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.

First-term Republican State Senator Roger Kahn is proving to be particularly wrathful in his dealings with other legislators and staffers. In the latest incident, when a legislative aide realized he’d left the Senator’s car keys in a capitol office, he was repaid with a street-corner shouting session and a shattered cell phone, courtesy of the short-tempered legislator:

Kahn was spotted by witnesses “angrily shouting” at the aide on a Lansing street near the Capitol about 2:30 a.m. when he told the lawmaker he didn’t have the keys and may have left them in another Republican senator’s office. Kahn would not name the employee.

The article said state Sen. Glenn Anderson, D-Westland, one of his aides and a Secretary of the Senate’s staff member saw Kahn snatch the cell phone from the aide “and threw it to the ground stomping on it.”

Kahn seemed so agitated Anderson had attempted to calm the lawmaker, Gongwer reported. Kahn eventually returned to the Capitol building and had a “spirited” discussion with Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, R-Rochester. Anderson said he had picked up a piece of the cell phone off the ground, the story said.

Kahn allegedly also became physical during the incident:

Late Monday, Senate Democratic Caucus spokesman Alex Rossman released a statement, based on information he said he received from witnesses, that alleged Kahn "grabbed" and "physically shook" the staff member after he couldn't produce the senator's car keys. Kahn has denied any physical contact.

If true, this is a serious allegation. If a private citizen ever tried to “physically shake” a lawmaker and destroy the lawmaker’s property, that person would likely be facing battery charges.

But this isn’t the first time Kahn has gotten into trouble for his temper. In fact, he’s quickly earning a reputation as a lawmaker with a short fuse and a disturbing pattern of conduct unbecoming of an elected official.

In June of 2009, he was investigated for allegedly physically threatening a 72-year-old Democratic lawmaker in an elevator in the capitol building. According to Democratic Senator Irma Clark-Coleman’s account of the incident, Kahn had to be restrained by another Republican Senator.

At the time, the Republican Senate Majority Leader refused to investigate further. Now that Kahn is in the news again for similar behavior, the Majority Leader’s spokesperson is telling local media that, once again, there will be no investigation.

Perhaps we should have said this more directly when we told you about an Oklahoma legislator who wants to ban divorce for many couples: The government forcing people to stay married when they no longer want to be is a very, very bad idea:

[Republican State Senator Michelle] McManus is the sole sponsor of SB 1127 which would eliminate ‘no fault divorce’ for couples with children or where one member does not consent to the divorce. (…)

Under the McManus bill those seeking divorce would be required to allege specific problems such as adultery, physical abuse, imprisonment, physical incompetence at time of marriage, or that a spouse had sex with an animal or dead human body.

McManus and the bill’s culture-warrior supporters claim it will help reduce divorce rates in Michigan. But people who study the issue of divorce say the bill’s passage “would be an unmitigated disaster” for families -- and especially children -- caught up in a divorce:

Family law experts, however, say the legislation will only make divorces harder on families and children because parents will be forced to invent allegations of abuse and mistreatment in order to justify the divorce.

Michael A. Robbins is current President of the Michigan Chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.

Robbins said that Michigan repealed fault divorces in 1972 because the process created needless hostility, collusion and perjury — people would make up stories of abuse to get out of their marriages.

Indeed.

When will Republicans learn to stop forcing government into the middle of people’s personal lives?

In a fight between local residents and one of the richest people in the world, one Michigan legislator put her seat on the line to protect the health of her constituents.

12th District Representative Rashida Tlaib represents part of downtown Detroit, and her residents have long suffered health problems and traffic jams caused by the Ambassador Bridge, linking Detroit to Canada. The bridge’s owner, billionaire Manuel Moroun, wants to build a second bridge nearby, but he’s refusing to do an environmental impact study to find out if vehicle fumes from the new bridge would worsen asthma and other health problems in the area.

Twenty percent of children in the neighborhood have asthma, including Rep. Tlaib’s four-year-old son, and local activists are convinced the new bridge would worsen the problem. Moroun, however, doesn’t seem to care one way or another, as he made clear in a meeting with Tlaib:

Despite rumors that she and Moroun were personally close, she said she has only met him once, at a meeting with another legislator. She asked him why he was resisting an environmental impact study for his proposed second span — a project the government of Canada opposes.

