Coup in Arizona

DLCC Condemns GOP Usurpation of Redistricting

Washington, DC – Today Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee Executive Director Michael Sargeant condemned Republican Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer and state Senate Republicans for flagrantly undermining the state’s redistricting process. 

“Gov. Brewer and the state GOP have demonstrated they are absolutely without shame when it comes to promoting partisan interests,” said Sargeant. “Arizona voters chose to take redistricting out of the hands of politicians over a decade ago, but Republicans have wrenched control away from their own constituents and citizens with this naked power play. By removing the nonpartisan member of a bipartisan redistricting commission for failing to deliver an extreme partisan gerrymander, Arizona Republicans have brazenly usurped the redistricting process.” 

Last night, Gov. Brewer’s GOP cronies in the state Senate voted as a bloc to remove Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) nonpartisan chair Colleen Mathis based on unsubstantiated charges of impropriety. Gov. Brewer abused her authority to call a taxpayer-funded “special session” for this removal because the new congressional and legislative maps drawn by the IRC contained too few GOP-friendly districts and too many competitive districts. Arizona Republicans, unsatisfied with maps that virtually guarantee GOP control of the congressional delegation and legislature, executed what may be the most extreme power-grab in the state’s history. 

Democratic leaders in Arizona were livid. 

"The Governor and Legislature have sunk to a new low with this special session,” said House Minority Leader Chad Campbell. “The blatant bullying, intimidation and partisanship they have inflicted on the citizen members of the Independent Redistricting Commission is abhorrent. They should be ashamed of themselves.” 

“There was no basis for the removal of Chairwoman Mathis except pure partisan politics,” added Senate Minority Leader David Schapira. “We have a witch hunt coordinated by a Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, Republican Congressional delegation and Republican legislators with a predetermined outcome. It’s a disgrace.”

In his most recent column in Campaigns & Elections, Noah Rothman highlights some of the difficulties Republicans are facing as both parties prepare for redistricting across the country.

 …[A]s the process gets underway ina series of first-round states, including New Jersey, Virginia, Kentucky, Mississippi and Louisiana, some party insiders are concerned that Republicans have failed to amass the funding necessary to capitalize on their advantages.

…

“The DLCC has been working with the Foundation for the Future and NCEC [The National Committee for an EffectiveCongress] for almost five years to make sure Democratic state legislators haveas much and as high-quality data as possible when they draw district lines and evaluate Republican gerrymanders,” [DLCC Executive Director Michael] Sargeant told C&E. However, he agrees that the failure of the MAPS project is a negative for Republicans. “By letting the MAPS project languish, the GOP isn't in as good of a position for redistricting as most think,” Sargeant said.

…

Roll Call’s Gonzalez reports that donors to MAPS lost faith in the group when they discovered that its “vision was too broad.” Underscoring the importance of MAPS to the Republican redistricting strategy, former RNC Chair Ed Gillespie told Hotline last week that, while there was still time to recover from the loss, the failure of MAPS has left Republicans at a distinct disadvantage in the first states to redistrict.

The notion that Republicans aren’t well-prepared for redistricting is nothing new. Politico picked up on this in June of last year, and the parties’ relative preparedness is discussed in “GOP lags in early redistricting race.”

Last Wednesday, a Hotline On Call post (Republicans Looking For Leadership On Redistricting) highlighted some anxieties from prominent GOPers.

"I've been surprised that I didn't see the party yearning for some sort of outside effort to get the map-making up and going," [former NRCC chair Tom] Reynolds told Hotline On Call. "Normally instead of having the party pay for that, someone on the outside would take that initiative and I haven't seen that leadership."

…

Another Republican deeply involved in redistricting at the state level described the GOP's organization toward redistricting in one word: "Chaos."

Did Republicans not realize redistricting was getting underway this soon? Maybe next time they should set themselves an Outlook (Google?) calendar reminder.

Louisiana’s redistricting session early this year will play out as a microcosm of the many political battles likely to rage around the country as new district lines are drawn.

The New Orleans Times-Picayune’s Tim Morris and Bill Barrow recently posted a video explaining the enigma set to be unraveled in a special legislative session this March:

Questions to be answered in the special session include:

• Which two incumbent congressmen will be drawn into the same district as Louisiana drops from seven districts to six?
  

• Will regional loyalties supersede partisan ones when it comes to congressional districts?
  
• How will population changes – the effects of Katrina in New Orleans, the expansion of Baton Rouge, and the growth of suburban parishes near both cities – be reflected in the new redistricting plans?
  
• How competitive will the district maps be for a legislature with both chambers narrowly divided?

Most states will grapple with just one or two of these questions. Louisiana features all of them, in addition to being a Voting Rights Act preclearance state.

