Plenty Of Votes To Totally Defund Libya Mission In The House

Despite the failure to pass a bill through the House of Representatives to defund the war in Libya that Obama started without congressional authority, the votes to totally defund the war are there, and 70 Democratic members that voted against the measure to defund, did so because it didn't go far enough!!

Foreign Policy reports:

The vote failed 180-238 - but, in fact, there were more than enough lawmakers to pass the measure. Of the 149 Democrats who stuck with the president, up to 70 of them are totally opposed to the Libya intervention and want to see it completely defunded as soon as possible. They voted "no" on the Rooney's bill because they thought it was too weak, did not cut off all funds, and implicitly authorized the intervention.

These 70 Democrats make up the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), the largest caucus within the House Democratic Caucus, whose leadership includes Reps. Mike Honda (D-CA), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) and Raul Grijalva (D-AZ).

Quotes from individuals progressive caucus members back up Foreign Policy's assertions, plus they add a statement from the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) for those that think the individual statements were not clear enough:

The Co-Chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus Peace and Security Taskforce call on Congress and the President to immediately end our war in Libya. The US has been engaged in hostilities for over 90 days without congressional approval, which undermines not only the powers of the legislative branch but also the legal checks and balances put in place nearly 40 years ago to avoid abuse by any single branch of government.

We call on our colleagues in Congress to exercise their legitimate authority and oversight and immediately block any funding for this war. Before the Executive branch further weakens the War Powers Resolution, and before we attack another country in the name of our "responsibility to protect," we must recommit ourselves to our Constitutional duty and obligation to hold the purse strings and the right to declare war. For decades, the House recognized the need for appropriate checks and balances before another war was waged. We must do the same. We call on Congress to exhibit similar foresight by promptly ending this war and pledging to uphold the laws that characterize America's commitment to democratic governance.

If the Republican House leadership is to assert their authority on initiating acts of war and force Barack Obama to stop violating the War Act Resolution of 1973, they need to stop being complicit in allowing Obama to go war without authority to do so.

GOP, grow a spine.

.
.

Forcing Obama To Obey The Law - RE: War Powers Resolution

[Update] Boehner resolution on Libya passes 268-145; Kucinich fails 148-265. (Both links are to roll call.)

Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) is introducing a House Resolution which would require Barack Obama to withdraw all U.S. armed forces from participating in the Libya action Obama authorized without getting the Congressional approval required by the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

John Behner is introducing a competing resolution meant to force Barack Obama to comply with the law.

War Powers Resolution : Purpose and policy

(a) Congressional declaration

It is the purpose of this chapter to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

(b) Congressional legislative power under necessary and proper clause

Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer hereof.

(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to

(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.


After 60 days, a president has 30 days to withdraw the U.S. military from any action that was not authorized by Congress under the War Powers Resolution also referred to as the War Powers Act.

Obama passed the 60 day mark passed on Friday, May 20, 2011.

Speaker of the House John Boehner is offering an alternative resolution to Kucinich's.

In a resolution to be voted on in the House tomorrow, Boehner is giving the president two weeks – until the Pentagon Appropriations bill comes up – to either:

a) Ask for authorization for the military intervention in Libya, or

b) Figure out how to disengage the US from the NATO operation in Libya.

The resolution states: “The President has not sought, and Congress has not provided, authorization for the introduction or continued involvement of the United States Armed Forces in Libya. Congress has the constitutional prerogative to withhold funding for any unauthorized use of the United States Armed Forces, including for unauthorized activities regarding Libya.”

Boehner's resolution is seeing support from some very unlikely far left liberal sources. While I have never seen a case where I agreed with that particular site writer, I have to admit I do here. Obama should have gotten authorization, he didn't. We have committed, therefore simply pulling out would be a betrayal to our allies.

The middle ground is Boehner's resolution of forcing Obama to comply with the law or break it clearly and very publicly.

Between Kucinich's resolution and Boehner's, the options being given to Obama is basically, either comply with the law or violate it, but no more avoiding the fact that there is a law.

Since there was more support than initially projected for Kucinich's resolution, perhaps Boehner should have given Obama the two-week time limit on Boehner's resolution and if Obama continued to ignore and violate the law after that, then let Kucinich's come to a vote which would force a withdrawal and be voted on by the Senate and the House.

Because there has been no authorization therefore no specific funding set aside for our Libya war action, the Pentagon has been forced to use funds already available.

