By Richard E. Cohen, National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Friday, April 7, 2000

Political mischief has a way of backfiring sometimes. A decade ago, Georgia's 10-member delegation in the U.S. House had just one Republican. But the state's Democrats, who controlled the governorship and the Legislature, weren't satisfied. So when it came time for them to redraw the congressional district lines following the 1990 census, they tried to get rid of the lone GOP member, a fellow named Newt Gingrich, by putting more Democrats in his district.

Next year, the states will draw new congressional district boundaries that will have a huge impact in shaping the five succeeding Congresses.

Georgia Democrats, however, were overly ambitious during their mapmaking in 1991 and 1992. They miscalculated in configuring the new districts, and Republicans outmaneuvered them. (Gingrich, for one, simply moved into a decidedly more Republican district.) Plus, state officials were under a federal mandate to increase the number of black-majority seats from one to three. That meant concentrating black voters, who traditionally vote Democratic, in a small number of districts -- thus making other districts more heavily Republican. In the end, the Democrats created a map that since 1995 has helped the Republicans hold eight of Georgia's 11 U.S. House seats.

Given political trends, Democrats probably could not have saved all of the Georgia seats that they lost. But if they had done a better job in drawing the lines, a Democrat might have become House Speaker last year.

Next year, Georgia Democrats, who still control the state government, will have another opportunity to get it right. But it won't be easy. Because the state's population has increased, chiefly in GOP-leaning suburbs, Georgia is poised to gain one or two House seats, and Republicans are confident. "I assume the two new districts will be Republican," proclaimed Rep. John Linder, R-Ga.

In fact, Republicans across the country are confident about how they'll fare in the upcoming congressional redistricting. They have the upper hand in the once-a-decade process that begins this December, when the 435 House seats are reapportioned among the 50 states, based on population estimates from the census. The GOP has the advantage because it holds 30 gubernatorial seats -- including seven of the eight most populous states (California is the exception) -- and controls nearly half of the state legislatures. Republicans, said Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, "haven't been stronger on redistricting since 1920."

The states must redraw their congressional maps in time for the 2002 voting, which could be an election of great upheaval. In states that lose House seats and even elsewhere, incumbents may be forced to run against one another for re-election. (In 1992, nine incumbents lost to other incumbents in primaries or general-election matchups. Sixty-five other House members chose to retire that year, a postwar record, and more than a dozen of them would have been severely hampered by redistricting changes if they had sought another term.) Other lawmakers in 2002 will be forced to campaign among hundreds of thousands of new constituents.

The redistricting process itself -- simply moving the lines around -- will result in a significant turnover of House seats, regardless of who is running in 2002, the mood of the country, or other political factors. Davis expects that Republicans will "have a swing of plus or minus 20 seats," while Rep. Ken Bentsen of Texas, who oversees redistricting for House Democrats, predicts a "Democratic upside of 25 and downside of 33," depending on whether everything breaks for the party or against it.

The very narrow margin of party control in the House is likely to continue for two more years, no matter who wins the majority this November. But it is quite possible that the 2002 and 2004 elections will be as turbulent as those in 1992 and 1994, which produced 110 and 86 House freshmen, respectively, and a net loss of 62 Democratic seats. Redistricting, again, will be a major force in the outcome, and many lawmakers have begun to focus on possible scenarios.

With the consequences so significant, neither party can afford to overlook -- or mishandle -- a single state. In February, Republican National Committee Chairman Jim Nicholson announced that he was launching a multimillion-dollar initiative to win control of several state legislatures in November and "ensure a fair redistricting" in 2001. He called the focus on the state capitols this year's "hidden election," because the outcome will determine the shape of the five succeeding Congresses.

Likewise, House Democratic Caucus Chairman Martin Frost of Texas in an interview called this year's election "the triple witching hour of politics," because control of the White House, Congress, and many important state legislatures is up for grabs. "This is one of the most interesting political years in a very long time," Frost said. "Both parties are putting serious money into this."

Heading into the redistricting fight, House Democrats contend that, after five bitter years in the minority, their forces are leaner, better disciplined, and more attuned to the need to work together. "In 1991, many Democrats were complacent because they hadn't been pressed [for re-election] for a while, and they did not have relationships with their state legislatures," said a House leadership aide. "Now, we are battling back. Our members are more plugged-in and political."

Political Elbow Grease
Although high-tech computer models certainly play a role in redistricting these days, old-fashioned political clout remains at the heart of the process.

Redistricting plans are often crafted behind closed doors by a select group within the state's majority party, and those officials hope to put the opposing party at a disadvantage. But other motives could be at work as well: A state official might want to further his or her own ambitions for federal office, or perhaps to settle an old score. Even if a House incumbent's district appears to have the proper number of residents, state legislators often will move neighborhoods in, out, or around, whether in the desire to bolster or jeopardize that member or, perhaps, to influence the result in a neighboring district.

