Right now, America is in the process of redrawing it's congressional districts. This will be one of the most important factors when it comes to predicting Congressional makeup for the next decade. So far, it appears that Democrats will naturally benefit because 2010 was an incredibly strong year for Republicans which allowed the GOP to dominate the process. Now, while the GOP still has institutional advantages, the Democrats can only go up if the national mood stays the same. Based on what we've seen so far, it appears that red districts got redder and blue districts got bluer. There are significantly less "swing districts" now compared to before which means we probably won't see massive swings in Congressional makeup unless the national environment is beneficial for one of the parties (i.e. an R+6 environment).

Here are a couple visual resources:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-2022-maps/
https://www.cookpolitical.com/redistricting

Here is the ONLY resource you need when it comes to redistricting news: https://twitter.com/Redistrict
Below is a list of states along with the 2020 Presidential election margin of victory. If you have ANY questions on terminology (i.e. what is majority-minority), your state, etc. feel free to ask and I'll do my best to answer it.

Alabama: R+25.5. No change from the 7-1 GOP map. Currently this is being challenged in court because the state is over 25% black and the current map is in violation of the VRA. Democrats believe that a 6-2 map would be more representative.
Alaska: R+10.1. Single district
Arizona: D+0.3. Shift of 1 lean D to strong R giving us a 6-2-1 map. This was done by an independent commission and approved unanimously by the commission. While it may seem unfair to Democrats based on the total composition, the efficiency gap is only R+2 so there aren't many votes wasted here. In addition, the VRA requires that some districts are majority Hispanic so that also skews the formula. This is probably the most interesting state in terms of redistricting.
Arkansas: R+27.6. No change from the 4-0 map. Little Rock was carved up and there are some challenges. If Democrats get their wish and get a majority-minority district, then it will be a 3-1.
California: D+29.2. CA lost a seat due to the census and the independent commission axed a Democrat seat. As it stands, you're looking at a 43-7-2 makeup. The primary objective of the commission was to create more majority Hispanic districts (one third of ALL districts in CA are now majority Hispanic).
Colorado: D+13.5. They gained a seat due to the census and added a swing district giving us a 4-3-1 map. Democrats are upset that the commission didn't push harder because the efficiency increased for Republicans by about 5 points.
Connecticut: D+20.1. Currently a 3-0-2 map (Dem, Rep, swing). All the proposals seem to be roughly in line with the previous map.
Delaware: D+19.0. Single district.
Florida: R+3.4. Florida is gaining a district and right now it's a 14-8-5 (Rep, Dem, swing) map. Republicans control the entire process so they could REALLY fuck over the Dems here if they want to. Along with NY, this is probably the most important state for shifting seats. However, it appears that they will simply add a swing district (for now). Republican legislatures, along with DeSantis, would like to be much more aggressive.
Georgia: D+0.2. Shift from 1 swing to a solid R seat giving a 9-4-1 GOP majority. Much of the Atlanta suburbs were diluted and the map is currently being litigated.
Hawaii: D+29.5. No change here, Dems get both the seats.
Idaho: R+30.8. No change here, 2 solid R seats.
Illinois: D+17. Illinois lost a seat and the Dems pursued an aggressive gerrymander here. They switched 2 GOP seats to Dem and axed a swing seat which gives us 13-3-1 makeup.
Indiana: R+16.1. No net change from the 7-2 GOP map. The efficiency gap favors Republicans tremendously here but there's nothing the Dems can do.
Iowa: R+8.2. This is an interesting state. In a good GOP year, the map could be 4-0. In a good Dem year, the map could be 3-1 in favor of the Dems. Basically, the change here is that one of the swing districts got slightly redder.
Kansas: R+14.6. No news here...currently there are 3 deep red districts and 1 swing district. I don't expect that to change.
Kentucky: R+25.9. Currently a 5-1 GOP/Dem map. Don't expect changes here.
Louisiana: R+18.6. Currently a 5-1 GOP/Dem map. What's interesting here is that the Democrats have the governorship and they want to see 2 majority black districts which would yield a 4-2 GOP map.
Maine: D+9.1. Currently a 1-1 split (tho there is a Dem occupying the R+11 seat). There's basically no change here but it's possible for the GOP to gain a seat here anyway if they can knock out the incumbent.
Maryland: D+33.2. Currently a 7-1 split. The safe R seat shifted to a lean R seat and the map is currently in litigation. I don't see this map getting overturned and it's actually more fair than the previous one.
Massachusetts: D+33.5. Dems get all 9 seats, end of story.
Michigan: D+2.8. Currently, Michigan has an 8-4-2 split in favor of the GOP (2 swing) and the state loses a seat due to the census. The independent commission axed to GOP seats and added a competitive seat yielding a 6-4-3 map in favor of the GOP. By most measures, this is a very fair map but the GOP can make some serious gains in a good year.
