Previously, on this series; redistricting in Illinois was discussed. Additionally; Texas, Indiana, and Georgia have been discussed. Massachusetts, like Illinois, will likely favor Democrats during this round of redistricting.
For the take on Massachusetts, here it is:
A Massachusetts Democrat is leaving the House in 2012, whether he or she likes it or not.
Massachusetts found out last week that it is one of 10 states that will lose a seat in Congress. And about now, its members of Congress are probably getting a little nervous.
The good news for them, though, is that they are unlikely to be pitted against each other. Massachusetts, unlike many other states on the chopping block, probably won't have to go through a painful redistricting process.
And who do the 10 members of the state's all-Democratic delegation have to thank for that? Republican Sen. Scott Brown (Mass.).
Had Brown not shocked the world by winning a special election in January, there wouldn't be an opportunity for a Democratic member of Congress to challenge him. And without the opportunity for a promotion, the only way to avoid two members running against each other would have been if one retired.
As it stands now, it appears likely that at least one member of the delegation will run against Brown. Failing that, the members could hope one of two septuagenarian members retires.
Massachusetts is the largest state with an all-Democratic delegation -- 10 members who have served, in all but one case, for at least a decade.
Those 10 members will have to fit into nine districts come 2012. But with a few of them eyeing Brown and a possible retirement or two, it's logical that at least one incumbent will leave the House, allowing for the elimination of his or her district and letting everyone rest easier.
The question is, who will it be?
A few options:
* Rep. Michael Capuano - Capuano ran for the Senate seat in the special election last year, losing the Democratic primary to state Attorney General Martha Coakley, who went on to lose to Brown. Given that Capuano was the only member of the delegation who stepped forward to run last time (and the disaster that ensued with Coakley's campaign), it seems logical that he would run again.
* Rep. Stephen Lynch - Lynch, who briefly considered a special election bid, is often grouped with Capuano as the members who are most likely to run for Senate. He needs to decide, though, whether his vote against the health care bill killed his chances of winning a Democratic primary.
* Rep. Barney Frank - Frank has also been mentioned as a potential Senate candidate, but mostly he's the No. 1 candidate for retirement. Being 70 years old is the profile of a retiree -- not a freshman senator who once chaired the powerful House Financial Services Committee. And losing your gavel, as Frank is about to, often leads to a curtain call.
* Rep. John Olver - Olver has insisted that he is running for reelection, but he's 74 years old and he's already got a primary challenger, in former state Sen. Andrea Nuciforo. If Nuciforo can run a viable campaign, that's an incentive for Olver to step aside. (Insider tip: state Sen. Stanley Rosenberg (D), who is often thought of as a potential Olver successor, will play a major role in drawing the map, so don't expect him to do Nuciforo any favors.)
The good news for all these Democrats is that, regardless of who exits the House, the new map will be drawn by Democrats. For the first time in three decades, Democrats hold the governor's mansion and both branches of the state legislature.
Larry DiCara, a former Boston city council president and Democratic redistricting guru, said the map can indeed be drawn around whoever might retire or run for Senate, allowing for all nine other members to run in comfortable districts.
He also noted that backdoor meetings could give one of the members a relatively clear Senate primary, by using the drawing of districts as a bargaining chip with the state's delegation.
"One of them says, 'I'll go for the Senate, and you can nuke my district if all you guys step up and do x, y and z,'" DiCara said. "They might say, 'Where do we sign up?'"
Republicans are aiming the get their piece of the pie, too, though.
Despite having a Republican governor in 2001, the new map didn't feature much opportunity for the GOP. This time, state Rep.-elect Dan Winslow, who was involved as a lawyer in past redistricting, and other Republicans are pushing for a fairer map. They have launched FairDistrictsMass.org, which seeks to apply grassroots pressure on the legislature to conduct an even-handed redistricting process. (The state legislature has balked at an effort to create a bipartisan redistricting commission.)
Winslow is also pushing for the creation of a majority-minority district in Boston by citing the Voting Rights Act, which requires such districts to be drawn where feasible.
Currently, Capuano's Suffolk County-based 8th district has a slight majority of non-white residents, but the voting population is majority-white. Winslow said creating a truer majority-minority districts could lead to an overhaul of the map, which might create opportunities for Republicans.
"We should expect to see at least one congressional district where a person of color would be competitive for Congress ... and at least two or three congressional districts where a Republican would be competitive for Congress," Winslow said.
Whatever map is drawn, Democrats will be losing at least a seat in Congress, which is not welcome news. The good news for them is, save for a successful legal challenge from the GOP and/or minority groups, they should get another friendly map out of the process.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Friday, January 28, 2011
7 Signs 2012 might be tougher for GOP
Last November could be seen a major rebound election for the Republican Party after two rough electoral cycles in 2006 and 2008. Republicans are already gearing up for 2012 and their mission of making President Barack Obama a one-term president. However, presidential election years drive more voters to the polls and Obama could see huge chunks of his supporters turn out unlike 2010. He will certainly need to sell his agenda to Independents who flipped, but the road ahead generally gives the incumbent an edge despite a multitude of circumstances. The rough economy will continue to draw the most attention from voters especially those not linked to either party's base. Despite claims that President Obama's agenda of the last two years was the biggest negative factor for him and the Democratic Party, the economy probably caused non-Tea Party member anger. If the unemployment could have been lowered near the 8% that some in President Obama's economic council predicted, election results might not have been as brutal as there is a slight chance the Democrats could have maintained control of the U.S. House.
Nonetheless, both parties must quickly analyze exit polls and opinion polls for some clues to how voters made up their minds and what both parties could do to get an electoral result that they would prefer in 2012.
Looking ahead to 2012, a recent article by the Hill could offer some perspective of the road ahead for the GOP in unseating President Obama. The Hill lists 7 reasons that could shape the next election and provide a challenge that some might not be ready for in less than two years.
The list includes:
1) Incumbents are tough to beat: Presidential incumbents have inherent advantages, winning three of the last contests. Presidents Reagan and Clinton were politically damaged by the midterm elections in their first terms, but two years later, both cruised to victory. Obama called the Nov. 2, 2010, election a “shellacking,” changed his governing approach and Congress had one of the most productive lame-duck sessions in recent memory.
2) A move to the center by Obama: During the lame-duck, 2012 GOP hopefuls broke with Republican congressional leaders on the tax cut deal they brokered with Obama. That trend will continue this year. Generally speaking, compromises with the president don’t play well with the base. But House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) both have strong political incentives to work with the White House on a range of issues, including trade, education and perhaps energy. As Republican candidates woo conservatives in Iowa and New Hampshire, Obama will try to burnish his standing with the independents who backed him in 2008 and then voted for Republican congressional candidates last year.
3) The economy is showing signs of life: Improvements in the economy always help boost the party in power. So if the nation’s unemployment rate continues to drop, that will help the president and protect Boehner’s new majority in the House.
4) Presidential elections are usually more about personality than policies. Voters like to like their president. George W. Bush was deemed more likeable than Vice President Al Gore in 2000. Four years later, Democrats enjoyed advantages over Bush on key policy issues, but Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) didn’t connect with voters as much as Bush did. Obama’s personality was key to his stunning win over Hillary Clinton in the primary and later to his triumph over Senator John McCain (R-AZ). Throughout the latter half of 2009 and last year, polls showed that the public was skeptical of Obama’s policies. But independents didn’t turn on Obama personally as they did against Bush in 2006.
5) Democrats still have fresh memories of Bush. Liberal Democrats were furious with Obama’s deal with the GOP on tax cuts in the lame-duck session. Those intraparty tensions will flare in 2011 as Obama seeks to curb federal spending and move long-stalled trade deals. But 2012 will likely be a different story as Democrats focus on the their real political opponent – the Republican presidential candidate.
6) RNC debt. The Republican National Committee is $20 million in debt and has to reestablish its reputation with donors after many of them put away their checkbooks during Michael Steele’s controversial term. The Democratic National Committee, meanwhile, has $15.5 million in debt. While some Obama donors are upset with his move to the center, the president’s fundraising skills are a significant asset. The news here for Republicans, however, could easily turn. Outside GOP-allied groups, such as American Crossroads, tapped into anti-Obama fervor in 2010 and will undoubtedly be a force in this cycle as well.
7) People like divided government. In recent years, both Democrats and Republicans have overreached when controlling the executive and legislative branches. In 2006, Democrats called for a check and balance on Bush and won control of Congress. Republicans followed the same playbook in 2010 on Obama and it worked. In 2012, Republicans will have to come up with a new game plan because they have a comfortable majority in the House and have a good shot at winning the Senate. Polls indicate that voters are still wary of the GOP and Republican lawmakers acknowledge they have a lot of work to do before they regain voters’ trust.
Time will how big each will play in 2012, but all provide an edge for Obama and make the climb for the Republicans regaining the White House a long journey filled with more challenges than they faced in 2010.
Nonetheless, both parties must quickly analyze exit polls and opinion polls for some clues to how voters made up their minds and what both parties could do to get an electoral result that they would prefer in 2012.
Looking ahead to 2012, a recent article by the Hill could offer some perspective of the road ahead for the GOP in unseating President Obama. The Hill lists 7 reasons that could shape the next election and provide a challenge that some might not be ready for in less than two years.
The list includes:
1) Incumbents are tough to beat: Presidential incumbents have inherent advantages, winning three of the last contests. Presidents Reagan and Clinton were politically damaged by the midterm elections in their first terms, but two years later, both cruised to victory. Obama called the Nov. 2, 2010, election a “shellacking,” changed his governing approach and Congress had one of the most productive lame-duck sessions in recent memory.
