Bobby Harrison of the Daily Journal writes about what the future holds in terms of redistricting in MS. Will there be a fight? We'll see in 2011...
JACKSON - Most likely, in early 2011 the Mississippi Legislature will get the state's population data from the U.S. Census Bureau. It will outline what areas of the state have increased population and what areas have lost population.
Then the Legislature must act quickly to redraw the state's 122 House and 52 Senate districts in time to get U.S. Justice Department approval of a redistricting plan before June 1, the qualifying deadline for legislative candidates.
In other words, the Legislature will be acting on a tight time frame to get the districts redrawn in time for the 2011 elections, which will consist of August party primaries and the November general election.
Every other decade, Mississippi faces this problem - the legislative elections occur a year after the Census, meaning the Legislature has little time to reach agreement and put in place new legislative districts.
In 1991, the Legislature did not make it. Racial politics, a speaker's race and other factors prevented the Legislature from reaching agreement. The issue ended up in federal court and with legislators running in 1991 under the old districts and again in 1992 under the new districts.
Legislators will try to avoid the back-to-back elections this time around, but there are no guarantees.
Federal law and court rulings require legislative districts - on the local, state and national levels - to be close to equal in population. Gone are the days when a state House member represented tens of thousands of people in a metro area while a colleague might represented only a few thousand in a rural area.
Under that scenario, the rural population was receiving more representation than urban citizens.
Federal law adheres to the principle of one man, one vote. And in reality, it is one of the most important concepts of our representative democracy.
It is important enough that in 1991, a federal judicial panel said the Legislature could not serve even one four-year term under the old, outdated, unequal district lines. The Legislature served one year under the old lines and had to run again next year.
For a politician, having to run back-to-back years for the same seat has to be a type of electoral purgatory.
If legislators want to avoid that in 2011, they will have to act quickly. After the Legislature adopts a redistricting plan, it also must gain approval of the Justice Department. That can take several weeks.
No doubt, in 2011 there will be a speaker's race just as there was in 1991. In 1991, incumbent Speaker Tim Ford of Baldwyn was being challenged by Ed Perry of Oxford.
After the 2007 campaign, Billy McCoy, D-Rienzi, re-captured the speaker's post by a slim 63-61 margin. Whether McCoy runs or not in 2011, there will be a speaker's race under way when the redistricting process occurs.
That speaker's race could impact the redrawing of the districts lines just as it did in 1991.
The difference is that in 1991 the disagreement broke down, generally speaking, along geographic and urban vs. rural lines, even within the Black Caucus. This time, the divide will most likely will break down along party lines.
Over in the Senate, in 2007 then Lt. Gov.-elect Phil Bryant met with Senate Democrats, who hold a slim majority, and promised not to try to use redistricting as a tool to increase Republican numbers in the Senate. In turn, Democrats promised not to wage what could have been a messy rules fight to try to strip some of the lieutenant governor's Senate powers.
In the past, the leaders of the respective chambers have drawn and gotten approved the redistricting plan for their chamber and it was rubber-stamped by the other chamber. The governor has no official responsibility in the process.
But with a rise in partisan politics in the state, will the Senate try to block the House plan or vice versa? Will Gov. Haley Barbour use his considerable influence over the Senate to try to block the House plan?
If that happens, look for the issue to end up in court again with legislators running in 2011 and 2012.
Showing posts with label Census redistricting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Census redistricting. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Monday, June 15, 2009
Census Analysis: Population shifts could mean Republican gains
Dr. Marty Wiseman of MSU penned an interesting analysis based on current Census projections for MS's population. Read it below:
SUMMER ENTERTAINMENT: A LOOK AT THE CENSUS NUMBERS
What does one do at an institute of government when the hot hazy days of summer arrive?
In addition to attending a variety of educational meetings one might liven things up by looking at numbers. Perhaps this is why government institute types pick up pejorative labels like “policy wonk” or “bean counters”. If one is inclined to look down the road only a few short months an examination of the projected census numbers do indeed have a bearing on the current political climate in Mississippi and more importantly how that picture is destined to change significantly. Of immediate concern are the changes that will come to the makeup of the Mississippi Legislature. As far as reapportionment of Congress is concerned, we appear to be safe for 2010. However, if current trends continue Mississippi may be faced with the loss of yet another congressional seat by 2020.
