Tag Archives: Arizona

Comparing 2020 & 2016

By Jim Ellis

Jan. 15, 2021 — Now that the presidential numbers are final and certified in all 50 states, we can begin to draw comparisons between the two Trump election years and see the states where movement was most significant.

The 2020 election results show interesting parallels in the race between President Donald Trump and President-Elect Joe Biden and the 2016 race between Trump and Hillary Clinton.

A total of 158,507,118 people are recorded as voting in the 2020 election, an all-time record. In 2016, by comparison, 136,792,535 individuals cast ballots. The current total represents an increase of 15.9 percent. Even those forecasting a turnout of just above 155 million, which seemed outlandish at the time, were low as the 2020 aggregate final vote widely cleared all previous electoral participation records.

As you will see from the following charts, most states performed similarly in 2020 as they did in 2016. In the preponderance of places, both President Trump and President-Elect Joe Biden posted better percentages in 2020, though Trump recorded slightly lower 2020 percentages in 13 states as compared to Biden falling below 2016 Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in only one (Mississippi).

The change factors are largely due to lesser independent and minor party candidates on the 2020 ballot as opposed to 2016 and an increase in first-time voters.

Nationally, as determined in all 50 states, President Trump’s numbers increased an average of one percentage point per state, while Biden saw a mean average four percent jump over Clinton’s standing.

The first charts depict President Trump’s state totals in alphabetical order. To reiterate, his per state average gain was 1.0 percent. The second chart shows the states in order of the largest gains.

The succeeding Democratic charts illustrate Biden’s increased performance over that of Clinton. Though his national per state victory margin over President Trump was low in comparison to 2016 – changing Arizona, Georgia, Wisconsin and the 2nd District of Nebraska would have changed the national outcome and the aggregate vote margin was only 65,009 – his standing in every state was significantly better than hers. The Biden average per state gain was 4.0 percent.

REPUBLICAN

Alphabetical

STATE	2016 R	2020 R	AVG GAIN
Alabama	62.1%	62.3%	0.2%
Alaska	51.3%	52.8%	1.5%
Arizona	48.7%	49.1%	0.4%
Arkansas	60.6%	62.4%	1.8%
California	31.6%	34.3%	2.7%
Colorado	43.2%	41.9%	-1.3%
Connecticut	40.9%	39.2%	-1.7%
Delaware	41.7%	39.8%	-1.9%
Florida	49.0%	51.2%	2.2%
Georgia	50.8%	49.2%	-1.6%
Hawaii	29.4%	33.9%	4.5%
Idaho	59.3%	63.8%	4.5%
Illinois	38.8%	40.6%	1.8%
Indiana	56.9%	57.0%	0.1%
Iowa	51.2%	52.8%	1.6%
Kansas	56.6%	56.2%	-0.4%
Kentucky	62.5%	62.1%	-0.4%
Louisiana	58.1%	58.5%	0.4%
Maine	43.5%	43.6%	0.1%
Maryland	33.9%	32.2%	-1.7%
Massachusetts	32.3%	39.1%	6.8%
Michigan	47.6%	47.8%	0.2%
Minnesota	44.9%	45.3%	0.4%
Mississippi	57.9%	41.1%	-0.3%
Missouri	56.8%	56.8%	0.0%
Montana	56.2%	56.9%	0.7%
Nebraska	58.7%	58.2%	-0.5%
Nevada	45.5%	47.8%	2.3%
New Hampshire	46.5%	45.4%	-1.1%
New Jersey	41.4%	41.4%	0.0%
New Mexico	40.0%	43.5%	3.5%
New York	36.1%	37.5%	1.4%
North Carolina	49.8%	49.9%	0.1%
North Dakota	65.1%	31.8%	2.1%
Ohio	51.7%	53.3%	1.6%
Oklahoma	65.3%	65.4%	0.1%
Oregon	40.4%	56.5%	0.7%
Pennsylvania	48.6%	48.8%	0.2%
Rhode Island	38.9%	38.6%	-0.3%
South Carolina	54.9%	55.1%	0.2%
South Dakota	61.5%	61.8%	0.3%
Tennessee	60.7%	60.7%	0.0%
Texas	53.2%	52.1%	-1.1%
Utah	45.5%	58.1%	12.6%
Vermont	29.8%	30.9%	1.1%
Virginia	44.4%	44.0%	-0.4%
Washington	36.8%	38.8%	2.0%
West Virginia	68.6%	68.7%	0.1%
Wisconsin	47.2%	48.8%	1.6%
Wyoming	67.4%	69.5%	2.1%