The effort can even include concocting intricate deals that involve districts many miles apart. Each action generates one or more counteractions, and logic does not necessarily prevail. In short, political amateurs and good-government types need not apply. "It's impossible to quantify the [politicians'] individual self-interest in this process," said Tom Cole, the RNC's chief of staff.

The minority party in each state usually plays no role, except for those occasions when the majority fails to get its act together. The lack of public disclosure and the obscurity of the whole process helps to explain why most national and local news media don't pay much attention -- and why it can be difficult, even for the experts, to tell what's going on.

Through it all, members of Congress are at the mercy of their state lawmakers and governor. They can -- and do -- plead for their own survival. "Anything goes," said Rep. Sherwood L. Boehlert, R-N.Y., who has maneuvered through two redistrictings. During the upcoming round, he said, he plans on emphasizing that as a senior member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee he will be vital to the Empire State's interests a few years from now, when the federal highway aid program is reauthorized.

Rep. Eliot L. Engel, D-N.Y., who endured a harrowing tour through redistricting in 1992, said he retains friendships -- notably, with Democratic state Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver -- from the dozen years he spent in Albany before his election to the House in 1988. "If you work hard, you hope that they will notice it and see that you are an asset for New York," Engel said. Still, he noted "there are all sorts of machinations here." Referring to Silver, Republican state Senate President Joseph Bruno, and GOP Gov. George E. Pataki, he added, "It takes three to tango."

Now that the 2000 census has officially begun, the first phase is in play. Many politicians are exhorting residents to submit their completed forms, particularly in minority communities, which often have a below-average response to the survey. The Census Bureau is scheduled to release the state population totals in December. Within minutes after that, those figures will be fed into a computer that uses a complex mathematical formula to instantly determine how the 435 House seats will be divvied up among the 50 states.

In five industrial states bordering the Great Lakes, for example, politicians are gritting their teeth over how to cope with their latest reduction of seats, on top of the dozens that their region already has lost. (New York had 45 House seats in 1950, but it very likely will have 29 after the 2002 election; Pennsylvania is expected to drop from 33 to 19 in the same period.) Although Republicans have the upper hand in controlling several of these states, the high-stakes games of musical chairs potentially jeopardize every member of those delegations.

After the expected reapportionment in December, the states will have to wait for several months to receive the huge batches of census data necessary for drawing new boundaries. The lines must comply with the many Supreme Court rulings on such evolving criteria as equal population, district compactness, and racial groupings. But the states still have wide discretion in how they undertake the process, and they set their own schedules.

The mechanics vary widely from state to state, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. For example, in five states (Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, New Jersey, and Washington), nonpartisan commissions appointed by the legislature draft the redistricting plan. In Iowa, professional staff experts submit a map.

In all of the states, however, the redistricting map is treated as legislation and is subject to the approval of the legislature and the governor. And in every state except for North Carolina, the governor has veto power over the map. If state officials are unable to reach agreement on House redistricting, the issue can get bucked to state or federal courts, which have ruled unpredictably in the past.

The states will again be under substantial pressure to maximize opportunities for racial minorities. During the 1991-92 redistricting, Republicans worked with the Justice Department and civil rights groups, in accordance with the 1982 amendments to the Voting Rights Act, to increase the number of blacks elected to the House from the South. By concentrating black voters in a small number of districts, they added 13 black Democrats from that region -- while reducing the total number of Southern Democrats from 89 in 1992 to the current 58.

The racial aspects of redistricting have changed considerably during the 1990s. States have drawn new court-ordered maps that significantly reduced the number of black voters in several black-held districts. But in the two most contested of those districts, Democratic Reps. Cynthia McKinney of Georgia and Melvin Watt of North Carolina have easily won re-election.

During the upcoming redistricting, national Democratic leaders hope to ensure that their black members win re-election, although they also want, in some cases, to reduce the minority populations in those districts to bolster their party's prospects elsewhere. But black lawmakers object to moving additional black voters from their districts. "Moving my constituents to [create] additional Democratic districts is specious," McKinney said in an interview. "There will be no interest in changing the districts of Democrats to the detriment of [those] Democrats. That won't happen."

Republicans, for their part, want to keep the minority population concentrated in fewer districts.

Prospecting In The Golden State
Both California and Texas, which rank atop the 50 states in population, appear quite likely to gain a seat or two. But that's where the similarities end. In California, Democrats are well positioned to control the process. In Texas, Republicans have the strong upper hand. Partisans in each camp boast that they can add perhaps 10 members to their ranks. As a result, many of the House's 24 California Republicans and 17 Texas Democrats have ample reason to fear for their political lives. Redistricting in these two superstates will mightily influence which party controls the House during the next decade.