And since the Louisiana legislature is one of four up for re-election in 2011, all of these questions must be answered definitively within a few short months. If the legislature is unable to do so, the state Supreme Court is responsible for enacting redistricting plans.

Without a doubt, other states with more time to draw their plans will be watching very closely.

Today marks a pivotal moment for the Democratic Party.

Voters will cast ballots in over 6100 state legislative races across the country. Over 4200 of those races will impact the redrawing of congressional districts.

After the dust settles tonight (recounts notwithstanding), we’ll know which party has a seat at 36 states’ redistricting tables next year (7 states redistrict by commission, and 7 states have at-large members of congress).

We actually already know a few. Virginia’s odd-year elections have produced at recipe for a potential compromise (or stalemate) on new district maps; the governor is a Republican, the state House is controlled by Republicans, and Democrats hold a majority in the state Senate.

Similarly, we already know who has a say in redistricting in Louisiana and Mississippi (Republican governors, Democratic majorities in both states’ Houses and Senates).

But while we’re waiting to learn the redistricting fate of the rest of the country, here’s a look back at the last round of redistricting, in terms of who controlled what where.

Republicans completely controlled (Republican governor and majorities in the state House/Assembly and Senate) the redistricting process in 8 states: Florida, Kansas, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, and Virginia. These Republicans drew 127 congressional districts without meaningful input from Democrats. (A note on this list, though, since some may quibble with the inclusion of Texas. Republicans completely controlled the Texas re-redistricting of 2003, and that’s the map currently in effect.)

Those numbers can arguably be bumped up if Nebraska is included in the “complete R control” column. Nebraska’s unicameral legislature is nonpartisan, but their governor at the time was a Republican. So that’s 9 states and 130 districts drawn by Republicans in the last round of redistricting.

Democrats had the governor’s mansion and majorities in the state House/Assembly and Senate in 7 states in 2001: Alabama, California, Georgia, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, and West Virginia. Consequently, Democrats had complete partisan control over the drawing of 101 congressional districts.

That’s an awful lot of numbers to throw around all at once, but these figures are useful as evidence and historical context for some strongly-worded statements made via Mother Jones yesterday:

Forget the Senate and House. That's short-term thinking. The real prize in Tuesday's midterm elections is the power to draw congressional seats and determine the country's balance of power for the next decade.

If either party can achieve what politicos call the "trifecta"—control of the governorship and both chambers of the state legislature—in a given state, it will be able to draw congressional districts within that state unencumbered by any need to compromise with the other party. That's the kind of power that creates electoral maps like the one former GOP Majority Leader Tom Delay helped bring to Texas in 2003—a map that pushed four of the state's Democrats out of their seats.

Five states bordering the Great Lakes—Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—are the central battleground in the fight to control redistricting. Sure, the Republicans might take back the House of Representatives on election night. But winning gubernatorial and state legislative races in these five states could allow the GOP to dominate the House for much longer than the next few years.

So while some will be fixated on House race results tonight, those interested in which party will have a leg up on holding a majority in Congress for the next decade should be monitoring state legislative races.

Ohio might be the hottest part of the redistricting narrative this cycle.

Jessica Yellin went there for CNN. PBS NewsHour covered it. TIME wrote its story around it. Politico has published a whole article on redistricting based around the hypothetical that every competitive Ohio race would be won by Republicans (which, while an interesting exercise, is a technique perhaps best left to law school exams).

The Ohio election landscape looks so promising for Republicans this year that they are confronted with an unexpected quandary: what to do about redistricting in the probable event the House delegation adds a few new GOP faces.

The gist of the problem is that early census projections indicate that Ohio will most likely lose two seats when the nationwide reapportionment is announced at the end of December. And while, at present, Ohio Democrats have a 10-to-8 seat advantage in the House delegation, that ratio seems almost certain to change because of anticipated November election losses…. it’s leading GOP insiders to fear that they might have too many members competing for too few seats — and the newcomers could suffer as a result.

The hypothetical in which Democrats both hold the state House and the governor’s mansion is, regrettably, not discussed.

Democrat David Robinson of Ohio’s 21st House district is one of several candidates who have found themselves in the spotlight.

At stake is control of the Ohio House of Representatives, a bigger prize in 2011 than in recent years. Next year the Ohio legislature will redraw district lines for all of the state’s legislative and congressional districts. The party in control of the two legislative chambers … will have a disproportionate influence on the new district lines and on Ohio politics for the next decade. Since Ohio may well lose two seats in Congress because of stagnant population growth, whoever creates the district maps is likely to determine which party loses those seats.

