Redistricting 2022: Winners and Losers
Last updated on May 18, 2022
Every 10 years the Census determines how the 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives are to be allocated; heavily-populated states get more representation while the less populous states have fewer Representatives. After the 435 seats are redistributed according to population (a process known as "reapportionment"), every state -- except those which are entitled to only one seat in the House -- creates districts for each individual Representative.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
There are certain rules which must be followed regarding the creation of House districts: the districts must be contiguous, the population of each district within a state must be identical as much as possible to all other districts within that state; some states are required to obey even more rules, such as the rule which mandates that a white candidate (normally a Republican, just by coincidence) be highly unlikely to prevail in a general election in a certain number of districts -- this comes from the euphemistically-titled "Voting Rights Act" of 1965 (as amended in 1992) and is enforced by the Democrat-controlled bureaucracy known as the U.S. Department of Justice.
Historically, redistricting has been an extremely partisan activity in which the party in control of the process tries to maximize its advantage. Democrats used this process masterfully to maintain an iron-clad grip on the U.S. House of Representatives for a 40-year period from the 1950's through the early 1990's. But when their control was finally shattered in 1994 and beyond, and redistricting in more and more states fell into the hands of Republicans (as Democrats also lost control at the state level), Democrats changed the rules as they often do when they suddenly find themselves losing the game.
Courts are the new battlegrounds for redistricting, often usurping the power of the state legislatures, and Democrat-led efforts to place "non-partisan" or "bipartisan" commissions in charge of the process have been successful in numerous states. Democrats had no interest in making the redistricting process "non-partisan" until they saw what happened in 2001 when, for the first time in decades in several states, their party did not have total control.
Up through 2020, certain factors mandated that maximum advantage (i.e. "gerrymandering") was permissible in large measure to one party only (D), while redistricting plans created by the other party (R) were (and still are) routinely overruled by partisan leftist judges, even if it takes years after the legitimate implementation of those plans for the overruling to occur. In fact, these arbitrary rulings by certain black-robed tyrants between 2015 and 2020 -- every single one of those rulings in favor of Democrats -- are the major reason, perhaps the only reason[1], why Nancy Pelosi wields the Speaker's gavel right now instead of Kevin McCarthy or an actual Republican.
However in 2022, for the very first time ever, Democrat plans are occasionally being quashed as being hyper-partisan. This new precedent was first established in Maryland, where a Democrat map was overruled and replaced by a new map that may not even cost them one seat. But it was still a step, however small, in a new direction.
Then in New York, the Democrats' proudest example of gerrymandering this time around, multiple courts struck down that gerrymander and it was replaced with a map similar in partisan outcome to the one which was used during the previous decade. Still more Republican plans were scratched than Democrat plans (not to mention Democrats illegitimately seizing control of the process, as in Pennsylvania), but what's been happening lately is a beginning of balancing the scales of justice in redistricting.
State-by-State Results of the 2022 Redistricting:
Here are some of the things that were being reported before the process really got rolling. Some of these are celebrating the idea of Republicans being in charge of the redistricting process in many key states, while others quiver in terror at the thought of Democrats controlling less than 100% of the federal government.November, 2020: "GOP Gains in State Legislatures Set It up to Control the House of Representatives for a Decade or More" [redstate.com]
November, 2020: "Republicans Retain a Marginal Advantage in Redistricting" [Noted centrist Michael Barone on townhall.com]
December, 2020: Even "As Biden won the presidency, Republicans cemented their grip on power for the next decade" [The Guardian]
March, 2021: "GOP poised for huge gains in Florida redistricting: 'If you thought it couldn't get worse for Dems... it can'" [Washington Examiner]
July, 2021: "The GOP Is Poised to Eliminate a Half-Dozen Democrats via Redistricting but Mitch McConnell and Party 'Strategists' Counsel Caution [redstate.com]
November, 2021: "GOP already has enough safe seats - through redistricting alone - to win back House in '22 [salon.com]
Little by little, reality began to set in. In any state where Republicans ostensibly control the process (e.g. North Carolina and Pennsylvania), the reality is that partisan Democrat judges actually control it; in any state where Democrats screw Republicans to the wall the game has normally been over at that point and their gerrymanders are often not even challenged in court.
Below is an up-to-date scorecard of the 2022 redistricting which displays pertinent information as to which party won the battle this time around -- at least as things stand at the moment. The battle (just like counting votes in a close election) often never ends until the Democrat wins, and several lawsuits are still pending which, if successful, would result in Democrat gains.
Six states do not have redistricting at the Congressional level, because they have only one Representative in Congress: Alaska, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming. The following table provides detailed information on all other states.