"I don't come in and tell you what to do in your back yard," he said.

She was repelled by the arrogance, not to mention what increasing truck traffic would do to her people's health.

Despite Moroun’s influence, his money, and his long history of political involvement (including donations to Republican committees in over a dozen states since 2004), Tlaib stood firm and threw her support behind a competing project to build a publicly-financed bridge a mile downriver. With better spacing, Tlaib reasoned, both the traffic and health problems would be reduced for everyone.

Tlaib’s stand won heavy praise from district residents, but Moroun was furious. So he did his best to destroy the duly-elected Representative. One of his political allies launched a series of recall petitions against Tlaib, seeking to remover her from office over her support for the competing bridge project. Tlaib still refused to back down, and the Wayne County Election Commission ultimately struck down the recall petitions as unlawfully vague.

Throughout the fight, Tlaib has remained wildly popular in her district, which she won with 90 percent of the vote in 2008. Nearly a hundred Tlaib supporters converged on the Wayne County Election Commission offices on the day of the recall hearing – a huge turnout for a regular municipal meeting.

But most importantly, Tlaib appears to be winning the fight for her constituents. The rival bridge project she supports continues to move ahead, with the Canadian government purchasing land for the project downriver from the Ambassador Bridge in Tlaib’s district. And the billionaire Moroun, for now at least, has been stymied.

Michigan Democrats are hitting the road this week, using a series of press conferences and town hall meetings to blast State Senate Republicans for blocking efforts to accept federal help for Michigan’s unemployed workers. The federal funding, totaling $138 million over two years, would offer temporary relief to workers undergoing job training programs or those who’ve only managed to find part-time employment.

All across Michigan, Democratic leaders are making the case for why the extra help is sorely needed:

The state expects 99,059 unemployed workers to run out of benefits by the first week in January, including 25,689 in Wayne County, 10,884 in Oakland County, and 10,158 in Macomb.

"It's really pretty horrific," said Dan Farough, spokesman for the House Democrats and Speaker Andy Dillon, D-Redford Township. "One hundred thousand people will have exhausted their unemployment benefits by year's end.

"This will hit local communities hard if we don't get something passed."

In addition to pumping $138 million in the state economy, the Democratic plans would also boost the economy by generating a more skilled workforce and eliminating the unemployment system’s penalty for accepting part-time jobs. And with the federal stimulus package footing the entire bill, the plan is a clear win-win for the state. Nevertheless, Senate Republicans have spent months blocking a vote on the measure.

This debate over Democratic plans for unemployment benefits is providing the clearest illustration yet that Michigan Democrats are the ones offering ideas and solutions, while the Republicans offer nothing but obstruction and broken promises to working families. That’s a lesson the state’s voters will not soon forget.

On July 2nd, Michigan joined a growing number of states that grant struggling homeowners a 90-day window to try and avoid mortgage foreclosure (we wrote about Illinois’s plan several months ago). Today, it’s clear that Michigan’s Democratic-sponsored program has been wildly successful in reducing the state’s foreclosure rate:

Michigan's foreclosure rate plummeted by 39 percent in July as compared to June, helped by a new state law that freezes foreclosure proceedings for 90 days.

Michigan ranked 19th for its foreclosure rate in July with one filing for every 548 households, according to RealtyTrac Inc. data released today. Michigan has ranked in the top 10 for foreclosures for more than three years except for dropping to 11 in April.

Michigan did hit the top 10 for the number of filings with 8,257 last month including 5,561 bank repossessions, said RealtyTrac, an Irvine, Calif.-based foreclosure Web site.

The big drop came in a 66% fall in scheduled property auctions as the moratorium requires lenders to offer delinquent homeowners 90 days to work on a loan modification. There were 2,695 in July compared with 7,965 in June.

The numbers are even more impressive compared to nationwide statistics, in which the national foreclosure rate actually rose 7% this month. While the true test of the 90-day grace period comes in a few months, Michigan Democrats are optimistic that their plan is already saving families’ homes:

"The numbers prove that our new program to protect homeowners is working," said State Representative Andy Coulouris (D-Saginaw), who sponsored the original plan. "By giving families this extra time to work out a solution with their lender and a housing counselor, we are helping people hold on to their piece of the American Dream in these tough economic times. Over and over again, what we've heard from homeowners is that they'd have been able to keep their homes, if they'd only had a bit more time to work things out. With our economy continuing to struggle, we need to make sure that our working families are getting the helping hand they need while they get back on their feet."

