Redistricting

Last week, GOPAC released a video/web ad promoting Bob McDonnell for Governor in Virginia. Here's the ad:

Another group, with "GOP" in the name" dropping a campaign ad. Ho hum, right? Not exactly.

GOPAC was founded by by Pete DuPont and led by Newt Gingrich as a vehicle for operative training, candidate recruitment, and funnelling of money to state legislative races. The organization had a central role in identifying leaders who eventually became part of the 1994 Republican majorities.

So why is this group running an ad? That's the key thing. I talked to Frank Donatelli, the new Chairman of GOPAC, who was previously Deputy Chairman of the Republican National Committee. (In some sense Donatelli swapped jobs with RNC Chairman Michael Steele, who had been Chairman of GOPAC)

GOPAC lives in a new context, completely different than any GOP group has in the past, and it is worth comparing to two previous points in GOP history, 1999 and 1979.

Think back to 1999, when the GOP also did not control the White House. Several things are different from then, and some things were the same. Redistricting was and is coming, and in redistricting, the composition of the state legislatures matters more than Congress for that exercise. GOPAC targets state legislatures. A complete national redistricting plan involves putting points on the board in state legislatures. But since 1999, we have seen campaign finance reform which shrunk the amount of money that could be spent on both legislative races and complicated legal operations like redistricting. Much of a national redistricting plan has to be executed outside of the RNC.

The Democrats have built new infrastructure with 527s (GOPAC's tax status) in the form of groups like the Secretary of States Project. These can use huge individual and corporate contributions. GOPAC is part, but only part, of a complete answer to addressing the redistricting problem.

Unlike 1999, we are down in Congress. The next block of Members of Congress who get us back into the majority will come from the states. This is more like 1979 when Newt started trying to identify a new generation of Congressional leadership. And GOPAC was part of that operation that eventually delivered a majority.

I have argued that our next majority will likely come from new leaders, both for ideological and logistical reasons. GOPAC is putting together a "Rising Stars" program that is trying to identify these new leaders. One example that Chairman Donatelli told me about was Chris Saxman. Anyone who has met Chris knows that he has a great future ahead of him, in addition to his key role in the Virginia legislature.

The media is going to focus on big, splashy things like Arlen Specter's switch of parties yesterday. But Specter is the tail end of an old phenomenon. GOPAC could well be the leading edge of a new one. It won't be flashy for a while, but the spadework is happening now. And it is hard work.

But GOPAC and similar groups are where the action will happen. They are where we will find the next Republican majority and the new Republican coalition and message.

The GOP is literally at a make or break point that could a establish a fait accompli   

As we enter into the closing year of the new millenniums first decade, the approaching official national census process is where some, if not a large portion of the battle for our political future will take place.

After the census has been taken in 2010, every legislative district from which we elect council members in local and city governments to state legislators and members of congress will be redrawn based upon the population shifts determined by the census.

This means that once those figures have been established, during 2010, state legislatures will spend the following year redrawing new legislative districts.

Despite laws that try to regulate how legislative maps can be drawn and try to eliminate gerrymandering, redistricting is primarily a political process that is left up to the political party or parties with majority control at the time that redistricting occurs. That said, the powers that be use their majority status to creatively draw new legislative districts that favor their party. A handful of states have separatecommissions that draw the district lines.  Some of those grant veto to the states governors and some don’t.  But regardless, even those commissions, involved in those 6 or states, contain a degree of politcal leanings.

In either event, by using a range of election results from over the last 8 years or so, party leaders establish where their favorable votes come from. Using that as their basis, they draw districts that contain a plurality of population centers that favor their party.

This allows the majority political party to substantially consolidate power by creating new election districts that are likely to send more of their kind to their county seats and state capitols as well as those who we send to congress.

Regardless of the laws that are designed to take political influence out of the redistricting process and despite the various state redistricting commissions that are set up to oversee the process, it is an entirely political process. You must understand that the politicians create the new districts maps themselves or appoint the redistricting commissions regulating the process. Even when the courts have to step in, it remains a political process…….Who appoints the judges that make the rulings on this type of stuff?…..The politicians. So no matter what, it is a fact that the redistricting process is a political process. To pretend it isn’t, is a demonstration of naiveté that should prohibit one from even discussing politics. The only arguable point may be the varying degree of politicization that the process holds for one state or another.

Keeping that in mind, in one sense the census will, or could benefit, Republicans on the national level.  Having the majority in various state legislatures is key though. 

Areas such as the Northeast will see a decreased sizes in population. That will result in several Northeastern states losing congressional seats. The region has practically no congressional Republicans left. Connecticut’s Chris Shays was one of the last few holdouts and his overreaching attempts to appeal to  Democrat by essentially voting like a Democrat didn’t hack it. Republicans did not like his trying to be a liberal and liberals did not find him liberal enough so he’s out.