A quick read on "who won" is indicated by the color assigned to the cell containing the name of the state; remember, we use colors the correct, natural way and not in the manner dictated by the media. In states where the partisan composition of the Congressional delegation is unlikely to change in 2022 solely as the result of redistricting, the "winner" is the party which got its way in the end, or the one which controlled the process. Sometimes the change is so minimal that there was no tangible winner.
| State | Seats in 2020 | Seats in 2022 | Who Controlled? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 7 | 7 | R legislature, R Governor |
| Outcome: Racist Alabama Democrats appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which denied their attempt to do away with
one white member of the congressional delegation. Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the Democrats as is his habit, but the two
Trump appointees voted with the conservative bloc for a change.
2020 delegation: 6 R, 1 D, Likely effect of redistricting: no change. |
|||
| Arizona | 9 | 9 | Independent Commission |
| Outcome: After a big win for the Democrats in Arizona in 2011 when their partisans led the "non-partisan" commission in a march to the left,
the pendulum has swung back towards the center this time. Ann Kirkpatrick's slightly left-leaning district was converted into a barely right-leaning district
and so she decided not to run again. Furthermore the old 9th district (created in 2011 and controlled by Democrats since then) seems to have been
reconfigured into a very marginal district that could swing either way.
2020 delegation: 5 D, 4 R. Likely effect of redistricting: 5 R, 4 D. (+1 R, -1 D) |
|||
| Arkansas | 4 | 4 | R legislature, R Governor |
| Outcome: RINO Governor Asa Hutchinson refused to sign the Arkansas legislature's bill which created the new districts for 2022 because he felt the
Republican-passed plan was not friendly enough.... to Democrats. It became law anyway, without his signature.
2020 delegation: 4 R, 0 D. Likely effect of redistricting: no change. |
|||
| California | 53 | 52 | Independent Commission |
| Outcome: As in Illinois, Democrats were emboldened by the quiescence of the Republicans 10 years ago and turned the screws even
harder this time. The new partisan Democrat gerrymander should cost the Republicans at least 3 seats: one in the Central Valley (David Valadao, who was
essentially a Democrat anyway), and two principal targets in the Los Angeles & Orange County areas: Mike Garcia and Michelle Steel.
2020 delegation: 42 D, 11 R. Likely effect of redistricting: 44 D, 8 R. (+2 D, -3 R) |
|||
| Colorado | 7 | 8 | Independent Commission |
| Outcome: The Democrats desperately wanted to exterminate freshman Republican firebrand Lauren Boebert in CD-3, but the new independent commission-generated map doesn't
accomplish that for them, so other methods (such as flooding the Republican primary with Democrat voters) will be tried. The new 8th district which lies between Fort Collins and Denver was created with
an ever-so-modest tilt towards Republicans.
2020 delegation: 4 D, 3 R. Likely effect of redistricting: 4 D, 3 R, 1 tossup. |
|||
| Connecticut | 5 | 5 | D legislature |
| Outcome: A bipartisan committee of state legislators failed to reach an agreement on district maps for the next decade, so the
state Supreme Court justices (all Democrats) were given the task of preserving their party's 5-0 advantage here, which of course they did. As far as the partisan composition of
the five districts, the new map is almost completely identical to the old one, including the notion that Republicans could seize two of them in an unusually profitable year.
2020 delegation: 5 D, 0 R. Likely effect of redistricting: no change. |
|||
| Florida | 27 | 28 | R legislature, R Governor |
| Outcome: Governor Ron DeSantis finally got his redistricting plan through the state legislature in late April, while hysterical Democrats
insisted that the plan violates the law by dismantling one district in which white candidates are guaranteed to lose. Several hundred lawsuits
(well, maybe not quite that many) were filed within seconds of the plan being approved. Will they succeed? So far the answer is no, but that hardly means the DeSantis
plan will survive the decade.
Another aspect of the plan which triggered liberals is that the Governor allegedly seized control of the process rather than allow the legislature to craft a plan. Considering what happened in 2011 when the RINOs in the Florida legislature had their way, this was a good move. Back in '11 the RINOs took the opportunity to extermimate two pesky conservatives from the congressional delegation rather than focusing, as they should have, on eliminating Democrats. And that STILL wasn't good enough: In 2015 the state Supreme Court (100% Republican but majority liberal/RINO) did away with the 2011 map and arbitrarily replaced it with a more Democrat-favorable map which flipped at least one seat to the Democrats for the remainder of the decade. There's scant reason to believe that something similar will not happen again at some point. 2020 delegation: 16 R, 11 D. Likely effect of redistricting, for now: 19 R, 9 D. (+3 R, -2 D, which merely negates Democrat gains in California) |
|||
| Georgia | 14 | 14 | R legislature, R Governor |
| Outcome: Embattled Governor Brian Kemp, facing what appeared at the time to be a tough Republican primary election despite the mass of Democrat votes he will receive in that primary,
signed into law a plan passed by the Republican legislature that substantially only alters two districts in the state; both of them in the rapidly deteriorating
northern suburbs of Atlanta (Cobb County and Gwinnett County). The new redistrcting map changes them from two marginal districts -- both currently held
by liberal Democrats -- into one district that is fairly solidly Republican (CD-6) and one which is conceded to the Democrats (CD-7).
