Subject: [big campaign] New Huff Post from Creamer- Reapportionment Not Necessarily Good New for Repubs
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 15:34:06 -0500 (EST)
List-Id: <bigcampaign.googlegroups.com>

Reapportionment Not  Necessarily Good News for Republicans 

The just-released census data shows ten states losing Congressional  seats: 
Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey,  
New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania.  Many of these are traditionally Democratic 
states, both in Presidential  elections – where the number of electoral 
votes are determined by  reapportionment – and elections for members of the 
House. 
On its face, this would look to be bad news for Democrats – especially  
because the majority of the eight states that will gain seats in Congress are 
in  the Sunbelt: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Texas, 
Utah and  Washington.  
The problem with this logic is that Republicans have a growing problem  
with minorities – and most of the population gain that led to the Congressional 
 shift was among minorities – and especially among Hispanics.  
Before they pop the Champagne corks, Republican strategists need only  
remember one of the chief take-aways from the Mid-term elections: Latinos saved  
the Senate for Democrats.  Latinos  in Nevada, California, Colorado and 
Washington provided the winning margin for  Democratic Senate candidates – both 
on the strength of their heavily-Democratic  performance and in increased 
turnout as a percentage of the electorate.  
Of course Barack Obama’s victory in 2008 rested heavily on solid support  
among African Americans and Latinos – especially in states like California,  
Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, Nevada and Virginia.  But the Latino part 
of that equation is  even more important today, since Republicans have been 
driven by their Tea Party  base to oppose immigration reform and to 
infuriate Latinos with their proposals  to repeal the 14th Amendment and Arizona’s “
papers please” law.     
Republican defeat of the DREAM act last week only served to seal their  
fate with the Latino electorate.  The DREAM act wasn’t even really about 
immigration reform, it was about  simple justice.  Young people who  were brought 
to this country by no fault of their own and who were raised as  Americans 
are being denied the ability to serve in the Armed Forces, to complete  a 
higher education – to contribute to America – and are threatened with  
deportation to countries they barely know.   They are Americans in every way –  but 
without official documents.  They are asking to be allowed to earn those 
documents – their citizenship  – by serving in our Armed Forces or finishing 
at least two years of  college.  Yet Republicans  filibustered the bill.  
Well, you might say, it won’t matter how much Latino population growth  
impacts redistricting in states like Texas, Florida and Arizona – the  
Republican-controlled legislatures will draw the districts to benefit  Republicans.  
 
Not so fast.  Democrats are  not a protected class under the voting rights 
act.  But Latinos and other minorities  are.  The Mexican American Legal  
Defense Fund – and the Federal Courts – will assure that the power of the  
growing Latino electorate is not diluted.  That means that we could very well 
see an increasing number of  Latino-dominated – Democratic – Congressional 
seats in much of the Sunbelt.   
In Florida, the voters approved a Constitutional Amendment in the  Mid-term 
election requiring that the legislature create districts without  reference 
to partisan considerations.  That will have a powerful impact on both 
Congressional and State  Legislative Districts in 2012 – much to the benefit of 
Democrats.  
Many of the losses of population in the Midwest and East are in more  rural 
areas of these states. As a consequence, many of the lost districts – even  
where Republicans control redistricting -- may inevitably be Republicans. 
And in  states where Democrats control redistricting, like Illinois and New 
York, they  will certainly be.  In Illinois, for  instance, expect to see the 
districts of Republicans Shimkus, Schock, and  Johnson combined into two 
downstate districts.   
When it comes to Congressional Districts the net effect of the new census  
data will certainly be no better than a wash for Republicans – and possibly 
a  net plus for Democrats. 
Nationwide,  twelve seats will change hands. Here’s an initial estimate of 
the net pluses and  minuses. 
Gains: 
* Texas – 2 new Republican Districts, 2 new Democratic (Latino)  Districts 
* Florida – 1 new Republican District, 1 new Democratic (Latino)  District 
* Arizona – 1 new Democratic (Latino) District 
* Georgia – 1 new Republican District 
* Nevada – 1 new Marginal District 
* South Carolina – 1 new Republican District 
* Utah – 1 new Republican District 
* Washington – 1 new Democratic District 
Losses: 
* Illinois – 1 fewer Republican District 
* Iowa – 1 fewer Marginal District 
* Louisiana – 1 fewer Republican District 
* Massachusetts – 1 fewer Democratic District 
* Michigan – 1 fewer Marginal District  
* Missouri – 1 fewer Marginal District  
* New Jersey – 1 fewer Marginal District  
* Missouri – 1 fewer Marginal District  
* Pennsylvania – 1 fewer Marginal District  
* New York – 2 fewer Republican Districts 
* Ohio – 1 fewer Democratic District, 1 fewer Republican  District 
If that estimate proved to be correct, reapportionment will leave the  
electoral map with a net of three additional new solidly-Democratic Districts,  
one additional new solidly-Republican District, and a net loss of four 
Marginal  seats.   
Regardless of whether this estimate proves out through the redistricting  
process, the results of the census are certainly no slam dunk for Republicans 
in  the House. 
When it comes to the Presidency the loss of electoral votes in New York,  
Massachusetts, New Jersey, Iowa, Illinois -- and potentially Ohio, Michigan 
and  Pennsylvania – hurt President Obama’s electoral vote count.  These 
losses total negative six  electoral votes in likely-Democratic states and the 
loss of four in  potential-Democratic states. 
Losses in Louisiana and Missouri will likely cost the Republican  candidate 
two electoral votes.   So the net losses from the Democrats due to losses 
is ten electoral  votes.    
Additions in Washington and Nevada will most likely benefit Obama’s  
electoral vote math, bringing the net Democratic electoral vote loss to eight.  
That number could drop to six if Florida once again falls into the Democratic  
column in 2012. 
All of this might affect the outcome of a very close Presidential  
election, but it is not likely to be dispositive of the outcome.    
And over the next decade, the effect of redistricting could shift even  
further in the Democratic direction. Even a state like Texas that is – at the  
moment – dominated entirely by the Republicans – may soon experience a 
major  Democratic resurgence.  Thirty-seven  percent of Texas residents are of 
Hispanic origin.  Even now Texas is a majority-minority  state.  Yet both of 
Texas’  Republican Senators voted against the DREAM Act.  As U.S. News and 
World Report  notes today: “In part because of the Bush family’s moderation 
on race and  immigration, Democrats failed at assembling (and getting to the 
polls) the kind  of multi-racial coalition there that has proven successful 
in other states.  But unless Jeb runs for president, the  Bush era is over, 
at least for a generation.” 
In sum, the Republicans have allowed the Tea Party hard core to trap them  
into an increasingly difficult political box canyon when it comes to Latinos 
and  other minorities.  The new census  numbers are unlikely to help them 
escape.  
Robert Creamer is a long-time  political organizer and strategist, and 
author of the book:  Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can  Win, available on 
_Amazon.com._ 
(http://www.amazon.com/Listen-Your-Mother-Straight-Progressives/dp/0979585295/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213241439&sr=8-1)  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "big campaign" group.

To post to this group, send to [email-masked]

To unsubscribe, send email to [email-masked]

E-mail [email-masked] with questions or concerns
 
This is a list of individuals. It is not affiliated with any group or organization.