trifecta in penn? dont the republicans control the state legistlature

Please pound this message until your hands hurt.

Too many people don't get that there will be no resolution of the GOPs thug tactics until the heat is put on them.

As long as there is no disincentive for them to do evil deeds, they're not going to quit.

Hurt them hard with redistricting, and then ask them if they think a truly fair redistricting system should be made part of the Constitution.

They seem to like amendments, and maybe it will play to their anti-SCOTUS senses.

And if they're happy playing hardball, then fuck 'em.  Let 'em have it.

Maybe you have to speak to them in their language.

Don't forget New York! Spitzer's got the Governor's mansion, and the Dems have a chance, I believe, at taking the Senate.

Louisiana also enjoys a Democratic trifecta.

Every large Democratic dominated state should move aggressively to ram through the most partisan redistricts possible as soon as possible. Being the party of good government won't do Democrats any good if they have no hope of controlling the government.

Redistrict Hastert right out of the house.

The Ill. D's just don't have the guts to do whats right.

they proved it with their lemming like support of Emmanuels sock puppet carpetbagger duckworth instead of real progressive in Cegalis.

In complete agreement: let's draw new maps too!  I am one weary Democrat of always having my party be Charlie Brown and the Rethugs as Lucy with the football.  Is this party ever going to learn how to play hardball?  As to CA, the trifecta went into place in 1992 and there isn't much more we can squeeze out in Congressional seats.  The GOP capitulated to permanent minority status to keep incumbent protection.  That said we have a good chance of picking-up CA-11 (Pombo) simply because of the change in dynmics in that district without any reapportionment.

Now we're talking.  Let's play hardball.  We all know we're the true majority.  They are the party of the small states and electoral college minority politics.  We've got the big populations centers that we can divvy up and spread into Repub-exurban districts.  See how they like it?  I think this is horrible overall, but like Chris says what do we do in the meantime?  We have to fight back with what they give us.  Hopefully someday we'll be able to ammend the constitution or reach concensus on bipartisan commissions reshaping the districts every ten years as it should be.  The Supreme Court made another bad partisan Republican decision today ignoring 225 years of history and precedent.  Let's shove it up their ass.

what choice do we have?

Honestly, there should only be one redistricting a decade.  To me, it's clearly what was originally intended.  No one has ever thought anything different until the current gang of thugs took over.  We should pass a constitutional amendment just to make it clear that that's the way it should be from here on out.

But... before we do that, I agree.  They started it.  We should finish it.

Once we do that, the GOP will want to support such an amendment as well.

Ds got screwed in the 2002 redistricting in PA, but there's almost no chance of Dems retaking the state senate this year.  In the house there is a shot.

New York especially.  The senate is ripe for the taking and there is one group forming already in NYC that is aimed at taking the NY State Senate back for the purposes of redistricting.  

Redistricting fits quite nicely into the larger Northeastern Strategy to help take the house back.

Well I've always thought that IL could easily elimiante several Republicans. Here is what I would do:

IL-6/IL-13: I would throw Judy Biggert and Henry Hyde into one super-Republican district entirely within DuPage County.

IL-6: I would then take what's left of IL-6 and borrow some precincts from Rahm Emmanuel and Luis Guitterez. That makes that seat Democratic friendly.

IL-8: To solidify Melissa Bean I would then have her take a few of Jan Schiakowsky's more liberal precincts and switch with her to give her some heavily Republican parts of Cook County.

IL-10: I would then dramatically change Mark Kirk's district. I would turn into a very narrow coastal district running from the WI to IN border.

IL-11: This district would become closer to Chicago. I would take precincts from Jesse Jackson, Jr. and Bobby Rush and throw them in this district while giving Rush and Jackson the most conservaitve parts of IL-11. Thus Rush and Jackson will go from 80% Democratic districts to 65% Democratic districts. In the process Weller is in a tougher distirct.

Thus, in one stroke, it might be possible to elimiante Hyde, Kirk, and Weller.

Downstate, I am not that sure about. However, I bet that they could also somehow throw Dennis Hastert and Don Manzullo into one district. The could probably also put Ray Lahood and John Shimkus into one district.

Thus, it might also be possible to eliminate one or two downstate Republicans. That could conceivably allow the Democrats to pick up 3-5 seats alone in IL.

Anyone would have thought from the henny penny tone here that the Dems had never gerrymandered before!

I wonder whether the angst is partly down to fear that the party has gone soft and lost the knack for dirty pool...

You're not thinking.  Dems have never gerrymandered ever ever ever ever more than once every ten years.  Wake up.

We should really focus our gaze on Louisiana, where there is a Democratic House, Democratic Senate and a Democratic Governor.

Dems have the trifecta in Washington. And if Darcy Burner doesn't do it on her own in WA-08 this year, we could rig the odds for next time by adding a chunk of south Seattle or its blue-collar suburbs (White Center, Des Moines) to the district, and giving exurban east Pierce County to Adam Smith in the 9th, who could probably stomach a little more red in his district and still be safe. Of course, with the demographics in this district gradually changing in our favor (it's becoming less white and even better educated), it might be a moot point by 2012.

