Why state redistricting will favor the GOP
Owing to rapid suburban growth, geography works in the Repblicans' favor in redrawing the lines for Congressional and legislative seats.
Washington Secretary of State
Two things will drive the 2012 elections: the economy and redistricting. The economy will be the major issue, but elections are often won and lost by where you draw the lines. The census data indicates that in Washington state redistricting should produce two wide open, highly competitive congressional elections in 2012, and a legislative playing field tilted a bit more in favor of the GOP.
In Washington state, we do redistricting the right way. Rather than letting the majority party in the legislature draw the maps, we appoint a four-person commission made up of two Republicans and two Democrats. Three out of the four have to agree in order to produce a plan. This commission is now at work, and has until the end of 2011 to draw new congressional and legislative maps.
Although redistricting can get rather "creative," our commission system, and the courts, have made outright gerrymandering pretty much impossible. Districts all have to be the same population size. They have to be contiguous. And they need to keep “communities of interest” intact as much as possible. "Communities of interest" would include cities, counties, recognized neighborhoods, etc. Data drives redistricting.
We now have census data for each of the nine congressional districts and the 49 legislative districts. Each of the new congressional districts needs to include just over 672,000 people; the new legislative districts will have just over 137,000. For a Republican or Democrat, it is generally good news if your current districts are too big (too much population) and bad news if they are too small (too little population). If your districts are too big that means you can spread your voters into more districts, giving you a chance to win more seats. Being too small means your current districts get larger and your partisan advantage is diluted.
The first rule of Washington state politics is the farther away you get from downtown Seattle, Tacoma, Spokane, and Vancouver, the more Republican the state becomes. The new outer-ring suburbs are more Republican than the older, close-in suburbs. The 2010 census data shows that east Pierce County, King County east of lake Sammamish, suburban Clark County, and the Tri Cities are the fast growing areas in the state, while growth closer in to the urban core has slowed.
On the legislative side, this pattern of growth should increase the chances of Republican gains in 2012. Consider the situation in the urban core of western Washington. There are 14 legislative districts in the central Puget Sound west of lake Washington, running north-south from Everett, through Seattle and Tacoma, to Lakewood. Those 14 districts are overwhelmingly Democratic, electing only two Republicans to the legislature, and they are all too small in terms of population. Taken together this group of districts has to add over 120,000 people to its boundaries. All these districts need to get larger, pushing their boundaries to the north, south, or east.
This means that highly competitive suburban districts on their borders, such as districts 1, 44, 45, 41, 47, 28, 31, and 25, will be pushed east, made a bit more compact, and more Republican. All these districts are considered toss ups now and produced close races in 2010. This process will likely push some of them more firmly into the Republican column.
Another scenario would involve moving an entire district out of Seattle and placing it in the fast-growing suburbs in Pierce or Clark counties. Seattle has enough population to merit slightly more than four legislative districts. Currently the 43rd, 46th, and 36th districts lie entirely in the city limits, while the 34th, 11th, and 37th districts begin in downtown and reach south into Highline, Tukwila, and Renton. That’s six "Seattle districts." The Republicans can certainly make the claim that a current Seattle district should be relocated.
Either way, it is very possible that some Democratic incumbents in or near Seattle will be forced to run against other Democratic incumbents. In the north end, for example, seven Democratic legislators — Marco Liias, Maralyn Chase, Cindy Ryu, Ruth Kagi, Rosemary McAuliffe, Derek Stanford, and Luis Moscoso — all live within a few miles of each other, near the borders between the 32nd, 1st, and 21st districts. The 32nd has to grow by 15,000 people, and it almost certainly will have to grow north, swallowing up the homes of the Democratic legislators on the other side of the current boundary.
The challenges for the Democrats aren’t confined exclusively to Seattle. In Spokane, for instance, the heavily Democratic downtown 3rd district has to add 16,000 people. This will give Republicans a chance to move Democratic precincts from the currently competitive 6th district into the Democratic 3rd, making the 6th a safe GOP district once again.
The Democratic commissioners will do all they can to mitigate the damage, but the data will almost certainly produce a map that will increase the chances that Republicans gain seats in Olympia.
On the congressional side, all eyes will be on where the new 10th district ends up. That district will certainly be competitive, and it is highly likely that the 1st Congressional district seat, which Rep. Jay Inslee is expected to vacate to run for governor, will be competitive as well.
Using the community-of-interest factor, Republicans should be able to keep all of Seattle in the 7th district, the Democratic bastion held by Jim McDermott. Rep. Dave Reichert (R-8th) lives east of Auburn, and he probably wants a district that runs south from his home, jettisoning the highly competitive Eastside and its close-in suburbs. Rep. Rick Larsen (D-2nd) will probably succeed in keeping downtown Everett in his district. Rep. Adam Smith (D-9th) may inherit more of Thurston County.
