A great man once remarked “He who controls the maps controls the future.” Nowhere is this more true than American politics. The Democrats will probably lose a considerable number of seats in 2010, but they could potentially win many of them back with a few creative, if somewhat unethical, techniques. After 2010, the great partisan battle will not be waged for the house, but will occur in the halls of State legislatures across the country. The reason is fairly simple; the post-Census redistricting will give the Democrats ample opportunity to play catch up and potentially regain their losses. The redistricting fight, always an ugly partisan battle, will certainly be even more vicious this year as both parties attempt to stave off losing more seats. This redistricting cycle will probably focus on a few very large states, such as California, Texas, Illinois, and Georgia, but we ultimately won’t be able to tell where the blood will flow until after the 2010 gubernatorial and state legislature elections.

Redistricting is the process by which a state’s legislature redraws the state’s congressional districts. Congressional districts must have roughly the same number of constituents. Congressional districts are typically redrawn every decade after the newest census, both to account for districts gained or lost in congressional apportionment and o account for population that might have been gained, lost, or had shifted around the state. Redistricting is, admittedly, one of those terribly boring things that typically makes your eyes glaze over or your brain go fuzzy, but it is enormously important for American democracy. Redistricting can force a member of Congress into retirement, even if that member of Congress is totally scandal free and beloved by their constituents. By simply placing members of Congress in impossibly partisan districts, a state legislature can completely alter the American political landscape. Redistricting is, quite simply, a state legislature’s most openly partisan duty. “If you want to see politics at its very rawest,” remarked former member of Congress Charles Stenholm, “watch the redistricting process.” More than anyone else, Stenholm would the sting of partisan redistricting politics. Stenholm, a former 26 year House veteran, saw his west Texas district sliced and diced during a redistricting gambit to defeat all of Texas’ white Democrats. Despite his 13 terms of incumbency, Stenholm lost his re-election bid by more than 18%. Five of Stenholm’s fellow Democrats fell after redistricting, and another switched sides to avoid certain defeat.

Obviously, redistricting fights are brutal, but most political leaders feel that the sore feelings engendered afterwords are worth it. By merely redrawing a couple of lines in a few states, political parties can stay in power for far past their expiration date. Republicans controlled most of the important states following the 2000 census, including Ohio, Indiana, Florida, Texas, and Michigan. More importantly, the Democrats did not fully control many of the remaining states; they often had one State Chamber or the Governorship, but were missing the unholy trifecta necessary to demolish their Republican opponents. After 2002, the Republicans bucked the historical trend and actually gained seats during the midterms. The President’s party usually fares poorly during these midterms, and redistricting in several crucial states helped the Republicans preserve their dwindling majority. Particularly unethical congressmen, such as former House Majority Leader and potential felon Tom DeLay, can pursue even more undemocratic avenues to maintain their political authority. DeLay, famous for pursuing a “permanent Republican majority”, allegedly flooded the Texas State Legislature races with illegal campaign donations, and succeeded in gaining a Republican majority in the Texas State House for the first time since Reconstruction. DeLay then enforced a rigid party discipline among the Republican Caucus and announced plans to re-redistrict Texas. After all was said and done, the Republicans gained six seats after a nearly unprecedented partisan fight, and succeeded in vanquishing Democratic hopes for regaining the House.

This time, however, the shoe is on the other foot. The Democrats managed to ruin DeLay’s plans for a “permanent Republican majority” by retaking the House and Senate in 2006, and winning gigantic margins in 2008. The down ballot fallout from 2006 gave Democrats gubernatorial control in several important states and managed to gain control of the State legislatures in crucial swing states. If the Democrats can maintain control over the state legislatures, they can help blunt the political beating they will take in 2010. One state, California, is already on the Democrat’s radar. After the 2002 census, the Californian Democrats created an “incumbent protection” map where almost none of the congressional districts are competitive. Since 2000, only two of California’s 53 congressional districts have flipped sides. Some plausible redistricting maps indicate that the Democrats could squeeze as many as ten seats out of California alone, translating into a +20 seat gain in the House. Democratic Gubernatorial candidates are also doing reasonably well in their elections. Previously staunchly Republican states could elect Democratic governors and would prevent the most egregiously partisan redistricting plans from taking place. Unhappily for the Republicans, the gubernatorial seats likely to go their way, such as Tennessee, Wyoming, and Oklahoma, are unlikely to produce the serious gains necessary to offset the Democrat’s gains elsewhere. Even the large Republican-controlled states, like Texas and Florida, are unable to compensate. Florida and Texas simply do not have enough Republicans to counter the Democratic gain around the country. Although we won’t really know what to expect in 2012 until after the midterm elections, the Democrats could be sitting quite pretty after redistricting.