Should I Stay or Should I go Now? (Clash for obvious reasons) Olver and Neal Square off to Retain Seats - image Masslive.com
With the 2010 census released and redistricting committees across the nation drawing new lines down to the individual city precincts and wards, there will be occasions when those states controlled by a majority of Democrats, and with or without an “independent redistricting panel”, will have to make tough choices as to who stays and who goes in Congress. An article today in Politico: “California redistricting may pit Dem vs. Dem” speaks to the obvious – when cutting seats from Congress due to losses in population, or, as in the case in California, shifts in population end up combining a district and creating new districts, resulting in a similar scenario – there will be winners and losers – the fact remains that the total number of seats in Congress remains the same, however, the makeup of the districts and how they are drawn by committees can result in “gerrymandering” – whereby lines are drawn to include pockets of population that are either heavily Democrat or Republican, forming in effect a guarantee that a specific party will remain in power in these states until the next census.
The biggest losers in the quest for political power on both the state and national level are: New York and Ohio (losing 2 Congressional seats each), Iowa, Illinois, Missouri, Michigan, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Massachusetts (all losing one seat). For the most part, these are states that tend to trend Democrat (source: Washington Post House Seat Changes by State ). The biggest winners are: Texas with 4 seats, Florida with 2, Georgia, South Carolina, Arizona, Utah, Nevada and Washington all picking up one House Seat.
In general the redistricting must be in place for the 113th congress, or by the 2012 elections. In Massachusetts, as ward and precincts bosses struggle to maintain an advantage over their own City or Town council seats, the bigger question arises as to which Congressional Democrat will no longer be walking the Halls of Congress? In the latest round, all eyes are on Western Massachusetts where the population has always been lower, given the greater land mass and lack of highly populated municipalities. A meeting in early June in with “officials”, noted that in order for the 1st Congressional District to avoid being swallowed by the second and/or third, they would need to come up with 80,000 additional residents.(WAMC) This is no mean feat, considering that moving vans out of Massachusetts are the norm given the state’s high tax rate and lack of incentives for employers. Therefore, logic follows that either John Olver in the 1st District or Richard Neal in the 2nd will be forced to retire as districts are merged - both the 2nd and the 3rd districts (seat currently held by McGovern), need an additional 60,000 plus bodies in order to remain a qualified Congressional District. In order for Democrats to maintain control over the remaining two districts, larger population centers from the 2nd district would be merged into either the 1st and or the 3rd in order to maintain balance. As hard as either Neal or Olver lobby to stay in power (or more appropriately, keep the seats they have held for a multitude of terms), it is apparent that those on the State Redistricting Committee, are not looking East in order to slice and dice a district west of Worcester.
Republicans in Massachusetts (yes, they exists) who may be considering a run for Congress, considering the incredible showing in the 2010 elections (minus the dead and missing voters), are patiently waiting to see how these lines will be drawn and which remaining Congressional Democrat will be the target of a challenge. In the 2010 elections, there were several hotly contested seats: the 2nd, 4th and 10th specifically. In the 2nd district, Richard Neal, incumbent Democrat, was expected to win by a landslide, and although win he did, it was not without a lot of help from last minute voter drives, coupled with robo calls from Bill Clinton, and a lot of dinners for Senior citizens. Originally predicted by the New York Times to maintain his seat with a 75% advantage over the Republican Candidate, Tom Wesley, an entirely different scenario occurred, Wesley garnered over 40% of the vote. In fact, looking at the interactive map here courtesy of the New York Times it appears that the biggest winner was in the Western Part of the State was Olver, who won by a margin of 60 to 34.9%,. Other big winner were: McGovern in the 3rd by 59 to 39%, Markey in the 7th by 66 to 33%, and Stephen Lynch by 58 to 26%. However, the balance of the districts with the exception of one which went unchallenged, were more competitive: the 2nd Neal: 57 to 43%, Tierney, 56 to 43, Tsongas in the 5th, 54 to 43, Barney Frank 54 to 44, and the 10th district, Keating 46 to 42%. (NYTimes) Given the fact that these races were all predicted to be “blowouts” for the incumbents, and that the challengers were all first time challengers, the results are stunning.
Further, in the 2009 special election, whereby Scott Brown won over Martha Coakley by 5 points, all eyes were on Massachusetts, in the 2010 election, literally no one was keeping an eye on the polls; What is troubling in this aspect is that Secretary of State, Democrat William Galvin, had refused to remove an estimated 116,000 dead voters from its rolls which if one were to look at the math comprised enough ballots to push those incumbents over the top. What is most interesting is that Galvin, , when pressed, refused to remove those ineligible voters from the rolls.
This was prior to the special election, again, but not without understanding that over 217 Republicans were running for city, state and federal office, an historical first, in the 2010 elections. Therefore, one wonders, when will Massachusetts clear its voter’s rolls of the dead and missing (those moved to other states)? Also is this endemic to Massachusetts or would other states where certain parties feel that perhaps their power might be threatened by a change of voters hearts (specifically in states like Massachusetts where 51% of the voting block is independent, or unenrolled, literally outnumbering both the Democrats and Republicans), keep those dead and missing on record, an insurance policy so to speak.
That said, in Massachusetts, should it come down to a split between the 1st, 2nd and 3rd, one would except that Neal will maintain his seat, alongside McGovern, although given the previous vulnerability, if one were a Democrat, one would be thinking, maybe not – give it to Olver and McGovern who guarantee (based on 2010 election results) an easy victory.
As this must be completed, later this year, in time for campaigns to form and for voters to be informed of changes to districts, and wards and precincts (where one might vote), it should be announced fairly soon. None of the aforementioned (specifically Barney Frank and Richard Neal, who both held fairly high positions in the U.S Congress, and Frank, who was, in partnership with one Senator from Connecticut (retired) Dodd, on the Fannie and Freddie meltdown, (the cause of our current economic crisis), are now, well, an afterthought – still managing to get press and bring the occasional dollar home (i.e. spending taxpayers’ dollars), however, with the current historical GOP control, and the promise (given the makeup of the other states that picked up seats) they will continue to be in the minority – it’s math not rocket science or the media saying otherwise. (I.e. wishful thinking that Congress will be returned to Democrat control anytime within the next say decade.
For more information on the Process from the State of Massachusetts visit: www.malegislature.gov/District/Committee One should noticed those that will be making the final decision, are not necessarily bi-partisan.
No comments:
Post a Comment