Redistricting : Georgia Republicans do it!

by Kombiz Lavasany, Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 03:58:03 PM EST

Georgia Republicans have decided they don't need to wait until 2011 and will follow Texas in redistricting mid-decade. Republicans in the Georgia Legislature have reached consensus on new congressional district boundaries, Roll Call reported Monday. The proposed map shores up Republian Phil Gingrey's district and potentially complicates the re-election efforts of Democrats John Barrow and Jim Marshall. The state House and Senate redistricting committees passed the same version of a new congressional map Friday, bringing an end to a week of behind-the-scenes wrangling over how to reconcile the chambers' two competing plans.

There's been a feeling that this was going to happen and that Georgia Dems are just going to have to deal with the consequences. The anonymous quote below really sums that up for me. The proposal does not politically endanger any of the state's four black members. State Democrats privately expressed relief after seeing the compromise map, as they admitted that the redrawing of lines could have hit them much harder politically. I've seen no indication how the new lines change the partisan make up of any districts besides the leaked word that Barrow and Marshall are endangered and Gringrey is going to be in a safe district. I'm not sure whether this can be stopped or whether the ball is in Rahm Emanuel's court.

Tags: Redistricting (all tags)

Comments

52 Comments

Sort by

4a2fab88-ed3b-47a4-8f14-3ec8a24504ac_normal

permalink

done deal looks like

BFD has the links to the maps:
http://www.blogfordemocracy.org/archives/2005/02/here_a_map_ther.html

And a link to the demographics:
http://www.georgia2000.org/redistricting/G7congress.pdf

Basically, the Republicans did a 'soft-pack', moving blacks into the majority-minority with a 4-10% increase this time, or a single-digit decrease this time in the minority-majority CD's. I'm sure that if they are in power in 2012, they'll follow it up with another round of incremental packing. Here's the related quote from RollCall:

Because the proposed map does little to dilute the minority voting strength in majority black districts, one of the primary issues up for debate in a court fight could be the legal standing of so-called minority influence districts.

That is to say, if the black population is decreased in districts that have a large percentage of minorities, but are not majority-minority, is the overall voting strength of minorities being diluted?

The clearest example could be Marshall's 3rd district, which currently has a black population of 40 percent. Under the proposed map, that number would drop to 33 percent, with 30 percent being of voting age.

Marshall's district would also go from favoring President Bush with 52 percent of the vote in 2000 to a 58 percent Bush district.

Democrats have expressed confidence that Marshall, who won a second term with 63 percent of the vote last year, would win re-election under the new lines if he chooses to run. Marshall is also considering running for lieutenant governor.

by Jerome Armstrong 2005-02-28 04:04PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: done deal looks like

That's nice Jerome, just some the info I was hoping NCEC would have up.

by Kombiz Lavasany 2005-02-28 04:11PM | 0 recs

permalink

not

These are not the agreed-upon maps. There's a "consensus" map, and this is not it. These are two separate house and senate maps that were proposed ages ago. I wonder where the final map is.

NCDem

by NCDem 2005-03-01 05:31AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: not

NCDem,

I attended the House & Senate Reapportionment Committee meetings, here in Georgia, and I also posted the links to those maps at BfD.

I assure you, those maps are the ones that passed out of committee.

by Andre Walker 2005-03-01 06:17AM | 0 recs

permalink

consensus

"Republicans in the Georgia Legislature have reached CONSENSUS on new congressional district boundaries." Despite not having attended the committee meetings, I can assure you that having reached a "consensus"... by definition... means that a single map has been agreed upon. These are two separate maps. Therefore, what you have posted is not a "consensus" map, and I re-posit the question... where is IT?

(both capitlaized emphases mine)

by NCDem 2005-03-01 08:00AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: consensus

Meeting 1, franklin map. Meeting 2, revised franklin map. Meeting 3, G-7 map, first time anyone had seen it, no questions asked, motion for vote, voted, passed, and meeting ajorned, there was no discussion, or interest in bi-partisan support. This is the new GA democracy. The house leadership couldn't wait for Franklin to keep revising so they went in and did it for him.

by Jerome Armstrong 2005-03-01 02:37PM | 0 recs

permalink

Can we get started now?

Isn't it time to gerrymander Illinois? Maybe California.

Or, better yet, start pressing for an absolute end to gerrymandering.

by jcjcjc 2005-02-28 04:07PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Can we get started now?

We can't do CA (Governor Arnold). But IL, LA, NM, and NC we can.

by raginillinoian 2005-02-28 07:18PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Can we get started now?

Is PA a possible now that it has a Dem governor? It sure was gerrymandered by the Publicans.

by David Kowalski 2005-02-28 07:21PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Can we get started now?

