Sam Stein -- writing for the Huffington Post -- has put together a very good look ahead to the 2010 election cycle. He reports that:

Republican officials now believe that the party's best hope for retaking seats in Congress may come during gubernatorial elections in 2010. Should the GOP win back the majority of these seats (Democrats currently occupy 28 state capitols), they would be extremely well positioned to influence the redistricting of the political map that will come after the 2010 census.

This isn't the first story we've seen along these lines. Both parties recognize the potential of the election two years from now, and campaign organizations are gearing up in preparation.

That includes this campaign committee:

[I]n almost every state, the legislative chambers will have a say into how the congressional districts are re-drawn. And in this regard the governor's power is limited. Oftentimes, in fact, redistricting plans get sent to state courts to adjudicate disagreements.

In 2010, there will be more than 1,150 state senate races and more than 4,950 state house races held nationwide. Here, too, Democrats and Republicans are cognizant of any edge.

"A flip of 50 state seats in key chambers could mean a gain -- or a loss -- of 15 Democratic Congressional seats in the next round of redistricting," said Michael Sargeant, executive director of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee. "We need to continue winning statehouses so that we can be at the table when these district lines are drawn."

The quote from my boss is a good reminder of the importance of the work we do. Control of the nation's legislatures have long-term consequences outside the boundaries of any individual state. If Republicans are going to throw all their resources into the 2010 election, we need to be prepared to defend our chambers and pick up those where the GOP is vulnerable.

I’m a hack who works for a campaign committee, and I’d like nothing more than to see a Congress filled by Democrats elected to districts drawn by state legislatures filled by Democrats.

But I realize that’s never going to happen.

The reality is that we live in a world with give and take between the parties, where districts must still be drawn so that elections can be held. And that brings us to the crucial question of how to do it.

It’s not a secret that partisan redistricting can lead to some pretty ugly results. Given my job, perhaps that’s silly for me to say, but I’d be crazy to argue otherwise.

That said, it’s not as if there is a slew of inviting alternatives out there for a reformer to choose from.

Ed Kilgore, who is both a mentor of mine and a longtime advocate for substantial changes in the redistricting process, said this today yesterday in a post about gerrymandering and voter turnout:

The most common reform, the creation of "independent" redistricting commissions, does directly deal with the conflict of interest involved in state legislators drawing up their own maps. But the record of such commissions on congressional redistricting is mixed at best, tending to produce political compromises more than competitive districts. The problem is that it requires positive action, not just an alleged absence of "partisan politics," to create a truly competitive map. And indeed, truly competitive schemes often run afoul of "traditional redistricting principles" like compact districts that respect jurisdictional lines as much as gerrymandering does.

I bring this up because the voters of California will get to decide the fate of yet another redistricting ballot initiative in November. And while supporters of the measure claim bipartisan support, it has been formally rejected by the state Democratic Party.

As it should be.

The California measure, funded by GOP-money, is backed by Republicans for one reason: they hope it will help them draw an electoral map which makes a Republican Speaker a possibility.

And that is the political reality.

If we lived in a perfect world, nonpartisan commissions might be a wonderful vehicle for drawing legislative districts.

But we live in a world where Republicans are competing with us for power, and they’re frankly unafraid to use every advantage at their disposal in order to get it.

If we want a government with a Democratic agenda, we have to elect Democrats. The calculus is as simple as that.

To me, the retirement of Sen. Joseph Bruno means one thing -- he believes that the Republicans will lose their majority in the New York Senate, and he has no desire to serve in the minority.

Already this cycle, we’ve seen some really good indications that might be correct.

On February 26, Democrat Darrel Aubertine won a special election in New York's 48th Senate District -- a seat that had been held by the GOP since 1880, where registered Republicans outnumber Democrats 78,454 to 46,824.

Three weeks earlier, Democrat Craig M. Johnson won a special election in New York’s 7th Senate District -- a seat that had been held by the GOP for more than a century.

Things were so bad in February that Mayor Michael Bloomberg -- the GOP’s single biggest Senate benefactor -- had to write a $500,000 check to keep them competitive. Prior to that little gift, he contributed at least $675,000 between October 2006 and December 2007.

So now, there are 32 Republicans in the New York Senate and 30 Democrats. In a traditional election, there are Republican seats (like those in New York City, which Reid Wilson points out) which would be vulnerable. But remember -- this is a presidential election year, and Democrats have a significant enthusiasm advantage. When I look at the map, New York is one of our top targets.

And this is all important not simply because Bruno and the Senate Republicans have managed to bottle up significant pieces of legislation and prevent a major Democratic agenda from getting a hearing in a very progressive state but also because New York is slated to lose two Congressional seats in the next round of redistricting.

Its delegation to Washington will be the smallest the state has sent since 1823. Democrats control the House and the governor’s mansion -- gaining a majority in the upper chamber will give us the strength we need to draw congressional districts in a way that reflects the progressive nature of the state’s electorate.