The most-watched legislative special election of 2009 might be in Michigan’s 19th Senate District, centered in Jackson and Calhoun Counties. We’ve mentioned our interest in the race from time to time, and there are many good reasons why this race has taken on such prominence in a year with dozens of state House and Senate special elections:

• The Stakes: With 30 open seats and only 4 incumbent Republicans running in 2010, there might never be a better opportunity to win a Senate majority and guarantee control over 2011 redistricting. If Democrats hold SD-19, we only need 4 more seats to accomplish this. If Republicans win it, they earn some extra breathing room for 2010.
  
  

• The Candidates: The leading Democratic and Republican candidates are well-respected State Representatives (one currently serving, the other forced out by term limits last year) who both represented districts inhospitable to their respective parties. Few special elections this year have featured this much talent on both sides.
  
  

• The Timeline: District 19 has been vacant since Mark Schauer won his US House seat, but the special general election won’t be held until this November 3rd. By then, the parties and candidates will have had nearly a year to campaign and fundraise.
  
  

• The District: Obama won this district by about 7% - similar to his national margin but also significantly under-performing his statewide margin of 16%. That makes this one of the truest “swing districts” to come up for special election this year.

This combination of high stakes, prominent candidates, months of hard campaigning, and an expected close finish make this Michigan special election one to watch. On that last point, the geographical features of the district, we highly recommend a newly-posted introduction to SD-19 over at SwingStateProject – complete with interactive maps, election histories, and anything else you’d want to know about the 19th Senate District.

We feel very good about our chances in this race, and we know state and local Democrats in Michigan are leaving nothing to chance. They’re working hard to win this election and put themselves in the best possible position to win back the Senate in time for 2011 redistricting.

Last month, when a prominent Alabama blog published election race rankings for every state legislative seat in the state, we noted that other state-wide rankings might be in the works. On Thursday, a Swing State Project contributor published rankings and summaries for every Michigan State Senate Race.

The cycle is still early in Michigan (primaries are August 3rd, 2010, with a May 11th filing deadline), but the senate landscape is slowly starting to take shape. One interesting pattern is that there will be almost no incumbents on the ballot for Michigan Senate races in 2010. Because of term limits, and barring any unexpected retirements, voters will fill 30 open seats while only 8 incumbents run for reelection (including the winner of an upcoming special election in District 19).

This year's special election is one we at the DLCC will watch very closely. Democrat Marty Griffin -- a former House member -- has announced his intention to run for the open seat.

Also, these rankings include presidential election results by district, and it’s pretty shocking to see how badly the Republican gerrymander broke down in Michigan last fall. Some of the most Republican senate districts in the state, even some ranked “likely Republican” by the author, were won by Obama. Between those results and the huge number of open seats, Michigan Democrats have to feel optimistic about gaining the 4 seats they need to take a majority.

Michigan Republicans have followed their ideological peers in Virginia by blocking a vote on a bill to accept $140 million in federal stimulus money for the state’s unemployment system. Like the Virginia bill, the Michigan legislation would have allowed some laid off part-time workers to receive benefits as a condition for accepting the federal funds.

Democrats slammed the Republican Senate leaders for blocking the plan, which would have boosted the local economy and helped thousands of Michigan families weather the recession:

State Senate Democratic Leader Mike Prusi said the Senate should act before beginning a two-week break.

"These bills have sat long enough," says Prusi, "Thousands of people are going without unemployment benefits because we refuse to act in this chamber, and I think now is the time to act before the we break for the summer, before we let these families go without the unemployment benefits that support them and support their children."

Republican behavior on this issue is especially infuriating because unemployment funding is such a major concern for the state. Michigan has the highest unemployment rate in the country, and the state’s unemployment system is more than $2 billion in debt -- far and away the heaviest debt burden of any unemployment system in the country. And the money to fix the system simply doesn’t exist because Michigan has seen catastrophic declines in sales, income, and corporate tax revenue since the recession began.

Michigan voters should be outraged that Republican senators won’t set aside partisanship and ideology to help their state. Instead, they’re determined to reject $140 million in federal money in the middle of a recession that’s hitting Michigan harder than any other state.