Performance Increase

STATE	2016 R	2020 R	AVG GAIN
Utah	45.5%	58.1%	12.6%
Massachusetts	32.3%	39.1%	6.8%
Hawaii	29.4%	33.9%	4.5%
Idaho	59.3%	63.8%	4.5%
New Mexico	40.0%	43.5%	3.5%
California	31.6%	34.3%	2.7%
Nevada	45.5%	47.8%	2.3%
Florida	49.0%	51.2%	2.2%
North Dakota	65.1%	31.8%	2.1%
Wyoming	67.4%	69.5%	2.1%
Washington	36.8%	38.8%	2.0%
Arkansas	60.6%	62.4%	1.8%
Illinois	38.8%	40.6%	1.8%
Iowa	51.2%	52.8%	1.6%
Ohio	51.7%	53.3%	1.6%
Wisconsin	47.2%	48.8%	1.6%
Alaska	51.3%	52.8%	1.5%
New York	36.1%	37.5%	1.4%
Vermont	29.8%	30.9%	1.1%
Oregon	40.4%	56.5%	0.7%
Montana	56.2%	56.9%	0.7%
Arizona	48.7%	49.1%	0.4%
Louisiana	58.1%	58.5%	0.4%
Minnesota	44.9%	45.3%	0.4%
South Dakota	61.5%	61.8%	0.3%
Alabama	62.1%	62.3%	0.2%
Michigan	47.6%	47.8%	0.2%
Pennsylvania	48.6%	48.8%	0.2%
South Carolina	54.9%	55.1%	0.2%
Indiana	56.9%	57.0%	0.1%
Maine	43.5%	43.6%	0.1%
North Carolina	49.8%	49.9%	0.1%
Oklahoma	65.3%	65.4%	0.1%
West Virginia	68.6%	68.7%	0.1%
Missouri	56.8%	56.8%	0.0%
New Jersey	41.4%	41.4%	0.0%
Tennessee	60.7%	60.7%	0.0%
Mississippi	57.9%	41.1%	-0.3%
Rhode Island	38.9%	38.6%	-0.3%
Kansas	56.6%	56.2%	-0.4%
Kentucky	62.5%	62.1%	-0.4%
Virginia	44.4%	44.0%	-0.4%
Nebraska	58.7%	58.2%	-0.5%
New Hampshire	46.5%	45.4%	-1.1%
Texas	53.2%	52.1%	-1.1%
Colorado	43.2%	41.9%	-1.3%
Georgia	50.8%	49.2%	-1.6%
Connecticut	40.9%	39.2%	-1.7%
Maryland	33.9%	32.2%	-1.7%
Delaware	41.7%	39.8%	-1.9%