2020 delegation: 8 R, 6 D. Likely effect of redistricting: 9 R, 5 D. (+1 R, -1 D) |
|||
| Hawaii | 2 | 2 | Independent Commission |
| Outcome: Only very subtle alterations were made, nothing which would affect the partisan balance in this hyper-Democrat state. The
days are long gone when a Republican could even be semi-competitive in CD-1 aside from a complete fluke situation like the 2010 special election here. There never was any chance in CD-2 -- Democrats have held that seat throughout the entire history of the state.
2020 delegation: 2 D, 0 R. Likely effect of redistricting: no change. |
|||
| Idaho | 2 | 2 | Independent Commission |
| Outcome: Even with no chance of gaining a seat, Democrats still frantically opposed the new plan for Idaho and filed suit (unsuccessfully)
just for practice.
2020 delegation: 2 R, 0 D. Likely effect of redistricting: no change. |
|||
| Illinois | 18 | 17 | D Legislature, D Governor |
| Outcome: With New York's original Democrat plan being defeated in court, Illinois may take home the prize for the most partisan gerrymander of the decade.
As in California, the Democrat gerrymander-ers were emboldened by Republicans failing to fight back in 2011 and so they made them bend over even harder this time.
Republican maps in many states have routinely been harshly criticized by liberals and even overturned due to districts which were said to be insuffficiently compact, but Illinois' new "strips of bacon" districts
have set the new standard for ridiculousness in that area. One possible reason why RINOs in the Land of Lincoln have willingly allowed themselves to be bullied without fighting back is that freshman conservative Mary Miller has been placed in the same district as liberal Republican Rodney Davis, and Miller is expected to lose the June primary against the heavily-funded RINO squish. Members of the Republican "leadership" in the House have already stated how delighted they would be with that outcome. 2020 delegation: 13 D, 5 R. Likely effect of redistricting: 14 D, 3 R. (+1 D, -2 R) |
|||
| Indiana | 9 | 9 | R Legislature, R Governor |
| Outcome: Not much of a "win" for Republicans here, although they did do the sensible thing and bolster their incumbent in CD-5, which is located
in the rapidly deteriorating northern suburbs of Indianapolis. However, the Republicans voluntarily forfeited an opportunity to gain a seat (see also Missouri and perhaps Kentucky for similarly timid behavior)
by allowing CD-1 in the northwestern part of the state to retain a Democrat majority when only minor changes would
have caused that district to be a likely flip in 2022. Democrats shrieked hysterically just because CD-5 was slightly altered in favor of Republicans; it would have been fun to give them a real reason for hysterics by dismantling their eternal majority in CD-1 (the last time a Republican Congressman was elected here was in 1928), though in that case RINO Governor Eric Holcomb would almost certainly have veoted the plan for being "too mean" or something. 2020 delegation: 7 R, 2 D. Likely effect of redistricting: no change. |
|||
| Iowa | 4 | 4 | Independent Commission |
| Outcome: Iowa's redistricting process is unique among the states, in large part because the independent commission actually
takes its independence seriously and strives to make the partisan balance within districts as even as possible; the commissioners did
this 10 years ago as well. Only CD-4 in the western part of the state, which is heavily Republican, is anything other than marginal.
2020 delegation: 3 R, 1 D. Likely effect of redistricting: no change, but 3 of the 4 districts are toss-ups as far as partisan balance is concerned. |
|||
| Kansas | 4 | 4 | R Legislature, D Governor |
| Outcome: This was originally a relatively minimal win for Republicans, and they had to work hard even to get that much. Liberal Democrat Governor Laura
Kelly vetoed the plan which the Republican legislature passed, however after some arm-twisting by true Republicans against a handful of RINOs that veto
was overridden by the narrowest possible margin. The goal of the Republican plan was to mildly threaten the ultra-liberal Democrat who represents CD-3 which covers Kansas City and suburban Johnson County -- the "Land of the Karens" that has lurched hard to the left in recent years -- by changing the district from a slight Democrat lean to an equivalently slight Republican lean. Given the current trend in Johnson County, it likely wouldn't have been enough to make a difference in most years anyway. In late April one lone county judge did the bidding of the Democrat Governor and quashed the Republican plan. Republicans appealed to the Kansas Democrat-controlled (yes really, even in KANSAS) Supreme Court, which almost certainly will sustain the county judge's ruling. This whole battle is over whether the moonbat in CD-3 has a slightly friendly, or slightly adverse, district to run in and affects basically nothing else. 2020 delegation: 3 R, 1 D. Likely effect of redistricting: no change, regardless of how this ends up in court. |
|||
| Kentucky | 6 | 6 | R Legislature, D Governor |
| Outcome: As in Kansas, a veto by the Democrat Governor was overridden by the Republican legislature. The veto occurred
merely as a reflex action, seeing as how the new map is scarcely different from the old map. Republicans stopped well short of endangering the solid Democrat majority in CD-3 (Louisville), in fact making that district safer for Democrats while simultaneously (for some reason) not
shoring up Republican districts elsewhere, even the marginal CD-6 (Lexington/Frankfort).
