Skip to main content

As many political junkies, Democrats, and liberal activists are well aware, Democrats won the popular vote for the House of Resentatives in this year's election, but thanks to gerrymandering only won 201 seats.  Unfortunately, Republican gerrymanders weren't the only reason for this, just the most important one.  In many states, Democrats drew a sub-optimal map or experienced key recruiting failures and must share in the blame.  Ground zero for Democratic self-sabotage was Arkansas.

Arkansas Democrats, until this year's election, had held the state legislature since Reconstruction and along with our hold on the Governor's and Attorney General's offices maintained total control over both congressional and legislative redistricting.  Eager to retain the legislature, state Dems drew an aggressive gerrymander of each chamber which certainly helped minimize some of our losses there this year.  With the congressional map though, Democrats foolishly tried keep both of the two seats lost in 2010 winnable as the previous decade's map had done.  Then, 6-term 4th district Rep. Mike Ross (D) retired after the map was drawn, depriving us of his incumbency and leaving us scrambling for a replacement candidate.  The result is that instead of three seats, we now hold zero of the state's four districts.  How could Arkansas Democrats have drawn a better map and what makes the map they drew a "Dummymander"? Follow me below the fold to see how.

The Arkansas Congressional Map


Following the census, Arkansas stayed at 4 districts and merely had to accommodate population disparities between the districts.  The 2nd district and heavily Republican 3rd had to shed population while the 1st and 4th needed to gain it.  Thus, Dems moved the 1st 0.7% to the left by having it grab a few small Delta counties.  The 2nd shed Yell County to otherwise stand pat.  The 4th, having to gain the most population, added heavily conservative parts of the Ozarks in the northwest of the state, shifting about 1.5% towards Republicans.

The result is that, when looking at the partisanship of the districts below the presidential level, we were left with this:


Note, the partisan average consists of all D vs R statewide races below president since 2006.  I did this to be able to make an apples to apples comparison between the districts since the races are all the same.  Additionally, the average is calculated without county splits, so the 3rd and 4th might be marginally different, but the presidential numbers are accurate.  All population figures are Voting Age Population only and all partisan numbers are two-party share only.

As you can see, all three of the 1st, 2nd, and 4th are more Democratic than the state while the 3rd is quite clearly packed.  However, none of the districts is significantly more Democratic than the state at large and Romney won all of them comfortably.  With Rep. Ross retiring and Democrats running three weak, underfunded candidates, Republicans were able to win every district.

The Art of the Dummymander

What exactly is a Dummymander? Well it's a gerrymander that, instead of benefiting the party that drew it compared to a non-partisan map, actually hurts the party compared to that same baseline and results in the party winning a much lower number of seats than expected.  This can be caused by spreading one's partisans too thin, or by not taking into account partisan trends and incumbency.  This happened famously with the 1992 Georgia Dem gerrymander (pdf) that turned a 9D-1R advantage in 1991 into a 3D-8R deficit by 2001.

With that in mind, the next step then is to determine what a non-partisan map of the state might look like.  The criteria I had in mind were similar to that of the California citizens' commission-drawn map that valued compactness and communities of interest and ignored partisanship.  Clearly this is a subjective exercise and there are multiple ways to draw the map, but here is one version I feel is quite realistic that a court or commission might draw:


Arkansas' regions pretty neatly fit into four districts with the Delta comprising the 1st, the Little Rock area in the 2nd, the Ozarks in the 3rd, and South Arkansas in the 4th.  In contrast to the actual map, there's a clear Democratic district, the 1st.

Compared to the real map, the 1st drops parts of the Ozarks in north-central Arkansas and adds Pine Bluff and the rest of the Delta.  It gets 3% more Democratic and instead of just 6% of the district being new, it's now nearly 29% new to incumbent Rep. Rick Crawford (R).  Despite Obama getting just under 42% there this year, it's by far the most Democratic of the four.  John Kerry won nearly 51% there in 2004 and Sen. Blanche Lincoln won 48.4% in 2010 while getting just 39% statewide.  No other Democrat lost the district; even in 2010 our house nominees won 51%.  Tallying up the actual election results from 2012, our 1st district nominee, prosecutor Scott Ellington (D), and 4th district nominee, state Sen. Gene Jeffress (D), won a combined 44.4% to Rick Crawford's and Tom Cotton's 55.6%.  However, a sizable proportion of that figure comes from the 4th district where Rep.-Elect Tom Cotton (R) was a much stronger opponent than Rick Crawford and Jeffress ran a very 19th century campaign with little advertising.  With a stronger, more well funded challenger such as 2010 nominee (and former chief of staff to then Rep. Marion Berry) Chad Causey, Democrats likely could have gained the 5.6% vote share needed for 50%+1.

Unfortunately, the 2nd district slides the other way, though it remains more Democratic than the state.  The district gets 1.6% more Republican and would have been fairly secure for Rep. Tim Griffin.  Our house nominees, Jeffress and attorney and former state Rep. Herb Rule won 42.2% there this year, which certainly could have been improved upon with a well funded Blue Dog, but unlike in the 1st Griffin is a strong incumbent and clearing 50% would have been difficult.  If this district were open it would be competitive, but Griffin would have won this year.

