I'm just going to keep this open all weekend, and to the extent I can glean information, I'll post it here for the convenience/consumption of all.
2:15 a.m.
Senate thoughts from a guy named "glame" on DailyKos who sounds far more competent with GIS data than I am. Anyone who takes the time to input this crap into Dave's Redistricting App probably has little reason to lie about the outputs.
Italics are my additions.
The commenter's point is valid, if slightly optimistic. A Democratic majority in the Senate beyond 2012 would be possible, but it would certainly require the Senate Democrats to convert some seats with which they've historically had issues, all while protecting Jim Holperin and Kathleen Vinehout. To compound their dilemma, if you remove the 5th (ex-Sullivan), 9th (ex-Potter/Baumgart), and 21st (ex-Plache/Lehman), you're effectively taking out most of the seats that the Democrats used to leverage their way back into narrow majorities for the last two decades.
12:20 a.m.
If Google Maps is to be believed, it appears that the Pridemore/Lemahieu matchup should be amended to Pridemore/Kessler. In both cases, neither leggie has been drawn into the newly-christened 22nd district by more than about half a mile. This pairing also makes more logistical sense, as it would leave a GOP incumbent in the district and puts Fred Kessler on wildly unfamiliar territory.
10:10 p.m.
Sarah Palin might not be able to see Alaska from her house, but Nancy Nusbaum would be able to see her new Senate district if she beats Rob Cowles...
So close... and yet, so far away. On the plus side, perhaps she could become a Republican again and run against Dave Hansen next year.
9:45 p.m.
A huge thanks to reader Alex, who has pointed out that LTSB already has interactive maps up on their website. Find them here. They're super helpful for reviewing some areas (e.g. Appleton, Green Bay, Eau Claire) in greater detail. According to Alex, after checking all of the leggies' listed voting addresses, here's what we might well be looking at.
My neighbor is also a leggie:
Krusick/Zepnick
D. Cullen/Kooyenga
J. Ott/Pasch
August/Loudenbeck
Jorgensen/Nass
Kessler/Pridemore (see 12:20 am)
Jacque/Klenke
Nygren/Van Roy
Danou/Petryk/Radcliffe
I don't have an incumbent:
2, 9, 12, 13, 37, 47, 65, 80, 90, 91, and 93.
Says Alex: "Additionally, Roys has been drawn into the 48th district along with 4 of the candidates currently running in the special election. 2 of the 48th candidates are in Mark Pocan's new district. So, the southern half of the 48th (Monona, McFarland, and the Glendale and Lake Edge neighborhoods; which is now the new 47th) will have an open seat race again in 2012, no matter what happens."
Now we know why Kelda's so darn irritable.
8:30 p.m.
Dane101 is reporting that both Fred Clark and sometimes Democrat, sometimes Republican Nancy Nusbaum would end up outside of their newly-configured senate districts in the event they should be successful in their respective recall challenges against Luther Olsen and Rob Cowles. Apparently Nusbaum's shifted out of her district by just a block or two. Huh. Go figure. Wonder how that happens? That means each would need to move in the next year in order to stand for re-election.
Dane 101 also notes, as have others, that while the new 22nd Senate district, comprised of nearly all of the cities of Racine and Kenosha, would be Dem for life, the current Democratic senator, Bob Wirch, doesn't live in the district. Wirch's voting address puts him in an uber-conservative district where he'd have to run against Sen. Van Wanggaard.
According to Cindy Kilkenny's calculations, David Cullen's new district might have a constituent who's also in the legislature: Dale Kooyenga. That would make the new 14th district incumbent-free. Knowing that area, it could set off a total free-for-all in the GOP primary, where the winner is virtually guaranteed election in the general.
And meanwhile, Kelda Helen Roys has announced that she will be opening a winery, what with all the sour grapes she's constantly putting on display. Roys is fast becoming the Tracy Flick of the Assembly. Could someone leave Kelda where she is and simply draw her snotty, bratty demeanor into someone else's district?
2:15 a.m.