So what exactly makes this qualify as a "win" for Republicans is unclear. The fact that they were the ones who possessed the ball before fumbling it? 2020 delegation: 5 R, 1 D. Likely effect of redistricting: no change. |
|||
| Louisiana | 6 | 6 | R Legislature, D Governor |
| Outcome: Like Kansas and Kentucky, a liberal Democrat Governor vetoed a Republican-generated plan; that veto was narrowly
overridden. The Republican plan will still face the inevitable Democrat lawsuits. As in Alabama, racist Democrats wish to eliminate a Representative (who just happens to be a white Republican) by
requiring the creation of another district that is specifically designed not to elect a white person or any Republican.
2020 delegation: 5 R, 1 D. Likely effect of redistricting: no change. |
|||
| Maine | 2 | 2 | Independent Commission |
| Outcome: It's not a huge win for the Democrats this time around, but it's an important win: the new map does help liberal Democrat Jared Golden, who currently represents
a slightly Republican-leaning (even before this new map) district that Donald Trump won twice. The addition of Democrat areas
to the district makes it a little safer for the incumbent. The Rigged Choice Voting (RCV) scheme in Maine surely doesn't hurt him either; see the 2018 election results in which RCV turned Golden's defeat into a victory.
However the real importance of this Democrat redistricting plan is that, because Electoral Votes are awarded by Congressional District in Maine (see also Nebraska, where Republicans didn't get the job done), Democrats understandably want to minimize the chances that a Republican could take the EV from CD-2 as happened in 2016 and 2020. 2020 delegation: 2 D, 0 R. Likely effect of redistricting: no change. |
|||
| Maryland | 8 | 8 | D Legislature, R (?) Governor |
| Outcome: Democrats rolled the Republicans 10 years ago by gerrymandering the formerly solidly Republican western Maryland CD-6
via the addition of Democrat areas from the swamp-infested D.C. suburbs. There was initially no change this time around although the veto-proof Democrat legislature toyed with the idea of going for
an 8-0 sweep. They likely pulled back only because being too greedy can sometimes backfire in redistricting.
On March 25 a state court ruled that the Democrats indeed had overreached again (where were they 10 years ago?), so in order to placate the court and forestall any truly significant changes, the Democrat legislature hastily created a new map which may cost them no seats at all although it makes CD-6 somewhat of a toss-up now. 2020 delegation: 7 D, 1 R. Likely effect of redistricting: 6 D, 1 R, 1 toss-up. |
|||
| Massachusetts | 9 | 9 | D Legislature, D Governor |
| Outcome: The last time a Republican was elected to Congress here was in 1994; the last conservative was elected.... probably not in your lifetime
even if you're quite old. At this point redistricting has very little to do with the situation in the People's Republic of Massachusetts, yet even the Democrat Secretary of the Commonwealth
noted the degree to which his party is gerrymandering (this, after all, is the state where the practice was invented). If ever given a fair map, there's an outside chance that a liberal Republican could
win a House seat though there's no recent proof of that and presumably won't be for quite some time.
2020 delegation: 9 D, 0 R. Likely effect of redistricting: no change. |
|||
| Michigan | 14 | 13 | Independent Commission |
| Outcome: The Democrats are really triggered about this one, although even the independent members of the bipartisan commission (not merely the Republicans) voted to implement this redistricting plan which
might cost the Democrats one seat. The plan forced two Republicans to face off in a primary in the new
CD-4, and two Democrats to do the same in the new CD-11. The plan also attempts to cripple Republican Peter Meijer in CD-3 which encompasses the
deteriorating Grand Rapids area, and seeks to replace him with a Democrat. The bottom line is that it's a fair plan which hurts some Republicans like Fred Upton and Meijer (liberal Upton opted to finally retire rather than face defeat in a primary) as much or more than Democrats, but the lawsuits from entitled Democrats are flying around because they didn't get the huge partisan gerrymander they wanted and expected. 2020 delegation: 7 R, 7 D. Likely effect of redistricting: 7 R, 6 D. (-1 D) |
|||
| Minnesota | 8 | 8 | Split Legislature, D Governor |
| Outcome: The state Supreme Court (5 D, 2 R) and not the evenly split legislature created the map which will be used in Minnesota for the next decade. Anything even resembling
a marginal district (CD-1, CD-2, CD-3, CD-8) was shifted towards the Democrats. The real battleground was CD-2, purchased by the Democrats
at a cost of over $5 million for liberal Angie Craig, who defeated conservative Republican Jason Lewis in the "Revenge of the Karens" wave election of