The third district gets slightly less Republican, but is still dark red and Rep. Steve Womack (R), who was unopposed this year, would have certainly won reelection.

The 4th district, like the 2nd, gets more Republican under this non-partisan map thanks to the loss of Pine Bluff and the addition of Fort Smith.  Had Mike Ross not retired we might have held this seat, but without him Tom Cotton would have seen an even larger win over Gene Jeffress.  This seat isn't completely out of reach though, as Democrats have a strong bench with state Sen. Larry Teague, who holds down a conservative district, and University of Arkansas Community College chancellor Chris Thomason coming to mind.  Still, Cotton would have likely gotten even more entrenched than he will in his actual district, so Democrats probably wouldn't win this one period.

Thus, by drawing the map they did, Democrats actually received 1 seat less than they would have under a non-partisan map, making theirs a Dummymander.

The Map Democrats Should Have Drawn

With our poor performance at winning three of four seats in 2010 and 2012 in mind, I set about to draw a strong 2D-2R map that Democrats could and should have drawn.  With Mike Ross retiring, the 4th district needed to be shored up in a way that didn't entice Tim Griffin into running there.  This was a bit tricky since some of the most Democratic parts of the state in Little Rock were in the 2nd.  Next, I aimed to defeat Rick Crawford in the 1st.  Finally, since I was using county-level data and Arkansas has historically not split counties during redistricting, I had to make sure all districts were within +/-1% of the target population.  With a budget for gathering precinct-level data, Arkansas Dems could have drawn an even more effective map than this one by splitting counties.



Under this map, the 1st gets 2.6% more Democratic for a total of 8% more Democratic than the state and it's 24% new to Rick Crawford.  Though Obama only received 40.3% here in 2012, John Kerry barely lost it by just 731 votes in 2004 and Blanch Lincoln won 47.2% in 2010.  Our House candidates won 45.4% and that should have easily gone past 50% with a well-funded candidate like Chad Causey.  This seat should have been Lean D to Likely D, with the end result probably being around a 54%-46% Dem win.

The 2nd district is the key to this map since it drops heavily Dem Little Rock but still entices Griffin into running there.  The district is 55% new to Griffin, but it's over 9% more Republican and significantly safer than the neighboring 4th.  Griffin would have had this seat as long as he wanted it if he made it past the primary.

The 3rd is almost entirely the same as was drawn with only 6% being new, meaning Womack would have been unopposed again and like Griffin would have had the seat as long as he wanted it.

The 4th district here looks radically different than the real version thanks to avoiding the Ozarks and the addition of Little Rock.  Tom Cotton still lives here, but he and other ambitious Republicans might have run in the much safer 2nd district instead.  It is made 6.7% more Democratic for a total of 8.4% more Dem than the state and Obama actually won it this year by 1004 votes.  John Kerry won 54% here and Blanche Lincoln was the only Democrat to lose it since 2006 and that was by just 439 votes.  Combining Herb Rule's and Gene Jeffress' vote shares gets Democrats to 49.3% and with any competently run campaign we would have held onto it easily making it Safe D.


Now that Democrats lost the state legislature following the 2012 elections, passing a map like this would be impossible.  However, it seems abundantly clear that without any help from Republicans, Arkansas Democrats cost the party two congressional seats.  With the addition of other states such as Maryland where local Dems intentionally did not maximize their seat share, the numbers start to add up.  In the future, Democrats need to learn that when Republicans gerrymander as aggressively as possible, we must do the same in the states where we control the process and push for non-partisan redistricting in the ones where we don't if not nationally.  If we don't, we risk being permanently in the minority and facing continuous gridlock.
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Curious (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    In AR-02, 27% non-white VAP and they elected a Republican, how many districts with higher VAP's elected Republicans in 2012?

    Perhaps such a list should serve as ground zero for 2014 and beyond.  But I'd have thought 27% would be enough to elect a Dem in Arkansas (I'm guessing the map drawers did too).

    "What if you're on a game show one day and the name of some random New Jersey state senator is the only thing between you and several thousand dollars? And you'll think to yourself, "if only I had clapped faster." - sapelcovits

    by rdw72777 on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 09:13:18 AM PST

    •  I'm curious how well we could have done there (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      this year had we run a serious candidate.  My gut says Griffin was basically unbeatable short of someone like Mike Beebe running, but Obama got 44% there and it's not too hard to imagine someone running just 4% ahead of him (with the libertarian playing spoiler).

      I'd have to bet that there are several Texas or California districts that are way more than 27% non white VAP, but since that's from non-voting Hispanics and/or the whites are 4-1 Republican we're uncompetitive.