The Democrats control the Ohio House right now, but only by four seats, so close races like the one in the 21st have become the focus of state and national attention…. That’s why the contest between Robinson and Duffey is one of the most closely watched legislative elections in the country this year, and why outside groups have been lavishing attention and money on the contest.

The candidates reflect on the significance of redistricting, one of the reasons so many resources are flooding this race and others.

“They’re investing in one particular vote on redistricting. It’s like ‘Lord of the Rings.’ One vote to rule them all.”

Friday's edition of The Rachel Maddow Show (featuring guest host Chris Hayes) featured a discussion of attempts in Texas to defraud and confuse those voting in state legislative races in Texas, as well as the critical nature of those down-ballot races this year because of redistricting. Oregon state Rep. Jefferson Smith (HD 47) fielded questions on the subject and discussed his own efforts to promote voting.

Yesterday CNN.com and the Washington Post both posted pieces on the importance of redistricting, which is always a good thing. Redistricting will help determine which party controls Congress for the next decade, and yet this critical issue receives relatively little media attention.

The CNN article, in particular, deftly makes the point that many peoples’ lives will be affected by elections in which they can’t even vote:

Imagine if ten days from now the Republicans win control of the House, but only by a one-seat majority. Republican John Boehner becomes Speaker. But if a Democrat holds the governor's mansion in Ohio and the governor insists that when his state loses two seats both must be districts held by Republicans. That means just through redistricting in Ohio alone the Democrats could, in theory, take back control of the House. That would affect your life – everything from education policy to health care and taxes goes through the House, and which party is in control makes a big difference.
…
So imagine another scenario: on election day Democrats eke out a win and retain control of the House by five seats. But Democrats lose governors and state legislative races across the country. Once redistricting happens next year and those elected state officials could wipe out the Democrats' majority by adding many new seats Republicans will control and eliminating seats Democrats are certain to control. So then Democrats in Congress would lose their majority because of which politicians are elected in a state you've never even visited.

This point can’t be emphasized enough: Even if Democrats maintain control of Congress after next week’s elections, “elected state officials could wipe out the Democrats' majority.”

However, both of these articles somewhat underemphasize the most critical component of the redistricting process: the state legislatures.

The outcome of the elections next week will determine who will draw the congressional district maps in 36 states (7 states have redistricting commissions, and 7 states have at-large members of Congress). That’s about 384 (give or take, pending the outcome of reapportionment) out of the 435 seats in the U.S. House.

Governors generally have an important role to play (except where they have no veto authority over redistricting, like in Connecticut and North Carolina). In many states, congressional district maps must be approved by the governor before they can go into effect. In other states, governors appoint or are members of redistricting commissions or boards. (You can find a state-by-state breakdown of who does what when it comes to redistricting here.)

A governor may accept or reject a map based on its benefit to his or her party, but governors are not subject to district boundaries, so they have little stake in the new legislative or congressional districts beyond the general welfare of their party. Redistricting often just becomes part of the regular legislative bargaining that takes place between the governor and the legislature.

State legislators, however, actually draw the maps. But not only do they have control over the actual drawing of congressional district boundaries, but they also have greater interest in the result. Congressional district maps often arrive on the governor’s desk as a piece of legislation that also includes the new maps of state legislators’ districts. Additionally, state legislators are generally more likely to run for congressional seats they create than are statewide officeholders.

The lines these state legislators draw will affect the partisan makeup of Congress for the next 10 years. If the Republicans boast success on the state legislative level next week, they’ll have the chance to gerrymander their way into an artificial congressional majority for the next decade. Progressive policies will stall in the House as a Republican Speaker refuses to allow Democratic legislation to come up for votes.

So, yes, congressional races are significant this year, just like they are in every even-numbered year. And gubernatorial contests are important and exciting.

But, while state legislative races may be the least conspicuous on many ballots this next week, these elections are more significant than all the rest combined.

Today TIME published a great story discussing the tremendously high stakes of this fall’s state legislative elections and the efforts of both parties to have a hand on the redistricting pen.

In recent weeks, residents of the Cincinnati area have received a barrage of mail about Mike Wilson, the Republican candidate for Ohio's 28th House District. The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee (DLCC), a national party organization that works to elect Democrats to state-legislature seats, has put out nine ads assailing Wilson, the Cincinnati Tea Party founder who is running to unseat Democratic state representative Connie Pillich. That may seem like a lot of resources to throw at a down-ticket skirmish. But Ohio's state house, where Democrats hold 53 of 99 seats, is a crucial combat zone in one of this fall's hidden, high-impact battles: the fight for control of the state legislative chambers that next year will redraw the electoral map.