No. GOP legislature.

The only states we could really do are IL, NM, and LA (and NC, although we gerrymandered it in 2002 anyway).

by raginillinoian 2005-02-28 07:39PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Can we get started now?

Why not gerrymander NC again!?

PA is not doable, but frankly is so gerrymandered that Rendell might be able to force the issue of un-gerrymandering it during the 2006 races.

Rendell does an excellent job of selling himself as moderate, reform-minded. People would accept such a proposition out of hand, especially when you look at the map of the state, with whole districts wrapping around other districts just to soak up as many GOP voters as possible.

The only problem for the GOP in PA is that its numbers in the NW around Erie are gone and the north-central part is showing signs of cracking if the Dems had anything for an infrastructure.

The GOP is on the skids in much of the state, because they're being blamed for high taxes and piss poor services.

If the Santorum race turns ugly and the Rendell race proves to be a walk, PA could be a very bad place to be a Republican come 2006.

Especially since Santorum has positioned himself too far right now to make any meaningful attempts to pose next to Specter. While Specter will humor him out of party loyalty, you have to be really dumb and uninformed to buy it.

by jcjcjc 2005-02-28 08:25PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Can we get started now?

We've eeked out as many Democrats as is possible in NC. and by actually making districts more competetive, not less.

by NCDem 2005-03-01 05:36AM | 0 recs

permalink

are we there yet?

Have we achieved Fascism yet?

by Carl Nyberg 2005-02-28 04:34PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: are we there yet?

Pretty much. We have to fight back. How many seats can we get in the bluest of the blue states? Can we break up Nancy Johnson's district in Connecticut? Gain two or three seats each in NY, CA, and IL?

It's time to play hardball with these thugs, and I don't mean the Tweety variety.

by DC Pol Sci 2005-02-28 04:59PM | 0 recs

permalink

not in CT

The new CT gov's a Repub, and extremely popular. Also, Nancy Johnson's the safest R in the state; it wouuld be much easier to endanger Chris Shays or Rob Simmons (by sending some of the voters of color from Rosa DeLauro's safe New Haven district into Shays' or Simmons'-- I think Rosa's so safe now that she'd still be fine, though I don't have figures). All notional, in any case, until we take back the CT governor's office-- I'm not holding my breath.

by accommodatingly 2005-03-01 04:31AM | 0 recs

permalink

fascism

You're throwing around the term "fascism" a bit too loosely when talking about congressional redistricting... enough so to be almost insulting. The current congressional districts were certainly (and arguably more) gerrymandered to elect a Democrat in Barrow's current district... and nobody screamed "communism" or anything so stupid. Republicans re-districting to gain another congressional seat or two doesn't equate to fascism. It equates to dirty politics.

by NCDem 2005-03-01 05:35AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: fascism

The abuse of power and the disregard for tradition is part of a pattern, not events in isolation.

by Carl Nyberg 2005-03-01 06:18AM | 0 recs

permalink

and again...

The abuse of power and the disregard for tradition do not "fascism" make... and so again... what a poor and offputting word choice.

by NCDem 2005-03-01 08:06AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: and again...

What makes fascism?

by Carl Nyberg 2005-03-01 10:38AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: and again...

i'm bored with this.

by NCDem 2005-03-01 12:23PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: and again...

You're kinda being an asshole.

You don't like me using the term "fascism", but when I ask you to define it, you declare you're "bored".

by Carl Nyberg 2005-03-01 01:08PM | 0 recs

permalink

What States can we redistrict?

Illinois, maybe Louisana or North Carolina. Any other possibilities?

by Painter2004 2005-02-28 04:59PM | 0 recs

permalink

how soon they forget

the current Georgia map IS a result of Dem redistricting--pretty shallow and vicious Dem redistricting at that. I don't like the fact that it's being redone mid-decade, but it's not like this is a righteous map and Georgia citizens are being wronged by the creation of a new map.

by asf6 2005-02-28 05:12PM | 0 recs

permalink

a list of states with dem governors and legys

here's all i can come up with in terms of states with democratic governors and legislatures:

-- washington
-- montana
-- new mexico
-- illinois
-- new mexico
-- north carolina
-- west virginia
-- new jersey
-- maine

that's it, by my count.

absolutely worst case scenario, in my book, is if we don't convince any governors to take up redistricting. but here's what i think are the most pickups possible: (keep in mind both maine's two congressmen are dems and montana only has one seat)

-- 1 in washington
-- 1 in new mexico
-- 2-3 in illinois
-- 1-2 in north carolina
-- 1 in west virginia

capito is the only republican in the WV delegation, and her seat is already a reasonably democratic district.

keeping in mind gregorie barely won reelection and isn't politically out of the woods yet, i don't think it's a good idea to try to get her to redraw lines in WA.

i don't know how safe it would be to make such a partisan gesture in NC immediately after we just took back the state house.

with that in mind, i think the most practical states to push to redistrict are NM and IL (even though blagojevich and richardson are up in 2006) and spend a little more attention than normal in west virginia.

