Go for it Rahm & Blago

Money quote from the RollCall article blogged by Markos: Redistricting is no longer simply a once-a-decade process but rather part of the ongoing struggle by both parties to make gains in the House.

This one comes in under "if it's not against the law then use it" as a means to an end, and that's exactly the rules by which Republicans are playing. That's what DeLay figured out and has practiced, while Democrats in the House have seemingly wished it would go away.

If the system is broken, then fine, overhaul it with a national plan. Otherwise, play by the rules and go for the win.

How many seats could the Democrats gain in Illinois with a mid-decade gerrymander? Personally, I like the idea of pushing Henry Hyde(6th) and Dennis Hastert(14th) into the same district.

Democrats believe their best opportunities lie in Illinois, New Mexico and Louisiana, where Democrats have seized control of all the levers of state government in those states since the 2001 reapportionment and redistricting.

Democratic Govs. Rod Blagojevich (Ill.) and Bill Richardson (N.M.) as well as high-ranking Louisiana elected officials have been contacted by members of House leadership led by Hoyer since the Georgia legislature began their re-redistricting.

...With its 19 House seats, Illinois appears to be the state with the biggest potential for re-redistricting gains by Democrats.

When the lines were initially drawn in 2001, it was the result of a bipartisan compromise in the state Legislature, which at the time had split control; Republicans had a majority in the state Senate and Democrats had a majority in the state House. The governor was a Republican.

The plan, which had to account for the state's loss of a seat in reapportionment, aimed to protect incumbents of both parties; the casualty was Democratic Rep. David Phelps who was forced into a Member versus Member race against Rep. John Shimkus (R) in a southern Illinois district that favored the GOP.

In the 2002 election, Blagojevich won the governor's race and Democrats reclaimed the state Senate, giving them full control for the first time since 1977.

Many party strategists believe that given the state's growing Democratic dominance -- Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry carried Illinois by 10 points in the 2004 presidential election -- the fact that Republicans hold nine of the 19 seats is a correctable anomaly.

Democrats believe that a re-opening of the Illinois lines could yield at least two seats; one could be carved out of the suburbs surrounding Chicago, which are currently represented entirely by Republicans including House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.).

Another gain could come in southern Illinois in areas Phelps represented prior to the redistricting of 2001. Much of the territory Shimkus now represents was held by Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin during his fourteen years in the House.

When asked whether Illinois Democrats should entertain the possibility of redrawing the state's districts, Durbin said: "Talk to [DCCC Chairman] Rahm Emanuel [D-Ill.]."

Now that I think about it, why not push Jerry Weller (11th) and Judy Biggert (13th) also in the same CD's, and finger out a few of those Chicago seats into the burbs, making 2 new seats, besides angling for an additional southern seat.

Also, Common Cause and the League of Women Voters are getting behind the redistricting effort in Florida: Similar overhauls are being considered this year in at least seven other states.

Democrats can't hold back and watch Republicans go after mid-decade gerrymanders in Texas, Colorado, and now Georgia, and soon California, and ever expect to win back the House majority if they are sitting on their hands.



Display:


Florida Redistricting (none / 0)

Can't get to the Orlando Sentinel article, but are there multiple competing redistricting plans for Florida, or is this it?
by Drew on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 03:45:07 PM EST

Re: Florida Redistricting (none / 0)

Yea, that's the effort in Florida.
by Jerome Armstrong on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 03:48:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Then perhaps the petitions (none / 0)

Deserve a link (PDF) in the main story?
by Drew on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 03:59:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Play to win NOW (2.50 / 2)

Fix the system once we have power back. If we don't take the gloves off and fight them tooth and nail every step of the way then we'll never have a chance again and they will truly have achieved their vision of a one party totalitarian United States of America.
The 10,000 Things
by Andrew C White on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 03:48:08 PM EST

Re: Play to win NOW (none / 0)

Hard to do when we're trying to get power in a system they're rigging to keep power.
"into your illusion, i make my intrusion"
by fng on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 03:51:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Leverage (3.00 / 1)

I don't know how you'd ever get any leverage for national redistricting/anti-gerrymandering legislation if it is only Republicans doing the redistricting. Republicans aren't going to give anything to the Democrats.