No doubt that when the Pentagon Appropriations bill comes up in two weeks, the amount of time the Boehner resolution gives Obama to comply with the law, there will be no funds appropriated to Obama's war in Libya.

The House should also specify that no funds appropriated to the Pentagon in the upcoming bill, be used in any way, shape or form, to fund Obama's unauthorized military actions in Libya.

.

Saturday Cartoons- The News, Cartoon Style

Political cartoons representing the latest news are an entertaining way of describing the week or months events and on a slow Saturday news day, I find it amusing to see some of the great cartoons out there.

Recently Obama was taught a little history lesson, very publicly, by Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It was like Bambi meeting Godzilla. Netanyahu carried his momentum on with an awesome speech at AIPAC and then received a wonderful welcome by the U.S. House of Representatives, where Democrats and Republicans alike gave him over 25 standing ovations.

Glenn McCoy accurately captured the moment brilliantly.



The last time the Senate passed a budget was April 29, 2009, over 750 days ago and Harry Reid, Democratic Senate Majority Leader, was recently quoted as saying it would be "foolish" for Democrats, who control the Senate, to propose a budget for 2012.

Nate Beeler provides the visual for this story.



Jobless claims rose by 10,000 last week and the unemployment rate is at 9 percent. Recent news showed that Texas, over the last ten years, was the only state to hit a private-sector job growth number in the six figures with 732,800 and California had the worst decline by losing 623,700 private-sector jobs. Doing the addition and subtraction, I found that 22 Red States, controlled by Republicans had totaled a 451,600 private-sector job increase from April 2001 to April 2011. 21 Blue States and DC (for 22) totaled a decrease of 2,041,300 private-sector jobs in the same time frame.

Should say something to what policies work better than others and who understands how to increase job creation and who is very good at decreasing it.

Dr. Helen wonders why so many "now hiring" signs are out, yet unemployment keeps rising.

Eric Allie creates the cartoon visual on the new unemployment "normal".



In other news, the Supreme Court, in a 5 to 4 ruling, ruled that 46,000 inmates over the next two years be released due to overcrowding in the California prison system.

What Could go wrong? ummmm.... perhaps mistakenly releasing an estimated 450 inmates with "a high risk for violence? Oh and another 1,000 presenting a high risk of committing drug crimes, property crimes and other offenses were also let out.

Oooops?

Bob Gorrell presents the "get out of jail free" cartoon for this idiocy.



Another week in politics bites the dust.

Cartoons from TownHall Political Cartoons

.

When Obama Screws The Hooch He Goes Big- Senate Dems To Rebuff Obama On '1967 Lines'

Gotta hand it to Barack Obama, when he screws up, he does it big and not only did the House of Representatives send their own little message to Obama over his ill chosen Israel/palestinian "1967 lines" wording but now Senate Democrats are in major damage control mode and might issue their own rebuke of Obama by supporting a resolution intended as a rebuff to Obama.

The Hill reports:

Senate Democrats are expected to support a resolution intended as a rebuff to President Obama’s call for basing Middle East peace talks on the 1967 Israeli-Palestinian borders.

More:

Democrats in both chambers are scrambling to fix the damage caused when Obama called for the 1967 borders and land swaps as a basis for peace.

Some Democrats have tried to downplay the rift, but Israel’s strongest supporters in Congress say there’s no denying that Obama made a tactical mistake in handling the relationship.

Talk about an understatement.

Also, according to The Hill, the resolution would show broad consensus within Congress that the 1967 Israeli-Palestinian borders are not only “indefensible,” as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated, but also contrary to U.S. national security interests.


Now, just for fun because I liked it soooooo much:



.

Full Video Of Speech To Congress Added- Netanyahu: "Israel Will Not Return to The Indefensible Boundaries Of 1967"

[Update] Finally, thank you GOPUSA who provides the video of Benjamin Netanyahu's speech to Congress, in full.

Video below:



Netanyahu's best point out of quite a few wonderful ones was when he said "Courageous Arab protesters, are now struggling to secure these very same rights for their peoples, for their societies. We're proud that over one million Arab citizens of Israel have been enjoying these rights for decades. Of the 300 million Arabs in the Middle East and North Africa, only Israel’s Arab citizens enjoy real democratic rights. I want you to stop for a second and think about that. Of those 300 million Arabs, less than one-half of one-percent are truly free, and they're all citizens of Israel!