2018. The partisan balance in CD-2 had been just about even; now it leans to the left by a small amount.
Another battleground will be CD-1. Republican incumbent Jim Hagedorn died early in 2022 and his widow sought to fill the vacancy. She is unpopular with both the left and the right and will face a serious challenge from both sides. 2020 delegation: 4 R, 4 D. Likely effect of redistricting: no change. |
|||
| Mississippi | 4 | 4 | R Legislature, R Governor |
| Outcome: It's a "win" for the Republicans and the sole reason for that is because they controlled the process, but in reality no substantive changes whatsoever
were made to the district maps for 2022 and beyond. Presumably because none were needed and a 4-0 sweep for Republicans would be literally (well, almost) against the law
as interpreted by the U.S. Department of "Just-us" so there was no reason to go for it.
2020 delegation: 3 R, 1 D. Likely effect of redistricting: no change. |
|||
| Missouri | 8 | 8 | R Legislature, R Governor |
| Outcome: Republicans fully controlled the process, and conservatives in the state legislature wanted to do something very un-Republican-like and play hardball like the Democrats do almost every chance
they get. However simpering RINO Governor Mike Parson -- the same traitor who supports the imposition of Rigged Choice Voting in his state in order to help Democrats and "moderates" at the expense of conservatives -- declared that he would veto any plan which favored his party gaining a seat. Furthermore, Parson and some RINO legislators seemed to be anxious to lose the seat in the rapidly deteriorating St. Louis suburbs, seeking to hang Ann Wagner out to dry in CD-2 by failing to strengthen her district. Surplus Republican voters from adjacent districts like CD-3 could have been added to CD-2 with ease. In mid-May conservatives in the Missouri legislature admitted defeat and conceded that they weren't getting a plan which would make the score 7-1; a plan which perpetuates both Democrat-controlled districts prevailed, though at least the RINOs grudgingly permitted CD-2 to be improved by a small amount. 2020 delegation: 6 R, 2 D. Likely effect of redistricting: no change. |
|||
| Montana | 1 | 2 | Independent Commission |
| Outcome: Montana lost its 2nd Congressional District following the 1990 Census and now is getting it back 30 years later.
Montana is not the monolithically-Republican state that some may believe it is, and there was the potential for one of the two
districts to be competitive in 2022. However the bipartisan commission disappointed the Democrats by not explicitly making the western district as Democrat-friendly
as possible, though it is still somewhat marginal.
2020 delegation: 1 R, 0 D. Likely effect of redistricting: 2 R, 0 D. (+1 R) |
|||
| Nebraska | 3 | 3 | R Legislature, R Governor |
| Outcome: Not a "win" because Republicans largely ignored the importance of CD-2 (Omaha) and failed to take
any significant measures to make it more Republican. Even the miniscule move in that direction was met with cries of panic from Democrats, which
undoubtedly frightened the squeamish Republicans away from more decisive action. Nebraska is one of two states (the other is Maine) which award Electoral Votes
by congressional districts instead of winner-take-all. CD-2 was -- and still is -- so marginal that its EV went to the Democrats in 2020; the
fundamental assignment here should have been to diminish the probability that such a thing would happen again.
2020 delegation: 3 R, 0 D. Likely effect of redistricting: no change. |
|||
| Nevada | 4 | 4 | D Legislature, D Governor |
| Outcome: Here in "New Jersey West" with its casino money, massive political influence of Organized Crime and powerful labor unions, the Democrats conceded CD-2
(Reno & the Cow Counties) to the Republicans as is customary, but distributed Las Vegas ghetto voters more evenly throughout the other three
districts in order that the two largely-suburban districts (CD-3 and CD-4) become less marginal and more inclined to remain in Democrat hands.
2020 delegation: 3 D, 1 R. Likely effect of redistricting: no change. |
|||
| New Hampshire | 2 | 2 | R Legislature, R Governor |
| Outcome: The list of good Republican (not RINO) Governors is a very short one and nobody named "Sununu" is anywhere close to making it. Similar to Missouri,
the RINO Governor here apparently abhors the idea of his party gaining even one seat in Congress, and therefore Sununu wasted no time in vetoing the redistricting plan which
was duly passed by the Republican state legislature. There is no chance of an override. The vetoed plan, which was fair to both parties, would
likely have ensured a 1-1 split in the Congressional delegation in most years. The charade was repeated in early May, when the Republican legislature
passed another fair map and the liberal Governor vetoed it again.
