Redistricting Nuts-and-Bolts, Part 2

As for the rest of the state, the Republicans have two major liabilities: the 7^th district and the 1^st district. They probably have the votes to shore up one of these districts, but not both. Their choice is between siphoning off Republican areas from safe seats (Districts 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 11) and sending them north to the first, or south to the seventh.

The seventh district is probably the Republicans’ better bet to hold safely in the 2012-2020 cycles. Yes, the GOP was able to flip the first district this past cycle, but that was largely a combination of the popular Democratic incumbent not seeking reelection and a wave year boosting the Republican candidate to victory in the open race. In a typical year, there are more Democrats than Republicans in the first, and as soon as the Dems find another Bart Stupak – i.e. a Blue Dog with social conservative credibility who runs ahead of the rest of the Democratic ticket – the seat should revert to the Democrats.

Geographically, the seventh district won’t be easy to stack with Republicans. The district is bounded by state boundaries to the south and Democratic-leaning areas in any other direction the Republicans might try to expand it: Ann Arbor to the east, Lansing to the north, and Kalamazoo to the west. How exactly the Republicans will try to stack it will depend on how much population the district will need to add. If the district needs to lose population or doesn’t need to add much, they can probably move GOP-leaning bits and pieces from the 3^rd, 6^th, 8^th, 11^th, and even the 15^th districts to shore up their numbers in the 7^th without giving too much away in the other districts.

Redistricting Nuts-and-Bolts, Part 1

This redistricting cycle will see Michigan losing a seat from its Congressional delegation. De rigeur in these situations is to combine two districts controlled by the opposing party, forcing the two incumbents into a primary that only one of them can win. Ideally, you hope that one of these districts is represented by a long-time Congressional veteran, the other represented by a relative newcomer and rising star in the other party. These primary races tend not to be kind to the newbies, so combining districts typically serves to short-circuit otherwise promising political careers. The gerrymandering party is left with one Congressperson they’ve dealt with for decades and a former Congressperson with lots of potential and nowhere to go but down.

Under the usual run of things, those districts in Michigan would be the 13^th and 14^th, which will be represented in the upcoming 112^th Congress by freshman Congressman Hansen Clarke and born-in-a-committee-hearing Capitol Hill veteran John Conyers, respectively. However, because these districts are Michigan’s only majority-minority districts, this is not the usual run of things. A full explanation of majority-minority districts can be found here, but the relevant information about them is that they’re one of the tools created by the Voting Rights Act to prevent minorities from being disenfranchised through redistricting.

The Sky Isn't Actually Falling

With respect to the Chicken Littles of Michigan Democratic politics, I’m not ready to throw my hat in with the “complete Republican control over the redistricting process will mean the end of the Michigan Democratic Party, and possibly the Apocalypse” crowd quite yet. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying it’s a good thing: it’s much worse than the alternatives of split or Democratic control. Nonetheless, even if optimism isn’t quite called for, we should put off seppuku for at least another election cycle.

The reasons I’m staying sanguine about Democratic chances for the next decade fall into roughly two categories: 1. Republicans controlled the redistricting process in 2001, so the current districts are already Republican-gerrymandered: The only difference between the new districts they’ll draw and the current ones will be that the gerrymander will be more up-to-date. 2. There are simply too many Democrats in this state (assuming they actually get to the polls) for any drawing of the lines to solidify Republican majorities for long.

The argument I’m making – that the Republican screw-job we’re about to experience come redistricting time won’t be that much worse than the status quo – carries with it a very depressing corollary: that the Republican screw-job we’ve been dealing with for the past ten years has been remarkably effective.

Institutional Memory

As everyone is well aware, Democrats took quite a thrashing in the recent November elections.  This was mainly because there was a distinct lack of turnout on the Democratic side.  Looking back at all the totals across the state, Republicans did not get that many more votes than usual, Democrats did not show up.  But it is never too early to start looking at the next election cycle and how we will be able to make the necessary gains we need to attain in 2012.  

There is going to be one key issue Democrats will have 18 months from now that is not getting enough attention; this is the lack of institutional memory among campaign staffers.  President Obama had very high popularity in the 2008 election cycle, primarily with the younger voters.  That campaign was about getting the young people both motivated and involved in campaigns; there was a definite trickle down from that election cycle to this year.  But with the drubbing Democrats took this year, especially at the state level, the legislative staff cuts, and Democrats not holding one state-wide office, there is a serious lack of available jobs out there for these young staffers.  

So the question is: where will they go and what will they do if they cannot find a political job for the next 18 months?