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/!

In politics, any time you can get your opponent to repeat your own talking points, you’ve got the upper hand.

That’s what if felt like the other day when the Republican State Leadership Committee publicized a new Siena College poll showing only 27% of New Yorkers want the closely-divided State Senate to return to GOP control. Another 33% wanted Democrats to expand their 32-30 majority, and 34% said they were happy with the narrowly-divided status quo. We had highlighted the same poll earlier in the day.

The RSLC was thrilled because in their minds, that meant a “Majority of New Yorkers Oppose Democrat Gains in State Senate.” But they neglected to mention one important detail: the narrowly divided status quo is one in which Democrats nevertheless have a majority. Which means two-thirds of New Yorkers want either a small Democratic majority or an expanded one.

Only a quarter of New Yorkers actually believe that a Republican-controlled State Senate would be good for the people of New York.

Maybe that’s why the RSLC linked to the Siena College media release - which doesn’t even mention the question about State Senate control – and not to the poll results themselves.

And unless there’s any confusion about who those “keep it closely divided” voters are really planning to vote for, that 27% support for a Republican Senate looks pretty close to a high-water mark for the GOP statewide. In every single statewide head-to-head Siena tested, no Republican candidate earns more than 29% of the vote.

This is the clearest evidence yet that New York voters are not prepared to hand their government back to the party whose total disregard for middle class Americans caused the economic crisis we find ourselves in, and whose leaders have spent the last two years obstructing Democratic efforts to fix their mess.

New York Democrats have had to face a rocky economy and recession-induced budget shortfalls in their first few years as the majority party in the State Senate. But New York voters remember the previous 40 years of GOP control, and according to a new Siena College poll, only 27% of New York voters want to go back:

• 33%: Want to see Democrats expand their State Senate majority

• 34%: Prefer the status quo, in which Democrats hold a narrow edge
• 27%: Want to see Republicans re-take a majority

This has to be unwelcome news for State Senate Republicans. Between the GOP infighting occurring up and down the ballot and the collapse of the Senate Republicans’ statewide campaign apparatus, Republican Senate candidates were depending on a hostile electorate to carry them over the top in key districts.

But that electorate, while clearly hostile to incumbents (only 31% plan to re-elect their incumbent Senator in a generic question), is not scapegoating Democrats for the state’s troubles. And with Republicans showing extreme weakness in every statewide contest tested in the Sienna poll, there are no coattails for GOP legislative candidates to ride.

The New York Senate is a top redistricting priority for the Democratic Party this cycle, because Democratic control of the chamber would give Democrats complete control of the redistricting process for both congressional and state legislative districts.

Democrats have not held a majority in both legislative chambers in New York during a redistricting year since 1910 - exactly 100 years ago. The only other time this has occurred (since the advent of the Republican Party as a competitor) was in 1870.

For nearly 70 years, New York Senate Republicans were riding high. Flush with cash and protected by a typically unassailable majority (save for the 1964 Democratic wave), GOP Senate candidates could always count on a high-powered, high-spending campaign apparatus to save their seats. Until now.

The Capitol recently got an inside look at that once-proud GOP operation and the difference from as recently as one cycle ago. The collapse is nothing short of breathtaking:

The special-interest money that once flowed has dried to a trickle. As of January, the Senate GOP had about one-fifth of the cash on hand as they did at the same point in 2008. (…)

When they were in the majority, the SRCC operated out of a luxury 20-story building with 9,000 square feet of floor space. In the minority, with the threat of Republican-eviscerating redistricting oblivion looming, a shoe-string operation to retake the majority is being run from the second floor of a modest three-story building a few minutes’ walk from the Capitol, about a third of the size of the old one.

With less than $1 million on hand as of January, [State Sen. Tom] Libous has cut SRCC spending to the bone, from $158,000 a month to $48,000. In 2008, Libous did not even know the name of everyone on the SRCC payroll. Now, because they can afford much fewer, Libous can run down the entire list of staff in 10 seconds (…)

Senate Republicans will also have to do without their secret, taxpayer-funded communications and research shops that employed dozens of people and cost millions of dollars before Democrats discovered it last February. And fundraising has also dried up with most of the traditionally progressive sources that previously had to play ball with the GOP Senate majority in order to have any hope of legislative success.

And without their usual hoards of cash, the statewide GOP Senate committee is finding it has far less control over individual campaigns. But the committee is still inserting itself into local primaries - going so far as to publicly trash one likely GOP nominee - which is causing even more headaches for the party:

After [Republican Sen. Vincent] Leibell retired, meanwhile, the SRCC stepped in to endorse Somers Town Supervisor Mary Beth Murphy. She has also won the Conservative line. But these maneuvers have infuriated Assembly Member Greg Ball, who on paper would seem like a perfect candidate for Senate Republicans this year. He is a young Air Force veteran who has strong Tea Party support (…)

There is only one problem: Greg Ball.