This startling fact reveals a basic truth: Israel is not what is wrong about the Middle East. Israel is what is right about the Middle East."

Another great point that needed to be addressed was after the 36 minutes mark when Netanyahu said "But you know very well, that in the Middle East, the only peace that will hold is a peace you can defend.

So peace must be anchored in security. In recent years, Israel withdrew from South Lebanon and Gaza. We thought we'd get peace. That's not what we got. We got 12,000 thousand rockets fired from those areas on our cities, on our children, by Hezbollah and Hamas."

Netanyahu: "Israel Will Not Return to The Indefensible Boundaries Of 1967"

Go watch either video, (The RCP link shows just the specific line and the video above is the entire speech)the standing ovation and applause are deafening and an outright rejection of Obama's Palestinian goal stance in his initial speech before Netanyahu gave Obama a little history lesson, followed by Obama's attempt to backtrack and "clarify" his stance in his AIPAC speech which fit better into the realistic possibilities.

"The border will be different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. Israel will not return to the indefensible lines of 1967."

I will try to find the text and video (Found them, linked and video at the top!) of Netanyahu's whole speech in front of Congress.

Previous piece: This is why we stand with Israel- Netanyahu Speech to AIPAC.

[Update] The Prime Minister of Israel's Facebook page provides Netanyahu's speech as prepared for delivery but doesn't show the the ad-lib moments like when a protester tried to heckle him (Around the six minute mark of the first video shown above), Congress stands to applaud him, and he uses that protester as evidence that free speech is part of Democracy yet would have been punished in certain Arab countries.

[Update] YID With LID thanks the House of Representatives on behalf of the Jewish people and the Jewish state.

[Final Update] Finished listening to the whole speech and was left thinking "Go Bibi!!!"

Related, via Memeorandum:

ABC's The Note- President Obama got 25 standing ovations from Congress during his 2011 State of the Union address. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu got 29 today.

The Politico with "Benjamin Netanyahu wows Congress"

(Updates have been added, the prepared remarks and at the top is the full speech to Congress. also a few memorable portions of the speech as I finish listening to it are being added..)

.

Freshman House GOP Members To Harry Reid: 'your record on spending in the Senate is one of failure '

On top Speaker of the House, John Boehners public statement to Senate Democrats telling them if they really have a budget plan to they should “pass the damn thing” and stop “rooting for a government shutdown,” (Video here) now we have 30 (so far) freshman GOP House members sending Harry Reid a letter telling him "Mr. Reid, your record on spending in the Senate is one of failure."

Mr. Reid,

We the undersigned call on you and the Senate to pass a long-term Continuing Resolution; a resolution that hears the calls of the American people and makes reasonable, responsible spending cuts.

Mr. Reid, your record on spending in the Senate is one of failure. You have failed to pass a budget, failed to restrain spending, and failed to put our country on sound fiscal footing.

We do not accept your failure as our own.

The American people did not send us here to fail. Make no mistake: any government shutdown is the result of your lack of leadership. America has a $14 trillion debt and you offered a mere $6 billion in cuts. The House heard the calls of the American people and offered $61 billion in cuts, but the Senate has not sent us a Continuing Resolution in return.

We have received nothing from the Senate except denials of the dire straits of our nation’s fiscal health.

The House of Representatives is accomplishing what we were elected to do. We’ve cut spending. We’ve terminated wasteful programs. We’ve funded the government.

Mr. Reid, we are letting you know that we will rally on the Senate steps every day until you pass a long-term Continuing Resolution. We call on all Americans to join our fight in restoring our country’s fiscal health.

The House of Representatives is doing our job, Mr. Reid. The Senate needs to start doing theirs.

Mr. Reid, it’s time to pass a bill.

Bound together and determined,

[Signatures]

Ouch.

Speaker Of The HouseTo Democrats: If You Have A Plan, 'Pass The Damn Thing' And 'Stop Rooting For A Government Shutdown'

Video below:



Video lifted from NRO who provides it in an update:

UPDATE: Video of House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) from Wednesday morning’s press conference. If Senate Democrats really have a plan, he says, they should “pass the damn thing” and stop “rooting for a government shutdown.”

The budget battle continues....

[Update] Freshman House GOP Members in a letter to Harry Reid: 'your record on spending in the Senate is one of failure '

.

