Upward redistribution of regimes – Axios

A number of states proposed or finalized new congressional district maps last week. The recurring theme: protecting the incumbents rather than widening the majorities.

Why is this important: The wave of activity is just the start of a high-stakes process that could affect the power of Congress for a decade. The bigger states are yet to come – along with the deadlines, lawsuits and the potential of many mid-course maps drawn by the courts.

• “The story that emerges is one of incumbents protecting themselves, not necessarily trying to maximize their party’s fortunes,” Nate Persily, a recutting expert at Stanford Law School, told Axios. “But there is still a lot of territory left.”
• According to Dave Wasserman of the Cook Political Report, Republicans are currently expected to win one to two seats through redistribution, but “we’re also on track to get a lot fewer competitive seats.”

The details: Six states only have one district, so they don’t have to go through a redistribution. Three states have already completed new maps for the next decade, including Oregon – where Democrats have the advantage of winning the newly acquired state seat. The other two are Maine and Nebraska.

• The map proposed by Texas would likely earn two Republican seats. It doesn’t include a predominantly Hispanic district, which experts say will likely result in a lawsuit.
• Colorado’s proposed final card includes a new competitive seat, giving Republicans a chance to be represented in the House tied with Democrats in a state that voted Joe Biden by 13 points in 2020.
• The Ohio state legislature missed an initial redistribution deadline, giving Republicans more time to gerrymander. But GOP lawmakers would have to prove to the state Supreme Court that their card doesn’t favor a party – or risk a court that could cost them seats.
• Michigan has an independent commission charged with drawing maps with partisan fairness. It is not an easy metric to define. The state’s geography favors Republicans, but “the question is whether the commission is consciously using partisanship to try to attract more Democratic seats and achieve parity,” Wasserman told Axios.

In numbers : Princeton University and RepresentUs have launched an in-depth scoring system for proposed and adopted cards, rating them on partisan fairness, competitiveness and geographic characteristics.

• So far, they’ve given Colorado an overall “A”, Ohio “B”, Georgia “C” and Texas cards “F”.
• Their analysis shows states attracting a large number of uncompetitive constituencies, with 60-70% of voters in favor of the party in charge of the redistribution, said Axios Joe Kabourek, senior campaign manager at RepresentUs, and Adam Podowitz-Thomas, senior legal strategist at Princeton Gerrymandering Project.
• At the same time, states have generally been able to avoid failing group tests for suspicious geographic manipulations such as cutting counties. New technologies have facilitated the creation of districts meeting certain requirements which still benefit a given party.

What we are looking at: A major unanswered question is whether Democrats are trying to hold onto their majority through gerrymandering in New York and Illinois.

• The Illinois card should give Democrats two more seats, Wasserman said, and the New York card could be the key to Democrats retaining control of the House itself.
• What Republicans do in the larger states of North Carolina and Florida is where they control the process and whether they are offering more aggressive cards in Georgia than they started out with.