At The Moderate Voice Tim Crass presents what looks to me to be a correct analysis of what will happen to Illinois following the decennial census and subsequent redistricting:
The “Land of Lincoln†will definitely be losing one of its 18 Congressional seats but population trends signify that dropping two seats is not out of the realm either. In fact, the state was one of eight to suffer a population loss in 2016 as residents continue to pour into the South and West – and this is the third year in a row. It is under that premise that I will assume a two seat loss is likely and explore a scenario for a map that might result. I am also going to assume – and it’s admittedly a big one with an election two years ago, that Republican Governor Bruce Rauner, will be a one-termer. Though he has vowed to put $50 million into his war-chest to win a second term, his job approval is not particularly strong so, I will foreshadow a takeover. If not, I’ll have some revisiting to do but that would portend good news for Democrats.
Read the whole thing. To expand beyond Illinois, expect Texas to pick up at least two seats and possibly three and Florida to pick up two seats. Don’t be surprised if all of the Trump Blue States lose seats.
Another thing you should not be surprised by: I suspect that the idea of changing which residents count in the census and subsequent redistricting will be revisited. To refresh your mind there was a case brought in Texas challenging the counting of non-citizens for the purposes of reapportionment and redistricting. We presently have as many non-citizens living in the United States as at any time in our history, that’s producing stresses, and the stresses are resulting in reactions. The “one man one vote” formulation was enunciated under very different circumstances than prevail now—when we had a third as many immigrants as a percentage of the population.
I believe that the coming fight over reapportionment will be one of the bitterest in our history.
The image at the top of this post is from Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball.
Interesting link, but he left out the most important factor. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals based in Chicago, recently ruled that Wisconsin unconstitutionally created legislative districts to further partisan ends. There is now federal precedent binding on Illinois, the most gerrymandered state in the Circuit (though possibly because its larger population provides greater opportunities).
I’ve read the Court opinion and am skeptical, but a lot of advocates of electoral reform think this case is the opportunity to convince Justice Kennedy, who has indicated a willingness to look at partisan districting if it is not based upon examining a single district and has a metric to govern judicial action.
The metric proposed here was Wisconsin’s efficiency gap. In 2012, 49% of Wisconsinites voted for a Republican legislator, but Republicans gained 60% of state lower house seats, and in 2014, Republicans got 52% of the votes and 63% of the seats (both constituting 11% inefficiencies). One issue is that plaintiff’s experts did their own alternative maps which still showed a 4% inefficiency gap in favor of Republicans, either because of the concentration of D votes or acceptance of majority minority districting (I’m not sure the reason here). I’ve looked at Wisconsin’s districts and they don’t look like salamanders, they look roughly rectangular, though I appreciate that political geography in urban areas, and along lakes and rivers means turning a rectangle 90 degrees can change a lot of outcomes.
In Illinois, Democrats got 52% of the vote in 2012, and 60% of the state lower house seats (8% inefficiency), and in 2014, Democrats got 50.5% of the vote and 60% of the seats (9.5% inefficiency). (I cannot find totals for 2016, but assume that since Republicans picked up seats they probably got a majority of votes) One issue is whether Illinois similarly has a 4% (or greater) natural inefficiency gap favoring Republicans, and what that would mean.
The Court asked for briefing on the remedy, so there is still a ways to go on this case and a lot of questions. The case may not be appealed to the SCOTUS or the SCOTUS may not want to hear it at this time, which would still mean its binding on Illinois.
On the political side, I think its a 50% chance that the Republican governor is re-elected, not so much as he is popular, but I’m not seeing credible Democrats wanting to run yet. Divided government has historically meant that the map is chosen by a coin-flip. So, 25% chance that Republicans draw the map.
I think Illinois loses two seats, and they will probably be Democratic seats. The basic D strategy has been to maximize Chicago’s representation while diluting suburban representation, and trying to carve-out a few competitive downstate districts. Redistricting will probably eliminate the possibility of downstate D districts; these underperformed last cycle anyway, and the big issue is that rising star Cheri Bustos will be in trouble. She may jump to another job before losing in 2012. BTW/ AFAIK the only part of downstate Illinois losing population is in the East St. Louis metro, the rest seems constant but declining relative to other parts of the country.
With the Chicago suburbs expanding relative to the rest of the state, it will be hard to keep the same representation in Chicago. If two seats are lost, I would expect one in downstate and one in the City. If the three black districts are untouchable, I would speculate Lipinski is the odd man out.
I’m guessing Lisa Madigan.
And my prediction is that the decennial census will reveal that Chicago’s population has declined to a shocking extent, much of the decline on the South and West sides.
Lisa Madigan would make it easier for Rauner to run against Mike Madigan, which he’ll do anyway. If Mike resigns and there is some grand bargain (rumored today) that removes the sense of crisis over Illinois’ budget, a lot more Democrats might step forward. I wouldn’t be shocked if its Quinn at this point, edging out several second tier candidates with name recognition.