“We think Greg Ball’s voting record is too erratic. We think his behavior is too erratic,” Libous said.

Ball said that he still holds out hope that the SRCC will see the writing on the wall and work to get Murphy off the Conservative line between now and November. But if Ball emerges from the primary without the Conservative line, Republicans could very well lose the seat, according to both Democratic and Republican strategists.

Of course, with 2010 shaping up to be a challenging climate for Democrats, no one is taking victory for granted. But in New York at least, Democrats have enough organizational advantages to feel confident.

With the last few mail-in Census forms coming in (at a robust 72% participation rate nation-wide), over 630,000 census-takers are now fanning out to count households that haven responded. And individual states are finding their own unique ways to reach those last few residents:

Behind the scenes, the federal government placed a greater emphasis on partnering with local organizations to get the message out. State and local governments have used a similar approach. Stacey Cumberbach, the head of New York City’s 2010 census office, says working with trusted leaders in different communities and across city government has helped the city boost its mail-in rates from 57 percent a decade ago to 60 percent this year. (…)

In Minnesota, [state demographer Tom] Gillaspy took advantage of a few other opportunities offered for the first time by the Census Bureau. In February, the state compared the numbers of addresses it had on its list for every block against the census’ count. Where there were big differences, the state asked the Census Bureau to double check its list of addresses.

Later this summer, Minnesota officials plan to compare state data for the capacity of group quarters — including prisons, nursing homes, halfway homes and dormitories — against the population count the census came up with in those facilities. If there’s a large difference, the Census Bureau will go back to recount the population there.

The stakes are higher in Minnesota than elsewhere, as the latest projections indicate Minnesota could keep or lose one of its congressional districts by as few as 1,000 residents.

But the Census is important for every community – each individual left uncounted costs his or her local government thousands of dollars that would have gone to support schools, police and fire protection, and a whole host of other essential services.

And of course, a complete Census count will be critical as states begin re-drawing congressional and legislative districts in 2011.

The Census is a much more complicated undertaking than a simple roll call. Because of language, cultural, and geographic barriers, some communities are orders of magnitude more difficult to survey than others. And because a 1999 Supreme Court ruling prohibits the use of statistical sampling to correct the results, Census officials have to get it right the first time.

The New York Times recently examined three communities to illustrate the unique challenges Census-takers face, starting with Wolford, North Dakota (population 50), which already boasts a 100% participation rate in the mail survey:

“Why wouldn’t you send it right back?” asked Jim Wolf, who has been mayor here so long that he cannot recall what year he took office. “It’s a rural community,” said Mr. Wolf, who is also the volunteer fire squad chief, “and I guess we go by the rules.”

In fact, some who have yet to receive their forms here (the census does not mail the questionnaires to post office boxes) have raised a bit of a stink among the farmers who gather for morning coffee at the farm supply business Mr. Wolf manages and at the one-room post office where Lynn Walsh hands out the mail.

But things aren’t so easy for the Census Bureau in other small towns. Officials are working overtime to try and boost participation in rural and heavily African-American Issaquena County in the Mississippi Delta region, where there’s only one person for them to count for every 116 acres:

Issaquena County and the entire Delta is plagued by poverty and illiteracy. People mistrust census takers for a variety of reasons, including a belief that the government is trying to catch them doing something illegal like misrepresenting the number of people in their household, which could affect benefits like food stamps, said Calvin Stewart, a Rolling Fork alderman, teacher, high school sports referee and spokesman for the town’s new antilitter campaign. (…)

Community groups in the area have done their best to calm fears and increase participation. They have recorded radio broadcasts and arranged P.T.A. presentations, enlisted pastors and formed Complete Count Committees. They have given practice tests to help local residents get census jobs, believing they will be less skittish about approaching houses and will be less likely to evoke a hostile response.

Issaquena’s participation in the mail survey is currently only 28% so far, compared to 53% in Hinds County (containing Jackson, MS) and 60% nationally.

Meanwhile, confusion is running rampant in immigrant communities in New York City, which probably poses the Census Bureau’s biggest test in terms of language:

At Masjid Aqsa, a Harlem mosque, Imam Soulemaine Konaté said that many of his congregants, French-speaking African immigrants who know very little English, threw away their census forms. He said they thought the envelopes addressed to “resident” were meant for someone else.

In Jackson Heights, Queens, volunteers for New Immigrant Community Empowerment who talked to day laborers on street corners often heard them say, “Eso no es para mí,” or “This is not for me,” dismissing the census as something important only for citizens and legal immigrants, said Valeria Treves, the group’s executive director.

In Flushing, which has the largest concentration of Asian immigrants in the city, the participation rate in some areas was as low as 25 percent, and after a few hours with the MinKwon volunteers, it was easy to see why. Aside from the linguistic isolation and fear of deportation, many people had no idea of the census’s purpose, why it matters or who should fill it out.