Senate thoughts from a guy named "glame" on DailyKos who sounds far more competent with GIS data than I am. Anyone who takes the time to input this crap into Dave's Redistricting App probably has little reason to lie about the outputs.
Italics are my additions.
The 5th (Vukmir), 8th (Darling), 9th (Leibham), and 21st (Wanggaard) become basically out of reach.
However, there are still opportunities with the 1st (Lasee - 53.9 Obama), 19th (Ellis - 54.3 Obama), 23rd (Moulton - 53.8 Obama), 29th (Galloway - 53.3), 17th (Schultz - 59.9! Obama), and the 32nd remains solid for the inevitable Shilling at 60.5 percent Obama. That means that including Hansen (who remains at 56.5 Obama) and if the Dems can find a way to knock off Schultz, there should be 15 seats where a Dem would be favored in a neutral situation. So not that bad but a process made more difficult. One note, the exact percentage are likely to be a little off due to the various ward splitting and thus, the inability to exactly map the districts in DRA.
The commenter's point is valid, if slightly optimistic. A Democratic majority in the Senate beyond 2012 would be possible, but it would certainly require the Senate Democrats to convert some seats with which they've historically had issues, all while protecting Jim Holperin and Kathleen Vinehout. To compound their dilemma, if you remove the 5th (ex-Sullivan), 9th (ex-Potter/Baumgart), and 21st (ex-Plache/Lehman), you're effectively taking out most of the seats that the Democrats used to leverage their way back into narrow majorities for the last two decades.
12:20 a.m.
If Google Maps is to be believed, it appears that the Pridemore/Lemahieu matchup should be amended to Pridemore/Kessler. In both cases, neither leggie has been drawn into the newly-christened 22nd district by more than about half a mile. This pairing also makes more logistical sense, as it would leave a GOP incumbent in the district and puts Fred Kessler on wildly unfamiliar territory.
10:10 p.m.
Sarah Palin might not be able to see Alaska from her house, but Nancy Nusbaum would be able to see her new Senate district if she beats Rob Cowles...
So close... and yet, so far away. On the plus side, perhaps she could become a Republican again and run against Dave Hansen next year.
9:45 p.m.
A huge thanks to reader Alex, who has pointed out that LTSB already has interactive maps up on their website. Find them here. They're super helpful for reviewing some areas (e.g. Appleton, Green Bay, Eau Claire) in greater detail. According to Alex, after checking all of the leggies' listed voting addresses, here's what we might well be looking at.
My neighbor is also a leggie:
Krusick/Zepnick
D. Cullen/Kooyenga
J. Ott/Pasch
August/Loudenbeck
Jorgensen/Nass
Kessler/Pridemore (see 12:20 am)
Jacque/Klenke
Nygren/Van Roy
Danou/Petryk/Radcliffe
I don't have an incumbent:
2, 9, 12, 13, 37, 47, 65, 80, 90, 91, and 93.
Says Alex: "Additionally, Roys has been drawn into the 48th district along with 4 of the candidates currently running in the special election. 2 of the 48th candidates are in Mark Pocan's new district. So, the southern half of the 48th (Monona, McFarland, and the Glendale and Lake Edge neighborhoods; which is now the new 47th) will have an open seat race again in 2012, no matter what happens."
Now we know why Kelda's so darn irritable.
8:30 p.m.
Dane101 is reporting that both Fred Clark and sometimes Democrat, sometimes Republican Nancy Nusbaum would end up outside of their newly-configured senate districts in the event they should be successful in their respective recall challenges against Luther Olsen and Rob Cowles. Apparently Nusbaum's shifted out of her district by just a block or two. Huh. Go figure. Wonder how that happens? That means each would need to move in the next year in order to stand for re-election.
Dane 101 also notes, as have others, that while the new 22nd Senate district, comprised of nearly all of the cities of Racine and Kenosha, would be Dem for life, the current Democratic senator, Bob Wirch, doesn't live in the district. Wirch's voting address puts him in an uber-conservative district where he'd have to run against Sen. Van Wanggaard.