That would leave the 1st and the new 10th as open seats made up suburban communities from Federal Way and Highline, to Bellevue and the Eastside, and north into south Snohomish counties. I think this arrangement of the political geography is the most likely scenario, and it would certainly produce two very interesting Congressional in 2012.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Fri, Apr 15, 8:11 a.m. Inappropriate
Something is seriously amiss if redistricting as a result of the 2010 census ends up with a GOP advanatge. The same census shows that Washington is turning younger, browner, and poorer, all things that should work against the supposed suburban migration to the GOP.
Posted Fri, Apr 15, 8:17 a.m. Inappropriate
I don't know if it is geography that will work to the GOP's favor so much as failed policies of the Democratic Party that is driving the state and its junior jurisdictions to fiscal insolvency.
Posted Fri, Apr 15, 8:54 a.m. Inappropriate
BlueLight-
The phrase "fiscal insolvency" and the like is bandied about over the likes of Faux News and so forth like a mantra, but it's simply not true.
The state cannot become fiscally insolvent. It is required by the constitution to have a balanced budget every biennium and there are limits on total bonded indebtedness. The difficulty we are having now is that tax collections have fallen off a cliff and we are trying to figure out what to cut to achieve the required expenditures.
It is possible that the GOP could hamstring tax increases or even tie up the legislature authorizing a vote of the people to allow tax increases, but even that would not cause insolvency. Baring a collapse that returned us to barter conditions, the state would always have enough money coming into meet its legal obligations, even if it had to fire 99% of the state's teachers.
It's possible that junior jurisdictions could become insolvent, but only if the state imposed conditions that essentially strangled them.
Posted Fri, Apr 15, 9:52 a.m. Inappropriate
Quit engaging BlueLight; he's just a troll with time on his hands. As for Vance, ignore him, too. If he looked outside and saw that it was raining, he'd fill up a column for Crosscut on why THAT was good for the Republicans.
Posted Fri, Apr 15, 10:09 a.m. Inappropriate
Don't like "insovency", Goforride? How 'bout BROKE?
"The difficulty we are having now is that tax collections have fallen off a cliff and we are trying to figure out what to cut to achieve the required expenditures."
Do you think Christine Gregoire's $4 Billion expansion of state government in 2006 might've had a teensy bit to do with it? (Maybe we should quit "requiring" so many expenditures...)
And, ivan, if your approach to civic discourse is to ignore those with whom you disagree, I believe a Best Western in Illinois has some vacancies. Maybe you can check in until the adults are through talking.
Posted Fri, Apr 15, 10:41 a.m. Inappropriate
"...Republicans should be able to keep all of Seattle in the 7th district..."
Apparently, Chris Vance doesn't realize that a portion of Seattle has been a part of the 1st Congressional district at least since the days of John Miller (R), before Maria Cantwell (D) was elected to the House. It was likely part of the 1st even before that, but my memory only goes so far.
Posted Fri, Apr 15, 1:16 p.m. Inappropriate
The most egregious gerrymander in our state is the 11th and 37th legislative districts. Just look at that map. I recall during the last redistricting, the Republican commissioners kept proposing maps that would fix that, creating a compact south Seattle district and a compact-ish Tukwila-Renton district, but the Democratic commissioners were adamant in maintaining those two serpentine districts. I recall reading at the time that the Democrats' stance was based on maintaining two majority Asian-American districts; if so, that's racial gerrymandering, and it's just as bad as any other gerrymandering. Ultimately the Republicans gave in, in return for getting something they wanted (which, if I remember correctly, was keeping Mercer Island out of the 7th congressional district [a Democrat proposal]).
Sidebar: It is an underreported story that the reason the politicians who run Seattle are so hot for development and densification in the city (e.g., Ballard), and simultaneously so against development in the rest of King County, is to make sure that Seattle's population growth keeps up with the population growth of the rest of the county and state, so Seattle maintains its number of representatives in Congress and the Legislature. Seattle has been bleeding seats for years and the densification push is an attempt to arrest this flow.
Posted Sun, Apr 17, 6:49 p.m. Inappropriate
Dear Editor,
Why did you give an "Editor's Choice" star to the emetic partisan bile DT Nelson spewed on your site? What he charged was "racial gerrymandering" is required by the Supreme Court's "one person-one vote" and racial balance decisions of the 1970's and 1980's. States are required to produce districting plans which are likely to produce representation proportionate to the ethnic composition of their populations. Asian-Americans are a significant part of the King County electorate but because many from long-time families are economically successful, they often live in majority-Caucasian districts.