2) A move to the center by Obama: During the lame-duck, 2012 GOP hopefuls broke with Republican congressional leaders on the tax cut deal they brokered with Obama. That trend will continue this year. Generally speaking, compromises with the president don’t play well with the base. But House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) both have strong political incentives to work with the White House on a range of issues, including trade, education and perhaps energy. As Republican candidates woo conservatives in Iowa and New Hampshire, Obama will try to burnish his standing with the independents who backed him in 2008 and then voted for Republican congressional candidates last year.
3) The economy is showing signs of life: Improvements in the economy always help boost the party in power. So if the nation’s unemployment rate continues to drop, that will help the president and protect Boehner’s new majority in the House.
4) Presidential elections are usually more about personality than policies. Voters like to like their president. George W. Bush was deemed more likeable than Vice President Al Gore in 2000. Four years later, Democrats enjoyed advantages over Bush on key policy issues, but Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) didn’t connect with voters as much as Bush did. Obama’s personality was key to his stunning win over Hillary Clinton in the primary and later to his triumph over Senator John McCain (R-AZ). Throughout the latter half of 2009 and last year, polls showed that the public was skeptical of Obama’s policies. But independents didn’t turn on Obama personally as they did against Bush in 2006.
5) Democrats still have fresh memories of Bush. Liberal Democrats were furious with Obama’s deal with the GOP on tax cuts in the lame-duck session. Those intraparty tensions will flare in 2011 as Obama seeks to curb federal spending and move long-stalled trade deals. But 2012 will likely be a different story as Democrats focus on the their real political opponent – the Republican presidential candidate.
6) RNC debt. The Republican National Committee is $20 million in debt and has to reestablish its reputation with donors after many of them put away their checkbooks during Michael Steele’s controversial term. The Democratic National Committee, meanwhile, has $15.5 million in debt. While some Obama donors are upset with his move to the center, the president’s fundraising skills are a significant asset. The news here for Republicans, however, could easily turn. Outside GOP-allied groups, such as American Crossroads, tapped into anti-Obama fervor in 2010 and will undoubtedly be a force in this cycle as well.
7) People like divided government. In recent years, both Democrats and Republicans have overreached when controlling the executive and legislative branches. In 2006, Democrats called for a check and balance on Bush and won control of Congress. Republicans followed the same playbook in 2010 on Obama and it worked. In 2012, Republicans will have to come up with a new game plan because they have a comfortable majority in the House and have a good shot at winning the Senate. Polls indicate that voters are still wary of the GOP and Republican lawmakers acknowledge they have a lot of work to do before they regain voters’ trust.
Time will how big each will play in 2012, but all provide an edge for Obama and make the climb for the Republicans regaining the White House a long journey filled with more challenges than they faced in 2010.
Monday, January 24, 2011
As the redistricting maps turn; next stop Illinois
Continuing with the redistricting series, the attention now turns to Illinois; the state closest to President Barack Obama's heart. Previously; Texas, Indiana, and Georgia have all been discussed regarding the breakdowns and path forward especially for Republicans as they look to work off of their 2010 successes; which includes gaining or maintaining several statehouses.
Now for The Fix's take on Illinois and redistricting in 2012:
When it comes to redistricting, Illinois is Democrats' prize pig. And it might be the biggest prize on the map for either party.
The Democrats control the drawing of the map in only seven states this year. But none of them compare in size or influence to the Land of Lincoln.
In fact, in the other six -- Massachusetts, Maryland, Connecticut, Arkansas, West Virginia and Rhode Island -- the Democrats already control 25 of 32 congressional seats. That doesn't leave much room for map expansion.
Illinois is another story. Republicans just won four seats from Democrats this November and now hold an 11-to-8 edge in the state's congressional delegation. That means lots of room for gains for the other guys.
"This is really the one state where Democrats can do something," said David Wasserman, a redistricting expert at the Cook Political Report.
Illinois Republicans are scared. And they should be.
Those who should be most concerned are four new members -- Reps.-elect Joe Walsh, Bob Dold, Bobby Schilling and Adam Kinzinger -- and a member who just won his second term, Rep. Aaron Schock.
Walsh and Dold just won districts in the northern Chicago suburbs/exurbs near the Wisconsin border. And there's plenty of Democratic territory that can be added to both of their districts by drawing in parts of the Rep. Jan Schakowsky's (D) 9th district and some of the more Democratic areas of Rep.-elect Randy Hultgren's (R) 14th district.
Besides the maneuvering in the Chicago area, the main change will be the likely loss of a district somewhere in the state. This isn't a done deal yet (we'll find out Tuesday when reapportionment data is released by the Census Bureau -- an early Christmas present for political junkies!), but chances are reasonably good the state will drop from 19 districts to 18. (This happened to be the case)
The axed district is expected to come out of the middle of the state, and that would hurt Schock the most, since his Peoria-based 18th district is the most centrally located.
Democrats could pretty easily run Schock out of a district by absorbing his district into the 17th to the west (held by Schilling), the 11th to the north (held by Kinzinger) and the 19th to the south (held by GOP Rep. John Shimkus).
Democrats could eliminate Schock's district and create a more friendly 17th by adding Democratic-leaning Peoria to the 17th and putting more GOP parts of the 17th and 18th into the 19th to the south, the 11th to the north and Rep. Tim Johnson's (R-Ill.) 15th district to the east. By doing that, two GOP districts suddenly morph into one Democratic-leaning district, while shoring up nearby Republicans.
Indeed, Schilling's 17th district was initially drawn (ahem ... creatively) for Democrats and was a surprising GOP pickup this year. So any further shift toward Democrats would make it very tough for Schilling to hold it. (President Obama won the seat by 15 points in 2008.)
It would also create a very tough situation for Schock, who is from Peoria. He would be faced with a choice between running in his home district against another GOP member of Congress, with a tough road ahead in the general election or potentially having to run in a primary against Kinzinger in a friendlier GOP district. (Wasserman explains the scenario further in a lengthy reapportionment preview today.
Schock and Kinzinger have close ties including sharing some campaign staff. It's hard to see them running against each other, but redistricting can lead to some tough choices.
A source close to Schock said the congressman is "well aware that the state may lose a seat, and Aaron's been preparing for what could and might happen" -- mostly by expanding his profile back home.
Kinzinger gains on the deal by getting a friendlier 11th district and more territory around his home in the Bloomington-Normal area. But those gains could be offset by the prospect of a primary against Schock.
By shifting Kinzinger's district south, Rep. Judy Biggert's (R) GOP-leaning 13th district southwest of Chicago could pick up some Democratic-leaning voters in Kane County and Will County -- both which have added significant population in recent years -- and make her district more marginal.
Adding Will County to Biggert's district could allow outgoing Rep. Debbie Halvorson (D), who lost to Kinzinger this year, to run for Biggert's seat when the 73-year-old congresswoman retires -- or if the Democrat decides to challenge the incumbent outright.
Of all the GOPers in the Chicago area, the two members west of Chicago -- Hultgren and Rep. Peter Roskam -- probably have the least to be concerned about. If Democrats try to pack the other districts with Democratic voters, the Republican areas have to go somewhere, and Roskam and Hultgren's districts are the most logical choices, given their current geographic bases.
All these changes considered, Democrats have a good shot at turning five Republican-held seats (Biggert, Schilling, Schock, Dold and Walsh) into four Democratic ones in the coming years (assuming one of those five districts is eliminated).
Another question for the map-drawers will be what to do with Rep. Luis Gutierrez's (D) C-shaped 4th district in Chicago -- a district that is often compared to a set of earmuffs. The district was drawn that way to incorporate most of the city's Hispanic voters both on the North and South Sides of Chicago, but as the Hispanic population has grown and other ethnicities have dropped off, a case can be made for drawing two separate Hispanic-majority districts.
That, of course, could heavily impact other Chicago members -- specifically, nearby Reps. Dan Lipinski (D) and Mike Quigley (D), who each have between 25 and 30 percent Hispanic districts and could see big changes.
But Rob Paral, a demographic expert at the University of Notre Dame, is skeptical that there is a good way to draw two Hispanic-majority districts. "The Latino population is so dispersed," said Paral, who specializes in Hispanic demography. "It doesn't look like it's there."
Gutierrez is open to the idea. That's important, because member input matters. The last time redistricting came around, members of the congressional delegation hammered out their own map and sent it to the state legislature for approval.
Of course, back then, there was split control of the process. Now, it's controlled by the Democrats, and all-powerful state House Speaker Mike Madigan (D) has the power to make or break several members of Congress.
With Democrats poised to bear the brunt of redistricting in so many states this year, they'll have to get their shots in where they can. Unfortunately for them, the opportunities begin and end with basically one state.
Expect an aggressive map.
Now for The Fix's take on Illinois and redistricting in 2012:
When it comes to redistricting, Illinois is Democrats' prize pig. And it might be the biggest prize on the map for either party.
The Democrats control the drawing of the map in only seven states this year. But none of them compare in size or influence to the Land of Lincoln.
In fact, in the other six -- Massachusetts, Maryland, Connecticut, Arkansas, West Virginia and Rhode Island -- the Democrats already control 25 of 32 congressional seats. That doesn't leave much room for map expansion.
Illinois is another story. Republicans just won four seats from Democrats this November and now hold an 11-to-8 edge in the state's congressional delegation. That means lots of room for gains for the other guys.