According to Cindy Kilkenny's calculations, David Cullen's new district might have a constituent who's also in the legislature: Dale Kooyenga. That would make the new 14th district incumbent-free. Knowing that area, it could set off a total free-for-all in the GOP primary, where the winner is virtually guaranteed election in the general.
And meanwhile, Kelda Helen Roys has announced that she will be opening a winery, what with all the sour grapes she's constantly putting on display. Roys is fast becoming the Tracy Flick of the Assembly. Could someone leave Kelda where she is and simply draw her snotty, bratty demeanor into someone else's district?
18 comments:
Here we go. The maps are overlaid on a searchable Google Maps style map, and I looked up all 33 Senate incumbents and all 98 Assembly incumbents, plus all 6 candidates running in the special 48th primary. Here is the list of incumbents drawn together:
Krusick/Zepnick
D. Cullen/Kooyenga
J. Ott/Pasch
August/Loudenbeck
Jorgensen/Nass
LeMahieu/Pridemore
Jacque/Klenke
Nygren/Van Roy
Danou/Petryk/Radcliffe
New Assembly districts without a current incumbent are 2, 9, 12, 13, 37, 47, 65, 80, 90, 91, and 93.
The current 22nd Senate district has no incumbent, since Wirch is in the new 21st with Wanggard. But he would probably either move to the 22nd, or retire.
Additionally, Roys has been drawn into the 48th district along with 4 of the candidates currently running in the special election. 2 of the 48th candidates are in Mark Pocan's new district. So, the southern half of the 48th (Monona, McFarland, and the Glendale and Lake Edge neighborhoods; which is now the new 47th) will have an open seat race again in 2012, no matter what happens.
Is that map something you have a link to that you could share? If it's on your own blog or something, I'll be happy to simply steer people your way.
Also, assuming all of this to be true, I suspect this would be a fairly good guide to known GOP retirements - LeMahieu and Van Roy, for instance.
I noticed that about Petryk and wondered if the address wasn't somehow showing up incorrectly. Or perhaps Petryk is planning on moving. Certainly it would have been easy enough for them to otherwise put Eleva into the new 93rd since it's not more than two or three miles outside that district as is. It would seem unusual to leave that district without an incumbent when it would have been so easy to draw one into the district.
I do wonder about things like August/Loudenbeck or Jacque/Klenke. One would think if those scenarios both play out, something has been planned in advance. Or in a short period of time, someone has really pissed off their leadership.
Anyway, just some thoughts. Thanks again for sharing!
It's on the Legislative Redistricting Website, where there are Assembly, Senate, and Congressional versions. The link is http://legis.wisconsin.gov/ltsb/redistricting/bills.htm.
There is a quirk in the software, where if you zoom in too far, even if you are right on top of a district line, they disappear for whatever reason. So any time you type in an address, you then have to zoom out a couple notches (the arrow still stays in place) to see where you are.
It's the "Interactive Map, as you might guess.
I want to thank Alex too for straightening out the 13th and 14th incumbencies for me. I'll have Kooyenga in the 14th (oh yes I will!) and the 13th is open.
I'll give all the credit in the world to anyone who took the time to enter about 130 addresses into that database... :)
Has anyone done (publicly) an overlay of electoral performance on these proposed districts yet?
I wish...
It would be hard to do it precisely since these maps were put together using census blocks. You could get a fairly good estimate in most cases, but only an estimate.
@Anon: Maybe I can solicit a guest blog by Jim Troupis.I bet he knows. :)
@Alex: Based on Google maps, I think Pridemore may actually drawn in with Kessler, not with LeMahieu. If Google is putting his address in the right spot, it looks like he's about a quarter-mile south of the boundary between the 22nd and 59th. This would make sense, as Kessler has been drawn into this district, which is mostly Pridemore's old seat with a few tweaks (he seems to give up Merton, Sussex, and Hartford proper for equally-GOP Menomonee Falls).
Looks like you're right about Pridemore/Kessler.
I had a hard time getting Pridemore's address to work last night, and basically guessed what part of County K he was on.