Redistricting Illinois

One only needs to take a look at the outlines of the current Congressional districts in Illinois to see gerrymandering run wild. This kind of gerrymandering is usually caused by one party that has control of both the state legislature and the governship using their advantage to stack the deck against the other party. In the case of Illinois, both parties collaborated in the gerrymandering since neither party had total control in 2000. This resulted in really weird shaped districts like district 17. It is also a prime example of how gerrymandering can backfire because the whole purprose of district 17 was to give the Democrats control of the district and protect control of neighboring Republican districts. The problem is that redistricting only happens every ten years and a lot can happen in that time like Republicans winning this "Democrat" district in 2010. The following map of the current districts shows what happens when politicians turn into map makers:

No doubt Illinois will again see gerrymandering run wild only this time just for the benefit of the Democrat Party since it controls both houses of the state legislature and the governorship. Actually there is no need for the Democrats to do this because just drawing nice neat districts will cause the Republicans to lose House seats. That last exercise in gerrymandering is what gave the Republicans their current 11 seats compared to only 8 for the Democrats. There is no way the Republicans in a blue state like Illinois should control that many districts and it is only because of gerrymandering that backfired that they do. Illinois has lost a congressional district because of the 2010 Census and all of these districts must be redrawn as a result. The Republicans are going to lose at least two seats and maybe three and at least two Republicans will have to run against each other no matter how much gerrymandering takes place.

That being the case how about a really strange idea? Why not let a geographical area that votes Democrat have a Democrat congressman and an area that votes Republican have a Republican one? That way everyone will get what they are voting for to the maximum extent possible instead of trying to stack the deck in favor of an outcome that will probably change in the next ten years anyway. We have prepared a map that does that as a guide to how playing the game fairly lets the chips fall where they may. Here is our suggestion:

The white dots show the location of the homes of the current congress people from Illinois. As you can see there are four white dots in the area of the purple, brown and dark blue districts. All four are Republican and there is no way they can be separated without more ridiculous gerrymandering. Why should a Democrat controlled state be so kind as to preserve four Republican congressmen? One Republican congressman is history no matter what happens. Two other Republican Congressmen barely got elected in districts 8 and 10 (the two in the upper right hand corner). One of them is in a district that was carried by Obama by 12 points so he is likely history in any case. As to whether Congressman Dold can survive no matter how his 10th district is drawn is questionable but there is no way to insure his defeat without endangering Congresswoman Schakowsky in district 9.

Our plan makes no attempt to draw the 6 districts for Chicago (the bright blue area) since it will come down to what the six Democrat congress people want to do there and it has no partisan political implications in any case. One could gerrymander things so that Congressman Costello (Dem) and Congressman Shimkus (Rep) have to run against each other at the bottom of the state since they live failrly close together but no matter how you drawn the lines, the aqua area will elect a Democrat and the orange area will elect a Republican so why bother? The 2010 Census gave Illinois a population of 12,864,380 and 18 congressional seats so ideally each district should have a population of 714,687.77. Our districts contain whole counties in southern Illinois and whole townships in Northern Illinois. Here is how our districts work out by population:

New Congressional Districts Figures

Incumbents	2010 Population	Deviation	% Deviation
Shimkus (R)	718,581	+3,893	+0.5471%
Schock (R) - Schilling (R)	714,010	-678	-0.0949%
Manzullo (R)	713,052	-1,636	-0.2289%
Johnson (R)	715,793	+1,105	+0.1546%
Hultgren (R)	712,455	-2,233	-0.3124%
Biggert (R)	710,287	-4,401	-0.6158%
Costello (D)	717,910	+3,222	+0.5408%
Kinzinger (R)	709,271	-5,417	-0.7580%
Dold (R)	720,446	+5,758	+0.8057%
Walsh (R)	715,176	+488	+0.0683%
Roskam (R)	712,098	-2,590	-0.3624%
Lipinski (D)	707,888	-6,800	-0.9515%
Total/Average	8,566,967	+/-3,185	+/-0.4534%

Redistricting Iowa

Iowa is one of those states that has lost a congressional seat as a result of the 2010 Census. It had five districts and now it will only have four. In practice, that means that two of the sitting Congressmen will have to run against each other. Right now, Iowa is represented by three Democrats and two Republicans. While both Republicans won handily, all three Democrats won by only from 2 to 5.07%. One way or another, the loss is going to have to cost one of the Democrats his seat unless the redistricting is gerrymandered to favor the Democrats. That is not going to happen because the Democrats only control the State Senate while the Republicans control the State House and the Governorship.