As has been discussed in this space before, redistricting of the Mississippi Legislature has been, until the most recent decennial censuses, a fairly docile exercise. Each house would put together its plan and with the expected amount of grousing swap it with the other house for approval of resolutions redrawing the lines of the Senate and House districts. This is done by resolution. Thus, the Governor has no veto power over the plans. This approach was carried out with a minimum of rancor back in the days when the governor was a Democrat and the overwhelming majority of the House and Senate were also Democrats. One need only observe the current budget standoff to understand that Mississippi is now thoroughly a two-party state. The fact that the Senate tends toward the Republican agenda and the Democratic approach holds serve in the House puts a premium on how those two ends of the capital are organized. There are certain principles based on the tale of the numbers that are for the most part set in concrete.
By census time the population in Mississippi should be right at 3,000,000. This would mean that based on established laws that require virtually equal districts a district for the election of a member of the Mississippi House must have just short of 25,000 in population. That figure for a Senate seat would be just over 57,000. Census projections have recently appeared for the 2008 leading up to the actual count for 2010.
What do they tell us about the political fight down the road? First of all, the projections have the population of Mississippi growing at a 3.3% rate since the 2000 census as compared to a 8.0% clip for the nation as a whole. There will be more about that on another day. When examining the data that will impact the makeup of the legislature there are some revealing shifts. A total of 39 counties in Mississippi stand to lose population if the census projections are accurate. A look at the biggest gainers and the biggest losers is quite instructive. All of the top 10 biggest losers percentage-wise are either Mississippi Delta counties or counties farther south along the Mississippi River. They range from a 27.1% decrease in Issaquena County to an 8.8% loss in Adams County. These counties have the highest African-American population in the state and the highest concentration of Democratic legislators in Jackson.
On the flip side, the counties that are the seven largest gainers are mirror opposites of the loser counties. Three of the top four, DeSoto, Madison, and Rankin are consistently the most Republican leaning counties in Mississippi and that would be as expected since these are typical Republican strongholds as the more affluent suburban areas around larger cities. Lamar County is the other county in the top 4, and it also has characteristics similar to the others as a suburb of the rapidly growing Hattiesburg area. Interestingly, the remaining three counties in the 2008 high growth projected counties are Pearl River, Stone, and George which have seen tremendous growth since Hurricane Katrina. Many of the remaining counties that have lost population are the more rural counties in Mississippi.
So, at this point, what do these numbers mean? First the lines are already being drawn in the battle of the respective parties to save seats for the partisan debates ahead. The Democrats by virtue of their majority position should have somewhat the upper hand, at least as far as the House is concerned. But the census numbers are clearly working against the Democrats on their home turf. The 44% population increase in DeSoto County makes it the 32nd fastest growing county in the nation, and in Mississippi that is seemingly a big gain for the Republicans. Thus, as things currently appear the numbers alone would portend a shift in several districts from Democratic leaning to Republican leaning. But there are many options far reconfiguration that could minimize Republican gains or minimize Democratic losses depending on your point of view. If the current philosophical battles over the budget are any indication, the war to come over the partisan makeup of the legislature for the decade of 2011 to 2021 will be one for the ages.
SUMMER ENTERTAINMENT: A LOOK AT THE CENSUS NUMBERS
What does one do at an institute of government when the hot hazy days of summer arrive?
In addition to attending a variety of educational meetings one might liven things up by looking at numbers. Perhaps this is why government institute types pick up pejorative labels like “policy wonk” or “bean counters”. If one is inclined to look down the road only a few short months an examination of the projected census numbers do indeed have a bearing on the current political climate in Mississippi and more importantly how that picture is destined to change significantly. Of immediate concern are the changes that will come to the makeup of the Mississippi Legislature. As far as reapportionment of Congress is concerned, we appear to be safe for 2010. However, if current trends continue Mississippi may be faced with the loss of yet another congressional seat by 2020.
As has been discussed in this space before, redistricting of the Mississippi Legislature has been, until the most recent decennial censuses, a fairly docile exercise. Each house would put together its plan and with the expected amount of grousing swap it with the other house for approval of resolutions redrawing the lines of the Senate and House districts. This is done by resolution. Thus, the Governor has no veto power over the plans. This approach was carried out with a minimum of rancor back in the days when the governor was a Democrat and the overwhelming majority of the House and Senate were also Democrats. One need only observe the current budget standoff to understand that Mississippi is now thoroughly a two-party state. The fact that the Senate tends toward the Republican agenda and the Democratic approach holds serve in the House puts a premium on how those two ends of the capital are organized. There are certain principles based on the tale of the numbers that are for the most part set in concrete.
By census time the population in Mississippi should be right at 3,000,000. This would mean that based on established laws that require virtually equal districts a district for the election of a member of the Mississippi House must have just short of 25,000 in population. That figure for a Senate seat would be just over 57,000. Census projections have recently appeared for the 2008 leading up to the actual count for 2010.