CT has a popular republican governor, but she's up for reelection in 2006 too. we've already proven it's possible to scare shays and simmons up there, and encouraging partisan voting in that state might knock out jodi rell, too. that way, even if we don't pick up a congressional seat next year, we'll still have a governor thankful enough to the party to look into redrawing lines.

by fedupdem 2005-02-28 05:39PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: a list of states with dem governors and legys

my bad... gregorie just won election, not reelection... yall know what i mean, though

by fedupdem 2005-02-28 05:40PM | 0 recs

permalink

Illinois

I think you can pull off some magic in Illinois if you're willing to really scare the Republicans. You can easily redistrict Hastert, and Hyde into Democratic districts where they'd never survive. Kirk is in a Democratic performing district and is liked by a lot of Democrats on the north side. A district that replaces those Democrats with less friendly Democrats in the city would doom him Connie Morella style. Though Connie's loss was aggravated by the fact that Van Hollen was the perfect candidate for MD-08, so you'd have to find someone strong to run against him. Those are three without having to touch anywhere out of the Chicagoland area.

by Kombiz Lavasany 2005-02-28 05:53PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Illinois

ooh, you're evil. I hate gerrymandering, but the thought of the Speaker and that windbag Hyde being redistricted into oblivion make me grin.

that wouldn't get us stuck with DeLay, though, would it? yikes.

by asf6 2005-02-28 06:32PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Illinois

ahem. makes

by asf6 2005-02-28 06:32PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Illinois

DeLay has been the putrid power behinfd the throne anyway. So what's the difference.

by David Kowalski 2005-02-28 07:24PM | 0 recs

permalink

They have it coming

Given what they did running Daschle into the ground (actual, a long-term error, because Harry Reid has proven to be willing to lead an opposition where Daschle seemed to just enjoy being slapped) it's only fair to run Hastert into the ground.

The only reason Haster is Speaker is because DeLay is too hot to put in that role.

Hastert has to be, by far, the worst Speaker in some time. He's a complete joke next to guys like Newt and Tip.

He can't get his caucus to agree to anything (other than wars and tax cuts). He can't outline a real vision. He's a horrible speaker who puffs and drudges through sentences.

All he does is protect DeLay from the scrutiny the bastard deserves.

by jcjcjc 2005-02-28 08:31PM | 0 recs

permalink

massachusetts

romney is irrelevant with veto override.

but oops, i forgot, we're sane, and we don't elect republicans...

besides, you cannot physically make a single congressional district in massachusetts that would have more than 40-45% bush voters, so even with a REPUBLICAN gerrymander dems would have an advantage

by knuckle50 2005-02-28 06:24PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: a list of states with dem governors and legys

With Gov. Gregoire's recent, narrow win in WA, you're right she would be the wrong person to instigate and spearhead redistricting. But if the redistricting plan came from Democratic legislators, I don't think it would be too much for Gregoire to simply sign off on it.

by Gracchus for Senate 2005-02-28 06:31PM | 0 recs

permalink

WA Redistricting...

...ain't gonna happen, despite a Dem leg and gov. Redistricting in WA is done by an independent bipartisan commission. Don't expect any gerrymandering or pickups.

by edgeplot 2005-02-28 09:06PM | 0 recs

permalink

no go in WA

there would have to be constitutional changes made to allow redistricting in WA. we had a constitutional amendment in 1983 that put redistricting in the hands of a five member commission.

http://www.capaa.wa.gov/redistricting.html

from what I gleaned in calling for IL redistricting in a dkos thread, IL may have similar constitutional issues

/snark on
guess good government issues move a little more quickly in some regions

by benchcoat 2005-03-01 09:15AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Louisiana

Keep in mind that the legislature in Louisiana doesn't organize itself along strict party lines. Though it's filled with many more Democrats, many Republicans have held important positions (including Senate President and Speaker of the House). The current leadership is the most firmly Democratic in years, but given the collegial norms there ... I'm not sure it's doable.

by ScottC 2005-03-01 04:42AM | 0 recs

permalink

OH MY GOD!!!!!!

F***!!!!!!