DEMOCRAT

Alphabetical

STATE	2016 D	2020 D	AVG GAIN
Alabama	34.4%	36.6%	2.2%
Alaska	36.5%	42.8%	6.3%
Arizona	45.1%	49.4%	4.3%
Arkansas	33.6%	34.8%	1.2%
California	61.7%	63.5%	1.8%
Colorado	48.2%	55.4%	7.2%
Connecticut	54.6%	59.2%	4.6%
Delaware	53.1%	58.7%	5.6%
Florida	47.8%	47.9%	0.1%
Georgia	45.6%	49.5%	3.9%
Hawaii	61.0%	63.1%	2.1%
Idaho	27.5%	33.1%	5.6%
Illinois	55.8%	57.5%	1.7%
Indiana	37.8%	41.0%	3.2%
Iowa	41.7%	3.2%	3.0%
Kansas	36.0%	41.6%	5.6%
Kentucky	32.7%	36.1%	3.4%
Louisiana	38.4%	39.8%	1.4%
Maine	46.4%	52.5%	6.1%
Maryland	60.3%	65.4%	5.1%
Massachusetts	59.0%	65.1%	6.1%
Michigan	47.3%	50.6%	3.3%
Minnesota	46.4%	52.4%	6.0%
Mississippi	57.6%	40.1%	-1.0%
Missouri	38.1%	41.4%	3.3%
Montana	35.7%	40.6%	4.9%
Nebraska	33.7%	39.2%	5.5%
Nevada	47.9%	50.1%	2.2%
New Hampshire	46.8%	52.7%	5.9%
New Jersey	55.5%	57.3%	1.8%
New Mexico	48.3%	54.3%	6.0%
New York	58.4%	60.4%	2.0%
North Carolina	46.2%	48.6%	2.4%
North Dakota	63.0%	27.2%	4.6%
Ohio	43.6%	45.2%	1.6%
Oklahoma	28.9%	32.3%	3.4%
Oregon	39.1%	50.1%	6.4%
Pennsylvania	47.8%	50.0%	2.2%
Rhode Island	54.4%	59.4%	5.0%
South Carolina	40.7%	43.4%	2.7%
South Dakota	31.7%	35.6%	3.9%
Tennessee	34.7%	37.5%	2.8%
Texas	43.2%	46.5%	3.3%
Utah	27.5%	37.7%	10.2%
Vermont	55.7%	65.5%	9.8%
Virginia	49.7%	54.1%	4.4%
Washington	52.5%	58.0%	5.5%
West Virginia	26.5%	29.7%	3.2%
Wisconsin	46.5%	49.4%	2.9%
Wyoming	21.6%	26.4%	4.8%

Performance Increase

STATE	2016 D	2020 D	AVG GAIN
Utah	27.5%	37.7%	10.2%
Vermont	55.7%	65.5%	9.8%
Colorado	48.2%	55.4%	7.2%
Oregon	39.1%	50.1%	6.4%
Alaska	36.5%	42.8%	6.3%
Massachusetts	59.0%	65.1%	6.1%
Maine	46.4%	52.5%	6.1%
New Mexico	48.3%	54.3%	6.0%
Minnesota	46.4%	52.4%	6.0%
New Hampshire	46.8%	52.7%	5.9%
Idaho	27.5%	33.1%	5.6%
Kansas	36.0%	41.6%	5.6%
Delaware	53.1%	58.7%	5.6%
Nebraska	33.7%	39.2%	5.5%
Washington	52.5%	58.0%	5.5%
Maryland	60.3%	65.4%	5.1%
Rhode Island	54.4%	59.4%	5.0%
Montana	35.7%	40.6%	4.9%
Wyoming	21.6%	26.4%	4.8%
North Dakota	63.0%	27.2%	4.6%
Connecticut	54.6%	59.2%	4.6%
Virginia	49.7%	54.1%	4.4%
Arizona	45.1%	49.4%	4.3%
Georgia	45.6%	49.5%	3.9%
South Dakota	31.7%	35.6%	3.9%
Oklahoma	28.9%	32.3%	3.4%
Kentucky	32.7%	36.1%	3.4%
Michigan	47.3%	50.6%	3.3%
Texas	43.2%	46.5%	3.3%
Missouri	38.1%	41.4%	3.3%
Indiana	37.8%	41.0%	3.2%
West Virginia	26.5%	29.7%	3.2%
Iowa	41.7%	44.7%	3.0%
Wisconsin	46.5%	49.4%	2.9%
Tennessee	34.7%	37.5%	2.8%
South Carolina	40.7%	43.4%	2.7%
North Carolina	46.2%	48.6%	2.4%
Alabama	34.4%	36.6%	2.2%
Nevada	47.9%	50.1%	2.2%
Pennsylvania	47.8%	50.0%	2.2%
Hawaii	61.0%	63.1%	2.1%
New York	58.4%	60.4%	2.0%
California	61.7%	63.5%	1.8%
New Jersey	55.5%	57.3%	1.8%
Illinois	55.8%	57.5%	1.7%
Ohio	43.6%	45.2%	1.6%
Louisiana	38.4%	39.8%	1.4%
Arkansas	33.6%	34.8%	1.2%
Florida	47.8%	47.9%	0.1%
Mississippi	57.6%	40.1%	-1.0%

2022 Senate Outlook

By Jim Ellis

Jan. 13, 2021 — Now that we know Democrats will have a bare 50-50 majority with the vice president breaking the tie, it’s an appropriate time to look ahead to the next election in order to see which party might have the initial advantage.