What do they tell us about the political fight down the road? First of all, the projections have the population of Mississippi growing at a 3.3% rate since the 2000 census as compared to a 8.0% clip for the nation as a whole. There will be more about that on another day. When examining the data that will impact the makeup of the legislature there are some revealing shifts. A total of 39 counties in Mississippi stand to lose population if the census projections are accurate. A look at the biggest gainers and the biggest losers is quite instructive. All of the top 10 biggest losers percentage-wise are either Mississippi Delta counties or counties farther south along the Mississippi River. They range from a 27.1% decrease in Issaquena County to an 8.8% loss in Adams County. These counties have the highest African-American population in the state and the highest concentration of Democratic legislators in Jackson.
On the flip side, the counties that are the seven largest gainers are mirror opposites of the loser counties. Three of the top four, DeSoto, Madison, and Rankin are consistently the most Republican leaning counties in Mississippi and that would be as expected since these are typical Republican strongholds as the more affluent suburban areas around larger cities. Lamar County is the other county in the top 4, and it also has characteristics similar to the others as a suburb of the rapidly growing Hattiesburg area. Interestingly, the remaining three counties in the 2008 high growth projected counties are Pearl River, Stone, and George which have seen tremendous growth since Hurricane Katrina. Many of the remaining counties that have lost population are the more rural counties in Mississippi.
So, at this point, what do these numbers mean? First the lines are already being drawn in the battle of the respective parties to save seats for the partisan debates ahead. The Democrats by virtue of their majority position should have somewhat the upper hand, at least as far as the House is concerned. But the census numbers are clearly working against the Democrats on their home turf. The 44% population increase in DeSoto County makes it the 32nd fastest growing county in the nation, and in Mississippi that is seemingly a big gain for the Republicans. Thus, as things currently appear the numbers alone would portend a shift in several districts from Democratic leaning to Republican leaning. But there are many options far reconfiguration that could minimize Republican gains or minimize Democratic losses depending on your point of view. If the current philosophical battles over the budget are any indication, the war to come over the partisan makeup of the legislature for the decade of 2011 to 2021 will be one for the ages.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Supreme Court decision could affect 2010 Census redistricting
The Christian Science Monitor reported today the Supreme Court rejected a claim that so-called minority crossover districts qualify for protection under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). The decision was 5 to 4.
From the story...
The federal Voting Rights Act does not authorize vote dilution lawsuits in voting districts in which a particular racial or ethnic group comprises less than 50 percent of the voting age population.
In a 5 to 4 decision announced on Monday, the US Supreme Court rejected a claim that so-called minority crossover districts qualify for protection under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). Instead, the court's conservative wing embraced a narrow view of the law.
Crossover districts are those in which a cohesive minority voting population can elect candidates of its choice by forming a coalition with cross-over votes from whites or other non-minority voters.
The case is important because it establishes ground rules that will apply nationwide during the redrawing of voting districts following the 2010 census. It could result in a reduction of minority districts by encouraging district drafters to pack traditional minority districts with more than 50 percent minority voters, rather than aiming for widespread distribution across several voting districts.
The decision comes in a case challenging the creation of North Carolina's House District 18. State officials tasked with redrawing North Carolina's voting map found themselves caught between two competing laws.
The VRA mandates that new districts may not be drawn in such a way as to dilute the existing political clout of minority voters in minority voting districts. But North Carolina has a law requiring that counties not be split up within voting districts.
State officials discovered that if they adhered to the "whole county provision" of state law, the minority voting age population in District 18 would be reduced from 39 percent to 35 percent.
From the story...
The federal Voting Rights Act does not authorize vote dilution lawsuits in voting districts in which a particular racial or ethnic group comprises less than 50 percent of the voting age population.
In a 5 to 4 decision announced on Monday, the US Supreme Court rejected a claim that so-called minority crossover districts qualify for protection under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). Instead, the court's conservative wing embraced a narrow view of the law.
Crossover districts are those in which a cohesive minority voting population can elect candidates of its choice by forming a coalition with cross-over votes from whites or other non-minority voters.
The case is important because it establishes ground rules that will apply nationwide during the redrawing of voting districts following the 2010 census. It could result in a reduction of minority districts by encouraging district drafters to pack traditional minority districts with more than 50 percent minority voters, rather than aiming for widespread distribution across several voting districts.
The decision comes in a case challenging the creation of North Carolina's House District 18. State officials tasked with redrawing North Carolina's voting map found themselves caught between two competing laws.
The VRA mandates that new districts may not be drawn in such a way as to dilute the existing political clout of minority voters in minority voting districts. But North Carolina has a law requiring that counties not be split up within voting districts.
State officials discovered that if they adhered to the "whole county provision" of state law, the minority voting age population in District 18 would be reduced from 39 percent to 35 percent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