Also, Kessler's initial reaction that this will break up minority communities and harm their influence is pretty much B.S, at least from the perspective that the courts would have to look at it.
Sen. Carpenter's district is now majority Hispanic, as is "Zepnick's" district that he now lives about 4-6 blocks away from. Kessler's district was only about 39% black, and now it is a solid majority black district. Bob Turner's new 66th district is also majority-minority, whereas it was still 59% white last time.
So basically, this plan actually has more minority districts. It just screws over Kessler, who might have trouble winning a primary if he moves back to the 12th. Which is obviously the real reason why he's so upset about it.
In terms of minority influence and their retroactive bill forcing municipalities to redraw their ward lines, Republicans did a great job making sure that this plan won't get overturned in court. Michael Best and Frederich did a masterful job--the biggest outrage is that they're getting paid with our tax dollars rather than GOP funds.
Also, now that Cory Mason basically got screwed by this plan, I wonder if he'll go after Paul Ryan now. The GOP didn't do nearly as much as they could have to shore up Ryan, and Mason might as well try to make them pay for it.
Mason is not screaming about the maps nearly as much as you might think, which seems to indicate might be thinking the same way I am.
I was speaking with a friend last night who made note of similar things. Jim Troupis earned his money with this one. As you noted, it does a solid job of heading off any VRA-related concerns up front.
Even aside from the districts you mentioned, one has to think there will also be statistically better odds for minority representation in the new 90th (the urban core of Green Bay), the 48th (since the east side of Madison is no longer split up), the 91st (Eau Claire) and also in the new 22nd Senate district (a minority Democrat never would've been competitive in the existing 21st or 22nd).
The VRA doesn't exist to protect the interests of white incumbent Democrats, who seem to be the ones squealing the loudest right now because they're the ones most threatened. The proposed map will almost certainly lead to greater minority participation in government, and that's going to be a tough argument for the Democrats to beat in a federal court.
VRA doesn't just talk about African American and Hispanic populations.
It also includes Native American Populations.
You have a large chunk of native population splitting.
Stockbridge Munsee, Forest County Potowatami, Oneida, Some of the Ho-Chunk Bands all have relatively significant populations have been split up.
(I'm not as familiar with Lac Courte Oreilles population outside of their reservation but you may have seen it there and Lac du Flambeau as well)
On a different note: I disagree with the assertion that protecting Vinehout will be super difficult. I don't know the partisan overlay of that district. However, picking up the entire city of Eau Claire can't be bad for her. Granted she picked up some former 30th AD stuff, but it doesn't seem to be enough to counter the jackpot of Eau Claire Proper. (Again just using an eyeball test.)
Holperin on the other hand has got some issues with this map, but he had some issues with the current map. But up there is where you see the most native problems with their map.
Finally, just on smell test, you can't tell me what they did in 33, 37, 38, 70 complies with "Compactness." I understand their logic on 70, "Let's make an assembly district that matches the lines of that congressional district we just rigged up." However, that just highlights how ridiculous that little Y finger is.
There's so much more "community of interest stuff" I won't actually go into, because it's 8 am on a sunday and I'm nursing a sweet hangover, but I don't know if you're going to have such an open shut case for Troupis et al, because of the native tribes and the fact that the entire world thinks Wisconsin can't govern a paper bag.
That's a good point about Vinehout re. Eau Claire. I imagine at the same time, whatever improvement in the numbers Vinehout sees is probably mirrored in the 23rd, where Terry Moulton won't have to deal with those voters.
The Native American question is interesting. The first question, I think, is whether native populations in any of these districts were significant enough to have a concrete, provable influence on existing districts. Second, have Native Americans made active efforts to access the political process in ways that the new maps would deny them? I can't think off-hand of any instances in which the Democrats have even tried to run Native American candidates.
A recent Kaiser Family Foundation study puts the state's total native population at 42,500. Total tribal enrollment is under 50k. Nearly the entire Oneida reservation falls into the 5th Assembly District, as it has always - even though 5/6ths of the people living on the reservation aren't even Native American. Menominee County also remains entirely in one district.
