More on Gerrymandering

Yesterday we wrote about the structural reasons why Congress is unlikely to take up and pass a "comprehensive" immigration bill. That is, a law which includes amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants.

By happy coincidence, today a New York Times column by John Harwood documents the very gerrymandering trend we discussed. Citing political scientist Gary Jacobson as his source, Harwood writes:

In 1986, 45 percent of all House seats were held by members whose districts had voted for the other party in the previous presidential election. That proportion fell to 26 percent by 1998 and 14 percent by 2006. Today it stands at 6 percent, or just 26 seats.

Somewhat safe seats = 94%. That is a huge decline in the degree to which House members have to worry about a successful challenge by the other party.

Today a House incumbent mostly worries about a challenge from within his/her own party. Then, every few years, the worry is about redistricting.

----------0----------

Fairness demands that you know Jacobson's numbers somewhat overstate the shift from competitive to safe seats. The start date (1986) he selects falls during the period when the states of the former Confederacy were shifting from solidly Democrat to solidly Republican. See what Wikipedia says about this shift:

Although Republicans won most presidential elections in Southern states starting in 1964, (snip) Democrats still had much control over Southern politics. It wasn't until the 1990s that Democratic control began to implode, starting with the elections of 1994, in which Republicans gained control of both houses of Congress.

So, southerners voted for Republican presidential candidates before they supported Republicans for seats in Congress. The seats in question were nevertheless safe, even though for several biennial cycles they voted GOP for President and Dem. for House.