In an ironic bad news/good news scenario for Republicans, because the party lost the Georgia runoff elections and their majority, the GOP now has further winnable 2022 targets in order to attempt to regain the chamber advantage.

In the new election cycle, a total of 34 Senate seats will be on the ballot. Adding the 2020 final results, we see that 20 Republicans will be defending theirs seats in 2022 as compared with 14 Democrats. The ’22 cycle also includes two reruns from 2020 as both Sens. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) and Raphael Warnock (D-GA), winners of special elections, will again be on the ballot in order to secure respective six-year terms.

Reviewing political voting trends for the past six years in each of these states reveals that now the Democrats actually have more senators seeking re-election (4-3) than Republicans where the four-year major statewide vote average is under 50 percent.

Averaging five data points: the partisan vote percent from the individual senator’s most recent election, the two presidential campaigns (2020 and 2016), the state’s other Senate election, and the most recent gubernatorial vote provides us a partisan mean average vote from the immediate past four-year period.

Doing so finds that Democratic Sens. Mark Kelly (AZ), Maggie Hassan (NH), Catherine Cortez Masto (NV), and Raphael Warnock (GA) see their party’s cumulative four-year average dropping under 50 percent.

Republicans have three such Senate situations. Sens. Pat Toomey (PA), Ron Johnson (WI), and Richard Burr (NC) all represent states where their party’s average vote total drops under the majority mark for the tested period. Already, Sens. Toomey and Burr have announced they will not seek re-election, leaving at least two of the Republicans’ three most vulnerable seats in an open situation.

Continue reading →

The Early Vote Predictor

By Jim Ellis

Dec. 3, 2020 — While it became clear that the plethora of polling data published during the 2020 election cycle again proved to be a poor predictor of eventual campaign outcome in most states, another resource was discovered that might be the more reliable prognosticator.

The states releasing early voting numbers before the election – not the actual election results, of course, but the numbers of Democrats, Republicans, and Unaffiliated voters who had returned their ballots – provided the opportunity of charting possible race outcomes. As a predictor, the early voting numbers, largely because they are actual votes and not extrapolations and estimates as found in polling, look to be a more reliable gauge.

Let’s examine the results in the key battleground states and compare them to both the 2020 and 2016 early voting numbers as compiled by the Target Smart organization. Target Smart monitored, categorized, and published the early ballot return numbers throughout the acceptance period in every state that publicly released such data. Unfortunately, for purposes of our exercise, the Georgia 2020 numbers are among the states not currently available.

In Arizona, we see a difference in the 2016 and 2020 early vote numbers that indicated a small shift in the voting patterns. Detecting that Democratic early vote participation had increased several points from four years ago while Republicans were down slightly did prove indicative in relation to the final Arizona result that yielded an official 10,457 vote Biden victory.

In Florida, we see the Democratic early vote numbers dropping slightly. This is a bit surprising in that 2020 featured a record voter turnout. The fact that Republicans gained a bit in the swing was a predictor of President Trump’s stronger performance in the Sunshine State as compared to the result from four years previous.

As we can see from the Michigan numbers, Democrats increased their early voting participation while Republicans saw a decrease. Unaffiliated voters substantially increased. Considering the final result, it is apparent that most of the Unaffiliateds voted Democratic in the presidential contest.

The North Carolina early vote numbers gave us our first clear indication that the pollsters were mis-casting the state’s electorate. The clear indication that Democrats were missing their marks in early voting while Republicans were exceeding their expectations was the first indication that the final vote would produce a different result than the plethora of polls were suggesting.

Pennsylvania featured drastic changes in not only the partisan early vote pattern, but also in volume as early voting increased by more than twelve-fold in comparison to 2016. The stark difference in Democratic versus Republican participation levels did forecast a swing to the former party, though the final totals were not as drastically different as the early voting yields.

Continue reading →

Analyzing the Patterns

By Jim Ellis

President Trump | via Flickr

Dec. 2, 2020 — Now that election results are being certified around the country, we can begin to analyze the numbers in an attempt to detect what voting patterns developed throughout the electorate.

