Last night, a helpful post on redistricting went up on DailyKos. askew provides historical context, an overview of the Democratic playing field, and a call to action, all in one little paragraph:

In 2001-2... Because the Republicans controlled so many state houses during the restricting process, they were able to create gerrymandered districts that resulted in historic gains for the Republicans in the 2002 midterms. The Democratic Party is determined to not let that happen again. The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee (DLCC) (help elect state Reps/Sens), The National Democratic Redistricting Trust (legal team to fight redistricting) and Foundation for the Future (a 527 funded primarily by unions to provide data to the Democratic Party on how to draw maps to favor Democrats). However, they will need our help to GOTV and raise money for the 2010 midterms.

This morning, Alex Burns’ Morning Score gave us a nice little plug:

COMING SOON – THE DLCC’S MAP: The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, charged with waging state House and Senate campaigns this fall ahead of the next round of redistricting, is preparing to release a memo to Democratic stakeholders outlining the most urgent targets for the party this fall. “Of the legislatures with the power to draw congressional maps, 23 chambers in 17 states are within five seats of changing hands. These 17 states will draw 198 Congressional Districts,” DLCC executive director Michael Sargeant writes. “The bottom line: The results of the 2010 state legislative elections will define how key reforms and policies are decided for the next decade.” The DLCC’s top defensive targets: the Alabama Senate, Colorado Senate, Indiana House, Nevada Senate, New Hampshire Senate, New York Senate, Ohio House, Pennsylvania House and both chambers in Wisconsin. And its picks for offense: the Michigan Senate, Kentucky Senate, Tennessee House and Texas House.

Tune into this space next Monday for the memo to which he refers.

With questions beginning to fly concerning specific states, the DLCC is pleased to present, via RedistrictingFacts.com, a state-by-state breakdown of how redistricting actually works in each.

For example, did you know that an Independent Redistricting Commission administers the redistricting of both state legislative and congressional districts in Arizona? Check out the website to learn how the Commission members are appointed!

Were you aware that Governors have no veto authority over the maps drawn by the state legislatures in Connecticut and North Carolina?

Have you heard about the various states in which state Supreme Courts have some authority over the redistricting process?

Learn about all these things and more at http://redistrictingfacts.com/redistricting-by-state/!

This week, Congress.org responded to a reader’s question regarding redistricting.

The “nonpartisan news and information Web site” addressed the following inquiry:

"When a state's seats are cut after the census, how do they decide which representative is out of a job?"

Congress.org’s Frances Symes responds (emphases added):

After the census, and after the reapportionment has taken place, deciding how many House seats each state will have, the states step in to draw the district lines.

Because the Supreme Court in the 1960s interpreted the Constitution to require that each U.S. House district have equal numbers of people, any state with more than one district is likely to be required to adjust its district lines after each census to limit the variation in population between congressional districts.

Redistricting plans are drawn up and passed by the state legislatures and approved by the governors. In this way, the party that controls the state legislature essentially controls the redistricting.
…
While many political experts disagree about the importance of redistricting to the outcome of House elections, it is clear that it can be crucial in determining the make up of a state's delegation in the House, and thus the make up of Congress itself.

Certain areas within each state show a long-term preference for one party over the other.

Because these voting habits are well known to political experts in each state it is possible to create a district that is almost certain to favor candidates of one party of another. There are many ways to adjust districts to make them more or less friendly to members of a certain party.

In case you’re wondering about Republicans’ version of “friendly to members of a certain party,” allow me to refer you to the infamous 2003 Texas “DeLay-mander.” Gaining and maintaining majorities in state legislative chambers gives Democrats a seat at the redistricting table, so to speak. This will help prevent the GOP from gerrymandering itself into artificial majorities on both the state and federal levels for the next decade.

Symes goes on to posit the query,

So, what happens to an incumbent whose district disappears?

He or she has to run in a new district (which may or may not include part of his or her old district), possibly against another incumbent.

As redistricting nears, this issue is gaining some urgency. Some states, such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan, are predicted to lose congressional seats to other, more rapidly-growing states, such as Texas and Georgia. Once the congressional district boundaries are redrawn in the states losing seats in 2011, not all of those members of Congress will have a district to represent or a seat to run for in 2012.

With so much of the national pundit focus on the 2010 congressional elections, few are pausing to consider that some of these districts currently of so much concern to the makeup of the 112th Congress soon will simply cease to exist.

In the Ohio House of Representatives, Democrats have opened a massive fundraising lead heading into the 2010 elections:

In the state Legislature, House Republicans celebrated their fundraising figures, with more than $1 million in campaign contributions. The once-dominant GOP now holds 46 of 99 House seats, and hopes to win back the majority it lost in 2006. [sic]

House Democrats amassed more than twice as much during the period, however, raising $2.2 million. And caucus funds and the campaign committees of House leaders combined showed House Democrats raised nearly $3.8 million, compared to $1.4 million for House Republicans.

Congressional districts are drawn exclusively by the Ohio Legislature. Democrats narrowly won the State House in 2008, and by holding that chamber, Democrats can prevent yet another unfair congressional map. It's also, of course, the only way we can be sure that a Democratic policy agenda gets traction in the state.

Additionally, while DLCC doesn’t involve itself in statewide elections, we do keep tabs on races that affect redistricting. Three statewide officials also sit on Ohio’s legislative Apportionment Board, which draws State House and Senate districts, and Democrats have a healthy early fundraising edge in two of those races as well:

• Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland out-raised likely Republican nominee John Kasich $2.5 million to $516,000, leaving Strickland with a nearly 9-1 advantage in cash on hand.