"This is really the one state where Democrats can do something," said David Wasserman, a redistricting expert at the Cook Political Report.
Illinois Republicans are scared. And they should be.
Those who should be most concerned are four new members -- Reps.-elect Joe Walsh, Bob Dold, Bobby Schilling and Adam Kinzinger -- and a member who just won his second term, Rep. Aaron Schock.
Walsh and Dold just won districts in the northern Chicago suburbs/exurbs near the Wisconsin border. And there's plenty of Democratic territory that can be added to both of their districts by drawing in parts of the Rep. Jan Schakowsky's (D) 9th district and some of the more Democratic areas of Rep.-elect Randy Hultgren's (R) 14th district.
Besides the maneuvering in the Chicago area, the main change will be the likely loss of a district somewhere in the state. This isn't a done deal yet (we'll find out Tuesday when reapportionment data is released by the Census Bureau -- an early Christmas present for political junkies!), but chances are reasonably good the state will drop from 19 districts to 18. (This happened to be the case)
The axed district is expected to come out of the middle of the state, and that would hurt Schock the most, since his Peoria-based 18th district is the most centrally located.
Democrats could pretty easily run Schock out of a district by absorbing his district into the 17th to the west (held by Schilling), the 11th to the north (held by Kinzinger) and the 19th to the south (held by GOP Rep. John Shimkus).
Democrats could eliminate Schock's district and create a more friendly 17th by adding Democratic-leaning Peoria to the 17th and putting more GOP parts of the 17th and 18th into the 19th to the south, the 11th to the north and Rep. Tim Johnson's (R-Ill.) 15th district to the east. By doing that, two GOP districts suddenly morph into one Democratic-leaning district, while shoring up nearby Republicans.
Indeed, Schilling's 17th district was initially drawn (ahem ... creatively) for Democrats and was a surprising GOP pickup this year. So any further shift toward Democrats would make it very tough for Schilling to hold it. (President Obama won the seat by 15 points in 2008.)
It would also create a very tough situation for Schock, who is from Peoria. He would be faced with a choice between running in his home district against another GOP member of Congress, with a tough road ahead in the general election or potentially having to run in a primary against Kinzinger in a friendlier GOP district. (Wasserman explains the scenario further in a lengthy reapportionment preview today.
Schock and Kinzinger have close ties including sharing some campaign staff. It's hard to see them running against each other, but redistricting can lead to some tough choices.
A source close to Schock said the congressman is "well aware that the state may lose a seat, and Aaron's been preparing for what could and might happen" -- mostly by expanding his profile back home.
Kinzinger gains on the deal by getting a friendlier 11th district and more territory around his home in the Bloomington-Normal area. But those gains could be offset by the prospect of a primary against Schock.
By shifting Kinzinger's district south, Rep. Judy Biggert's (R) GOP-leaning 13th district southwest of Chicago could pick up some Democratic-leaning voters in Kane County and Will County -- both which have added significant population in recent years -- and make her district more marginal.
Adding Will County to Biggert's district could allow outgoing Rep. Debbie Halvorson (D), who lost to Kinzinger this year, to run for Biggert's seat when the 73-year-old congresswoman retires -- or if the Democrat decides to challenge the incumbent outright.
Of all the GOPers in the Chicago area, the two members west of Chicago -- Hultgren and Rep. Peter Roskam -- probably have the least to be concerned about. If Democrats try to pack the other districts with Democratic voters, the Republican areas have to go somewhere, and Roskam and Hultgren's districts are the most logical choices, given their current geographic bases.
All these changes considered, Democrats have a good shot at turning five Republican-held seats (Biggert, Schilling, Schock, Dold and Walsh) into four Democratic ones in the coming years (assuming one of those five districts is eliminated).
Another question for the map-drawers will be what to do with Rep. Luis Gutierrez's (D) C-shaped 4th district in Chicago -- a district that is often compared to a set of earmuffs. The district was drawn that way to incorporate most of the city's Hispanic voters both on the North and South Sides of Chicago, but as the Hispanic population has grown and other ethnicities have dropped off, a case can be made for drawing two separate Hispanic-majority districts.
That, of course, could heavily impact other Chicago members -- specifically, nearby Reps. Dan Lipinski (D) and Mike Quigley (D), who each have between 25 and 30 percent Hispanic districts and could see big changes.
But Rob Paral, a demographic expert at the University of Notre Dame, is skeptical that there is a good way to draw two Hispanic-majority districts. "The Latino population is so dispersed," said Paral, who specializes in Hispanic demography. "It doesn't look like it's there."
Gutierrez is open to the idea. That's important, because member input matters. The last time redistricting came around, members of the congressional delegation hammered out their own map and sent it to the state legislature for approval.
Of course, back then, there was split control of the process. Now, it's controlled by the Democrats, and all-powerful state House Speaker Mike Madigan (D) has the power to make or break several members of Congress.
With Democrats poised to bear the brunt of redistricting in so many states this year, they'll have to get their shots in where they can. Unfortunately for them, the opportunities begin and end with basically one state.
Expect an aggressive map.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
As the redistricting maps turn; next stop Georgia
Previously, this month; I have delved into the fact that redistricting around the country is approaching on the horizon. The Fix through the Washington Post has begun a series to focus on individual cases for redistricting around the country. So far, Texas and Indiana have been discussed. Now, the attention towards to the southeast and Georgia; another state like Indiana that was tougher on Democrats and President Barack Obama this past election cycle than 2008.
Now onto the breakdown for Georgia:
Reps. John Barrow and Sanford Bishop just survived one of the toughest environments for Georgia Democrats in their lifetimes.
The question now is whether they can survive redistricting.
Republicans control the state House, state Senate and the governor's mansion in the Peach State, giving them full power over the redistricting process and a chance to re-draw the districts that both Barrow and Bishop will have to run in in 2012.
The GOP has come within a hair of beating both of them in recent years. And after defeating Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.) this year, Barrow and Bishop are the only logical targets remaining for Republicans.
With Marshall out, Republicans now control eight of the state's 13 congressional districts. Georgia is also likely to add a 14th district thanks to population growth, and Republicans are expected to have a relatively easy time creating a GOP-leaning district north of metropolitan Atlanta.
Of the five remaining Democratic districts, three of them are in heavily black -- and heavily Democratic -- areas of Atlanta. The GOP probably won't be able to do much with these districts, besides make small changes that would help nearby Republicans.
That leaves Barrow and Bishop. But taking them out won't be easy either -- especially in the case of Bishop.
Both come from seats that are close to half black; Barrow's district had a 44 percent African American population at last check, while Bishop's was 47.5 percent black. The districts technically aren't covered under the Voting Rights Act (since they don't include a majority of black voters), but they are so close to gaining that status that Democrats and black leaders could pressure Republicans to keep the black vote strong in those districts.
In a Republican dream scenario, they could try to draw both Barrow and Bishop tougher districts, by borrowing GOPers from strongly Republican districts held by Reps. Jack Kingston, Lynn Westmoreland and Paul Broun.
A more likely scenario, though, is that Republicans actually shore up Bishop, potentially turning his district into a majority-black district, and use the more Republican areas of his district to help shore up Rep.-elect Austin Scott (R), who just beat Marshall next door. Once they do that, they need to decide whether they want to go after Barrow.
The GOP could strengthen Bishop by moving the heavily black parts of Macon (from Scott's 8th district) and Valdosta (from Kingston's 1st district) into Bishop's 2nd district in the southwest.
Scott could be shored up by taking some of the more Republican parts of Kingston's and Bishop's districts, and/or taking on some of the growth in GOP-friendly areas of the Atlanta suburbs.
When it comes to Barrow's eastern 12th district, there are basically two ways for Republicans to make him more vulnerable. One is to move more of heavily Democratic Savannah into Kingston's district in the southeast; the other is to take more of heavily Democratic Augusta and move it into Broun's 10th district in the northeast.
But it won't be easy. The Cook Political Report's David Wasserman said Republicans might have to defend such a move in court, because it would dilute the black vote in Barrow's district.
"The easiest way to crack that district is to divide Savannah and Augusta, but you're asking for a lawsuit," Wasserman said.
The Supreme Court ruled last year that the Voting Rights Act doesn't require states to draw "crossover" districts, which are favorable to minority candidates even though minorities don't comprise more than half of the district. But much remains unsettled in this section of the law, and the court's decision doesn't necessarily mean Republicans have carte blanche to dismantle such a district.
Wasserman also pointed to another potential problem: the fact that Republicans, in a 2005 round of redistricting, were hesitant to weaken Kingston's district.
Kingston might have to take one for the team this time -- at least if the party wants to make further gains in the state. Using parts of his district to solidify the districts of Bishop and Scott means he would have to make up for the population loss elsewhere, and Savannah is the easiest answer.
Complicating matters on that front is that fact that Kingston is now the longest-serving Republican member of Congress from Georgia. Internal politics are important in this process, and if Kingston is unwilling to take on more of Savannah -- and, in so doing, make himself potentially more vulnerable to a Democratic challenge down the line -- things get complicated for Republicans.
Beyond Kingston's own lobbying efforts, Republicans might be hesitant to change the map too much, for fear of spreading themselves overly thin. If they could draw a really safe district for Scott and keep two of four south Georgia districts (along with Kingston's seat), many GOP strategists would see that as a victory.
Redistricting expert Michael McDonald of George Mason University questioned how much incentive Republicans have to get too creative with the maps, given they now have their biggest House majority in 60 years.
