When the results of the 2010 Census are made public, they will undoubtedly show that the population of Michigan has continued to decrease. And, as a result, our allotment of seats in the House of Representatives will also fall. At least, that’s my rudimentary understanding of how things work. According to the current apportionment plan, which was passed in 2001, just after the last Census, Michigan has 15 Congressional districts. And that means we send 15 Representatives to serve in the House each session. (The entire House is composed of a fixed number of 435 elected members.) But, like I mentioned above, our allotment will likely change with the results of the 2010 Census. Depending on how low our population has dropped, we may lose a seat, or possibly even two.
The last time this happened, as I understand it, was in 2001. The 2000 Census had shown a drop in Michigan’s population relative to the rest of the country, and we lost a seat. And, according to law, it fell to our Governor, John Engler, to re-carve the state, so that, instead of 16 Congressional districts, there were only 15. I don’t know much about the law governing such things, but, as it’s been explained to me, Engler, a Republican, took the opportunity to eliminate an historically left-leaning district. Engler essentially combined Michigan’s 13th district, which had been represented by Democrat Lynn Rivers, and Michigan’s 16th, which had been represented by Democrat John Dingell. In 2002, the two politicians faced off in the Democratic primary, and Dingell emerged the winner of what would become Michigan’s new 15th Congressional district. And, Rivers left electoral politics, making things that much better for deregultion-obsessed Republicans.
So, here we are ten years later, with another Republican Governor preparing to enter office, and many of us are wondering whether or not he’ll take the opportunity to kick the Democrats of Michigan yet once again, as they struggle to get up, off the mat… Which brings me to the following comment, left by my friend Murph, in a thread mentioning Tuesday’s close Republican win in Michigan’s 7th Congressional district:
The potential of a Walberg / Schauer re-rematch (in 2012) is pretty interesting to me, since it’s obviously a very marginal seat (as in, one that’s right on the tipping point between parties).
This means it’s probably a district we can expect to change radically before they see such a rematch, though. We can expect to lose at least one and possibly two Congressional seats in 2012, based on the results of the Census (we’ll know in January), which will be followed by some pretty significant re-drawing of boundaries within each State.
So let’s take bets: do we expect the re-districting process to try to cut away at John Dingell’s power by adding Republican areas to his district? Or do we expect the re-districting to expand Dingell’s lead…by slurping up Schauer supporters and solidifying Walberg’s position? I’m guessing they’ll prioritize protecting Walberg over taking a run at Dingell. (The other option for chipping away at Dingell would be pulling in Canton / Van Buren from the 11th – McCotter just won reelection with almost 60% of the vote, so has a little bit more buffer than Walberg.)
At any rate, redistricting means everything in Michigan will look at least a little bit different in 2012, and we get a relatively fresh start at trying to set the stage in each race, rather than just re-fighting the same battles.
So, what do you think? What’s Snyder likely to do, given the hand he’s been dealt?
update: I was apparently wrong about much of this. It’s the Michigan legislature that has the ability to redistrict. The Governor, however, has the ability to veto their proposals. To see more on the subject, check out the comments following this post.
7 Comments
It’s the legislature, not the governor, that draws the lines for both congressional and state legislative districts. And the US Supreme Court has upheld, rather consistently, the right of legislatures to draw these lines in any way they see fit, provided that they produce districts with equal population. So, the party in power in the legislature gets to draw partisan districts.
That said, a governor can have influence on this, and it’ll be interesting to see what Gov. Snyder will do.
Thanks, Mark. I knew I’d fuck it up somehow. It’s confusing stuff… I did, however, hear on several occasions, from different people, that losing the Governorship would cost us when it came to redistricting. I heard the same thing about the State Supreme Court. I suspect, however, since you’re a professor and all, that you are right. And here’s something that I just found that I believe backs you up.
The whole post can be found here.
So, the Governor has the ability to veto.
Yes, Mark M, absolutely: redistricting is done as a legislative process, so the governor has the veto power or the obligation to approve the law, as in most legislative processes.
This much is clear: there will be little or no consideration of Democratic voters’ concerns when the lines are redrawn. The point of redistricting in American politics, since the earliest days of the Republic, has been to aid political allies and punish political foes. In the days of James Madison, this got the name of “gerrymandering,” and in our day, it is done with scientific precision, based on elaborate data sources and software, that can divide voters’ tendencies by census tracks and other micro units. The GOP will likely draw the lines to greatly maximize its advantages, for both congressional and state legislative districts.
…I wonder if there is a way to put John Dingell and John Conyers in the same district…? Wouldn’t THAT be a campaign to watch!
Yes, DR, the legislature could put any two congressmen from adjoining districts into one new district. Whether that’d be wise for the state’s Republican party is doubtful, as it’d show the party to be cravenly partisan in all kinds of ways. For instance, Dingell and Conyers are, I believe, the two most senior members of the entire US congress: what good would it do the state to ensure that one or both of them leave congress?
Conyers, by the way, worked for Congressman Dingell’s staff, back in the early 1960s, before Conyers was elected to congress in, I think, 1964.
Just the thought of a fight to the death between Conyers and Dingell has brought about a painful priapism.