2020 delegation: 2 D, 0 R. Likely effect of redistricting: no change. |
|||
| New Jersey | 12 | 12 | Independent (Democrat) Commission |
| Outcome: One Democrat state Supreme Court justice effectively wound up with complete control of the redistricting process.
Naturally he chose the map favored by his party, a map which was similar to the one used in 2020. The reason this deep-thinking liberal gave for his decision
to help Democrats was that "Republicans controlled the process last time". The new gerrymander is designed to be extremely friendly to
potentially vulnerable Democrats in CD-3, CD-5 and CD-11 while moving CD-7 imperceptibly to the right as a result -- but that district is now marginal
enough that it has the potential to be a Republican pickup at some point.
2020 delegation: 10 D, 2 R. Likely effect of redistricting: no change. |
|||
| New Mexico | 3 | 3 | D Legislature, D Governor |
| Outcome: When Democrats failed to steal CD-2 (speaking figuratively, by all means) in the 2020 election as they had done in 2018, irate New Mexico leftists declared war on the Republican victor
even before the election results were made official. They vowed to redistrict Yvette Herrell, a Cherokee-American Republican, out of office in 2022 and have successfully
followed through on that threat. The media and other Democrats have been strangely silent about an ethnic minority member of Congress being targeted for elimination in the
redistricting process in this particular case, as opposed to their indignation when the minority happens to be a Democrat (e.g. Al Lawson in Florida). But then it's not really
about race at all; it's about what party the person belongs to.
2020 delegation: 2 D, 1 R. Likely effect of redistricting: 3 D, 0 R. (+1 D, -1 R) |
|||
| New York | 27 | 26 | Impotent Independent Commission |
| Outcome: New York's inept redistricting laws allow the legislature (now under what appears to be permanent Democrat control) to seize
jurisdiction of the process by simply rejecting whatever plans the bipartisan commission comes up with -- so that's exactly what they did. New York, despite heavy competition from
Illinois Democrats, thus attempted to take the Most Partisan Gerrymander award for this cycle by reducing the number of likely Republican seats by 3 and creating a 22-4 split in the delegation.
A Republican state judge initially suspended a citizens-group lawsuit which challenged the Democrats' massive advantage, but he then changed his mind and ruled against the gerrymander on March 31. The state Court of Appeals agreed with the judge on April 27 and a new map to be drawn by a "neutral expert" was required by May 16. Democrats speciously argued that there was not enough time to create a new map in time for the primaries and desperately pleaded that their original map must remain in place, but that plea was rejected. The Democrats are seething even though the new map still benefits them by costing the Republicans a seat. 2020 delegation: 20 D, 7 R. Likely effect of redistricting: 20 D, 6 R. (-1 R) |
|||
| North Carolina | 13 | 14 | R Legislature, D Court |
| Outcome: The Republican legislature initially created a constitutionally-valid redistricting map that would have given their party 9 or possibly 10
of North Carolina's 14 districts in 2022, but a judicial tribunal led by liberal Democrats declared that plan to be "too partisan" and mandated that it be replaced by a map
that favors Democrats to a much greater extent. As such, the "Republican-controlled" legislative process -- the Democrat Governor doesn't even have veto
power in this case -- became a Democrat-controlled judicial process and the judges' party will gain at least one seat at Republican expense.
2020 delegation: 8 R, 5 D. Likely effect of redistricting: 8 R, 6 D. (+1 D) |
|||
| Ohio | 16 | 15 | R Legislature, R Governor, D Court |
| Outcome: A G.O.P. win for the moment. As in North Carolina, Republican legislators who originally tried to adopt the Democrats' cutthroat redistricting methods from states such as Illinois and California
found out that those methods were not available to them. The Ohio state Supreme Court (4 R, 3 D), with its own John Roberts-type of quisling Chief Justice who
sided with the Democrats to throw out the Republican map for being "too partisan", demanded
that a new map be created. The Republican legislators didn't fold up entirely though, and the replacement map isn't much different than the rejected one aside from sacrificing Cincinnati-area Republican Steve Chabot in CD-1. The litigation process along with the shuffling of district maps will continue even beyond 2022, until the Democrats get a map they like. 2020 delegation: 12 R, 4 D. Likely effect of redistricting: probably 12 R, 3 D for now, but in another election cycle or two there will be a different (worse for Republicans) map. (-1 D) |
|||
| Oklahoma | 5 | 5 | R Legislature, R Governor |
| Outcome: The sole task of the Republicans this time around was to reinforce CD-5 (Oklahoma City), which had become tenuous
in recent elections to the point where a psycho-bitch-from-hell Democrat could win it, as happened in the 2018 "Revenge of the Karens" election; they successfully accomplished that task.