"It's really going to come down to how safe Republicans feel nationally," McDonald said. "I would bet you if we were sitting in a world where Democrats had a really thin majority in the House, Republicans would roll the dice and split those districts."
The other major change on the map for this round of redistricting is the likely addition of a 14th district. The district is expected to be drawn using some combination of two fast-growing counties just north of Atlanta -- Cherokee and Forsyth.
In order to make room, though, a few changes will need to be made in the Atlanta area. Rep. Tom Price (R) could take on the more Republican areas of metro Atlanta -- Buckhead and Sandy Springs among them.
Rep. John Lewis (D) will likely look to pick up some black precincts from the other two Democrats in metro Atlanta, given that his district is close to losing its majority-black status.
To make up for their losses, Rep. David Scott (D) could pick up some of increasingly Democratic Henry County, while Rep. Hank Johnson (D) could add Democratic areas of Gwinnett County and Rockdale County -- thereby helping Republican Rep.-elect Rob Woodall get a friendlier district.
All in all, Georgia is one of a few big states where Republican control the process but could have difficulty drawing themselves a much better map. GOP strategists have to hope the state is the exception, not the rule, when it comes to the national re-drawing of congressional district lines.
Now onto the breakdown for Georgia:
Reps. John Barrow and Sanford Bishop just survived one of the toughest environments for Georgia Democrats in their lifetimes.
The question now is whether they can survive redistricting.
Republicans control the state House, state Senate and the governor's mansion in the Peach State, giving them full power over the redistricting process and a chance to re-draw the districts that both Barrow and Bishop will have to run in in 2012.
The GOP has come within a hair of beating both of them in recent years. And after defeating Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.) this year, Barrow and Bishop are the only logical targets remaining for Republicans.
With Marshall out, Republicans now control eight of the state's 13 congressional districts. Georgia is also likely to add a 14th district thanks to population growth, and Republicans are expected to have a relatively easy time creating a GOP-leaning district north of metropolitan Atlanta.
Of the five remaining Democratic districts, three of them are in heavily black -- and heavily Democratic -- areas of Atlanta. The GOP probably won't be able to do much with these districts, besides make small changes that would help nearby Republicans.
That leaves Barrow and Bishop. But taking them out won't be easy either -- especially in the case of Bishop.
Both come from seats that are close to half black; Barrow's district had a 44 percent African American population at last check, while Bishop's was 47.5 percent black. The districts technically aren't covered under the Voting Rights Act (since they don't include a majority of black voters), but they are so close to gaining that status that Democrats and black leaders could pressure Republicans to keep the black vote strong in those districts.
In a Republican dream scenario, they could try to draw both Barrow and Bishop tougher districts, by borrowing GOPers from strongly Republican districts held by Reps. Jack Kingston, Lynn Westmoreland and Paul Broun.
A more likely scenario, though, is that Republicans actually shore up Bishop, potentially turning his district into a majority-black district, and use the more Republican areas of his district to help shore up Rep.-elect Austin Scott (R), who just beat Marshall next door. Once they do that, they need to decide whether they want to go after Barrow.
The GOP could strengthen Bishop by moving the heavily black parts of Macon (from Scott's 8th district) and Valdosta (from Kingston's 1st district) into Bishop's 2nd district in the southwest.
Scott could be shored up by taking some of the more Republican parts of Kingston's and Bishop's districts, and/or taking on some of the growth in GOP-friendly areas of the Atlanta suburbs.
When it comes to Barrow's eastern 12th district, there are basically two ways for Republicans to make him more vulnerable. One is to move more of heavily Democratic Savannah into Kingston's district in the southeast; the other is to take more of heavily Democratic Augusta and move it into Broun's 10th district in the northeast.
But it won't be easy. The Cook Political Report's David Wasserman said Republicans might have to defend such a move in court, because it would dilute the black vote in Barrow's district.
"The easiest way to crack that district is to divide Savannah and Augusta, but you're asking for a lawsuit," Wasserman said.
The Supreme Court ruled last year that the Voting Rights Act doesn't require states to draw "crossover" districts, which are favorable to minority candidates even though minorities don't comprise more than half of the district. But much remains unsettled in this section of the law, and the court's decision doesn't necessarily mean Republicans have carte blanche to dismantle such a district.
Wasserman also pointed to another potential problem: the fact that Republicans, in a 2005 round of redistricting, were hesitant to weaken Kingston's district.
Kingston might have to take one for the team this time -- at least if the party wants to make further gains in the state. Using parts of his district to solidify the districts of Bishop and Scott means he would have to make up for the population loss elsewhere, and Savannah is the easiest answer.
Complicating matters on that front is that fact that Kingston is now the longest-serving Republican member of Congress from Georgia. Internal politics are important in this process, and if Kingston is unwilling to take on more of Savannah -- and, in so doing, make himself potentially more vulnerable to a Democratic challenge down the line -- things get complicated for Republicans.
Beyond Kingston's own lobbying efforts, Republicans might be hesitant to change the map too much, for fear of spreading themselves overly thin. If they could draw a really safe district for Scott and keep two of four south Georgia districts (along with Kingston's seat), many GOP strategists would see that as a victory.
Redistricting expert Michael McDonald of George Mason University questioned how much incentive Republicans have to get too creative with the maps, given they now have their biggest House majority in 60 years.
"It's really going to come down to how safe Republicans feel nationally," McDonald said. "I would bet you if we were sitting in a world where Democrats had a really thin majority in the House, Republicans would roll the dice and split those districts."
The other major change on the map for this round of redistricting is the likely addition of a 14th district. The district is expected to be drawn using some combination of two fast-growing counties just north of Atlanta -- Cherokee and Forsyth.
In order to make room, though, a few changes will need to be made in the Atlanta area. Rep. Tom Price (R) could take on the more Republican areas of metro Atlanta -- Buckhead and Sandy Springs among them.
Rep. John Lewis (D) will likely look to pick up some black precincts from the other two Democrats in metro Atlanta, given that his district is close to losing its majority-black status.
To make up for their losses, Rep. David Scott (D) could pick up some of increasingly Democratic Henry County, while Rep. Hank Johnson (D) could add Democratic areas of Gwinnett County and Rockdale County -- thereby helping Republican Rep.-elect Rob Woodall get a friendlier district.
All in all, Georgia is one of a few big states where Republican control the process but could have difficulty drawing themselves a much better map. GOP strategists have to hope the state is the exception, not the rule, when it comes to the national re-drawing of congressional district lines.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
As the redistricting maps turn; next stop Indiana
Recently, I began to address the oncoming issue of redistricting. A topic being laid out in the Washington Post through the input of Chris Cilliza and Aaron Blake on behalf of the Post's The Fix. First, Texas was covered. Now, the Fix turns to Indiana; a state that saw Democrats slip further in terms of seats and control in the state.
As presented:
Rep. Joe Donnelly was one of the cardiac kids on Nov. 2 -- a real survivor in a very tough race. But the Indiana Democrat's toughest campaign is probably ahead of him.
That's because while Donnelly was winning reelection by a narrow margin over state Rep. Jackie Walorski (R), his fellow Indiana Democrats were getting destroyed. Just two years after the state shocked the political world by supporting President Obama, it has returned to its red roots, Republicans control redistricting, and Donnelly might pay the price by getting drawn out of a home.
Indiana Democrats had five of the state's nine congressional districts this cycle. They lost two of them in the election, and now Republicans have the power to yank at least one more seat thanks to their control of the drawing of new districts.
With the state very likely to keep its current total of nine districts, priority No. 1 for Republicans will be shoring up a pair of southern Indiana districts that have given them trouble in recent years -- the ones just taken from Democrats by GOP Reps.-elect Larry Bucshon and Todd Young. Beyond that, though, Donnelly is squarely in the crosshairs.
All three of those districts were made Democrat-friendly when that party controlled redistricting in 2001. They drew more liberal areas into all three, adding Terre Haute into what will now be (currently is) Bucshon's district and Bloomington into what will now be (currently is) Young's. They also moved Michigan City and Kokomo -- where Obama happens to be today(last November)-- into what became Donnelly's district in the north.
Republicans can now undo those changes and move to shore up Bucshon and Young. The question is whether they want to go further than that.
By adding all of Michigan City back to Rep. Pete Visclosky's (D) district, they would be making Donnelly's seat more winnable but still very competitive. If they really want to push the envelope, though, they could try to stretch the district further east, incorporating its current base in Gary with Michigan City and, further east, South Bend. South Bend, as at happens, is Donnelly's base.
Donnelly would effectively be left with a choice between running for reelection or challenging Visclosky in a primary.
Republicans could make Donnelly's current district pretty uninhabitable by borrowing heavily Republican Elkhart and Kosciusko counties from the neighboring 3rd district and using them to replace the population from Michigan City/South Bend.
A Democratic strategist who does a lot of work in Indiana said Donnelly will likely run wherever South Bend is.
"South Bend is his base, and St. Joe is his home, and if they did that, I would guess that's where he would run, though I'm sure he would take a hard look at the new 2nd district as well," the source said.
It's not yet clear whether Republicans could draw such a map or whether Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) would approve it. Daniels has hinted that he wouldn't approve an overly ambitious gerrymander, which may give Republicans pause in pushing things too far.
The other area where Republicans could expand their ranks is even more unlikely. They could, in theory, divide up Rep. Andre Carson's (D-Ind.) Indianapolis-based 7th district among the three GOP districts emanating from the Indianapolis suburbs -- the 4th, 5th and 6th districts.