The reason the Census matters, of course, is that political representation and billions in federal funding at stake – something Census officials and community volunteers are still trying to drive home.

The Republican Party has begun targeting three strongly Democratic states with fake letters purporting to be official Census documents. The letters seem designed to create confusion, which could cost Democrats congressional seats and electoral votes in all three states:

It's arriving this week in mailboxes in Minnesota, New York and Washington state. At first glance, it might appear to be related to the upcoming once-a-decade count of every man, woman and child in the United States.

It's not. It's a Republican fundraiser and opinion poll.

And it has some local Democrats crying foul. They're calling for a federal investigation.

"This is as egregious as it gets," said Luz Maria Frias, director of St. Paul's Department of Human Rights and Equal Economic Opportunity and the city's point person for raising awareness of the federal 2010 U.S. census.

The letters are likely to heighten confusion and even suspicion when residents receive legitimate Census questionnaires later this year. This, in turn, could decrease overall Census participation in these three states, all of which could be considered “on the bubble” to gain or lose additional congressional seats after reapportionment.

Local officials in these states are right to demand an investigation. Even if the Republican scheme fails to reduce these states’ congressional clout and electoral votes, any reduction in Census participation could cost local taxpayers millions of dollars in federal money.

The fireworks were on full display last week in former State Senate Republican leader Joseph Bruno’s federal corruption trial, as a former Republican staffer explained how he helped his bosses stay on the wrong side of the law:

Prosecutors put into evidence an official Senate memo, written by government attorneys, strongly counseling the pols - in bold-faced, underlined type - to hand-deliver financial disclosure forms to the Legislative Ethics Committee.

Queried as to why he would give such odd advice, former Senate lawyer and Bruno aide Kenneth Riddett testified, and we quote: "There were, quite frankly, concerns with federal mail fraud statutes, to be honest with you."

In other words, Riddett simply assumed those forms were riddled with lies that wouldn't stand up to scrutiny from a U.S. attorney.

A shocking admission – one we had to read twice just to wrap our heads around. Still, given the multi-million dollar patronage machine uncovered when the Republicans lost control of the New York Senate, maybe we shouldn’t be surprised by a taxpayer-funded lawyer writing a how-to guide for Republican legislators trying to avoiding mail fraud charges.

Mail fraud, incidentally, is one of the charges Bruno was indicted on. So even with a legislative staff attorney telling him how to break the law and get away with it, Bruno still got caught.

New York Republicans’ downward spiral in the state legislature continued late last week as one of their last Long Island Assemblymembers switched parties to join the Independence Party:

Longtime Republican Assemb. Fred Thiele is switching parties to join the Independence Party, saying the 40-member GOP minority "stands for nothing" and "no longer speaks to pocketbook issues."

The 14-year Albany veteran said he hand-delivered papers to switch at the Suffolk Board of Elections Thursday and will seek to sit with the Assembly's Democratic majority[.]

Thiele, 56, of Sag Harbor, would join the Assembly's only other Independence Party member, Timothy Gordon from Albany, who has run with Democratic backing. If the Democrats accept Thiele, he will become the 110th member of the majority conference.

Thiele, who represents the Suffolk County-based 2nd Assembly district, specifically cited his Republican colleagues’ refusal to offer any amendments when the legislature was writing the state budget. Thiele believes they refused to participate out of fear that Democrats might actually accept some of the Republican amendments, making it harder to run against the budget in November.

The switch leaves the State Assembly with 107 Democrats, 40 Republicans, and three independents caucusing with the Democrats (two from the Independence Party and one from the Working Families Party).

After their failed coup attempt brought New York’s legislature to a standstill, it’s no surprise that State Senate Republicans aren’t exactly beloved by New York voters. Apparently, their desperate flailing has earned them a rebuke from donors as well, with Democrats out-raising Senate Republicans by nearly 3-1:

While Senate Democrats raised $6.9 million, Republicans raised just $2.5 million. That $4.4 million gap is the second-largest between the two parties since 1999, when the State Board of Elections introduced electronic filing.

The Democrats’ haul was more than twice what they raised during the first half of 2007, the last year without statewide elections. The Republicans’ total was just half of what they raised during the same period in 2007.

The big difference between the parties could hamper Republicans’ plans for retaking control of the Senate next year and underscores how much power is wielded by the dominant party in Albany, even though the Senate Democrats hold a majority of just two votes.

These early numbers are a sharp reversal from previous cycles, when Republicans routinely held a dominant fund-raising edge over then-minority Democrats. Without the millions of dollars that kept them in power for decades in such a left-leaning state, Republicans will have a tough time preventing more Democratic gains – let alone retaking the chamber – in 2010.