It is clearly anti-democratic (small d) behavior to do partisan gerrymanders but what can you do? The aggressive Republican efforts to open the redistricing front in new states following on their success in Texas can't be ignored. What options are there besides fighting fire with fire?

The possibility of aggressive Democratic partisan gerrymanders just might bring the Republicans to the table to discuss national legislation. Let's hope so. This is no way to run a republic.

by Curt Matlock on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 03:51:28 PM EST

Overlooked advantages in Illinois (none / 0)

Being from the great state represented by senior Sen. Dick Durbin (!), thought I'd add some insight.

In former rock solid Republican collar counties such as Du Page, Democrats have made enormous gains in the last two decades. In 1996, Dole beat Clinton in Du Page Co. by 150,000 votes. In 2004, Bush beat Kerry by a mere 38,000 votes!

Even if a partisan gerrymandering were to jeopardize the political longevity of a Henry Hyde or Denny Hastert, the test for Dean and the state Dem Party would be to field a credible candidate - with very Moderate/Centrist views - and that makes several GOP seats instantly vulnerable. And, the same goes for Downstate districts as well. The one, solid advantage the Illinois Dems already have Downstate, is the enormous popularity of our two U.S. Senators!

One other factor, is the serious miscalculation of the Conservative wing that controls the state GOP party. You may be surprised to learn that Alan Keyes' Senate candidacy actually energized the base in the state, with leading Conservative thinker Chgo Sun-Times Thomas Roeser advocating building the party around Keyes' Renew America PAC.

If Dems were able to connect the similarities in Bush's incompetence with the wing nut intolerance of the Keyes' converts, and paint their Congressional candidates as willing enablers, Illinois could be a richer shade of Blue, as a result.

by thatcoloredfella on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 03:47:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Rahm: Do it. (3.00 / 1)

Should we put our money where our mouth is? How about a blogosphere effort - donate $$$ to the DCCC and the State Parties who push redistricting...

I.E. Success breeds results: get success, get cash.

by mrstas on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 03:53:35 PM EST

Re: Rahm: Do it. (none / 0)

I'd put some money towards that effort.
Future Majority / Young Philly Politics
by Alex Urevick on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 04:13:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually this is a win-win situation (none / 0)

I thought DeLay's power grab was uncalled for, and Schwarzengger is only pushing his idea because he thinks there will be more Republicans winning races.

Nevertheless, if the Democrats step up the heat in other states it actually portends well. A lack of secure districts means that more races will be hotly -contested and it means that more media attention will be attributed to these races "waking up" people to what is at stake.

Any national compromise would then have to neutralize both sides to be effective...allowing us to put DeLay's noctural emissions to rest for now.

by risenmessiah on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 04:01:08 PM EST

Re: Actually this is a win-win situation (none / 0)

State by state analysis:

Illinois: maybe 2 more seats thru severe gerrymandering

NM: 1 more seat

LA: maybe 1 more seat

On the other hand:

CO: 1 more Republican seat

TX: 1 more Republican seat

GA: 1-2 more Republican seats

Net result: possible gain of 1 Democratic seat nationwide.

This isn't the right path.

Sure we can do it.  But we'd be giving up something that is worth much, much more.  It's called the moral high ground.

We can't take back the House this way.

We need to put some ideas out there that will bring our side together.  I hate to say "Contract with America," but, yes, something along those lines.  But with a Progressive message that is appealing to middle-class Americans.

by meme on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 02:16:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Texas has already been redistricted... (none / 0)

...by the Republicans.  Georgia is next on thier list.

Look, they are already doing it in states they control.  This isn't a choice we have, either we do the same to keep up, or we lose.

by Geotpf on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 05:23:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

And Colorado is off the table (none / 0)

The Colorado Supreme Court has already held that mid-decade redistricting violates Colorado law.  Those numbers aren't changing either.

