packed GOP votes other than WI-05 in the Milwaukee suburbs. 

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Presuming Duffy wins in WI-07, they can make it the district more Republican by trading territory with WI-03 (which in turn would make Kind safer).

[Mr.Phips]

Presuming Duffy wins in WI-07, they can make it the district more Republican by trading territory with WI-03 (which in turn would make Kind safer).

That is probably the best they could do here, but it would be difficult to make WI-07 a safe Republican district.  Obama got 57% there and even Kerry won it by three points.  To even make WI-07 a Bush district would be difficult. 

[Dgov]

Wisconsin was a compromise map, the legislature was split.

Georgia's current map is a Republican gerrymander enacted in 2005.

North Carolina's current map is a Dem gerrymander, as far as I know.

Mass and Maryland wouldn't matter -- the Democrats have veto-proof majorities.

Wisconsin actually looks like a fair map, aside form the First district (which was drawn to keep Paul Ryan in it), the map's decent.

Georgia is currently a Court-drawn map IIRC.  Republicans tried to re-gerrymander it in 2003 after the Democrats did in 2001, but it got struck down by the courts.

North Carolina is most certainly a Democratic gerrymander--its' the best possible map for them

Mass and Maryland unfortunately won't matter at all, given that Dems hold something like 80% of the seats in the former and large majorities in the latter.

[Mr.Phips]

Wisconsin was a compromise map, the legislature was split.

Georgia's current map is a Republican gerrymander enacted in 2005.

North Carolina's current map is a Dem gerrymander, as far as I know.

Mass and Maryland wouldn't matter -- the Democrats have veto-proof majorities.

Wisconsin actually looks like a fair map, aside form the First district (which was drawn to keep Paul Ryan in it), the map's decent.

Georgia is currently a Court-drawn map IIRC.  Republicans tried to re-gerrymander it in 2003 after the Democrats did in 2001, but it got struck down by the courts.

North Carolina is most certainly a Democratic gerrymander--its' the best possible map for them

Mass and Maryland unfortunately won't matter at all, given that Dems hold something like 80% of the seats in the former and large majorities in the latter.

Georgia's map was re-gerrymandered by the GOP in 2005 to weaken Jim Marshall.

[muon2]

Florida and Illinois are both hugely important.  They have both been horribly gerymandered and the out party could squeeze several seats out of a compromise map in 2012.

Illinois was actually a Republican/compromise map in 2001.  It eliminated downstate Democrat Dan Phelps by throwing him in a Republican district with John Shimkus. 

Correct. The legislature was divided, and the congressional delegation wanted to avoid the map going to court as it had before. With a sitting Speaker, a compromise was struck within the delegation to eliminate a D seat but strengthen the others. The delegations compromise map was presented to the legislature for approval. It resulted in the expected 10R-9D makeup after the 2002 election. Since then three suburban R seats have flipped leaving the current composition.

That map is part of the reason so many of those suburban seats are in play this year. They were all balanced to a GOP lean in a neutral year. The compromise also heavily protected Lane Evans in CD-17, and without that Hare's chances would be remote this year.

Hastert and Bill Lipinski were the members that orchestrated the compromise. Both are gone now. If Brady wins, it will be interesting to see if the congressional delegation wants to work out a compromise themselves or risk a legislature-drawn compromise or a court-drawn map.

[Skill and Chance]

Well it looks like I made quite a few errors here.  Sorry.  I  find it kind of fascinating that the Dems have more of an upside in redistricting, even after the 2010 elections.  A Sink win in Florida (she gets veto power over the US House districts but not the state legislative districts) would really shake things up down there to the tune of 5+ Dem gains. 

I wonder how much manipulation can be done in a two or three district state.  For example, could a GOP PVI district be legally carved out of NH or ME or a Dem PVI district in NE or AR if they really wanted to?

[Padfoot]

I think OH, IN, AZ, and PA are already Republican gerrymanders and are of course likely to stay that way.  Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

There is an off-chance that OH could end up as a compromise if Democrats are able to hold their slim General Assembly majority.

I'm also holding out hope that GOP candidate for Secretary of State will encourage a fair redistricting process.  Over the past year he has been working towards bipartisan redistricting reform without much success but I'm hoping his presence on the reapportionment board that draws state legislative districts will be moderating.

[Skill and Chance]

Also, it looks like the Dems will have 2/3rds in the CT legislature, so they don't need Malloy to gerrymander the state.

[Mr.Phips]

Also, it looks like the Dems will have 2/3rds in the CT legislature, so they don't need Malloy to gerrymander the state.

There is not much Democrats or anyone could do in Connecticut to create a Republican leaning seat.  Its kind of like Massachussetts. 

[Dan the Roman]

Also, it looks like the Dems will have 2/3rds in the CT legislature, so they don't need Malloy to gerrymander the state.

There is not much Democrats or anyone could do in Connecticut to create a Republican leaning seat.  Its kind of like Massachussetts. 

There is a bit more Republican strength. The real question is whether to settle for a solid 4-1, or go all the way to a 5-0. CT-02, 04, and 05 can all be made 3-4 points more Democratic.

[Mr.Phips]

Also, it looks like the Dems will have 2/3rds in the CT legislature, so they don't need Malloy to gerrymander the state.

There is not much Democrats or anyone could do in Connecticut to create a Republican leaning seat.  Its kind of like Massachussetts. 

There is a bit more Republican strength. The real question is whether to settle for a solid 4-1, or go all the way to a 5-0. CT-02, 04, and 05 can all be made 3-4 points more Democratic.

I guess you could send CT-05 into Hartford and bring CT-04 into New Haven.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Also, it looks like the Dems will have 2/3rds in the CT legislature, so they don't need Malloy to gerrymander the state.

There is not much Democrats or anyone could do in Connecticut to create a Republican leaning seat.  Its kind of like Massachussetts. 

You could probably play with the borders of CT-05 to make a district Bush won in 2004; it barely went for Kerry in its current form.