But there are a few problems with this. One is that, even though the district is not majority black and not protected by the Voting Rights Act, there is a heavy black population that has elected an African-American member of Congress. Redistricting the state's lone black congressman out of office could lead to a backlash and be a PR nightmare for Republicans.
The other risk is that the GOP would be diluting its vote in any of the three districts surrounding Indianapolis. They're pretty safe right now, but adding large new populations could change that, and the members likely wouldn't be too happy about taking on so much Democratic territory.
Speaking of keeping their current members happy -- shoring up Bucshon and Young is doable, but it's not terribly easy.
That's because it's basically impossible to get rid of Evansville from Bucshon's district, and besides getting rid of Terre Haute, the district would likely be adding GOP territory from Young's district, which would have to be replaced elsewhere.
Young, meanwhile, will want to get rid of some of the more liberal precincts in Bloomington. But that's also his hometown, so he'll probably want to keep some as well. In order to make up for population lost in Bloomington and the counties transferred west to Bucshon's district, Young would probably have to take on some counties close to Cincinnati, which would make his district span the Indianapolis, Louisville and Cincinnati media markets, making for a very expensive district for Democrats to go after.
If Republicans could find a way to do it all successfully, though, they could effectively reduce the number of Democratic seats in the state to one or two out of nine -- a very strong gerrymander in a state that, as we've mentioned, went for Obama in 2008.
Given how aggressive Democrats were in 2001, turnabout could be fair play now that Republicans are in charge, noted David Wasserman of the Cook Political Report.
"This is very aggressive map," Wasserman said, noting that "in 2001, had Republicans been in control, they might have broken up the 7th district in Indianapolis."
Republicans have lots of flexibility with the congressional map, given that four of their six seats will be held by freshmen who don't necessarily have lots of clout with party leaders. (It's interesting to note that one of the freshmen, Rep.-elect Todd Rokita, as secretary of state actually clashed with the state legislature over gerrymandering).
Beyond those four members, the other two GOPers -- Reps. Mike Pence and Dan Burton -- are considered potential retirees. Pence is weighing a presidential or gubernatorial campaign, while Burton is getting on in age and has faced some very tough primaries in recent years. If either or both of them step aside, it would give the GOP license to really mess with the new district lines.
As we discussed last week when we dissected Texas (the two were written a week apart in November), there are states where the GOP is already stretched so far that adding new winnable districts will be difficult. Indiana will not be one of them.
As presented:
Rep. Joe Donnelly was one of the cardiac kids on Nov. 2 -- a real survivor in a very tough race. But the Indiana Democrat's toughest campaign is probably ahead of him.
That's because while Donnelly was winning reelection by a narrow margin over state Rep. Jackie Walorski (R), his fellow Indiana Democrats were getting destroyed. Just two years after the state shocked the political world by supporting President Obama, it has returned to its red roots, Republicans control redistricting, and Donnelly might pay the price by getting drawn out of a home.
Indiana Democrats had five of the state's nine congressional districts this cycle. They lost two of them in the election, and now Republicans have the power to yank at least one more seat thanks to their control of the drawing of new districts.
With the state very likely to keep its current total of nine districts, priority No. 1 for Republicans will be shoring up a pair of southern Indiana districts that have given them trouble in recent years -- the ones just taken from Democrats by GOP Reps.-elect Larry Bucshon and Todd Young. Beyond that, though, Donnelly is squarely in the crosshairs.
All three of those districts were made Democrat-friendly when that party controlled redistricting in 2001. They drew more liberal areas into all three, adding Terre Haute into what will now be (currently is) Bucshon's district and Bloomington into what will now be (currently is) Young's. They also moved Michigan City and Kokomo -- where Obama happens to be today(last November)-- into what became Donnelly's district in the north.
Republicans can now undo those changes and move to shore up Bucshon and Young. The question is whether they want to go further than that.
By adding all of Michigan City back to Rep. Pete Visclosky's (D) district, they would be making Donnelly's seat more winnable but still very competitive. If they really want to push the envelope, though, they could try to stretch the district further east, incorporating its current base in Gary with Michigan City and, further east, South Bend. South Bend, as at happens, is Donnelly's base.
Donnelly would effectively be left with a choice between running for reelection or challenging Visclosky in a primary.
Republicans could make Donnelly's current district pretty uninhabitable by borrowing heavily Republican Elkhart and Kosciusko counties from the neighboring 3rd district and using them to replace the population from Michigan City/South Bend.
A Democratic strategist who does a lot of work in Indiana said Donnelly will likely run wherever South Bend is.
"South Bend is his base, and St. Joe is his home, and if they did that, I would guess that's where he would run, though I'm sure he would take a hard look at the new 2nd district as well," the source said.
It's not yet clear whether Republicans could draw such a map or whether Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) would approve it. Daniels has hinted that he wouldn't approve an overly ambitious gerrymander, which may give Republicans pause in pushing things too far.
The other area where Republicans could expand their ranks is even more unlikely. They could, in theory, divide up Rep. Andre Carson's (D-Ind.) Indianapolis-based 7th district among the three GOP districts emanating from the Indianapolis suburbs -- the 4th, 5th and 6th districts.
But there are a few problems with this. One is that, even though the district is not majority black and not protected by the Voting Rights Act, there is a heavy black population that has elected an African-American member of Congress. Redistricting the state's lone black congressman out of office could lead to a backlash and be a PR nightmare for Republicans.
The other risk is that the GOP would be diluting its vote in any of the three districts surrounding Indianapolis. They're pretty safe right now, but adding large new populations could change that, and the members likely wouldn't be too happy about taking on so much Democratic territory.
Speaking of keeping their current members happy -- shoring up Bucshon and Young is doable, but it's not terribly easy.
That's because it's basically impossible to get rid of Evansville from Bucshon's district, and besides getting rid of Terre Haute, the district would likely be adding GOP territory from Young's district, which would have to be replaced elsewhere.
Young, meanwhile, will want to get rid of some of the more liberal precincts in Bloomington. But that's also his hometown, so he'll probably want to keep some as well. In order to make up for population lost in Bloomington and the counties transferred west to Bucshon's district, Young would probably have to take on some counties close to Cincinnati, which would make his district span the Indianapolis, Louisville and Cincinnati media markets, making for a very expensive district for Democrats to go after.
If Republicans could find a way to do it all successfully, though, they could effectively reduce the number of Democratic seats in the state to one or two out of nine -- a very strong gerrymander in a state that, as we've mentioned, went for Obama in 2008.
Given how aggressive Democrats were in 2001, turnabout could be fair play now that Republicans are in charge, noted David Wasserman of the Cook Political Report.
"This is very aggressive map," Wasserman said, noting that "in 2001, had Republicans been in control, they might have broken up the 7th district in Indianapolis."
Republicans have lots of flexibility with the congressional map, given that four of their six seats will be held by freshmen who don't necessarily have lots of clout with party leaders. (It's interesting to note that one of the freshmen, Rep.-elect Todd Rokita, as secretary of state actually clashed with the state legislature over gerrymandering).
Beyond those four members, the other two GOPers -- Reps. Mike Pence and Dan Burton -- are considered potential retirees. Pence is weighing a presidential or gubernatorial campaign, while Burton is getting on in age and has faced some very tough primaries in recent years. If either or both of them step aside, it would give the GOP license to really mess with the new district lines.
As we discussed last week when we dissected Texas (the two were written a week apart in November), there are states where the GOP is already stretched so far that adding new winnable districts will be difficult. Indiana will not be one of them.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
College Football Week 16/Post-Bowl Game Rankings
TOP 25 (Week 16/Post-Bowl Ranking/Final Rankings)
Rank(last week)
1)(2) Auburn (14-0)
2)(3) TCU (13-0)
3)(1) Oregon (13-1)
4)(5) Stanford (12-1)
5)(6) Ohio State (12-1)
6)(10) LSU (11-2)
7)(4) Wisconsin (11-2)
8)(11) Oklahoma (12-2)
9)(14) Alabama (10-3)
10)(9) Boise State (12-1)
11)(15) Nevada (13-1)
12)(19) Oklahoma State (11-2)
13)(8) Arkansas (10-3)
14)(7) Michigan State (11-2)
15)(12) Virginia Tech (11-3)
16)(22) Mississippi State (9-4)
17)(21) Florida State (10-4)
18)(13) Missouri (10-3)
19)(16) Nebraska (10-4)
20)(18) Texas A&M (9-4)
21)(17) South Carolina (9-5)
22)(NR) UCF (11-3)
23)(20) Utah (10-3)
24)(NR) North Carolina State (9-4)
25)(NR) Maryland (9-4)
Dropping out of the polls: West Virginia, Hawaii, Connecticut
Rank(last week)
1)(2) Auburn (14-0)
2)(3) TCU (13-0)
3)(1) Oregon (13-1)
4)(5) Stanford (12-1)
5)(6) Ohio State (12-1)
6)(10) LSU (11-2)
7)(4) Wisconsin (11-2)
8)(11) Oklahoma (12-2)
9)(14) Alabama (10-3)
10)(9) Boise State (12-1)
11)(15) Nevada (13-1)
12)(19) Oklahoma State (11-2)
13)(8) Arkansas (10-3)
14)(7) Michigan State (11-2)
15)(12) Virginia Tech (11-3)
16)(22) Mississippi State (9-4)
17)(21) Florida State (10-4)
18)(13) Missouri (10-3)
19)(16) Nebraska (10-4)
20)(18) Texas A&M (9-4)
21)(17) South Carolina (9-5)
22)(NR) UCF (11-3)
23)(20) Utah (10-3)
24)(NR) North Carolina State (9-4)
25)(NR) Maryland (9-4)
Dropping out of the polls: West Virginia, Hawaii, Connecticut
Monday, January 3, 2011
As the redistricting maps turn; first stop Texas
The calendar flips to 2011 and around the country the heated discussions over redistricting will be starting up. Each decade, states are pressed with 1)redrawing their legislative (or state) maps and 2) their congressional (or national) maps. Generally, the business of legislative maps are addressed first if a state happens to have an off year set of elections like New Jersey or Louisiana in 2011. However, as a new decade starts; all 50 states must decide how populations have shifted, which states grew in population and which ones shrunk, and finalize a new map in early 2012 in anticipation for the midterm/presidential election depending on the type of year it happens to be every ten years. For instance, 2002 was a midterm election year while 1992 was a presidential election year. Based on consistent elections, every 20 years it falls on a presidential election year and the same goes for midterm election years.