Mid-decade redistricting is a horrible idea.  But as a Texan, I want some payback against Tom DeLay.  Let this idea bite him in the ass.  And then, use this as a means to push for a nationwide nonpartisan standard on redistricting.

by kenfair on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 10:33:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

See how far threatening will take us (none / 0)

I hate sinking to the levels of DeLay and his cronies although I see how more and more it looks like we must. I think we have a true trump card though in Illinois. There it can be about so much more than picking up a seat or three, but about knocking out the Speaker of the House. They took down Daschle lets take out Hastert, or at least threaten to unless redistricitng plans are dropped in Georgia and elsewhere. If they insist on coming after our troops lets take out their general.
by Bothwell on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 04:10:41 PM EST

aggressively gerrymander for the short term (3.00 / 1)

The more we mid-decade gerrymander the more public support there will be for nonpartisan districts because if the resoulution ends up being a push non-partisan redistricting will lead to a more bipartisan legislation, also it will look like a abuse of power by both sides while not hurting Democrats anymore than it hurts Republicans.
Councilman Bill Painter
by Painter2004 on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 04:12:13 PM EST

Re: aggressively gerrymander for the short term (none / 0)

You may be on to something... the ends could justify the means here.
However, I worry about how all of this will be spun. Which party is better at spinning its opponents' excesses for political gain? I don't think it's us.
by dbp on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 09:23:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Gerrymandering (none / 0)

Yeah, as part of an overall strategy to push for, in the long term, some kind of sensible Federal guidelines, this is the only thing that makes sense.

Still leaves a nasty taste in my mouth.  We should probably at least introduce the Federal legislation concurrently.

by Kimmitt on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 04:35:52 PM EST

sounds good to me (none / 0)

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
by alhill on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 04:49:17 PM EST

NO (2.50 / 2)

No no no. This is wrong.
If Republican gerrymandering is wrong, then Democratic gerrymandering is also wrong. What we need are nonpartisan panels doing the districting. I do not want to see my party become Tom Delay-lite. This whole concept is undemocratic.
Districts should be drawn according to where people live, not snaked down through Democratic regions. If we want to district things so that cities (Chicago) make up the majority of otherwise Republican districts, fine.
by dbp on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 09:22:24 PM EST

Re: NO (3.00 / 0)

I agree with you completely in principle, but this is a good tactic for the short term.

Republicans have redistricted and want more. If the Democrats redistrict their states, it offsets these losses and gives them a barganing chip. (How about a truce - fairly drawn districts?)

by wayward on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 09:38:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NO (none / 0)

The idea of using it as a bargaining chip to get fair districts has some merit. However, I think the Republicans' efficient spin machine will be able to paint it as some sort of extortion... I know it's not logical, but then again, neither is an Al-Qaeda/Saddam connection, and that went over well...
That being said, I'd consider threatening it to get some sort of compromise.
by dbp on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 10:23:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry (none / 0)

The Democrats always play the gracious losers, unwilling to "stoop to thier level".  So we lose.  I'm sick of losing.

Fuck that.

If they play hardball, we have to play hardball as well.  That's how the game is played.  Now, if we can come up with a nationwide non-partisan redistricting plan, fine.  But until then, thier side is redistricting states that they control.  If we don't do the same, we LOSE.  I can't believe people have a problem with this.  You must like losing.

by Geotpf on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 05:21:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sorry (none / 0)

I happen to like democratic (small d) ideals. Drawing districts to favor the party of the incumbent is NOT democratic, and should not be done.
Look, if we gerrymander somewhere, what's going to happen? Are incumbents going to give the power to non-partisan boards to do sensible districts? Or will they appoint Republicans and Democrats to create 97% safe districts that protect the incumbents' party, leaving about 10 seats up for grabs each election?
It might be just me, but I think incumbents will look to protect their positions of power (and, by extension, other incumbents' positions of power) before taking the chance of having a split district.
by dbp on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 01:48:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

New Donkey Weighs In (none / 0)

New Donkey weighs in

Personally, I hate all this re-redistricting crap, and the whole system of partisan and incumbent-protection gerrymandering that has reduced the People's House of Congress to a vast rotten borough where politicians choose voters rather than the other way around. But if Republicans continue to game the system, they can't complain if Democrats retaliate where they can, and maybe the whole spectacle can build support for a truly national drive for comprehensive redistricting reform.

Maybe those Georgia Republican jokers will smell the coffee and call off the dogs before their own party's House speaker finds himself hunted as well. --


by Curt Matlock on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 12:56:33 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.