But the loss of seats through redistricting in the Northeast, where Republicans don’t have many seats, will favor Republicans where they are still strong….the South and West.

The census will show a strong increase in Southern population and so will the West. That means the representation lost in places like New Jersey and New York will be added to places like Florida and California, where the increased population will get increased representation. Except for California that bodes well for Republicans, but not in and of itself.

The party in power of each individual state legislature will ultimately determine the final redistricting maps. The party in charge at the time will create new districts that favor themselves and increases their own pluralities in their state capitol. They will do the same with their own states congressional delegation to washington, DC, as they draw congressional districts that favor their party as well.

So that means, if, for example, New Jersey has A Democrat Governor and a Democrat majority in the state senate and the state assembly, which they do now, Democrats will make their existing state legislative districts more favorable to electing Democrats. They will also draw congressional districts that are inclined to do the same. In fact, with the possible loss of one seat due to relatively decreased population growth, the Democrat dominated state legislature would probably emaciate one of the rare congressional districts that Republicans have held, forever, in Northern New Jersey. In the recent 2008 election, incumbent Republican Congressman Mike Fergusson retired and his seat was won by a Republican state senator named Leonard Lance. After redistricting, he and his seat will probably be gerrymandered out of existence.

This all points to the following .

• The GOP Must Act Quickly

We need to select a Republican National Chairman who has a vision of inclusiveness and a passionate command of the issues and ideological fervor that is rooted in the conservative foundation that has always been the basis of our most productive legislative sessions and our most successful election cycles. That person must also have the capacity for exceptional organizational development and cutting edge thinking that can exploit the internet and the grassroots. The new chairman must also be willing to act quickly and accept the fact that we need to prepare for the redistricting process that begins in 2010.  Any loss of time leading up to 2010 will wreak havoc on our prospects for the decade to follow. (Newt…..are you reading this?)

• A Bottoms Up Strategy

The new Republican National Committee Chairman must immediately focus on and direct all resources to local and state legislative elections. This may sound out of place for the “national” committee, however, by the time the end of 2010 rolls around, it is the state level which will strongly effect our national prospects in the redistricting process that occurs at the start of the next decade.

By spending the next two years establishing strong candidates to run strong campaigns for state senate and assembly seats, we will increase control of the state legislative bodies that are ultimately responsible for the redistricting that they will undertake after the 2010 census results. With that power and opportunity we will be able to draw new congressional districts that are favorable for increasing Republican pluralities in the newly drawn seats that will be up for grabs in 2012.

Without control of the redistricting process Democrats will have the opportunity to gerrymander more Republicans out of office and make it even harder to get elected into office . That will only make the decade to come more difficult for us to increase our state legislative and congressional prospects.

The new chairman of the RNC, whoever it may be, better be willing to utilize the little time we have between now and then wisely. The once every decade redistricting process that the new chairman should prepare us for could have more of an effect on GOP prospects and our regaining majority status in congress than any of the elections that will follow

GOOD ANSWERS

I guess I would have voted with the majority if it was a close vote. But I agree with the arguments the minority made.
–President Bill Clinton, on the 1991 Gulf War resolution

“I’m not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president.”
–Hillary Clinton commenting on the release of subpoenaed documents

I haven’t committed a crime. What I did was fail to comply with the law.
–David Dinkins, New York City Mayor, answering accusations that he failed to pay his taxes.

Things are more like they are now than they ever were before.
–Former U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower

The streets are safe in Philadelphia. It’s only the people who make them unsafe.
–Frank Rizzo, ex-police chief and mayor of Philadelphia

I have lied in good faith.
– Bernard Tapie, French politician accused of fixing a soccar match involving the team he owned, when his sworn alibi fell apart in court.

I don’t need bodyguards.
–Jimmy Hoffa, labor leader

Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country.
–Mayor Marion Barry, Washington, DC

The police are not here to create disorder. They’re here to preserve disorder.”
–Former Chicago mayor Daley during the infamous 1968 Democratic Party convention

China is a big country, inhabited by many Chinese.
–Former French President Charles de Gaulle

                                                    Click on the link above to see more of Politcs 24/7

(cross-posted at www.KungFuQuip.com)

Last week the Obama campaign released a list of states where it was going up with advertising - Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Virginia.

An odd grouping of states, no doubt.  I saw a couple of posts that could explain most of those choices, but te authors always had trouble with Alaska, North Dakota and other outliers. Most posts simply suggested this was a combination of three things; trying to expand the map, normal targeting choices, and pipe dreams.

I disagree and I'd like to propose a new theory - one that I believe explains every choice very clearly.

At about the same time this list was released, I was listening to a presentation regarding state legislative bodies and places where the partisan control of chambers was razor thin.  What surprised me was the striking similarity between the two lists.