Minnesota: D+7.1. Currently a 4-3-1 split in favor of the GOP. I don't expect too many changes here because the courts will likely draw the map.
Mississippi: R+16.6. Currently a 3-1 split due to the VRA and there shouldn't be any changes here.
Missouri: R+15.4. Currently a 6-2 map and that's similar to what the current proposal is by state Senate Republicans. Missouri House Republicans want to carve up Kansas city a bit to make it 7-1 so we'll see what happens.
Montana: R+16.4. Montana is gaining a district and this will be a lean red district. Expect it to be 2-0 unless it's a REALLY REALLY good year for Democrats.
Nebraska: R+19.1. Currently a 2 GOP 1 swing split. The swing seat got SLIGHTLY redder by 3 points but it's still very much in play.
Nevada: D+2.4. Currently a 1-1-2 split. Everything here got more competitive and this could be 4-0 in a good GOP year. In a good Democrat year this could be a 3-1 state in favor of the Dems.
New Hampshire: D+7.4. Both districts here are swing seats. The GOP wants this to be a 1-1 split and the Dems want this to be 2 swing seats. I don't think there's necessarily a deadline but candidates need to file by June.
New Jersey: D+15.9. The old map was 6-3-3 that favored Dems and the new map is 9-2-1 in favor of Dems.
New Mexico: D+10.8. This was a 2-1 state in favor of Dems but the new map has 2 swing seats plus 1 Dem seat. The likely scenario is that the Dems get all the seats, even in a decent GOP year.
New York: D+23.1. Currently a 17-7-3 makeup in favor of the Dems (3 swing districts). NY has an independent commission but it's only advisory since the Dems have super majorities. The Dems plan to obliterate the GOP here so that there are only 3 GOP states left. Pay attention to this one because this is where the Dems can gain A LOT of seats (even though they lose a seat due to the census).
North Carolina: R+1.4. Currently an 8-5 map (GOP favored) but they gain an additional seat due to the census. The new map is a 10-3-1 map in favor of the GOP and this probably wins for most gerrymandered state. This is in litigation and I would be floored if this map wasn't thrown out.
North Dakota: R+33.4. Single district
Ohio: R+8. Currently a 12-3-1 map in favor of the GOP and is one of the most gerrymandered states in the country. The new map was an 11-2-2 map (they lose a seat due to the census). The Ohio Supreme Court rejected the map so it's back to the drawing board. The Dems can only gain here due to how gerrymandered the state was in 2010.
Oklahoma: R+33.1. This is 5 deep red districts and will continue to be.
Oregon: D+16.1. The old map was a 2-1-2 map that favored the Dems and it has shifted to a 4-1-1 map (gain due to census). The Democrats actually wanted to have a 5-1 map but the GOP didn't show up which prevented quorum.
Pennsylvania: D+1.2. Currently a 9-6-3 GOP map and the latest proposal is a 9-5-3 map that favors the GOP. The Dem governor and the state senate aren't pleased with the latest proposal so we'll see what happens. Pay attention to this one because this state can swing pretty hard based on the national environment.
Rhode Island: D+20.8. Currently there are 2 deep blue seats and we shouldn't expect that to change.
South Carolina: R+11.7. Currently a 6-1 map that favors the GOP. There will be legal challenges of course because South Carolina and blacks have always had a contentious history, but the partisan makeup will undoubtedly be the same.
South Dakota: R+26.2. Single district
Tennessee: R+23.2. Currently a 7-2 GOP map and it looks like it will be an 8-1 GOP map since the GOP wants to carve up Nashville. This map will undoubtedly be litigated.
Texas: R+5.6. Texas was gerrymandered like crazy in 2010 and was 22-8-6 in favor of the GOP. They gain 2 districts due to population growth and the GOP played it safe by making the lean reds significantly more red and allowing the Dems to keep the districts that they have now. The new map is 24-13-1 which should protect the GOP from Hispanic growth until about 2028 or so. The map is currently being litigated but I don't think it will be thrown out.
Utah: R+20.5. The GOP has all 4 districts and will continue to do so. Salt Lake City is carved up among the 4 so you're not going to see a Democrat here until that changes.
Vermont: D+35.4. Single district.
Virginia: D+10.1. No change from the 5-5-1 split. Neither side could agree on a map so "special masters" had to create the map and it was approved by the court.
Washington: D+19.2. Currently a 6-3-1 map that favors the Dems. The independent commission didn't change much here and the legislature has until February to implement it.
West Virginia: R+38.9. Currently 3 GOP districts but too many white trash OD'd on heroin so they actually lost a district due to the census. This will be two deep red districts.
Wisconsin: D+0.6. Currently a 6-2 state that favors the GOP. This is a tricky state from a demographics standpoint because Democrats naturally compact in a couple cities whereas Republicans are much more spread out. Simply put, you can't draw clean districts without significantly giving the GOP an advantage. Even though this is being litigated, expect the state to be 6-2 for another decade.
Wyoming: R+43.4. Single district