With the spirit of redistricting in mind, I came across a piece by the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza/Aaron Blake and the Fix political blog posted on the newspaper's site. Cillizza is embarking on a journey, so to speak, around the country addressing redistricting in blue states, red states, and purple states. The impacts of redistricting, as have shown in the past; could influence elections in a given state for the next ten years.
To begin their assessment, Cillizza/Blake began with Texas. A state that will gain congressional seats in 2012 and was at the center of crafty redistricting led by then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.
As Cillizza outlines about Texas:
Republicans have a massive advantage when it comes to control over the coming redistricting process. But after their equally large gains in the House earlier this month, adding winnable districts to the map isn't quite so easy.
Case in point: Texas.
Texas is the biggest state where Republicans hold the governor's mansion and both chambers of the state legislature, a trifecta that allows them total control of the redistricting process.
And, the Lone Star State is set to add three or four seats to its current 32, meaning that the district lines drawn next year will pave the way for at least three or four new members of Congress.
All of that suggests plenty of opportunity for Republicans to add to their ranks.
But it's not that simple. In fact, Republicans acknowledge that the realities of the current map and the Voting Rights Act mean all but one -- or maybe two -- of those new seats are likely to be Democratic-leaning districts where Hispanics hold the majority. And Republican efforts to shore up the their current members could prove difficult in a few key cases.
The question for Texas Republicans, says redistricting expert Michael McDonald of George Mason University, is how aggressive they want to be in adding districts where they have a legitimate chance at victory, and how much they want to shore up their current members.
"Republicans will likely be locking in their gains rather than expanding the map dramatically," McDonald said. "They don't want to get into a legal battle, because that could unravel their map."
Translation: Republicans are unlikely to grow their advantage in the state's congressional delegation, even though they will have total control of the line-drawing process.
Here's why.
Should Republican Blake Farenthold hold his lead on Rep. Solomon Ortiz (D-Texas) after a recount (written in November a couple weeks after the midterm elections and before Farenthold did win), Republicans will hold 23 of the state's 32 congressional districts. The remaining Democratic-held districts are all pretty blue, making it hard to alter them and make them winnable for Republicans.
(Remember that Texas was the sight of a re-redistricting led by then Rep. Tom DeLay in the middle of the last decade that led to the defeat of the likes of Max Sandlin, Martin Frost and Charlie Stenholm -- all Democrats representing swing territory.)
That means any GOP gains are likely going to have to come from the new districts the state is gaining. The problem for Republicans is that the vast majority of the population growth that has occurred over the last decade in Texas has been minority populations -- mostly Hispanics -- who tend to vote Democratic.
The Voting Rights Act requires that there must be a "majority-minority" district -- one that includes a majority of non-whites -- in any area where a "reasonably compact" district can be drawn. And don't forget: the enforcement of this rule will be done by a Democratic-led Justice Department, unlike the last round.
The major population growth has occurred mostly in the three major metropolitan areas: Dallas, Houston and San Antonio. Two of the state's four new districts are likely to be majority-minority seats in these areas while a third could come in heavily Hispanic South Texas.
Republicans are likely to be able to draw at least one additional GOP district, probably somewhere south of Dallas and north of San Antonio -- an area that has also experienced significant population growth.
(A great map of which districts have gained or lost population since 2000 can be found here, courtesy of the Texas Legislative Council.)
Complicating matters somewhat for the GOP are the elections of Farenthold and Rep.-elect Quico Canseco (R), who both appear to have won majority Hispanic districts earlier this month. Normally, Republicans would look to shore up members representing such tough districts, but moving the lines in either Farenthold's Corpus Christi-based district or Canseco's district along the Rio Grande could prove difficult, as both are protected under the Voting Rights Act, which makes it much more difficult to shrink the minority vote in any way.
And when it comes down to it, Canseco and Farenthold would be low-ranking freshman members who establishment Republicans weren't all that high on the begin with, so it's unlikely the party would go to great lengths to save them.
Who might Republican line-drawers spend their time shoring up?
Rep. Pete Sessions's (R-Texas) Dallas district has trended more and more Democratic in recent years and is now less than 45 percent white. An easy fix would be for the GOP to pull the heavily minority precincts out of Sessions' district and add them to new a majority-Hispanic district, thereby giving him a safer district.
Republicans could try to do the same with Reps. John Culberson (R) and Michael McCaul (R) in the Houston area. Both have been targeted by Democrats in recent years, and their districts have added more than 300,000 people to their populations since the last census, which means changes will need to be made. Look for a potential majority-minority district to be created, moving Culberson and McCaul into more Republican areas.
Canseco's district is the biggest in the state, stretching all the way from the Rio Grande Valley at the very southern tip of Texas to the El Paso area in the west. But most of the population comes from the GOP-leaning San Antonio suburbs in Bexar County. Republicans could add a new majority-minority district south of San Antonio and then try to create a friendlier district for Canseco by giving him more of Bexar County and handing the more rural, Hispanic parts of his district to Rep. Henry Cuellar (D).
That new South Texas district could also help Farenthold by allowing him to reach up the Gulf Coast into more GOP friendly areas, while also drawing in the more Republican areas of Rep. Ruben Hinojosa's (D) district to the west.
But by doing either or both, Republicans might be diluting two majority-minority districts and not creating enough new ones to make up for it. Given the Hispanic population growth in the area, Democrats could have a case that the minority vote is being undercut.
Though most areas of the state have experienced population growth, there are a few that have lost population. North Texas districts held by Reps. Mac Thornberry (R) and Randy Neugebauer (R) will have to grow a bit, but there is more than enough growth in Rep. Kay Granger's (R) district west of Dallas to give to those two members and keep them on safe political ground.
When redistricting comes, there is often the question of retirements as well. Rep. Ralph Hall (R) is the oldest member of Congress, at 87, and his district will need to shrink after gaining more than 100,000 people. Nearby Rep. Sam Johnson (R), who isn't far behind at 80, saw his district grow even more than that.
Longtime incumbents generally don't like their districts to be touched (unless they're made safer), so any retirements could free up some areas for a more (ahem) creative gerrymander.
All of it adds up to one of the most uncertain redistricting rounds in the country, and also one of the most vital. Legal action is a foregone conclusion.
"I think it's inevitable," said election lawyer Gerald Hebert, who represented Texas Democrats in their battle against DeLay's 2003 redistricting plan. "The stakes are too high to avoid fighting for every district."
With the spirit of redistricting in mind, I came across a piece by the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza/Aaron Blake and the Fix political blog posted on the newspaper's site. Cillizza is embarking on a journey, so to speak, around the country addressing redistricting in blue states, red states, and purple states. The impacts of redistricting, as have shown in the past; could influence elections in a given state for the next ten years.
To begin their assessment, Cillizza/Blake began with Texas. A state that will gain congressional seats in 2012 and was at the center of crafty redistricting led by then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.
As Cillizza outlines about Texas:
Republicans have a massive advantage when it comes to control over the coming redistricting process. But after their equally large gains in the House earlier this month, adding winnable districts to the map isn't quite so easy.
Case in point: Texas.
Texas is the biggest state where Republicans hold the governor's mansion and both chambers of the state legislature, a trifecta that allows them total control of the redistricting process.
And, the Lone Star State is set to add three or four seats to its current 32, meaning that the district lines drawn next year will pave the way for at least three or four new members of Congress.
All of that suggests plenty of opportunity for Republicans to add to their ranks.
But it's not that simple. In fact, Republicans acknowledge that the realities of the current map and the Voting Rights Act mean all but one -- or maybe two -- of those new seats are likely to be Democratic-leaning districts where Hispanics hold the majority. And Republican efforts to shore up the their current members could prove difficult in a few key cases.
The question for Texas Republicans, says redistricting expert Michael McDonald of George Mason University, is how aggressive they want to be in adding districts where they have a legitimate chance at victory, and how much they want to shore up their current members.
"Republicans will likely be locking in their gains rather than expanding the map dramatically," McDonald said. "They don't want to get into a legal battle, because that could unravel their map."
Translation: Republicans are unlikely to grow their advantage in the state's congressional delegation, even though they will have total control of the line-drawing process.
Here's why.
Should Republican Blake Farenthold hold his lead on Rep. Solomon Ortiz (D-Texas) after a recount (written in November a couple weeks after the midterm elections and before Farenthold did win), Republicans will hold 23 of the state's 32 congressional districts. The remaining Democratic-held districts are all pretty blue, making it hard to alter them and make them winnable for Republicans.
