Aug.15

electoral-vote.com

Dem 47

   

GOP 53

Gerrymandering: Newsom Is on the Case

The redistricting war currently being waged between Texas and California saw substantive developments on both sides of the conflict yesterday. It's hard to say, however, if Republican or Democratic partisans should be happier at the moment.

We'll start in Texas. It was hard to see how the quorum-busting Democrats could plausibly maintain their holdout long enough to frustrate Gov. Greg Abbott's (R-TX) efforts to redraw the state's district maps to create five more Republican-leaning districts. The first problem is that the Democratic legislators have families and, because serving in state government is a very part-time position, they also have jobs and businesses. The second problem is that the members face fines of $500 for every day they are absent, and they might not be allowed to accept outside contributions to cover that bill. The fine itself might not be legal, the ban on accepting contributions might not be legal, but those are wildcards that would have to be resolved in court. And you never know how things will go in court, particularly a Texas court.

We allowed for the possibility that the quorum-jumpers had solutions to these problems, especially since they are backed by the considerable financial and legal might of Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D-IL). If they did have such solutions, they would not be likely to announce them publicly until such point as absolutely necessary. But we don't quite know what those solutions might be, and the likelihood was that there were no solutions. It turns out that it was correct to doubt that this could go on endlessly. The quorum-jumpers said yesterday that they have made their point, and brought national attention to the issue, and they will likely return home this weekend.

Once the quorum-jumpers are back on the job, Abbott will presumably get what he wants. The quorum-jumpers wouldn't have quorum-jumped if they didn't have a pretty strong sense of which way the winds are blowing. Plus, the GOP has a pretty large margin of error in both chambers; Abbott can afford 12 defectors (of 88 Republican members) in the state House, and he can afford 4 defectors (of 20 Republican members) in the state Senate. Undoubtedly, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) is very jealous. Texas House Democratic Caucus chair Gene Wu, who has been speaking for the group, declared yesterday that he and his fellow Democrats will take this fight to the courts. That certainly sounds impressive, but it's hard to know what cause of action might be successful. The right of a state to gerrymander more than one time per census cycle, and the right of a state to create partisan gerrymanders (even if they reduce the power of minority voters), have both been affirmed by the Supreme Court.

And that brings us to California. Yesterday, at an event held in Los Angeles, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) officially announced his proposed bill that would allow the state legislature to temporarily override the current House map, and to replace it with a much more Democratic-friendly gerrymander. The state redistricting commission would still exist, and would draw the next set of maps, after the 2030 census is complete.

Newsom said his proposed map will be released next week. However, someone (very possibly with Newsom's tacit approval) leaked a list of the districts being targeted. Here they are:

According to the leaked list, all nine of these districts, except CA-48, would become "safe Democratic," which implies a PVI of D+5 or bluer. CA-48 would become "lean Democratic," which implies a PVI of D+1 to D+5. And although it is not on the leaked list, the R+1 CA-22, currently represented by David Valadao (R), is such an obvious target that it would be no surprise to see it added when the maps are actually released.

As the table shows, Newsom's plan would likely flip 3 seats, and very possibly 4 (or 5, if you add Valadao's seat). It would also provide extra armor for 5 Democrats who had tough election battles last time. That doesn't directly add to the Democrats' numbers in the House, but it does have an indirect effect, since the money and resources that would be expended in those districts by the DCCC and other Democratic entities could be redirected elsewhere.

Newsom, and a couple of other members of his team, said that the new maps won't even need to be especially aggressive, and that if the Democrats really wanted to, they could make the entire California U.S. House delegation Democratic. That's a pretty bold statement, but it's not crazy talk. Take a look at the heat map from the 2024 presidential election:

Naturally, the blue strip that runs up and down the coast is where the vast majority of the population is. If a mapmaker were to go full mercenary, and to completely ignore things like city and county boundaries, communities of interest, etc., they could basically just slice the state into 52 horizontal, Democratic-majority strips. It's true that some of the red parts (say, Riverside County, which is the long, narrow county that runs across most of the state in the south) are pretty populous. But those populous red parts are invariably right next to the most populous blue parts, because the red parts are suburbs and exurbs of the blue cities.