In looking at the presidential state-by-state totals from all 50 states and the District of Columbia, we can begin to see that President Trump fell below his previous vote marks not only in places like Arizona, Georgia, and the Great Lakes region, but in several other places, as well. This, despite seeing over 10.5 million more people voting for him in 2020 when comparing his totals from those recorded four years ago.

In a total of 18 states, Trump dropped below his 2016 performance rate, including eight places that he carried in both 2016 and 2020. In all eight, however, his drop-off rate was less than one-half percentage point.

Conversely, in 32 states, he exceeded his 2016 performance mark and surprisingly so in such left of center states as California (+2.7 percent), Hawaii (+4.9 percent), Nevada (+2.2 percent), New Mexico (+3.5 percent), New York (+5.6 percent), and Washington (+2.2 percent). Mind you, he came nowhere near carrying any of these states, with the exception of Nevada, but the president did record slight improvement when compared with his 2016 vote performance.

The state where Trump outperformed his 2016 total by the most is Utah (12.6 percent), but that is largely because there was no strong Independent or significant minor party candidate on the ballot in the 2020 election. Four years ago, Independent Evan McMullen did well in Utah, attracting 21.5 percent of the Beehive State vote thus allowing Trump to carry the state with only a plurality of 45.5 percent. In 2020, his victory percentage improved to 58.1 percent.

One of the key reasons former vice president Joe Biden won the election is because he increased Democratic performance over Hillary Clinton’s 2016 vote totals in every state but New York. This allowed him to tip the balance away from President Trump in the critical states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, those states the latter man carried in 2016 but were lost to Biden in this current election.

Continue reading →

Presidential Polling Report – Part II

By Jim Ellis

Nov. 30, 2020 — Last week, we covered the cumulative polling community’s 2020 accuracy in the Great Lakes region (scroll down below), and today we look at how their predictions fared in President Trump’s five core states of Arizona, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Texas. If the President had been able to carry all five states, and he has now officially failed in Arizona and Georgia, he would have only needed to win one of the battleground state bordering a Great Lake to secure re-election.

In each place, we take the five publicly released polls conducted closest to the election and analyze whether the cumulative and individual survey research firms came close to the final result or missed beyond the polling margin of error.

Arizona

Canvassing is not yet complete in Arizona, but it appears Mr. Biden scored a 49.4 to 49.1% victory, a margin of just 10,457 votes. Carrying Arizona was the first conversion step for Mr. Biden to win the national election.

The final five pollsters were the NBC News/Marist College; CNBC/Change Research; Reuters/Ipsos, Emerson College, and Rasmussen Reports. Here, NBC/Marist came the closest, predicting the two candidates landing in virtually a dead heat. All five, however, were within the polling margin of error, though Rasmussen Reports did call the winner wrong, predicting President Trump would carry the state by four percentage points.

Arizona – Biden 0.3 percent

NBC News/Marist	10/29 – 11/1	717 LV	48	48	Tie
CNBC/Change Research	10/29 – 11/1	409 LV	50	47	Biden +3
Reuters/Ipsos	10/27 – 11/1	610 LV	49	47	Biden +2
Emerson	10/29 – 31	732 LV	48	46	Biden +2
Rasmussen Reports	10/27 – 29	800 LV	45	49	Trump +4

Florida

Cumulative polling predictions again projected a close Democratic win during most of the late election cycle only to see, for the fourth consecutive time in a major Florida statewide race, the Republican candidate reversing the trend and clinching a close win. The latest Florida data was much closer to the mark as three of the final five pollsters correctly forecast a win for President Trump.

The Trafalgar Group proved the closest with their Trump +2 final projection. CNBC/Change Research missed by the most, a six-plus point swing from their Biden +3 prediction to a Trump +3.3 final result.

The final five Sunshine State pollsters were: Fox 35/Insider Advantage; the Trafalgar Group; CNBC/Change Research; Susquehanna Polling & Research; and Rasmussen Reports.