• Republican State Auditor Mary Taylor was out-raised 3-to-1 by Democratic challenger and Hamilton County Commissioner David Pepper. Pepper raised nearly $317,000, while Taylor brought in only $107,900.
• In the race for Secretary of State (replacing Democrat Jennifer Brunner), Republican John Husted out-raised Democrat and Franklin County Commissioner Marilyn Brown by roughly $804,000 to $154,000.

If Democrats succeed in holding two of these statewide offices, they can take a majority on the Apportionment Board by successfully holding the State House. Then the Republicans’ gerrymander of state legislative seats can be abolished as well.

For Ohio’s State House Democrats, “support the troops” is more than a bumper-sticker slogan. On Wednesday, a unanimous Democratic House Caucus voted to guarantee two weeks’ leave for military family members facing deployment-related hardship:

The Ohio House voted overwhelmingly yesterday to require larger employers to provide up to two weeks of unpaid leave for spouses and parents of military personnel when they are first called up for a combat zone or are injured or hospitalized.

"Ten days of unpaid leave to ensure that military families have enough time to make the transition to their new status is not too much to ask in return for the defense of our country," said Rep. Peter Ujvagi (D., Toledo), the bill's sponsor.

"One of the jobs of legislators is to protect those who are making the sacrifices for our country," he said. "Denying military families their most vital time together during a period of extreme stress would be a failure to do that job."

The bill now moves to the Republican-held Senate, where its fate is uncertain. One of the few House Republicans willing to vote against the bill told the Toledo Blade that rank-and-file Republicans are opposed to the bill because it shows “contempt” for businesses. If he’s right, then the Senate’s Republican leaders may show their contempt for our troops by refusing to even vote on the bill.

Ultimately, the federal government is mostly responsible for major policies toward veterans (like soldiers’ pay and benefits), but the DLCC is still very proud of the way Democratic legislators across the country have been doing their part to make life a little easier for military families. The Ohio vote, for instance, comes just a few months after the Democratically-controlled New Mexico Legislature voted unanimously to provide in-state tuition rates at state colleges and trade schools for every veteran and military family member in the country.

At the end of March, Ohio Republican Sen. Jon Husted introduced legislation that would radically alter the way that legislative and Congressional districts are drawn in his state.

Yesterday, he kicked off a hearing in support of his bill.

Husted's proposal would strip the legislature of responsibility for drawing the lines for U.S. House districts, and scrap the Apportionment Board, which currently draws the maps for state lawmakers' districts.

Instead:

Senate Joint Resolution 5 would establish a bipartisan, seven-member commission to oversee the creation of the districts after each census.

Text of the bill is available here.

Republican Ohio Sen. Jon Husted has introduced a bill that would radically alter the way that legislative and Congressional districts are drawn in his state.

The way the law is currently written, the legislature takes responsibility for drawing the lines for U.S. House districts, while an Apportionment Board -- made up of the governor, secretary of state, auditor and a legislator from each party -- draws the lines for the state lawmaker's districts.

The Hamilton Journal-News reports:

Husted on Monday, March 30, said he would introduce a resolution to establish a bipartisan seven-member commission to oversee the creation of the districts after each census. The next census is in 2010.

The resolution would require a five-vote super majority for the adoption of a redistricting plan. Also, at least one of the required five votes would have to come from each of the three groups represented on the commission: two Republican legislative leader appointments; two Democratic legislative leader appointments and three remaining members, who would be selected by the four legislative leaders.

If approved by the legislature, the resolution would appear on the ballot next fall.

In Ohio, Democrats are targeting 21 districts in an effort to win control of the state house. Republicans currently hold a seven seat majority (53/46) in the chamber.

Obviously, we're not trying to pick up 21 seats -- we first have to protect a number of incumbents in Republican-leaning districts before we can cut into GOP margins.

So what's the game plan?

According to Scarlett Bouder, communications director for the House Democratic campaign, it's a lot of things:

"There's no silver bullet. It's a combination of many factors, including polling, the governor's past performance, as well as the [Democratic performance index]."

Democratic fundraising is thus far outstripping expectations, which has led an important breakthrough -- Democrats have made an effort to ensure that every candidate in each of the targeted districts has a campaign staffer to help manage the race.

And that is terrific news -- dedicated, professional staff help candidates run more effective campaigns.

This November, Democrats in Ohio need to pickup just four seats to take control of the House of Representatives for the first time in almost 15 years.

But even in a state where the local GOP has taken plenty of lumps, it can still be really hard to defeat an incumbent.

Unless of course, the incumbent decides to take another job courtesy of Gov. Ted Strickland:

The Strickland administration announced yesterday that it is creating a $115,000 position in the Ohio Department of Development for three-term Rep. Jim Raussen, R-Springdale.

Raussen won re-election in 2006 by only 4 points, and Democrats expected to pay at least some attention to the seat again this year. Now, the 28th District in Hamilton County likely moves up on their target list.

Also yesterday, Sen. Robert F. Spada, R-North Royalton, informed House GOP campaign leaders that he would not seek election to the competitive 18th District in Cuyahoga County. Republicans say they are being told that Strickland also plans to name Spada to a government position, possibly on the State Employment Relations Board.

The Republicans who are still trying to protect their majority are crying foul, but their protests ring pretty hollow. Here's to hoping a few more GOP legislators are looking for new positions in about three months.