The point here is that the map that Newsom apparently plans to propose is actually pretty conservative, and is not likely to put any Democrats at risk, outside of a red monsoon. One might reasonably ask why Newsom would not push a bit harder. Our guess is that doing so WOULD put some blue seats at risk, even in a non-typhoon election. Also, he is probably mindful of appearances, since he still has to get voters to approve the maps, and does not want any "Goofy Kicking Donald" districts.

Speaking of the election that will be necessary, and that will be held in November of this year (assuming Newsom's plans come to fruition), there has already been some polling, and at first glance, it does not look good for the Governor. Politico/Citrin Center-Possibility Lab surveyed Californians, and found that only 36% of respondents favor returning congressional redistricting authority to state lawmakers. Obviously, 36% is less than the 50.01% that would be needed to approve a ballot initiative.

However, we think this is one of those times that you have to look very carefully at a poll. First, here is the exact question the pollster asked:

In both 2008 and 2010, California voters passed initiatives to give an Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission the power to draw the state's legislative and congressional districts, in order to reduce the influence of politicians. Governor Newsom has suggested returning congressional line drawing authority back to the Legislature, citing concerns that redistricting efforts in Republican states would give them a partisan advantage. Do you: (1) Support keeping the independent redistricting commission, or (2) Support returning congressional redistricting authority to state legislators.

On its face, if we were the ones supervising the poll, we would not be too happy with this question. It's very long and wordy, which can screw up the responses. Also, the opening clause "In both 2008 and 2010, California voters passed initiatives to give an Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission..." is somewhat leading.

On top of that, the question is either misleading or outright incorrect about Newsom's proposal. He is not suggesting that this function be returned to the legislature; he's proposing the maps be replaced this one time. It strikes us as very possible that there are a lot of Californians who want to keep the independent redistricting commission, but who also support Newsom's proposal, thinking that desperate times call for desperate measures. (Z) personally knows a number of people who feel this way. If so, the correct answer to the survey question for them would be Option 1, which would make them seem to be outside the 36% who support Newsom, according to the poll. But that is not actually the case.

We do not know if these problems were inadvertent, or if someone was putting their thumb on the scale, or if the poll was produced before Newsom made clear exactly what approach he planned to advocate for. Even if the poll was perfect, however, we're not so sure this is an issue that can really be polled for, especially right now. Once Newsom's plan becomes a response to what Texas (and other red states) have actually done, as opposed to a response to what Texas (and other red states) MIGHT do, that could change the calculus. Similarly, another 3 months of gerrymandering (and other unpopular behavior) by the Republicans, coupled with 3 months of publicity from Newsom and other Democrats, could also shift opinion. And finally, we would tend to guess that an electorate that shows up in November to vote on a proposal about House district maps is going to be wonky, and not too similar to a regular election electorate. That makes it rather hard for the pollsters to model.

This is not to say that Newsom is on a glide path here. There is some heavy-duty opposition to his plans, including former governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a couple of prominent California billionaires who have involved themselves in ballot proposition fights before, and the League of Women Voters. Meanwhile, Newsom has the backing of Common Cause, and appears to have the legislature, but many other individuals and groups who might be expected to support him have not yet taken a side. The upshot is that it's very hard to tell what will happen, regardless of what polls might say.

One last thing worth noting. While Newsom and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass (D) were inside the Democracy Center at the Japanese American National Museum, talking about his redistricting proposal, ICE conducted operations right outside, arresting a bunch of alleged undocumented immigrants. That certainly helps us to understand that the Trump administration's approach to immigration is a serious effort to protect public safety and national security, and is most certainly not just political theater for the benefit of the base. (Z)