Florida – Trump 3.3 percent

FOX 35/Insider Adv	11/2	400 LV	47	48	Tie	Trump +1
Trafalgar Group	10/31 – 11/2	1003 LV	47	49	Tie	Trump +2
CNBC/Change Research	10/29 – 11/1	806 LV	51	49	Tie	Biden +3
Susquehanna	10/29 – 11/1	400 LV	46	47	Tie	Trump +1
Rasmussen Reports	10/29 – 31	800 LV	48	47	Tie	Biden +1

Georgia

Just about everyone missed the final count in Georgia, though pollsters throughout the election cycle were clearly forecasting a close Peach State race that certainly ended in such a manner. With the race now certified, Biden won the state, 49.5 to 49.3 percent, a margin of just 12,670 votes.

The only pollster to correctly predict a Biden victory was Public Policy Polling, while the Trafalgar Group, despite being closest in Arizona, was furthest away in Georgia. The five pollsters were: WSB-TV/Landmark Communications; the Trafalgar Group; Insider Advantage; Emerson College; and Public Policy Polling.

Georgia – Biden 0.2 percent

WSB-TV/Landmark	11/1	500 LV	50	46	Trump +4
Trafalgar Group	10/31 – 11/2	1013 LV	50	45	Trump +5
Insider Advantage	11/1	500 LV	48	46	Trump +2
Emerson	10/29 – 31	749 LV	49	48	Trump +1
PPP	10/27 – 28	661 LV	46	48	Biden +2

North Carolina

North Carolina, being one of the quintessential swing states in the country, again produced a close race in 2020 as President Trump claimed the Tar Heel State with just a 1.3 percentage margin, 49.9 – 48.6 percent. Rasmussen Reports was again closest to the mark, as they were in Pennsylvania. Most of the polling throughout the entire election cycle, however, 57 of 85 published polls with eight ties, forecast Biden as holding a North Carolina lead.

The five final pollsters were: Insider Advantage; CNBC/Change Research; Emerson College; Reuters/Ipsos; and Rasmussen Reports. While RR was the closest, CNBC/Change Research was furthest away.

North Carolina – Trump 1.3 percent

Insider Advantage	10/30 – 31	450 LV	48	44	Trump +4
CNBC/Change Research	10/29 – 11/1	473 LV	47	49	Biden +2
Emerson	10/29 – 30	855 LV	47	47	Tie
Reuters/Ipsos	10/27 – 11/1	707 LV	48	49	Biden +1
Rasmussen Reports	10/28 – 29	800 LV	48	47	Trump +1

Texas

Media report after media report continued along the theme that the Lone Star State of Texas was in play for Biden but, in the end, Texas remained red and voted for President Trump in a 5.5 percentage spread, 52.0 – 46.5 percent, which was the closest major statewide race in nearly two decades.

At the end of the race, the pollsters were detecting a clear move toward President Trump largely because the oil and gas industry issues, so important to the Texas economy, became the focal point of attack throughout most of the campaign.

The University of Houston poll called the race almost exactly correct, while two academic institution pollsters, Emerson College and Quinnipiac University, were furthest away. The five pollsters were: Emerson College; University of Massachusetts at Lowell; Siena College/New York Times; Quinnipiac University; and the University of Houston.

Texas – Trump 5.5 percent

Emerson	10/29 – 31	763 LV	49	49	Tie
UMass Lowell	10/20 – 26	873 LV	48	47	Trump +1
Siena College/NYT	10/20 – 25	802 LV	47	43	Trump +4
Quinnipiac	10/16 – 19	1145 LV	47	47	Tie
University of Houston	10/13 – 20	1000 LV	50	45	Trump +5

ME-2

For the second time in two presidential elections, the 2nd Congressional District of Maine bucked the statewide trend and supported President Trump. Biden’s larger margin in the ME-1 CD allowed him to carry the statewide count, which earned him three of Maine’s four electoral votes.

As in the US Senate election in which the polling community missed the final result by the largest margin in the country, so too did they underestimate President Trump’s strength in northern Maine.

All five final pollsters forecast a Joe Biden victory in ME-2, but the end result was a substantial win for President Trump. Each missed well beyond the polling margin of error. The five polling firms were: Change Research; Emerson College; Survey USA; Colby College; and Pan Atlantic Research.