If there's no critical mass of a minority population to account for, I think a VRA argument is unlikely to succeed. Additionally, it isn't like the federal courts in 1992 or 2002 attempted to string out a district in order to make it even plurality Native American.
We should also remember that community of interest considerations aren't even primary legal requirements in Wisconsin, but to the extent that they can be considered when deciding whether the VRA has been complied with and that they can be used as a justification for variance in population equality.
The actual wording of 4.001(3) is "To the very limited extent that precise population equality is unattainable, ss. 4.009 and 4.01 to 4.99 reflect a good faith effort to apportion the legislature giving due consideration to the need for contiguity and compactness of area, the maintenance of the integrity of political subdivisions and of communities of interest, and competitive legislative districts."
So long as the map aspires to and attains population equality, what it looks like is legally irrelevant unless it violates the VRA. Just because Dems are pissed that Stevens Point and Wausau aren't in the same district anymore doesn't make the map illegal or unconstitutional.
In terms of creating majority-minority or minority-plurality districts in/near Milwaukee County, there's no way a court will rule that the lines constitute a racial gerrymander. Those districts are all highly compact. And packing is likely not a substantial consideration give how many districts on the current map with substantial minority populations (e.g Zepnick, Kessler, Carpenter) are still electing white legislators.
It'd be a different story if the Dems could point out how minority candidates have been successful in some of these districts, except they really can't.
I agree with your assessment of how Wisconsin is being governed, but a court can only properly consider what is before it. And while I'm sure Dems will throw every legal argument out there in an attempt to preserve their white, suburban incumbents, I just don't see anything sticking here. Absent substantial evidence of a VRA violation, the courts have to defer to legislative discretion in a matter that is constitutionally assigned to the legislature.
The Oneida reservation isn't entirely in the 5th.
the Reservation reaches into the town of lawrence, Ashwaubenon and Green bay. Those wards (which used to be in the 5th) have been removed into 2 different districts (the second and 4th).
Last election, Mert Summers (an enrolled tribal member) ran against Jim Steineke. We can argue what "concerted effort" is but, Mert Summers ran, and he is a member of the Oneida tribe.
I also believe in 2006, Jim Crawford ran against Jeff Mursau. Crawford is a member of the Forest county Potowatami tribe, in Forest County (this map splits the 3 trust lands and an amount of tribal population).
Stockbridge Munsee is in 2 different districts. Bowler (where the casino workers are) is out of the 6th while the rest of the trust land is in.
In 02, large swaths of tribal population were drew into the same districts. 02 was the same.
I'm not a lawyer, I don't pretend to be. But I think it's an interesting arguement. I'm just a white guy who knows far too much about the native populations of this state and how exactly they live.
The courts drew the maps in 2002 in a way for a reason. They put the most amount of native americans into confined districts to greatly enhance the chance for native representation. The 36th Assembly District is a microcosm of this. It used to have a solid chance, but by splitting up 2 different tribes in that district, which had 3 tribes located in it, is a persuasive argument to me.
Also, in the 15th assembly district, by pulling that district the way they do they limit a burgeoning Latino vote.
As for Wausau/Stevens Point I'm more arguing that Marshfield/Stevens Point in the 10 corridor lowers it's chances of getting that blasted highway 10 completely finished.
By spreading out the people who actually give a shit about projects like that it is difficult to actually get those projects done.
Marshfield Clinic would testify to that. I mean they effectively split the 10 corridor into 3 senate districts. That makes it unlikely that that districts recieves the representation it deserves. Even if Scott Suder (who still lives in the 35th) is majority leader (don't know about for how long.)
Wausau/Point/Rapids is one thing.
I think that argument on the federal map is countered by reuniting the Heart of the Fox Valley into Reid Ribble's district. Those two balance each other.
Yes, here in the middle of the 33rd Assembly district, we've been carved up into not two, not three, but four other districts, and apparently the community of Jefferson County's agricultural interests runs all the way over into the cul-de-sacs of Chenequa.
Post a Comment