This means that if the Democrat Senate cannot work out a compromise with the Republicans in the House, this whole battle will wind up in court where anything can happen. The court will not care about keeping incumbent Congressmen in separate districts or being opposed to creating a district which has no incumbent in it at all. The Court will only be concerned about making the population in each of the four districts equal to one-fourth of the population of the state, which is 3,053,787. We speak from experience in having designed the first three redistricting plans for the State of Arizona many years ago and then testifying in federal court in behalf of the plans.

The criteria we used was compactness, keeping incumbents separated, equal population and allowing precincts that voted similarly to be clustered together to form districts so as to avoid gerrymandering. The court frowned on any criteria except equal population. Actually the federal courts today would allow the original gerrymander in Massachusetts where all the precincts voting for the Whigs were put into one district so that they would at least be represented by someone who would vote according to their wishes. Gerrymandering today means burning one party at the expense of the other one. You do this by creating districts that have 60% of precincts voting for the party you are helping and 40% of them voting for the other party so that you waste those votes and can create more districts for the favored party.

In practice gerrymandering creates long skinny districts that reach from the part of town that favors one party down into the part that favors the other party but not as deeply in one end as in the other favored end. Neutral redistricting will create districts that are more or less square or at least combine counties that have similar economic and social outlooks. Gerrymandering in Iowa is easy because we have two sets of pairs of incumbents that live quite close to each other. It is easy to dump these two pairs into the same district and then create an open district. It is possible to keep these two pairs separated but there still has to be one district that has two incumbents running against each other.

The Democrats in Iowa will want to have the two Republicans run against each other in hopes of getting three Democrats and only one Republican in 2012. The Republicans will want two of the Democrats to run against each other in hopes of beating the third one and winding up with three Republicans and one Democrat. The fair way to do things would be to have one of the Republicans run against one of the Democrats so that the Democrats and Republicans each get one district and the other two will be up for grabs. Given where the various incumbents live, there is only one way to do this although one can make some agjustments around the edges.

Right now, population data is only available down to the county level but it is still possible to create four districts of just about equal size without crossing any county lines. In the spirit of getting a discussion going we have created a proposed redistricting of Iowa into four districts that the Republicans and Democrats might be able to compromise on to avoid winding up in court where all bets are off.

The above map shows the districts we are suggesting that the Iowa legislature could compromise on at least as a starting point. The five towns shown are where the five incumbents live. The four districts break down with the following figures:

New Congressional Districts Figures

Incumbents	2010 Population	Deviation	% Deviation
Loebsack (D)	765,897	+2,450.25	+0.3209%
Braley (D) - Latham (R)	764,647	+1,200.25	+0.1572%
Boswell (D)	760,819	-2,627.75	-0.3442%
King (R)	762,424	-1,022.75	-0.1340%
Total/Average	3,053,787	+/-1,825.25	+/-0.2391%

Reapportionment and the House

One of the big problems in predicting how the House races will turn out in 2012 is that all of the states except Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming must reapportion their House districts to allow for changes in where the people in their state now live according to the 2010 Census. Those seven states have such a small population that they only have one Congressional District that is the entire state so there is nothing to adjust. Making matters even tougher is that many states have either lost or gained House seats and must then change every district to allow for that.

The other pertinent fact is that this reapportionment process will be gerrymandered to benefit one political party if that political party controls the state legislature and the governorship. To see how all of this will effect the partisan balance in the House in 2013, we need to know several things. Which states are controlled by which party or is it split? What is the present partisan breakout of a state's congressional delegation. Is there a change in the number of seats that the state has? What was the margin in 2010 of all the House seats added together in favor of one party or the other. All of that information is set forth in the following table:

State	2010 Margin	Legis Control	Governor	House Dems	House Reps	Change	Net Gain
Vermont	32.54%	Dem	Dem	1	0		0
Massachusetts	27.70%	Dem	Dem	10	0	-1	0
Maryland	26.93%	Dem	Dem	6	2		0
Hawaii	24.57%	Dem	Dem	2	0		0
New York	21.20%	Split	Dem	21	8	-2	DR-1
Connecticut	18.97%	Dem	Dem	5	0		0
Rhode Island	18.46%	Dem	Dem	2	0		0
Delaware	15.74%	Dem	Dem	1	0		0
Maine	12.07%	Rep	Rep	2	0		0
California	10.81%	Dem	Dem	34	19		0
Illinois	7.14%	Dem	Dem	8	11	-1	R-1
Washington	6.75%	Dem	Dem	5	4	+1	D+1
Oregon	3.99%	Split	Dem	4	1		0
New Mexico	3.32%	Dem	Rep	2	1		0
Minnesota	2.04%	Rep	Dem	4	4		0
Pennsylvania	0.53%	Rep	Rep	7	12	-1	D-1
New Jersey	0.64%	Dem	Rep	7	6	-1	R-1
South Dakota	2.23%	Rep	Rep	0	1		0
Colorado	5.27%	Split	Dem	3	4		0
New Hampshire	6.88%	Rep	Dem	0	2		0
Nevada	6.90%	Dem	Rep	1	2	+1	D+1
Michigan	7.68%	Rep	Rep	6	9	-1	D-1
North Dakota	9.81%	Rep	Rep	0	1		0
Mississippi	10.02%	Rep	Rep	1	3		0
Ohio	11.75%	Rep	Rep	5	13	-2	DR-1
North Carolina	11.78%	Rep	Dem	7	6		0
Wisconsin	11.90%	Rep	Rep	3	5		R+1
Arizona	12.46%	Rep	Rep	3	5	+1	R+1
Virginia	12.57%	Split	Rep	3	8		0
Iowa	13.12%	Split	Rep	3	2	-1	D-1
West Virginia	13.21%	Dem	Dem	1	2		R-1
South Carolina	16.14%	Rep	Rep	1	5	+1	R+1
Arkansas	17.28%	Dem	Dem	1	3		0
Indiana	18.78%	Rep	Rep	3	6		R+1
Missouri	19.71%	Rep	Dem	3	6	-1	R-1
Florida	20.70%	Rep	Rep	6	19	+2	DR+1
Montana	26.57%	Rep	Dem	0	1		0
Idaho	27.82%	Rep	Rep	0	2		0
Kentucky	28.41%	Split	Dem	2	4		0
Tennessee	28.75%	Rep	Rep	2	7		0
Georgia	31.29%	Rep	Rep	5	8	+1	R+1
Utah	31.29%	Rep	Rep	1	2	+1	R+1
Kansas	31.45%	Rep	Rep	0	4		0
Louisiana	33.79%	Split	Rep	1	6	-1	R-1
Texas	34.72%	Rep	Rep	9	23	+4	R+3
Oklahoma	35.27%	Rep	Rep	1	4		0
Alaska	38.44%	Split	Rep	0	1		0
Nebraska	40.02%	Rep	Rep	0	3		0
Alabama	43.03%	Rep	Rep	1	6		0
Wyoming	45.94%	Rep	Rep	0	1		0

So what does all this information tell us? If you see two Dems in the party columns, then the Democrats can gerrymander the reapportionment process to benefit their party and hurt the Republicans. Likewise if you see two Reps in those columns, the opposite is true. There are 12 states controlled by the Democrats, but in 7 of them, the Republicans do not have any seats to be taken away from them. There are 22 states controlled by the Republicans but 6 of them do not have any Democrat seats to damage. The rest are split and the reapportionment process most likely will wind up in court if a compromise cannot be hammered out in the state legislature that also gets the governor to sign the bill.

It is the states that are gaining or losing more than one seat where gerrymandering can have the biggest effect. Texas is gaining 4 seats and is controlled by the Republicans but since the Democrats only have nine seats, it is hard to see how the Republicans can pick up any of the Democrat seats especially when they need to shore up districts 23 and 27 where the winning margin was under 5%. On the contrary, if they try to get greedy and make all four new seats Republican, they endanger holding ones they already have. The wisest course is to go for three to be Republican and let the Democrats have the fourth one. Thus the best the Republicans can hope for is a gain of 3 seats.

Florida is gaining two seats and it is controlled by the Republicans. Since the Democrats only have six seats it is hard to see how the Republicans can do any better than to split the two new seats with the Democrats. The same thing is true in Ohio only each party will have to lose a seat. If the Republicans controlled New York both seats that must be lost would come out of the Democrat majority. Since control is split, the most likely result will be a compromise in which each party loses a seat. Our best guess is that reapportionment will give the Republicans four new seats on top of whatever other gains or loses they might otherwise get.