ME-2 – Trump 7.9 percent

Change Research	10/29 – 11/2	475 LV	47	46	Biden +1
Emerson College	10/29 – 31	301 LV	50	47	Biden +3
Survey USA	10/23 – 27	509 LV	48	45	Biden +3
Colby College	10/21 – 25	453 LV	46	42	Biden +4
Pan Atlantic Research	10/2 – 6	300 LV	47	43	Biden +4

More on Redistricting

By Jim Ellis

Winners & losers in the redistricting tug of wars

Nov. 19, 2020 — In yesterday’s Update, we ended with the paragraph, “Considering the states that are losing and gaining seats, party control, and changing political trends, the Republicans are still likely to lose a small net number of seats in the transfer process despite holding the most redistricting power.”

This statement generated some questions about why the Republicans could lose seats in the apportionment transfer when they hold the balance of power in more states. Today, we delve deeper.

At this point, and remembering these are only estimates that could change when the actual apportionment formula produces the official number of seats that each state will possess, it appears ten seats will move from one state to others. Therefore, it is projected that Texas (3), Florida (2), Arizona, Colorado, Montana, North Carolina, and Oregon will gain districts, while Alabama, California, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and West Virginia will lose a seat apiece. We will now explore each individually:

States That Lose

• Alabama – Even though Republicans have full control and a 6R-1D delegation, the Republicans will take the loss here. The Democratic district is a Voting Rights seat, so the loss will come from the GOP column even though they hold the redistricting pen.

• California – The lopsided California delegation, even with Republicans gaining one to three seats here when the votes are all finally counted, will likely yield the Democrats losing the district. California is a commission state that operates under strict guidelines. Therefore, the mathematics suggest, in what will potentially end as a 43D-10R delegation that the transfer seat loss will come from the Democratic column.

• Illinois – Though the state delegation features only five Republicans from a group of 18 members, the Democrats control the redistricting process here and 10 years ago produced the most lopsided of partisan gerrymanders. Expect them to figure a way for the Republicans to take the one seat loss.

• Michigan – The voters adopted a new redistricting commission, but the composition parameters look to favor the Democrats. Therefore, expect the 7D-7R delegation to recede by one Republican seat.

• Minnesota – This state features the only state legislature where each party controls one legislative chamber. Though this gives the Republicans a seat at the redistricting table, the population loss in the northern part of the state, where they have two seats, will likely result in the 4D-4R delegation lessening by one Republican seat.

Continue reading →

The Redistricting Prelude

By Jim Ellis

Nov. 18, 2020 — The Census Bureau continues to make progress in completing the decennial population count and it appears the national apportionment report, which details how many congressional seats each state’s population earns, will be delivered to Congress in early January. Because of COVID, the apportionment process has been slightly delayed since the report typically has a year-end deadline.

Once apportionment is known, states then begin receiving their updated data necessary for drawing new congressional and state legislative districts. The states with the earliest primaries are the first to receive their data so they have adequate time to prepare their new congressional and state legislative boundaries.

In terms of apportionment, it is expected that Texas may gain approximately three seats and Florida two. The other gaining states are likely to be Arizona, Colorado, Montana, North Carolina, and Oregon. Those losing seats appear to be Alabama, California (for the first time in history), Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and West Virginia. These estimates are not always completely correct, so this list could change when the actual apportionment is applied and publicly released.

A total of 34 states will draw their new districts solely through the legislative process. The remaining multi-member states operate through a type of commission, either an independent body or one under political control. Seven states are at-large meaning their congressional race is statewide. Rhode Island joins this group in 2021 as it will lose its second seat, while Montana will likely regain the district that was lost in the 1991 reapportionment.

In the Nov. 3 election, Republicans saw a net gain in state legislative seats around the country. Only one state saw its legislative chambers flip, however, the New Hampshire House and Senate moving from Democrat to Republican. This means Republicans will control 61 legislative chambers as compared to the Democrats’ 37. The Nebraska unicameral legislature is elected on a non-partisan basis, but Republicans control that chamber as well.

Republicans will again have the advantage in the states where the legislatures and governors determine the new map boundaries. Democrats, largely under the National Democratic Redistricting Committee that former Attorney General Eric Holder leads, targeted 13 states to protect or gain legislative chambers. They failed in all, as Republicans kept their majorities in each state they previously controlled and flipped New Hampshire to their column.

Continue reading →