The piece focuses largely on Ohio, ostensibly because Democrats hold only a slim majority in the state House, Republicans have a solid hold on the state Senate, and the outcome of the gubernatorial race is anybody’s guess.

Ohio is predicted to lose two congressional districts in reapportionment, reducing its delegation from 18 to 16. Democrats currently hold 10 of those 18 seats. Theoretically, if Republicans control the process, Ohio redistricting could produce as few as four districts that favor the election of Democrats.

Returning to the big picture:

It's a fight Democrats have won over the past few years. The party boasts 55% of the nation's 7,382 statehouse seats — the most it has held since before the Republican rout of 1994, and enough to control 60 legislatures nationwide, including both chambers in 27 states. (Republicans, by contrast, control 36 chambers and 14 states outright; two chambers — the Alaska senate and the Montana house — are tied, and Nebraska's legislature is unicameral.) In a cycle when the political headwinds seem likely to blow the U.S. House of Representatives and possibly the U.S. Senate back to the GOP, maintaining their edge in state legislatures would be a major victory for the Democrats. "Our legislative majorities are the firewall for the Democratic Party," says Michael Sargeant, executive director of the DLCC, which has spent more than $10 million so far this year to defend key chambers. "If we're able to hold our majorities, we'll make sure we have fair representation in Congress."

The piece also includes some insight into the DLCC’s strategies in maintaining Democratic majorities.

Sargeant says he expects the Democrats to do well, noting that the DLCC kick-started its field operations earlier than ever, placing staffers in key states last spring. Some two dozen Democratic members lost their seats in Congress in the redistricting that followed the 2000 census. This time around, Ohio is expected to lose at least one congressional seat because of population migration from the Midwest to the Sun Belt. Which is another reason why the DLCC is bombarding residents of Ohio's 28th District with ads depicting frightened senior citizens and crestfallen families. If vulnerable incumbents like Pillich can help the Democrats hold the Ohio house, it would stave off at least one painful setback in a fall that may be full of them.

Assuming that loss of control of Congress is such a “setback,” to say that maintaining Democratic majorities in state legislative chambers would stave it off is something of an understatement.

Regardless of which party controls the 112th Congress, Democratic majorities in state legislatures are the only things standing between Republicans and control of the 113th Congress, the 114th Congress, the 115th Congress… Well, you get the picture. Republicans in control of state legislatures will redraw congressional district boundaries to minimize Democrats’ representation in the U.S. House. Republicans did it before, and with all that practice, they’re probably better at it than ever.

As Executive Director Michael Sargeant put it so aptly, “Our legislative majorities are the firewall for the Democratic Party.” Without the work the DLCC is doing to protect the majorities that will defend Democrats from Republican gerrymandering, indeed we could be in store for many years of “painful setbacks.”

Redistricting reprised its starring role in a news program last night as PBS NewsHour ran a quality segment on the issue.

Jim Lehrer kicked off the piece by explaining exactly why state legislative elections are so critical this cycle.

Both major political parties are waging a heated below-the-radar battle to win control of statehouses across the country. That's because, with the new census numbers, state legislators are poised to redraw America's political map.

The National Committee for an Effective Congress’ Tom Bonier laid out a few key points.

First, a reminder of how Republicans handled the redistricting process ten years ago:

The Republican strategy in 2002, where they controlled the process, in a significant number of states and really in the important states that were gaining and losing congressional districts -- Ohio lost a congressional district in 2002 -- is, they packed Democrats into as few congressional districts as possible, which would allow them in the end to control more congressional districts.

Then, Bonier explains why Democrats are at a natural disadvantage when it comes to redrawing congressional districts.

Democratic voters tend to live in more densely populated areas. Republicans tend to live more spread out, more dispersed. You will have areas that are 90 percent Democratic. You don't really come across areas of geography that are 90 percent Republican.

…[Advances in data and technology] allow[] them to go down to the block level and even, in some cases -- and this happened in a handful of states 10 years ago -- the Republicans would split blocks right down the middle to carve houses out of districts.

DLCC Executive Director Michael Sargeant points out that, despite the fact that Democrats have majorities to defend in 60 legislative chambers (Republicans control only 36), we’re playing offense, too:

Democrats have a great opportunity in the state of Texas. Democrats are only down four seats in the statehouse. The state of Texas … is projected to gain up to four new congressional seats.

And if Democrats can make gains and take the Texas House, they will have a say in what the upcoming state congressional map, as well as state legislative map, looks like for the next decade.

All of this serves to underscore the larger point here: State legislative elections are the main event this cycle. State legislators draw the maps; Democrats wielding pens in that process are the only things standing between the Republicans and a nationwide, ten-year gerrymander.