California's diverse population has delivered an array of influential lawmakers to Capitol Hill, from liberal Democratic Reps. Maxine Waters and Henry A. Waxman to conservative Republican Reps. Christopher Cox and Bill Thomas. The state's House delegation of 28 Democrats and 24 Republicans includes 13 women (all but one of whom are Democrats) and five Hispanics and three African-Americans (all of them Democrats), as well as two Republican committee chairmen and several influential subcommittee chairmen.

In 1991, the state's Supreme Court approved the current lines for the delegation after the Democratic Legislature deadlocked with then-Gov. Pete Wilson, a Republican. The relatively nonpartisan result left many seats more competitive than they had been in recent decades; of the 52 seats, nine have switched parties at least once since 1993.

Now thanks to the state's population gains, the Democrats' control of the Legislature, and Democrat Gray Davis' election as governor, many in the party anticipate a pickup of eight to 10 House seats in 2002. Nevertheless, interviews with a cross-section of local political players and observers made clear that the Democratic Party must clear many hurdles to achieve its goal.

In the state's Assembly, where members are limited to serving three two-year terms, Democrats recently installed a new speaker, Robert Hertzberg, a corporate attorney and self-styled New Democrat from the high-income Sherman Oaks area in Los Angeles. Veteran Sacramento Bee reporter Dan Walters has described Hertzberg, who is serving his fourth year in elected office, as "collegial, nonthreatening, and well aware of the limits both on his time and authority." In the Senate, where members are limited to two four-year terms, the chief power broker is President Pro Tem John Burton. He previously served in the U.S. House with his late brother Phillip Burton, the architect of some of the House Democrats' celebrated redistricting plans. But Democrats consider John Burton less hands-on with legislative details.

Among the California Democrats' leading redistricting targets are Los Angeles-area GOP Reps. James E. Rogan and Steven T. Kuykendall. Rogan, who gained recognition as a House manager in the Clinton impeachment trial, faces trouble because of a large influx of Hispanics into the Glendale and Burbank communities north of the city. Kuykendall, a first-termer who won narrowly in 1998, represents the South Bay area along the Pacific coast, which has a growing population of blacks and Hispanics who are climbing to the middle class. Redistricting experts assume that their two districts could be carved up to accommodate additional Democratic seats, possibly for racial minorities. Hispanics have surged past blacks to become the largest minority group in Los Angeles and in the state.

However, Rogan and Kuykendall face major re-election challenges this year. Democratic state Sen. Adam Schiff has raised more than $1 million for his bid against Rogan, and Democrat Jane Harman is seeking to recapture the Kuykendall seat, which she relinquished in her unsuccessful run for governor in 1998. Although Democrats profess universal support for Schiff and Harman, their victories in November would come at a price: Two more white Democrats would have taken seats in areas where Hispanic politicians have their own designs.

"Some Latino groups in Los Angeles already are drawing scenarios for redistricting," said Democratic Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard, a leader of the Hispanic community. "I hear that we could get at least two [new] seats in Los Angeles County." Asked about possible conflicts with Anglo Democrats, she responded: "There will always be some concern about that. … In the past, some Latino areas have been represented by non-Latinos at the local level. As long as our problems are taken care of, the Latino community doesn't object."

Meanwhile, in San Diego, Democratic Rep. Bob Filner is keeping a wary eye on Juan Vargas -- who is all but certain to win an Assembly seat in November and who has twice run against him in Democratic primaries -- and on Vargas' possible role in redistricting. The population of Filner's district is nearly 50 percent Hispanic, although the share of registered voters who are Hispanic is closer to 25 percent. Filner, a political science professor and city councilman before he was elected to the House in 1992, said he has worked closely with local Hispanic groups and added that he has easily survived re-election challenges, including those from Hispanic candidates, since his initial close primary victory.

Still, Filner and others believe that California's term-limited state legislators are a wild card in the next redistricting. "Term limits change the equation of who has power," Filner said. "The one office in California that is not term-limited is Congress. People are more likely to look for seats, and they can use their power in the Legislature to advance that. … Clearly, members of Congress will have less influence on redistricting, and state legislators will have more." (Even before term limits, the Legislature has been a stepping-stone to Congress; of the current House members, 14 Democrats and nine Republicans previously served in Sacramento.)

A.G. Block, the editor in chief of the nonpartisan California Journal, a monthly magazine that covers state government, agrees. "Democrats in Washington have a lot to worry about," Block said. "Members drawing the lines here [in Sacramento] will want seats for themselves. … [Members of Congress] will have no leverage."

