Secrets of the Census

Flickr/<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/theredproject/3032688699/">mandiberg</a> (<a href="http://www.creativecommons.org">Creative Commons</a>).

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Right now, the politerati are focused on the House of Representatives. Will the GOP win enough seats (39) to take control and boot Nancy Pelosi from the Speaker’s chair, or will they fall short? Here’s what you may not know: the results of the November elections can be undermined—or set in stone—by the US Census.

The results of America’s nationwide head count determine the number of congressional districts in each state—and, consequently, those states’ electoral votes in presidential elections. It’s fairly simple: To calculate how many electoral votes a state is worth, simply count the number of congressional districts in the state and add two—one for each senator. House seats and electoral votes are transferred from slow-growing states to faster-growing ones after each census. 

The latest estimates of which states will gain and lose seats (and electoral votes) came out this week. The bottom line is that the results aren’t good for Barack Obama and the Democrats. Solid blue states New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Michigan, and New Jersey—states that have gone for the Democrat in every presidential election since 1992—are set to lose seven electoral votes. Washington is the only reliably Democratic state that is poised to gain a seat. Meanwhile, solid red states Georgia, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah are set to gain a net seven electoral votes. Louisiana, which Bill Clinton won twice but has been a solid red state since Katrina, will lose a seat. There are changes going on in key swing states, too. Arizona and Nevada are both set to gain a seat, and Florida will gain two. Iowa and Missouri, meanwhile, will lose a seat each—and Ohio, long a national bellwether, will lose two. 

Blue states losing six electoral votes and red states gaining six isn’t exactly a disaster for Democrats. The big fight, however, will be over congressional redistricting. That process—which will force some incumbents out of their jobs and protect many others—is controlled by the states. Governors play a role, but most of the work is usually done by state legislators. Whichever party controls the legislature generally gets to draw the maps.

To avoid getting totally shafted in the redistricting process, the key is to control at least one of the three main pivot points of redistricting—the governor’s office or one of the two legislative chambers. A party with full control of a state’s legislative and executive branches will have the ability to run wild with redistricting. Right now, the GOP is threatening to do just that in a number of key midwestern states. 

Republicans have a real shot of controlling the entire redistricting process in Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. If the GOP can sweep those contests, Republicans can cut the heart out of any potential Democratic House majority going forward. Republicans either hold the governorship or lead in the polls in the gubernatorial races in all five states. And while Democrats hold at least one legislative chamber in each of the five states, the party’s hold on these majorities is tenuous.

Between the current GOP-drawn maps in Michigan and Pennsylvania, the Tom Delay-led Texas gerrymander of 2004, and other supposedly unfair maps around the country, the strategists at the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee—which helps Dems in state legislative battles—figure that the national House map is already tilted towards the Republicans by some 25 seats. Republicans have estimated that they could turn 25 more their way via redistricting.

If the Republicans fall just short of a majority in 2010, they could use redistricting to ensure they gain back the House in 2012. Or, if they make huge gains, they can use redistricting to lock them in. “If you care about a progressive future for the next decade, you can’t allow Republicans to control this process,” says Michael Sargeant, the executive director of the DLCC. 

If redistricting were held today, the GOP wouldn’t control the process—far from it. Nationwide, Democrats currently control 60 state legislative chambers. Republicans control just 36. But 21 legislative chambers in 17 states are within five seats of flipping. Most of the those narrow majorities are held by Democrats. And some of the most competitive state legislative fights will occur in states that will gain or lose seats in the census. Here are some of the top legislative races around the country:

  • Ohio House: Dems hold a small majority, and Dem Gov. Ted Strickland is trailing in the polls. If the Ohio GOP takes the House, it will totally control the redistricting process. 
  • Pennsylvania House: Same deal as Ohio. The Dem gubernatorial candidate is trailing, and Republicans think they’ll probably control all three pivot points come January. 
  • New York Senate: Democrats hold a razor-thin majority. But their gubernatorial candidate, Andrew Cuomo, leads, and they have a lock on the lower chamber. If they can hold on in the Senate, they’ll totally control redistricting here. 
  • Arizona House and Senate: Republicans control both chambers and are leading in the gubernatorial race. Dems have to win one of the two chambers if they want to have a voice in how Arizona’s new House seat gets drawn.
  • Texas House: Dems only need to win three more seats to take control of the House. (My colleague Suzy Khimm wrote a great piece on the Dems’ Texas effort for the last issue of the magazine.) They also have a shot at the governor’s race. They could, of course, lose both, and have no say in redistricting. Texas is already very Republican-gerrymandered—but it’s also gaining four seats. This is a very high-stakes fight.
  • Colorado House: Dems hold a small majority here, and this state is set to gain at least one seat.  

How do we know that the redistricting will dramatically affect the results in 2012? Because this has happened before. Of the 39 seats that switched hands in 2002 and 2004, the DLCC estimates that 23 were heavily affected by redistricting.* In a closely-divided House of Representatives, that could easily be the difference between Speaker Boehner and Speaker Pelosi.

*I corrected the numbers in this sentence, which originally said 17 of 19. That was wrong. Sorry.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate