Looking At Florida's New District Lines? And What Does It Mean For Alan Grayson's Campaign?

We've been talking about the impact of the Florida redistricting and I can't emphasize enough that, even counting states like Texas and Illinois-- and the criminal activities for Arizona's governor-- Florida has long had, and still has, the most corrupted gerrymandering of districts anywhere in America... by far. That said, Florida's sharpest Democratic strategist, Steve Schale. is worth reading when it comes to the new maps the GOP state Senate released this week.

The biggest impacts of the new map are the two new Congressional seats, both landing in Central Florida. The first one, which in many ways was the most predictable, is the new Congressional seat in the northern part of the Orlando media market, essentially in the Villages area. This area has seen tremendous growth over the last two decades and was home to parts of two Congressional seats (CD 5 and CD 8) that were most over the new target population. This one goes to the GOP.

The second seat is essentially a Central Florida Puerto Rican-access seat, though not majority Hispanic. This looks to be predictably Democratic, and definitely helps shore up the seat held by Congressman Dan Webster (CD 8). More on that later. This seat will also increase the number of Hispanics in the Florida delegation from three to four. 

In the end, the two new seats are a partisan wash.

Here are the others that I think are interesting. I'll tackle them in numeric order...

CD 2: This is the old Allen Boyd seat, who survived for eight years in a district that was designed in 2002 to make it harder for him to win re-election.  The biggest electoral impacts here are the decision to move the coastal sections of Walton and Okaloosa Counties (what my northern friends might think of as the "Riviera" of Florida) into CD 1. This was a small, but highly GOP section of the district that probably voted over 70% for McCain. The district also loses a couple of rural counties on the eastern side, most notably Suwannee County, which has some great southern restaurants, but isn't too friendly to the home team. It also picks up the rest of Leon County and the smaller, but Democratic friendly Jefferson County. The net result, the seat now held by Congressman Steve Southerland moves from borderline safe for the GOP to more of a lean GOP, but clearly competitive district.

CD 3: One of the big question marks heading into today, the bulk of Congresswoman Brown's seat remains the same, as a nearly African-American majority seat (just shy of 50%), running from Jacksonville to Orlando, taking in parts of Gainesville. 

CD 7: This seat, held by John Mica, is home for me, so I tend to find it more interesting than most. The most interesting change in this district is the current incumbent now lives probably 30 miles from its nearest border. The district, which snaked from the southern boundary of Duval County (Jacksonville) to Orange County's town of Winter Park (Mica's home), just east of Orlando, had seen tremendous growth, particularly in the northern reaches of the district. As a result, the Senate proposal cuts off the parts of Seminole and Orange Counties, and creates a district that is more centered on the eastern coast of the state. Given the larger share of Volusia County, the district is probably a little more Democratic, though not enough to make it competitive. However, that doesn't mean that at some point, an ambitious Volusia County Republican might not take a shot at it (not speculating, just suggesting).

CD 8: This one-time predictably Republican seat, now held by former Florida House Speaker Dan Webster, saw more change between 2000 and 2010 of any district in Florida. The seat took on both tremendous population growth and a huge influx of Puerto Rican residents. The result, a Democratic trending district, that in 2008, sent Alan Grayson to Congress. The Senate map essentially splits up CD 8, with large portions of it ending up in the two new districts, CD 26 (Villages) and CD 27 (Hispanic seat), with the new district taking on a look and feel that is quite different. First, the old district was 78% in Orange County, while the new seat is only 51% in Orange, as the seat moves west taking in significant portions of Polk and southern Lake County. The district also has fewer minorities of voting age population (34% to 28%). The net result, a better-- though still competitive seat for Congressman Webster. He is definitely a winner under this proposal.

CD 10/11: These are the seats held by Congressman Young (R, CD 10) and Congresswoman Castor (D, CD 11). There was some speculation that Rep. Castor would lose the part of her district in southern Pinellas County, which would make Rep. Young's seat more Democratic and her seat more Republican. In this version, that didn't happen, leaving Castor in a pretty safe Democratic seat and Young in a seat that he will almost certainly hold as long as he wants.

CD 16: This seat, held by GOP Congressman Rooney, has until recently been our state's National Enquirer district, thanks to previous incumbents Mark Foley and Tim Mahoney. It is also been one of the most oddly shaped districts, running from sea (Gulf of Mexico-- Charlotte County on the west) to shining sea (Palm Beach on the east). It is also a seat that would have almost never stood up to an Amendment 6 challenge. The new district loses about 30% of its former self on the west side, territory very favorable to the GOP, and by gaining some heavily Democratic areas of St. Lucie County and poaching some Republicans from Congressman West's district, becomes a far more competitive district, going from 47% for Obama in 2008 to close to 50% today. [Help progressive activist and school teacher David Lutrin win this one back for the 99% Movement. You can contribute to his grassroots campaign here.]

CD 22: The Allen West seat. This district switched parties twice in the last decade, first when Ron Klein beat Clay Shaw, then when West beat Klein. From where I sit, it is posed to do it again. First, West already had to gain residents in order to come up to the target population, then right off the bat lost some of his Palm Beach voters to Rooney. This meant he had to gain population from somewhere, and largely that somewhere is Ted Deutch's highly Democratic and over populated CD 19. If there is a GOP loser in redistricting, it is West. That being said, he is a big fundraiser and hard worker, though I am doubtful his politics line up too well with this new seat.

CD 25: The seat held by Congressman David Rivera used to encompass large parts of western Dade County, as well as a small piece (roughly 13% of the voters in 2010) in GOP rich Collier County, where Rivera got 60% of the vote in 2010. The new seat now is entirely in Dade County, and as a result, gains as much as 3 points (from 49% to close to 52% for Obama). But here is the real political drama: According to the Miami Herald, Rivera now lives in the seat held by Mario Diaz-Balart, while Diaz-Balart lives in Rivera's seat (and used to represent it), though it certainly appears that CD 25 retains most of the seat currently represented by Rivera, while CD 21 (the seat held by Diaz-Balart-- where Rivera now lives) becomes more Republican. Figure that one out.

There's one place where I disagree with Schale, who seems to have bought into the unsubtle GOP line that the new very blue 27th CD "belongs" to Puerto Ricans. The GOP Establishment wants very much to keep Alan Grayson out of that seat. Their drumbeat won't work. The district is 40% Latino and the area's most prominent Puerto Rican political leader is telling friends he's running for the new 24th senatorial district which follows the Hispanic population corridor along Highway 417 and, unlike the 27th CD, is an actual Hispanic-majority district. In the 27th, just over a third of the residents speak Spanish (34%) and among the Hispanics, by population, 54% are Puerto Rican, 15% are South American, 11% are Mexican, 6% are Central American, 5% are Cuban, and 9% are I-don't-know-what (from Spain? the Canary Islands? Sidi Ifni?) The voter registration is 44% Democratic, 28% Republican, and 28% Independent and the Hispanics are registered 51% Democratic, 16% Republican and 33% Independent. Even last year, when Democratic turnout was so, so awful, Democrats still made up 42% of the vote (inside the new lines of the district), Republicans 40% of the vote, and Independents 18%. Hispanics are 34% of the registered voters, and African-Americans 9%. Last year, Hispanics who actually voted made up only 22% of the electorate, and African-Americans a proportionate 10%. So Hispanics make up 43% of the total population, 40% of the voting-age population, 34% of the registered voters, and 22% of the off-year actual voters. That's the kind of information I would expect from Steve Schale.

This is how the voters in the 27th cast their ballots in some previous races:

2010 Governor: Sink 52%, Scott 44% (9 points better for Sink than statewide)

2010 Attorney General: Gelber 46%, Bondi 50% (14 points closer than statewide)

2010 Senate: Rubio 47%, Meek 28%, Crist 23% (2 points worse for Rubio and 8 points better for the hapless, hopeless Meek than statewide)

2006 Senate: Nelson 61%, Harris 37%

I don't think Cook has ranked it yet. But it should come out better than a D+4... maybe even a D+7.