Agreed. This is the theme of the diary I wrote today; if the courts had taken authority over map-drawing, it would have largely been in the hands of the legal elite. I love the federal courts, but this is our arena, and I'm glad we retain power in it.

Let's put parts of Colorado Springs in the same district as all of Boulder!

Draft redistricting plans that go into effect for the 2008 elections if and only if the Congress fails to outlaw mid-decade redistricting as anything other than a remedy for an unconstitutional error in a previous map.

It'd draw a big circle around the problem - mid-decade, partisan redistricting - and put it squarely on the shoulders of Congress to remedy.

If Congress fails to act, they have only themselves to blame for the mess they made.

The Republicans will continue to pull this shit as long as it hurts them more than it helps.

It needs to start hurting them. The pain needs to be relentless.

All the blue states, all of them, need to look into redistricting at the next available opportunity.

If we win back the house in 2006, then for heaven's sake put a federal statutory limit on redistricting.

Texan Chet Edwards, the only targeted representative who retained his seat after the redistricting (defeating the odious Arlene Wohlgemuth in the process) has vowed to introduce such a bill in the next session. Let's send him back to do that.

Until we can do enact that protection, we fight on the field we find ourselves on. And we give no quarter, because we certainly can expect none.

The new redistricting law could even be keyed to Texas's behavior:

"We, the legislators of the state of Illinois, proclaim that the legislature of the state of Texas has 30 days to establish fair districting, as defined below.  If Texas does not establish fair districting in 30 days, then the state of Illinois shall compensate by establishing the following new districts.  Etc"

Of course, Texas won't do anything in response, but it's a good media ploy.

I agree absolutely. If the Repugs are willing to do it then the Democrats should not hold back because they fear there may be some negative press about it. And one the most important possibilities is in New York. In the last election the Democrats made important gains in the state senate, and with Spitzer and Clinton certain of landslide victories there is a real chance that the Democrats could take control of the state Senate in this election. If that happens they should then redistrict at all levels; if they can do that the Repugs will never control either house of the state legislature again, and we could pick up a number of house seats.  

Colorado constitution only allows census (decade) gerrymandering, that was the basis of overthrowing the attempt in 2004 to mander the state.

There are a couple strategic reasons (as opposed to moral reasons) why we would want to think carefully about this.

(1) Easy to spread the butter too thin, eg: TX-22 Delay's seat. In an average year, gerrymandering works well for the party that controlled it. But, in years of transition like 1994 (& hopefully 2006), a bunch of the seats believed to be safe suddenly become precarious. This would be due to miscalculations about how many of "us" we need in each district.

(2) Shifting Party Coalitions, eg: GOP Southern Strategy makes it more difficult to predict outcomes. Both parties are made up of ideological coalitions. Geography is somewhat predictive of party affiliation, but it is much more significant factor defining segmentation and faults within the parties.

What happens when we enter periods of ideological change? Or, what about population growth?

Re: OK, Fine. Let's Draw Some New Maps (none / 0)

In complete agreement: let's draw new maps too!  I am one weary Democrat of always having my party be Charlie Brown and the Rethugs as Lucy with the football.  Is this party ever going to learn how to play hardball?  As to CA, the trifecta went into place in 1992 and there isn't much more we can squeeze out in Congressional seats.  The GOP capitulated to permanent minority status to keep incumbent protection.  That said we have a good chance of picking-up CA-11 (Pombo) simply because of the change in dynmics in that district without any reapportionment.

With all due respect ... the statement "there isn't much more we can squeeze out" when it comes to Calif. redistricting is completely wrong.  I am  a total nerd when it comes to the minutiae of this stuff (majored in political science and geography) and can tell you that you could fairly easily squeeze out upwards to 10 more Democratic seats out of Calif. and make the delegation an incredible 43 to 10 -- assuming, as the Supreme Court now has ruled, you could gerrymander politically and geographically any way you want to as long as you do not dilute already existing african-american and latino minority strength  -- if the Dems. had the power and guts to do it, they could technically draw such a map (yes, the districts would have bizzare boundaries and look crazy as heck ... but apparently the Sup. CT. doesn't have a problem with that) ..... the 2002 plan was a complete compromise with the Repubs. There's half a dozen districts in the Bay area alone (most of them not minority-majority) where the Dem. percentages approach 70-80%; some of those Dems.  could easily be spread out into adjoining Rep. districts making  CA 11, CA 3, etc., etc. Democratic.  In so. calif. the process would be more tricky, as you would have to preserve the minority-majority statuts of certain districts,; however, you could actually use that fact to your advantage and have some of the new Democratic districts created be majority-minority or more likely "majority-influenced" where a district would not necessarily have to be minority-majority but could be drawn in such a way where a minority candidiate wins the Dem. primary  and then goes on to win the general as the district is more Dem. than Rep..... Anyhow, turning additional districts from Dem. to Rep. in Calif. (and other states) is easily doable as long as you can geographically do all kinds of weird gerrymanders ... and if Dems. have the power and guts to do it ....

... I meant "minority-influenced" in the last post....not "majority-influenced"....

n1 n2 n3 n4 n5 n6 n7 n8 n9 n10 n11 n12 n13 n14 n15 n16 n17