THEY'RE AT THIS SHIT AGAIN!!! TIME TO GET BACK - IN ILLINOIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by raginillinoian 2005-02-28 07:15PM | 0 recs

permalink

Don't Redistrict

I understand the rationale behind redistricting Dem states: win back a few house seats, rub it in Delay's face, start playing like hardhitters. The Georgia GOP redistricting is an opportunity for us, but not to redistrict ourselves.

I was worried, when Ahnold came out for non-partisan redistricting, that the Dems would lose the momemtum on an important progressive reform. We know the Republicans are coming in 2006 with Tax Code Reform, and that Rove seeks to deny us the high ground of the "reformer" label.

We should be writing Democrats to get them to run, party-wide, in 2006, on a reform platform that includes electoral and redistricting reform.(And if sold as a system for preventing legislators from becoming squatters shelling for special interests, we might pick up a few o them non-partisan reformers Chris wrote about.)

by swatdem 2005-02-28 08:48PM | 0 recs

permalink

As Treasonous as it Sounds

My first impression of the maps is that the new one looks a lot better. With no knowledge of partisan leanings its a hell of a lot more compact. Not to say that justifies mid decade redistricting when the first map passed all legal hurdles, or that the Repubs motivation was anything less than a power grab, but Georgia Dems drew some fucked up districts a few years ago. But so did Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio and Illinois Republicans and its not exactly fair that Texas and Georgia can redraw and no one else can. This is just one more example of why district lines need to be drawn by people other than state legislators.

I have no problem with Texas' congressional makeup reflecting the state's Republican majority if and only if Illinois, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania can more equitably reflect the power of their Democratic constituencies. Why the hell isn't Tom DeLay crying about the fact that Ohio, which gave Kerry 48%, has Repub House members outnumbering Dems 2-1?

by Bothwell 2005-02-28 08:55PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: As Treasonous as it Sounds

The new Georgia map could result in a 9-4 GOP majority, which is hugely over-Republican given that the state gave 41% of its vote to John Kerry. The old one resulted in a 7-6 GOP majority, which is balanced.

What the GOP did in Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania was much more f***ed up than what we did in Georgia. I mean, they have an 18-7 majority in Florida (a state that is usually 50/50), 9-6 in Michigan (a Clinton, Gore, and Kerry state), and 12-7 in Pennsylvania (a Clinton, Gore, and Kerry state). And that's forgetting Ohio, where they have a 12-6 majority in a state that almost went to Kerry.

If they insist on "correcting" Texas and Georgia, we should insist on an independent commission "correcting" Florida, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania - all much more horribly gerrymandered than what we did in Georgia.

by raginillinoian 2005-03-01 04:48AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: As Treasonous as it Sounds

Right, which is what I said, although I left out Florida, a glaring omission. Its only fair if every state is corrected. Whats good for the goose and all. My cursory glance at the districts anyway make me think Marshall would be safe. He received 63% last time and they are only adding a six point Bush vote to the district. Barrow, especially because he's a freshman and is losing Deomcratic Athens could have a tougher time.

It just really struck me how the two maps looked side by side. The new districts look far more compact and ideal than what you see in the current map.

by Bothwell 2005-03-01 07:21AM | 0 recs

permalink

Lots of issues

This, definitely, is sucky. But at the same time, I concur with the final statement in that the current districts - including the one I live in (District 12 with John Barrow) - are quite oddly drawn.

My problem is that the newest proposals lump communities together that have little common interests. Athens-Clarke County, where I live, will be in a district with lots of rural counties which are overwhelmingly conservative where as A-C is a more progressive, college town. Furthermore our issues - sprawl, higher education funding, transportation - are wholly different from those in our surrounding counties which face more agricultural and manufacturing concerns.

So, while I'm not a fan of the current District 12 lines (seeing that they are quite silly looking), I do believe they are more representative of what our community needs versus what the proposed one will deliver.

by GaDem 2005-03-01 04:16AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Lots of issues

Your issue here is that some of the old districts (the ones the double-dip would replace) were odd gerrymanders in the first place. I forget where I read this last year, but I seem to remember that GA12 (Barrow, formerly Burns) was drawn to create a majority-Dem district that would elect the son of a former GA statehouse bigwig, and Burns got in because the son turned out to be a terrible candidate with a questionable past.

Will Athens still be able to elect Barrow, or has it been shoved into a majority-R district?

by accommodatingly 2005-03-01 04:35AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Lots of issues

Barrow lives in Clarke county. Athens / Clarke County, (combined with the "liberal" city Savannah) put him over the top in the last election because he was a popular commisioner in Athens. If you look at the map, Barrow only has Athens/Clarke County now. If he moves South, he still has a majority of his current district, but his base of support remains in Athens and he'd lose. If he stays in Athens, he'll probably get clobbered by NorthEastern Georgia counties... (especially because he's not currently representing them).