If you're on Alan Grayson's mailing list you got the Abraham Lincoln speech yesterday on it's 150th anniversary. If not here's what Alan sent (all the emphasis is from his e-mail):

During my two years in Congress, I heard an awful lot of speeches. Some of them were delivered by some of the finest public speakers in America today-- like Barack Obama, Neil Abercrombie, John Lewis, Anthony Weiner and Alcee Hastings. But none of them was as profound and poignant as the one that I’m about to share with you. It was delivered to a Joint Session of Congress by President Abraham Lincoln, exactly 150 years ago today. The focus of the President’s speech was, of course, the Civil War. But President Lincoln took a short detour, and with a few bare sentences, he summed up an issue that remains with us to this day.

This is what President Lincoln said to Congress, to America, and to us:

"It is not needed, nor fitting here [in discussing the Civil War] that a general argument should be made in favor of popular institutions; but there is one point, with its connections, not so hackneyed as most others, to which I ask a brief attention. It is the effect to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above, labor, in the structure of government. It is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it induces him to labor. This assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them, and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded thus far, it is naturally concluded that all laborers are either hired laborers or what we call slaves. And further, it is assumed that whoever is once a hired laborer is fixed in that condition for life.

“Now, there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed, nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer. Both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them are groundless.

“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights."

If I were still in Congress, I would have repeated President Lincoln’s speech on the Floor of the House this week, in the same spot where he rendered it 150 years ago. “Labor is the superior of capital.” And we must not “place capital... above labor in the structure of government.” Thank you, Mr. Lincoln. If I had to sum up my job as a Congressman in 25 words or less, that would do it.

I realize that for a statement as profound as this one, it is “far beyond [my] poor power to add or detract” (as Lincoln himself said, two years later, at Gettysburg). But I’ll try anyway, recognizing that “the world will little note, nor long remember, what we say.

I find it startling to read something like this, and realize how timeless these battles are. As the French say, “Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.” (“The more things change, the more they stay the same.”) In fact, you can hear echoes of Lincoln’s words in what Elizabeth Warren said just ten weeks ago: “There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody.”

Now, admittedly, capital is wealthier, better organized, and far more powerful today than it was in Lincoln’s time. Capital gorges on Republican tax cuts for the rich, on bailouts, on government contracts and corporate welfare, on free money from the Fed, and on monopoly profit. Capital treats politicians and whole political parties like puppets. Capital creates and perpetuates a system where Labor is unemployed, where Labor is in debt up to its eyeballs, where Labor cannot see a doctor when ill, where Labor is pitted against Labor. There probably are plenty of well-meaning people who realize this, throw up their hands, and say, “if you can’t beat them, join them.”

And then there are us. People with a head, and a heart. People who want to occupy Wall Street, occupy K Street, and occupy America with the simple concept of justice for all. People who understand that the very fact that this fight has been going on for 150 years or more, and will continue after you and I are gone-- that very fact-- makes this a fight that is worth fighting for.

And gradually, things do get better. I know, I know-- two steps forward, one step back. But then two more steps forward.

Oh say can you see, by the dawn’s early light,
What so proudly we hailed, at the twilight’s last gleaming.

When Lincoln spoke, 150 years ago today, his time was the twilight’s last gleaming. And today, you can see the dawn’s early light.

Can you see it?

I can; that's one of the reasons why I've donated, several times, to Alan Grayson's congressional campaign. Last year the one percent spent more money in negative TV ads against Alan than against any other House incumbent. I suspect they'll be up to no good again this time-- though probably in a primary.




UPDATE: Schale Takes A Look At The House Maps

Yesterday the GOP-controlled Florida House released a batch of maps to also be considered. What a mess. Schale tried to make heads or tails out of it, but, in reality, there's nothing definitive. It does look like they're ready to sacrifice David Rivera and teabagger Sandy Adams-- great news for Nick Ruiz.