2020 delegation: 5 R, 0 D. Likely effect of redistricting: no change. |
|||
| Oregon | 5 | 6 | D Legislature, D Governor |
| Outcome: Democrat legislators here cut Republicans out of the process entirely. The Republicans stormed out
of the legislature to prevent it from doing any business, but then caved and slinked back in and allowed the Democrats to pass a map that was perhaps 1% fairer than their
original hyper-partisan gerrymander. Maybe some court will strike the Oregon Democrats down for being "too partisan", as is routinely done where Republican redistrcting plans are concerned,
but we wouldn't recommend holding your breath waiting for it.
2020 delegation: 4 D, 1 R. Likely effect of redistricting: 5 D, 1 R. (+1 D) |
|||
| Pennsylvania | 18 | 17 | R Legislature, D Governor, D Supreme Court |
| Outcome: Even though RINOs pre-emptively surrendered to Democrats on the subject of Pennsylvania redistricting, promising as "fair" and "open" a process as had ever been seen, there was never
a doubt that any plan the Republican-controlled legislature formulated would be vetoed by liberal Governor Tom Wolf, thus removing all Republican influence
from the process and turning it over to the Pennsylvania Democrat Supreme Court. That is, of course, the same group which trashed the PA Constitution in 2018 by arbitrarily
implementing a Democrat gerrymander to replace the perfectly legal Republican map from 2011. Having succeeded so spectacularly four years ago, the Court doubled-down this time by using the partisan Democrat gerrymander from 2018 as its starting point, and then they shifted yet another seat away from the Republicans to the Democrats. 2020 delegation: 9 R, 9 D. Likely effect of redistricting: 9 D, 8 R. (-1 R) |
|||
| Rhode Island | 2 | 2 | D Legislature, D Governor |
| Outcome: As in Hawaii, a similarly hyper-Democrat state with two Congressional districts, there
was little to do in this redistricting cycle aside from minor tweaks to the map. Both House seats remain utterly safe for the Democrats; the last Republican
elected to the House of Representatives from Rhode Island was 30 years ago. That sort of drought is nothing new, as Democrats also swept every House election here from 1940-1978.
2020 delegation: 2 R, 0 R. Likely effect of redistricting: no change. |
|||
| South Carolina | 7 | 7 | R Legislature, R Governor |
| Outcome: Similar to Oklahoma or Utah, there was relatively little redistricting work to be done here. The only
substantive alteration was to shore up CD-1 (Charleston), whose demographics have been getting worse in recent years because of the mass influx of "gentrifying" liberals from up north. The idea was to make that district
safer for Republicans and attempt to avert another fluke outcome as occurred in 2018.
In that year, sore loser Mark Sanford went loco, sputtering with rage against President Trump and backstabbing the conservative Republican candidate (Katie Arrington) who defeated Sanford in the primary. Arrington is back for another shot in 2022, taking on the Sanford-esque liberal Republican incumbent, Nancy Mace. The Republican establishment is ensuring that Mace has a substantial cash advantage over the challenger. 2020 delegation: 6 R, 1 D. Likely effect of redistricting: no change. |
|||
| Tennessee | 9 | 9 | R Legislature, R Governor |
| Outcome: Republicans got bold for a change and carved up the Nashville-based CD-5, splitting the city and merging the parts into a pair of suburban-dominated
districts, ousting Democrat Jim Cooper (who decided to retire rather than fight) and making this the one certain redistricting-related pickup for Republicans in the 2022 midterms. It would have been even sweeter if they had left Nashville alone and
gone after savage Democrat Steve Cohen in the Memphis district instead. But the redistricters were probably not quite bold enough for that, and Nashville (being not
quite the open sewer that Memphis is) was easier to split up effectively.
2020 delegation: 7 R, 2 D. Likely effect of redistricting: 8 R, 1 D. (+1 R, -1 D) |
|||
| Texas | 36 | 38 | R Legislature, R Governor |
| Outcome: Republican redistricters concentrated much more on preserving incumbents of both parties in this
relentlessly "purple-ing" state (i.e. moving from true blue to commie red) instead of trying to make gains in the congressional delegation. Districts around Dallas and Houston which were once nice areas but are now marginal or worse
were surrendered to Democrat control for the rest of the decade, while vulnerable Republican incumbents elsewhere got some relief.