(Remember that Texas was the sight of a re-redistricting led by then Rep. Tom DeLay in the middle of the last decade that led to the defeat of the likes of Max Sandlin, Martin Frost and Charlie Stenholm -- all Democrats representing swing territory.)
That means any GOP gains are likely going to have to come from the new districts the state is gaining. The problem for Republicans is that the vast majority of the population growth that has occurred over the last decade in Texas has been minority populations -- mostly Hispanics -- who tend to vote Democratic.
The Voting Rights Act requires that there must be a "majority-minority" district -- one that includes a majority of non-whites -- in any area where a "reasonably compact" district can be drawn. And don't forget: the enforcement of this rule will be done by a Democratic-led Justice Department, unlike the last round.
The major population growth has occurred mostly in the three major metropolitan areas: Dallas, Houston and San Antonio. Two of the state's four new districts are likely to be majority-minority seats in these areas while a third could come in heavily Hispanic South Texas.
Republicans are likely to be able to draw at least one additional GOP district, probably somewhere south of Dallas and north of San Antonio -- an area that has also experienced significant population growth.
(A great map of which districts have gained or lost population since 2000 can be found here, courtesy of the Texas Legislative Council.)
Complicating matters somewhat for the GOP are the elections of Farenthold and Rep.-elect Quico Canseco (R), who both appear to have won majority Hispanic districts earlier this month. Normally, Republicans would look to shore up members representing such tough districts, but moving the lines in either Farenthold's Corpus Christi-based district or Canseco's district along the Rio Grande could prove difficult, as both are protected under the Voting Rights Act, which makes it much more difficult to shrink the minority vote in any way.
And when it comes down to it, Canseco and Farenthold would be low-ranking freshman members who establishment Republicans weren't all that high on the begin with, so it's unlikely the party would go to great lengths to save them.
Who might Republican line-drawers spend their time shoring up?
Rep. Pete Sessions's (R-Texas) Dallas district has trended more and more Democratic in recent years and is now less than 45 percent white. An easy fix would be for the GOP to pull the heavily minority precincts out of Sessions' district and add them to new a majority-Hispanic district, thereby giving him a safer district.
Republicans could try to do the same with Reps. John Culberson (R) and Michael McCaul (R) in the Houston area. Both have been targeted by Democrats in recent years, and their districts have added more than 300,000 people to their populations since the last census, which means changes will need to be made. Look for a potential majority-minority district to be created, moving Culberson and McCaul into more Republican areas.
Canseco's district is the biggest in the state, stretching all the way from the Rio Grande Valley at the very southern tip of Texas to the El Paso area in the west. But most of the population comes from the GOP-leaning San Antonio suburbs in Bexar County. Republicans could add a new majority-minority district south of San Antonio and then try to create a friendlier district for Canseco by giving him more of Bexar County and handing the more rural, Hispanic parts of his district to Rep. Henry Cuellar (D).
That new South Texas district could also help Farenthold by allowing him to reach up the Gulf Coast into more GOP friendly areas, while also drawing in the more Republican areas of Rep. Ruben Hinojosa's (D) district to the west.
But by doing either or both, Republicans might be diluting two majority-minority districts and not creating enough new ones to make up for it. Given the Hispanic population growth in the area, Democrats could have a case that the minority vote is being undercut.
Though most areas of the state have experienced population growth, there are a few that have lost population. North Texas districts held by Reps. Mac Thornberry (R) and Randy Neugebauer (R) will have to grow a bit, but there is more than enough growth in Rep. Kay Granger's (R) district west of Dallas to give to those two members and keep them on safe political ground.
When redistricting comes, there is often the question of retirements as well. Rep. Ralph Hall (R) is the oldest member of Congress, at 87, and his district will need to shrink after gaining more than 100,000 people. Nearby Rep. Sam Johnson (R), who isn't far behind at 80, saw his district grow even more than that.
Longtime incumbents generally don't like their districts to be touched (unless they're made safer), so any retirements could free up some areas for a more (ahem) creative gerrymander.
All of it adds up to one of the most uncertain redistricting rounds in the country, and also one of the most vital. Legal action is a foregone conclusion.
"I think it's inevitable," said election lawyer Gerald Hebert, who represented Texas Democrats in their battle against DeLay's 2003 redistricting plan. "The stakes are too high to avoid fighting for every district."
Sunday, January 2, 2011
From Election and Lincoln's Victory to the End of the Union
150 years ago Americans were not just welcoming a new year, but an uncertain future. The election in November 1860 of Abraham Lincoln to the presidency had left the country in limbo and the South on the doorstep of secession. The New York Times present a vivid picture of the mood of the country at the time and the road from Lincoln's victory to the grim picture and future of the country.
The trail painted by Ted Widmer:
NOV. 7, 1860 Immediately after Lincoln was elected, Americans from all walks of life wrote to their president-elect to express their feelings about where the country was headed. These letters present a remarkable documentary portrait of a nation at a crossroads.
— TED WIDMER, from “Lincoln’s Mailbag”
NOV. 9-15, 1860 The day after Lincoln’s election, revolutionary fever breaks out in South Carolina. Nearly all of the state’s federal officials resign, and the state legislature speedily passes a bill authorizing a state convention to meet on Dec. 20 to consider, and if it desires, to authorize, secession. In the Deep South, where the idea of disunion is taken most seriously, three main groups of secessionists can be identified. There are those who are talking about talking; those who are talking about walking; and those who have already stopped talking and started walking. South Carolina is the home of the ultras, men like William Yancey and Robert Barnwell Rhett, and they all belong to the third group. For two decades Yancey and Rhett have shouted secession whenever so much as an ominous rain cloud drifted down from the North. Lately, however, they have been joined by men of a different sort, prominent men of wealth and influence, grandees who heretofore have disdained agitation. This past week, these men succeeded in inflaming passions that might well have been safely jawed to death.
— JAMIE MALANOWSKI, from “A Superabundance of Velocity”
NOV. 16, 1860 On fine afternoons that week, throngs of strollers promenaded on Canal Street in New Orleans. The thoroughfare, one newspaper reported, “was crowded with an unusually large and brilliant array of the beauty of our city — the stately matrons and lovely damsels of the South. What gave peculiar interest to this grand display of beauty, grace and elegance, was the exhibition of blue [secessionist] cockades worn on the shoulders of nearly all the ladies who appeared in public. All our ladies are for the South, and for resistance to the aggressions, outrage and insult of an abolition dynasty. No man will merit their favor who is not ready to sacrifice everything for that cause.”
— ADAM GOODHEART, from “Female Partisans”
NOV. 23, 1860 Between his election and his inauguration, Lincoln withdrew into intractable official silence, even as the union crumbled. Lincoln’s approach was very much intentional. Saying nothing, he believed, did the least damage to his fragile winning coalition of moderate Westerners and abolitionist Easterners — a coalition that yet might be called upon to resist rebellion by force. He was “not unmindful of the uneasiness which may exist in many parts of the country,” he privately conceded. But “nothing is to be gained by fawning around the ‘respectable scoundrels’ who got it up.”
— HAROLD HOLZER, from “The Sound of Lincoln’s Silence”
NOV. 25, 1860 The story of how Lincoln decided to let his chin whiskers sprout has been retold so many times that it’s almost legendary: Grace Bedell, an 11-year-old in upstate New York, wrote him a letter a few weeks before the election. “I have got four brothers,” she told the Republican candidate, “and part of them will vote for you anyway and if you let your whiskers grow I will try and get the rest of them to vote for you. You would look a great deal better, for your face is so thin. All the ladies like whiskers and they would tease their husbands to vote for you and then you would be president.” Lincoln replied: “As to the whiskers, having never worn any, do you not think people would call it a piece of silly affectation if I were to begin it now?” Just days after his election, though, he made up his mind. “Billy,” he supposedly told his barber, “let’s give them a chance to grow.”
— ADAM GOODHEART, from “Lincoln: A Beard Is Born”
NOV. 23-29, 1860 President James Buchanan this week changed his tune, after receiving a request for reinforcements from Maj. Robert Anderson, his newly appointed commander of the three federal installations — Fort Moultrie, Fort Sumter and Castle Pinckney — in Charleston. Assessing the situation — the general secession fever, the evidently vulnerable condition of the dilapidated Moultrie, the threatening presence of the harbor hoodlums and wharf rats who menace the soldiers as they go about their duties, the mysterious boats full of armed men that prowl the harbor at night — Anderson implored Washington for more men. “The storm may break upon us at any moment,” he told the administration. “The garrison is so weak as to invite an attack.” Buchanan ordered the secretary of war, John Floyd, to send more troops. Floyd, the former governor of Virginia who is, in turns, pro-union, pro-slavery and an appeaser of the secessionists, has ignored the order, for although he wishes to protect the troops, he feels sending reinforcements would provoke violence, which of course would be illegal, although secession is South Carolina’s right.
— JAMIE MALANOWSKI, from “Off the Record, Behind the Scenes”
NOV. 30, 1860 The knock came after dark. Hastening to answer it, the old Quaker found a familiar figure in the doorway: a dark-skinned woman, barely five feet tall, with a kerchief wrapped around her head. Five others followed her: a man and woman, two little girls and, cradled in a basket, the swaddled form of a tiny infant, uncannily silent and still. As politicians throughout the country debated secession and young men drilled for war, Harriet Tubman had been plotting a mission into the heart of slave territory. The group had come from the Eastern Shore of Maryland, but even here, in Wilmington, Del., it was not yet out of danger: Delaware was still officially a slave state. But at last, on the night of Nov. 30, she reached the house of the elderly Quaker, Thomas Garrett, a leading Underground Railroad “conductor” who would smuggle the Ennals family to relative safety in Philadelphia.