Florida was a really big and unexpected boon. Hopefully PA and Michigan can catch up somehow.

I don't think Biden is in as bad as shape for the midterms as most people think, even if the Republicans get the most out of redistricting.

When the race gets close and necessity closes in, all of the whiny voters now will be back loyally in their biased corners.

I am dumb on this subject but I wonder if someone has an answer.

Since eastern Oklahoma is FINALLY back to being federally recognized reservation land....

How does the state of Oklahoma have any control of it's district lines?

Because that's not what the supreme court ruling was about in any way shape or form.

It was purely about federal vs native court system for registered natives in that area for criminal procedures.



This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Jan 17 2022 09:27pm

High quality post, very rare now a days.

Should it be a requirement to live in the district you represent? I don't believe it currently is.

This post was edited by nobrow on Jan 17 2022 09:28pm

Uh...no.

Also affirmed reservations. This takes the land straight out of any state power.

This post was edited by Subwoofer on Jan 17 2022 09:37pm

Yes and no dual citizenship's for anyone at the state or federal level.

No, it doesn't. State and local governments in those areas still have all the same powers as they did before and our borders are unchanged. The only thing this ruling effects is if a native commits a crime while on the reservation territory, which is now considered larger, but that affirmation of reservation territory doesn't change the power structures in those areas.

The supreme court didn't just like, give away half of a state.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Jan 17 2022 09:52pm

Same powers? Legal Powers? Definitely not. Being a native on a reservations puts you squarely under tribal and federal law, not local or state.

For example: While i may not own a deed to the land wal-mart sits on, I don't have to honor any of the laws that keep me from going in there and walking out with what i want.

Call the local police....can't do anything

Call the tribal police....our code has the fault of being written under the false assumption the state had control over us and is therefore legally null in most cases.

Land ownership doesn't mean much to us....that's the point.

Quality thread, much appreciated!
Three remarks:

1. After seeing this absolute abomination of a map from Illinois, I don't want to hear complaints from Democrats about gerrymandering ever again.


2. The governor's office in Florida has released DeSantis' proposal for the new Florida map and it's a clean-looking but extremely efficient, brutal gerrymander:

https://twitter.com/redistrictnet/status/1482870530080485390?s=21

3.
This reasoning contradicts itself. Either what we consider a "fair" map has to take the actual political geography of a state into account beyond the topline, statewide vote share each party is getting, or it doesn't.

Based on pure vote share, Republicans would definitely be "entitled" to at least one, possibly even two seats out of MA. But the Demcoratic vote is so efficiently distributed in MA that it would actually take an insane gerrymander to draw even just one R-leaning seat in the state. Republicans just happen to be disadvantaged by political geography in that state. Likewise, political geography in Alabama (and pretty much the entire South) disadvantages Democrats because the black vote suffers from high degrees of "self-packing".

I obviously cannot comment on the legal arguments pertaining to the VRA and these maps, but from a moral/ethical standpoint, it seems impossible to me to argue that a piece of legislation would require states to actively counteract the natural geographic disadvantage of certain groups in some states, but not in other states. And from a practical point of view, I cannot imagine the current SCOTUS to follow any such arguments. Even before we got to the current 6-3 conservative supermajority, the Roberts court has already hollowed out the VRA in 2013 or 2014. Seems extremely unlikely that a significantly more conservative court would be sympathetic to such arguments.

It should also be noted that Democrats have cracked a Hispanic-majority seat in New Mexico to create two likely Dem seats instead of one safe D and one lean R seat. It appears absurd to me that the Democratic party could crack majority-minority seats in one case yet argue in a different case (AL) that the VRA should be interpreted as requiring states to draw as many majority-minority seats as they can possibly fit.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jan 17 2022 10:58pm