The best chance for a Republican pickup is in south Texas, which trended sharply towards supporting President Trump and his party (and his border wall) in 2020 although you'll never hear about that partisan shift in the media. However it remains to be seen if that was the beginning of a major trend or just a temporary phenomenon. 2020 delegation: 23 R, 13 D. Likely effect of redistricting: 24 R, 13 D, 1 tossup. (+1 R, 1 tossup) |
|||
| Utah | 4 | 4 | R Legislature, R Governor |
| Outcome: As in Oklahoma and South Carolina, the only task here was to provide greater support for Republicans in one
shaky district: CD-4 with freshman Rep. Burgess Owens, which now vaults from being the weakest to being the safest Republican Congressional District in the state. The rapidly deteriorating Salt Lake City area
was cleverly split amongst all four districts (similar to what Nevada Democrats did in Las Vegas), causing Democrat heads to explode.
2020 delegation: 4 R, 0 D. Likely effect of redistricting: no change. |
|||
| Virginia | 11 | 11 | Independent Commission |
| Outcome: There were no big winners since the bipartisan commission didn't change much, aside from making CD-7 safer for the liberal Democrat incumbent
although the area is still somewhat marginal. CD-2 retains a barely perceptible Republican lean, though it remains in Democrat hands due in
no small part to astronomical campaign spending by leftist PACs.
In 2022, Republicans plan to stop nominating former incumbent Scott Taylor in CD-2 and are looking to replace him with a squishy state Senator whose issue positions are scarcely discernable from those of the incumbent liberal Democrat, in a typical lose/lose maneuver for the Stupid Party. But as long as she votes for Kevin McCarthy for Speaker and not Nancy Pelosi. . . 2020 delegation: 7 D, 4 R. Likely effect of redistricting: no change. |
|||
| Washington | 10 | 10 | Independent Commission |
| Outcome: Another state whose district map will be nearly unchanged from what it was in the previous decade.
The bipartisan commission could have attempted to benefit Democrats by moving more of them into CD-3 (Vancouver and the southwest part of the state) but they
may have concluded that migration will soon take care of that via the continuing influx of refugees from Portland, who are fleeing the violent anarchist third-world
shithole which they were so instrumental in creating just across the river in Oregon. Also, CD-3 is currently (for a few more months, anyway) represented by a liberal Trump-hating RINO, so the redistricters
were content to leave her alone.
2020 delegation: 7 D, 3 R. Likely effect of redistricting: no change. |
|||
| West Virginia | 3 | 2 | R Legislature, R Governor |
| Outcome: The big win for Democrats here stems mainly from the state losing a seat through reapportionment, causing one Republican district to vanish from the map, but also
from the one conservative Representative potentially losing his primary [May 10th update: he didn't]. All three current Republican incumbents were seeking re-election in two districts in this game of musical chairs -- conservative Alex Mooney trounced liberal
David McKinley in the primary in the new CD-2, while moderate Republican Carol Miller got a free pass in the new CD-1.
2020 delegation: 3 R, 0 D. Guaranteed effect of redistricting: 2 R, 0 D. (-1 R) |
|||
| Wisconsin | 8 | 8 | R Legislature, D Governor |
| Outcome: As in Pennsylvania, any district map drawn by the Republican legislature would be (and was) automatically vetoed
by the liberal Democrat Governor. The state Supreme Court's lone conservative interestingly sided with the liberals and, in a 4-3 ruling, the Court declared that the Democrat-favored map shall be used
for the remainder of the decade. There apparently was no significant difference between the parties' maps anyway, and the main battleground district is CD-3 (Eau Claire/La Crosse) which is being vacated by Democrat Ron Kind, who is retiring after a quarter-century in Congress. Kind barely won in 2020 (this is Wisconsin; did he really win?) and the Republican challenger who is running again in 2022 should be favored to flip the seat in November. The other swing district is CD-1 (Kenosha/Racine), which has been held by Republicans since the mid-1990s but is by no means safe for them indefinitely. 2020 delegation: 5 R, 3 D. Likely effect of redistricting: 6 R, 2 D. (+1 R, -1 D) |
|||
If and only if the solid map which Governor DeSantis proposed in Florida actually remains in place, the net effect of 2022 redistricting is approximately zero, with 3 districts that are considered as complete toss-ups.
Naturally there are many factors other than redistricting that will decide the outcome of numerous House elections and thereby determine which party controls the House of Representatives in 2023. But solely as far as redistricting is concerned, the overall partisan change is likely to be negligible.
[1] Democrat (and occasionally RINO) judges in the period from 2014-2020 in the states of Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania and North Carolina decreed that the district maps were unfair to Democrats and arbitrary replaced those maps with partisan gerrymanders that were, of course, much more unfair to Republicans. These rulings directly resulted in the flipping of approximately 10 Republican districts to the Democrats over that period, a number which is easily greater than the margin of Democrat control of the House following the 2020 elections.
Four of those 10 flips came from Pennsylvania in 2018, and the number almost became 6 -- however the Republicans were able to narrowly prevail in 2 of the newly-gerrymandered districts and also held those 2 seats in 2020, leaving the 4 which flipped in 2018 and have remained in Democrat control since that time.