Of course it's true that many of those successful Asian-Americans are successful statewide politicians, so the drop in the Ocean problem is mitigated.
However, not all Asian-Americans are Gary Locke. There are plenty from Southeast Asia who don't have three generations of hard-working forebears to create wealth and provide a superb education. So creating two "majority Asian-American districts" out of legislature of 49 districts seems about right to me.
But then, I'm a Democrat and actually think that the people who wrote the US Constitution did not have the final insight on ideal governance.
And, P.S., DT, it makes SENSE for Seattle to densify, because it has a solid transit infrastructure to support it while the rest of the county outside Central Bellevue and Shoreline doesn't. More development in Kent or Issaquah means more people driving thirty miles each way to work five days a week. Here's a little hint: the Chinese are gonna' buy up all the oil. It'll cost you and your Republican friends $10/gallon in a couple of years to fill the tank of your S(lob)UV. I for one will be glorying in my schadenfreude.
P.P.S. Editor, I know this won't get a star because it too is full of emetic partisan bile. Democrats are tired of being kicked around by school bullies grown old, fat, and flatulent: e.g. the GOP base.
Posted Sun, Apr 17, 10:01 p.m. Inappropriate
oh, we can't allow that. my God, this could impact Gregoires chances of being re elected.
a
gop resurgence might imperil the states finances, destroy the staus quo. I'm worried.
Posted Mon, Apr 18, 11:26 a.m. Inappropriate
Vance is right that the geographic redistribution of population slightly favors the GOP, yet the composition of the population does not. Because of the continuing turmoil of the economy and wars, there is greater uncertainty than usual and possibly a little more competitive election.
Posted Mon, Apr 18, 1 p.m. Inappropriate
Beaky: Re-districting has nothing to do with Governor's races which are state wide.
While Vance is right about population likely being more GOP the further East from Seattle you go, he's wrong about it changing much of anything. It's highly unlikely that the democrats on the committee are going to be so stupid as to open up more districts to the GOP. Gerrymandering with a computer is a fine art and both parties will be left with one new district that they can call their own.
As for Reichart, his Bellevue district is turning blue'r by the day, if he wants to stay in congress, it better swing South.
Posted Mon, Apr 18, 5:51 p.m. Inappropriate
I disagreee with Chris's congressional district predictions. East of the Cascades population growth means two districts PLUS 170,000 for part of a third one. Considering the power of the so-called "Cascade Curtain," that partial district is more likely to be added to Jaimie Herrera-Beutler's 3rd District, perhaps streching from Vancouver to Kennewick and the outskirts of Yakima back over White Pass down the Cowlitz to Longview. The rest of the old 3rd, including Thurston County, would be combined with JBLM/Lakewood or Kitsap plus the Olympic Peninsula to form the new 10th - ideal as Denny Heck's reward (pending Norm's approval, of course). The rest of the districts would shift northward, costing Larsen's a big chunk of Everett -- perfect for Baird's resurgence in Inslee's 1st. Larsen should be concerned -- the ghost of Jack Metcalf is stirring.
Posted Mon, Apr 18, 8:06 p.m. Inappropriate
Re:TJ -- A little history proves your point that Seattle "owns" the 1st District: It was created in 1908 when our three at-large districts became numbered. William E. Humphrey: Seattle lawyer (R, 1909 - 17); John F. Miller: Seattle lawyer, Kingco Prosecutor, Seattle Mayor (R, 1917 - 31); Ralph Horr: Seattle lawyer, GOP activist who defeated Miller (R, 1931 - 33); Marian Zioncheck: Seattle lawyer (D - 1933 - 36, died in office); Warren Magnuson: Seattle lawyer, Kingco Prosecutor, legendary US Senator later on (D, 1936 - 43); Hugh Delacy: UW English professor (D, 1945 - 47); Homer Jones: Kitsap County politician, Bremerton mayor, war vet (R, 1947 - 49); Hugh B. Mitchell: Everett journalist, protege of US Senator Mon Wallgren, appt'd US Sen in 1945 - 47, moved to Seattle as businessman and politician (D, 1949 - 53); Thomas M. Pelly: award-winning Seattle business leader (R, 1953 - 73); Joel Pritchard: Seattle businessman, state legislator, ally of Evans and Gorton (R, 1973 - 85); John R. Miller: Seattle lawyer, Seattle City Councilman (R, 1985 - 93) ... and the rest is recent history. Maybe the Redistricting Commission should designate McDermott in the new 1st!
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.