— ADAM GOODHEART, from “Moses’ Last Exodus”
DEC. 19, 1860 “Today it is hoped we shall get the old Lady South Carolina out of the crowd without damaging her hoops or tearing her dress,” wrote the planter John S. Palmer to his wife. The following afternoon, Palmer and other delegates who had assembled in the South Carolina city voted 169 to 0 for secession. That evening thousands flocked to Institute Hall in downtown Charleston to witness the formal signing of the “Ordinance of Secession.” Afterward “cannon were fired,” reported The Charleston Mercury, “and bright triumph was depicted on every countenance.” On this Dec. 20, exactly 150 years later, Confederate enthusiasts sought to relive the festivities with an elaborate Secession Gala. Three hundred celebrants — dozens decked out like cavalier planters and Lady South Carolina — packed Charleston’s Gaillard Auditorium to celebrate the fateful vote. One could almost be forgiven for thinking the whole town had gone back in time.
— BLAIN ROBERTS and ETHAN J. KYTLE, from “Dancing Around History”
DEC. 26, 1860 The rowers strained at their oars, gasping with exertion, their breath visible in the chill night air of Charleston Harbor. By good fortune, the water lay almost flat, with just the slightest rolling swell, and each pull drew them several lengths farther on. None of those men knew that their brief but perilous transit would end up changing American history. Their only thought was of swiftly and silently reaching their destination, barely a mile across the channel: Fort Sumter. From the ramparts of Sumter a signal gun rang out, its sharp crack echoing across the water. The detachment back at Fort Moultrie would know that their comrades had arrived at their destination. As for the secessionists over in Charleston, they would soon awaken to a very unpleasant surprise. “They must have looked upon us as a mouse to play with and eat up at leisure,” one of the Union officers gloated. “But we gave the cat the slip, however, and are now safe in our hole.” At the two forts, men labored through the night, bracing for the fast-approaching moment when that startled cat would unsheathe its claws. Midnight passed and dawn approached: one of the last days in a waning year.
— ADAM GOODHEART, from “The Night Escape”
It seemed that an attack on Fort Sumner would be almost certain.
The trail painted by Ted Widmer:
NOV. 7, 1860 Immediately after Lincoln was elected, Americans from all walks of life wrote to their president-elect to express their feelings about where the country was headed. These letters present a remarkable documentary portrait of a nation at a crossroads.
— TED WIDMER, from “Lincoln’s Mailbag”
NOV. 9-15, 1860 The day after Lincoln’s election, revolutionary fever breaks out in South Carolina. Nearly all of the state’s federal officials resign, and the state legislature speedily passes a bill authorizing a state convention to meet on Dec. 20 to consider, and if it desires, to authorize, secession. In the Deep South, where the idea of disunion is taken most seriously, three main groups of secessionists can be identified. There are those who are talking about talking; those who are talking about walking; and those who have already stopped talking and started walking. South Carolina is the home of the ultras, men like William Yancey and Robert Barnwell Rhett, and they all belong to the third group. For two decades Yancey and Rhett have shouted secession whenever so much as an ominous rain cloud drifted down from the North. Lately, however, they have been joined by men of a different sort, prominent men of wealth and influence, grandees who heretofore have disdained agitation. This past week, these men succeeded in inflaming passions that might well have been safely jawed to death.
— JAMIE MALANOWSKI, from “A Superabundance of Velocity”
NOV. 16, 1860 On fine afternoons that week, throngs of strollers promenaded on Canal Street in New Orleans. The thoroughfare, one newspaper reported, “was crowded with an unusually large and brilliant array of the beauty of our city — the stately matrons and lovely damsels of the South. What gave peculiar interest to this grand display of beauty, grace and elegance, was the exhibition of blue [secessionist] cockades worn on the shoulders of nearly all the ladies who appeared in public. All our ladies are for the South, and for resistance to the aggressions, outrage and insult of an abolition dynasty. No man will merit their favor who is not ready to sacrifice everything for that cause.”
— ADAM GOODHEART, from “Female Partisans”
NOV. 23, 1860 Between his election and his inauguration, Lincoln withdrew into intractable official silence, even as the union crumbled. Lincoln’s approach was very much intentional. Saying nothing, he believed, did the least damage to his fragile winning coalition of moderate Westerners and abolitionist Easterners — a coalition that yet might be called upon to resist rebellion by force. He was “not unmindful of the uneasiness which may exist in many parts of the country,” he privately conceded. But “nothing is to be gained by fawning around the ‘respectable scoundrels’ who got it up.”
— HAROLD HOLZER, from “The Sound of Lincoln’s Silence”
NOV. 25, 1860 The story of how Lincoln decided to let his chin whiskers sprout has been retold so many times that it’s almost legendary: Grace Bedell, an 11-year-old in upstate New York, wrote him a letter a few weeks before the election. “I have got four brothers,” she told the Republican candidate, “and part of them will vote for you anyway and if you let your whiskers grow I will try and get the rest of them to vote for you. You would look a great deal better, for your face is so thin. All the ladies like whiskers and they would tease their husbands to vote for you and then you would be president.” Lincoln replied: “As to the whiskers, having never worn any, do you not think people would call it a piece of silly affectation if I were to begin it now?” Just days after his election, though, he made up his mind. “Billy,” he supposedly told his barber, “let’s give them a chance to grow.”
— ADAM GOODHEART, from “Lincoln: A Beard Is Born”
NOV. 23-29, 1860 President James Buchanan this week changed his tune, after receiving a request for reinforcements from Maj. Robert Anderson, his newly appointed commander of the three federal installations — Fort Moultrie, Fort Sumter and Castle Pinckney — in Charleston. Assessing the situation — the general secession fever, the evidently vulnerable condition of the dilapidated Moultrie, the threatening presence of the harbor hoodlums and wharf rats who menace the soldiers as they go about their duties, the mysterious boats full of armed men that prowl the harbor at night — Anderson implored Washington for more men. “The storm may break upon us at any moment,” he told the administration. “The garrison is so weak as to invite an attack.” Buchanan ordered the secretary of war, John Floyd, to send more troops. Floyd, the former governor of Virginia who is, in turns, pro-union, pro-slavery and an appeaser of the secessionists, has ignored the order, for although he wishes to protect the troops, he feels sending reinforcements would provoke violence, which of course would be illegal, although secession is South Carolina’s right.
— JAMIE MALANOWSKI, from “Off the Record, Behind the Scenes”
NOV. 30, 1860 The knock came after dark. Hastening to answer it, the old Quaker found a familiar figure in the doorway: a dark-skinned woman, barely five feet tall, with a kerchief wrapped around her head. Five others followed her: a man and woman, two little girls and, cradled in a basket, the swaddled form of a tiny infant, uncannily silent and still. As politicians throughout the country debated secession and young men drilled for war, Harriet Tubman had been plotting a mission into the heart of slave territory. The group had come from the Eastern Shore of Maryland, but even here, in Wilmington, Del., it was not yet out of danger: Delaware was still officially a slave state. But at last, on the night of Nov. 30, she reached the house of the elderly Quaker, Thomas Garrett, a leading Underground Railroad “conductor” who would smuggle the Ennals family to relative safety in Philadelphia.
— ADAM GOODHEART, from “Moses’ Last Exodus”
DEC. 19, 1860 “Today it is hoped we shall get the old Lady South Carolina out of the crowd without damaging her hoops or tearing her dress,” wrote the planter John S. Palmer to his wife. The following afternoon, Palmer and other delegates who had assembled in the South Carolina city voted 169 to 0 for secession. That evening thousands flocked to Institute Hall in downtown Charleston to witness the formal signing of the “Ordinance of Secession.” Afterward “cannon were fired,” reported The Charleston Mercury, “and bright triumph was depicted on every countenance.” On this Dec. 20, exactly 150 years later, Confederate enthusiasts sought to relive the festivities with an elaborate Secession Gala. Three hundred celebrants — dozens decked out like cavalier planters and Lady South Carolina — packed Charleston’s Gaillard Auditorium to celebrate the fateful vote. One could almost be forgiven for thinking the whole town had gone back in time.
— BLAIN ROBERTS and ETHAN J. KYTLE, from “Dancing Around History”
DEC. 26, 1860 The rowers strained at their oars, gasping with exertion, their breath visible in the chill night air of Charleston Harbor. By good fortune, the water lay almost flat, with just the slightest rolling swell, and each pull drew them several lengths farther on. None of those men knew that their brief but perilous transit would end up changing American history. Their only thought was of swiftly and silently reaching their destination, barely a mile across the channel: Fort Sumter. From the ramparts of Sumter a signal gun rang out, its sharp crack echoing across the water. The detachment back at Fort Moultrie would know that their comrades had arrived at their destination. As for the secessionists over in Charleston, they would soon awaken to a very unpleasant surprise. “They must have looked upon us as a mouse to play with and eat up at leisure,” one of the Union officers gloated. “But we gave the cat the slip, however, and are now safe in our hole.” At the two forts, men labored through the night, bracing for the fast-approaching moment when that startled cat would unsheathe its claws. Midnight passed and dawn approached: one of the last days in a waning year.
— ADAM GOODHEART, from “The Night Escape”
It seemed that an attack on Fort Sumner would be almost certain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