      NC-06/NC-04; -9.12, -8.62; Yellow Dog Democrat

      by sawolf on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 09:19:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Griffin is a very polarizing figure (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        James Allen, sawolf, jncca

        He easily could have lost with a strong candidate. The problem is that most of Arkansas Democratic primary voters in that district are from Pulaski County (Little Rock). Voters from Saline and White are never going to support a liberal from Pulaski. We need to have someone from North Little Rock or Conway County as our nominee to win.

    •  I think MS-03 is a few points higher (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bumiputera, Englishlefty

      but has far fewer whites willing to vote Democratic.

      A good deal of California's districts that elected Republicans have higher percentages, too.  NM-02 as well, the old OH-01 but maybe not the new one, oh, this is getting depressing.

      ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

      by James Allen on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 09:32:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Crisi-tunity (0+ / 0-)

        The Homer Simpson word, not the former SSP user.  These high non-white VAP districts you mention in TX and CA are the future, so try not to be too depressed.  

        I'm more concerned about the high non-white VAP districts that aren't in border states, as these are areas we need to focus on in 2014 and again in the 2020 redistricting.

        "What if you're on a game show one day and the name of some random New Jersey state senator is the only thing between you and several thousand dollars? And you'll think to yourself, "if only I had clapped faster." - sapelcovits

        by rdw72777 on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 10:03:22 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  probably a bunch in Texas (0+ / 0-)

      Voting rates in Texas are very low, especially among Hispanics. TX also has a lot of recent immigrants, so most of its districts have a nonwhite CVAP much lower than the VAP.

      SSP poster. 43, new CA-6, -0.25/-3.90

      by sacman701 on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 09:47:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's actually not a good idea for ground zero (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      For example, the state of Alabama is >27% VAP non-White.  We're never going to win statewide.  The problem with a lot of these areas (MS-3, AL-1, GA-1, SC-1, etc) are that the Whites won't swing to us, and any conservative Democrat is likely to be White and therefore not get through the primary.

      20, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
      Socially libertarian, moderate on foreign policy, immigration, and crime, liberal on everything else.
      UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city. -.5.38, -3.23

      by jncca on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 04:47:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Very good (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sawolf, WisJohn

    Recommended.  Democrats should've drawn that last map, we would've gotten two seats, in all likelihood.  They really screwed themselves.

    •  It was a misread of how the state changed (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sawolf, WisJohn

      GradyDem put it most concretely when he said that there was a large boost in suburbanites, many being Republicans from out of state while the key Dem areas (the largely blue Delta and the blue doggy south third of the state) either were stagnant or contracted a little in population.  There is some Dem growth in the state (Fayetteville and Conway), but it's not at the scale as what's seen in places like Saline and Benton County.

      Age 23. Voting in NJ-03. Lived most of life in NJ-01. Had Rush Holt represent me during my undergrad years and am now represented by Frank Pallone in my grad school.

      by KingofSpades on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 05:09:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I agree (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I think the same about the Democratic side taking not enough advantage where it was an option to compensate the advantage of the Republicans in other states. And I think there were more states than Arkansas, but the map here was full mistake since my point.

  •  even a 2D-2R attempt would be a dummymander (0+ / 0-)

    Blanche Lincoln's 2010 performance isn't a low water mark for the Democrats, its the new normal.  1 Dem district (and 3 very Republican ones) is the best the Dems could hope for.  And its what they should have done when they still controlled the legislature.  
    How many Democrats are still representing a sub-50 Obama, historically Dem, white southern district?  I think only 3 (Rahall, McIntyre, Barrow). Until 2010 there were about 20.

    •  Well if a 2-2 attempt is a dummymander (0+ / 0-)

      we're sure going to lose that last one district.  The best district I could make without seriously splitting counties was only D+12 (compared to the state) and that destroys our ability to win the other one, whereas if you go for 2-2 you can get both to D+8.  Just a 4% better Dem percentage doesn't make 1-3 seem worth it.  Also keep in mind that thanks to precinct level polarization in southern states, you could likely do a good deal better than D+8 for the two districts if you split counties like any serious gerrymander should have.  Just for starters you could drop the conservative Little Rock suburbs that are actually in Pulaski County and add Fayetteville or any of the heavily black areas in some of the counties that got put in the two vote sinks.

      NC-06/NC-04; -9.12, -8.62; Yellow Dog Democrat

      by sawolf on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:02:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This was my 2-2 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    'Give the LA border counties to the Delta district and pair Little Rock with Pine Bluff. Those should at least be winnable. The other two are Safe R.


    Progressive Dixiecrat. 19, LSU student, NC resident

    by MilesC on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 07:44:47 PM PST

    •  Nice, although you should definitely take out (0+ / 0-)

      Saline County from your second district.  That's the uber Republican suburban county.  The 1st district looks great though and is fairly similar to what I drew.

      I should have the full spreadsheet of data posted in a week or two though so you and anyone else can play around with all the partisan numbers with relative ease.

      NC-06/NC-04; -9.12, -8.62; Yellow Dog Democrat

      by sawolf on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:27:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site