Further complicating the picture, GOP Rep. Brian P. Bilbray of San Diego is the Democrats' chief local target for redistricting. But he faces a formidable re-election challenge this year from Democrat Susan Davis, another Assembly member. If she wins the House seat, it's highly unlikely that there would be enough voters in the Republican-leaning San Diego area to elect Filner, Davis, and a Hispanic Democrat.

These various scenarios make clear that an array of California Democrats have a stake in redistricting. Aware that they need to cooperate, a group of Democratic Assembly members met on Capitol Hill with House Democrats from California in late March. "Everyone was very congenial," said Roybal-Allard, although she added, "that's the way it always is" at the start of the process.

For their part, worried California Republicans are desperately reviewing their political and legal options concerning redistricting, and they are somewhat divided on which course to pursue. "Republicans understand they have no leverage on anything in the Legislature," said Tony Quinn, a Sacramento lobbyist and GOP redistricting expert. Among the alternatives Republicans are considering are a state initiative changing the redistricting process before it begins, a court challenge to whatever congressional map the Democrats produce, and a separate referendum after the plan has been approved.

Thomas, one of the state's two most senior House Republicans and an expert on election law, spearheaded an effort last year to place an initiative on the state's March primary ballot that sought to hand redistricting over to the state courts. But the state Supreme Court disqualified the measure because it was linked to the separate issue of a pay cut for state legislators. After extensive discussions, Republicans in March launched a new redistricting initiative for the November election but soon abandoned the effort as too costly and not likely to succeed.

Storming The Alamo
In Texas, the 1991 redistricting by a Democratic-controlled Legislature and governor, working closely with Frost on behalf of the House delegation, was an unmitigated party success. But since then, the GOP has reduced the Democrats' 21-9 control of the delegation in 1993 by four seats. Now, the state's continuing GOP tilt and the Republicans' expectation that they will have a strong voice in the redistricting process have emboldened that party's mapmaking experts.

"Republicans are not going into this trying to make up for 100 years of convoluted lines by the Democrats. We don't need to do that," said Rep. Joe Barton, the Texas Republicans' point man on redistricting. "A gain of five is our worst-case scenario. We could get to plus-10, but we would need to be creative and get some retirements."

Interestingly, the two Democratic incumbents who Barton is most confident cannot survive what he expects will be a major shift in their district lines are the Democratic Party's redistricting experts, Bentsen and Frost. They hold seats in the Houston and Dallas areas, respectively, that include minority neighborhoods and extend circuitously into outlying areas.

Other Republicans are even more optimistic. House GOP campaign chief Davis quickly flashes all 10 fingers when asked about the Texas outlook. Craig Murphy, a former senior Barton aide and redistricting adviser who now works in Dallas as a consultant on the issue, said that the state's "Democrats are whistling past the graveyard." He added that since 1990, "growth has been all Republican, and every white Democratic seat was drawn very closely" to ensure a narrow Democratic majority.

Texas is projected to receive two new seats from reapportionment, for a total of 32. According to Murphy, a new GOP map would create 24 Republican districts, an 11-seat gain. House Majority Leader Dick Armey and Majority Whip Tom DeLay, among other Republican incumbents, would be asked to accept more-competitive districts to enhance their party's goal of unseating nearby Democrats in the Dallas and Houston areas. Although the districts of the state's senior Republicans would no longer have an overwhelmingly GOP tilt, these members would continue to win re-election comfortably, Barton said. Under this scenario, Texas Democrats would be left with only four Hispanic-majority seats in south Texas and one in El Paso, plus two inner-city seats in Houston and one in Dallas.

Frost, who has prevailed over Barton in past statewide redistricting battles, is not overly worried. "My district is within 1,000 people of the proper size. It should be left alone," he said. "Republicans made their arguments about gerrymanders in 1996, and their Republican-nominated judges didn't accept their arguments. ... They tend to overreach and be greedy. I don't know if their plan could pass the courts."

Besides, Democrats doubt that Republicans will be in the position to draw Texas' congressional map by themselves. With Democrats controlling the state House 78-72, and Republicans holding a 16-15 Senate edge, a handful of key races in November in which both parties will spend millions of dollars will very likely decide control of redistricting.

Clearly, although politicians in Texas and all over the country are laying intricate plans for redistricting, they can't plan for the unexpected. "This process has a way of driving people apart," noted San Diego's Filner. "And no matter how you plan it, there's always the law of unintended consequences."

• Click here for more information about National Journal.

Need A Reprint Of This Article?
National Journal Group offers both print and electronic reprint services, as well as permissions for academic use, photocopying and republication. Click here to order, or call us at 877-394-7350.