He looks screwed. However, Chet Edwards escaped in Texas... Maybe something will happen for Barrow.

by NCDem 2005-03-01 05:43AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Lots of issues

What scares me is that Barrow's situation is looking very much like Martin Frost's (while Marshall looks more like Chet Edwards).

by raginillinoian 2005-03-01 07:00AM | 0 recs

permalink

Barrow's not screwed.

For one, Barrow doesn't have to run in the district he lives in. Phil Gingrey never has. He can stay in Athens, or he can move to Savannah or Augusta or anywhere in between. Regardless, he'll run for re-election in the 12th.

Notably, Barrow won the counties shared by the new 12th and the old 12th; Marshall won the counties shared by the new 12th and the old 3rd by 59% (he won overall by 61%). I think Barrow will do fine.

by Drew 2005-03-01 10:02AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Lots of issues

Barrow will have a hard fight, and would probably fair better outside of Athens ... simply because there is a larger base to draw from in Savannah.

He is popular in Athens, but it will be hard to win with that many conservative counties around us. The main reason that Burns won two or three years ago is because Democrats ran Champ Walker, who was a horrible candidate on a variety of levels. So lots of swing voters who typically vote Democratic (and did so in 2004), either didn't vote at all or didn't vote for Walker. To be honest, I couldn't vote for Walker and instead wrote someone in.

Barrow is a good, honest guy - he's actually a member of my church - and can win if voters actually give him a chance. That, unfortunately, remains to be seen.

by GaDem 2005-03-01 09:11AM | 0 recs

permalink

however...

He's for a "marriage amendment" which made me hold my nose when I voted for him (I live in Athens now)... but hey, I'm a partisan Democrat, not a partisan idealogue... and as much as I hate to admit it, taking a pass on that stupid issue (where Burns trapped him into taking a stand on it) will probably help him in rural Georgia in '06. I wonder if he'll move. I doubt it.

by NCDem 2005-03-01 10:05AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: however...

I don't think much can help Barrow in rural Georgia. Sadly, all voters see these days are the (R) and (D) next to the name, and they don't take the time to evaluate what the candidate stands for.

I remember there being a flap over some comments over gay marriage, but I thought that Barrow opposed the national amendment. I don't know where he came down on the statewide one. That seemed to be an issue which hindered him throughout the campaign.

He is a good and thoughtful guy, though. He's taken a strong interest in a variety of interests pertaining to our district, so that impresses me. Did you see the Banner-Herald story on him?

How long have you been in Athens NCDem? What brings you ths way? And what's your take on the smoking ban - statewide and local?

by GaDem 2005-03-01 10:38AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: however...

I didn't see the Banner-Herald Story. I've been here 6 months. I'm a non-smoker, despite my previous North Carolina residence... I'm the father of what is currently a developing fetus, so I love the smoking ban. I love going into a bar and not having me, my wife, and my unborn child breathe all of that crap... Add to that, my father-in-law died 9 months ago from lung cancer (from smoking)... and I pretty much think smoking should be outlawed in any public establishment. I'd love to see the tobacco companies try to sexify chewing tobacco... so those who choose not to use the stuff don't have to die from somebody else's exhalings.

by NCDem 2005-03-01 12:33PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: however...

I recently wrote a forum in the Banner-Herald that you probably would have disagreed with then, seeing that I advocated keeping out existing compromise ban in place (outlawing during the day, permitting in bars at night ... i.e. after 11 p.m.). I'm not crazy about the smoking ban, despite my complete disdain for smoking.

But that's for another day, I suppose. Good to see a fellow Athenian here though.

by GaDem 2005-03-02 03:24AM | 0 recs

permalink

The Democratic Party Must Respond

We Cannot Allow the GOP to do this with no recourse. We must at least redistrict Illinois. It is a very solidly democratic state. Put Hyde and Hastert in the same district. We must do something about this. Is the Governor doing anything about this, we must respond. Obama won 70% there, I mean come on.

The next step is taking back some governorships and legislatures in 2006, 2008, 2010. If we can get the statehouses in Ohio, Florida, and the state legislatures in PA, MI we would be in great shape to retake the House in 2012. Thats all we need.

This is critical to ending the GOP rule. We must show them that we are for real.

by optimist 2005-03-01 08:23AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: The Democratic Party Must Respond

I love it... "optimist" is a good name for you. All we have to do is win Governorships, state senates, state houses, and U.S. house seats... That's all.

by NCDem 2005-03-01 08:29AM | 0 recs