Pennsylvania, other states in tug of war before congressional redistricting

By Lois Romano
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 14, 2010; A01

Eli Evankovich is an accountant and farmer from a tiny town in western Pennsylvania -- and suddenly an important man. Contemplating a run for the state legislature earlier this year, he traveled to Harrisburg for the first time in his life and was startled to find himself enthusiastically courted by Republican leaders.

In any other election cycle, the 27-year-old rookie would barely register with political leaders in the state capital, never mind nationally. But this year, money will be thrown at his campaign against an incumbent Democrat, volunteers will show up at his farm and polls -- a rarity in state legislative races -- will be taken.

As the Beltway remains riveted on November's congressional midterm elections, another political war is taking shape in small communities nationwide, elevating hundreds of unknown Evankoviches to the front lines. The reason: Next year, state legislatures will take up redistricting, the once-a-decade task of redrawing congressional boundaries based on population shifts gleaned through the census.

Redistricting plays a central political role every 10 years, but the stakes seem particularly high this cycle. In Pennsylvania and elsewhere, Republicans see an opportunity to improve their prospects for winning back Congress and controlling it for years to come -- by shaking loose the Democrats' grip on state governments.

Some of the biggest names in politics have jumped into the hand-to-hand combat with an intensity generally reserved for a presidential race. Among those at the forefront: Ed Gillespie, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee; former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.); Democratic strategist Harold Ickes; GOP strategist Karl Rove; and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

The national operations are targeting about 100 competitive races in narrowly divided statehouses, in little-known communities such as Chimney Rock, Wis., and Murrysville, Pa., where Evankovich lives. They are recruiting national lawyers and setting up intricate networks to provide cash and expertise. Collectively, partisan special-interest groups, labor unions and state organizations have estimated they will spend upward of $200 million on state legislative and gubernatorial races -- an unprecedented sum.

"Having control of a legislature can translate into U.S. House seats being drawn for Republicans for a decade -- compared to fighting it out district by district for control of the House every two years, which would costs millions," said Gillespie, who is chairman of the Republican State Leadership Committee, which as the main GOP group focused on state races hopes to raise $40 million for this election cycle.

The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee has doubled its fundraising goals to $20 million and spent the past several cycles quietly increasing majorities in legislatures across the country. The party also established the National Democratic Redistricting Trust to handle the inevitable complex legal challenges to redistricted maps, and Foundation for the Future, a largely union-supported entity, to provide strategic and technical support to legislatures.

Ickes, a longtime adviser to Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton, is raising money for Democratic governors. The 37 gubernatorial contests this year are crucial, as the chief executive in most states has the power to veto maps the legislatures propose.

"I started to make the case to donors three years ago that the races that impact reapportionment will matter for the next decade. . . . These governors will oversee redistricting," said Nick Ayers, a rising political star as executive director of the Republican Governors Association, which has raised $28 million this year -- a record -- in part because of redistricting.

Big gains

Democrats control both legislative chambers in 27 states, and Republicans control both in 14. Power is split between the two parties in eight states. Nebraska has only one chamber, and its members are technically nonpartisan.

In most states, the party that controls the political process controls the redistricting map. The goal is to create congressional districts based on voter registration data.

The power to tailor district lines to partisan demographics could offer either party an advantage of 16 to 35 seats in Congress, redistricting experts say. Gillespie estimates that legislative races in 16 states could effectively control the redrawing of districts for nearly 200 congressional seats.

Among the battleground states slated to lose or gain congressional seats, and where at least one chamber holds a fragile majority, are Michigan, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma and Texas.

Nowhere is the intensity felt more than in Pennsylvania, which could lose a couple of seats because of population losses, making each party desperate to have a voice when the boundaries are redrawn.

Democrats are trying to hold on to the House and the governorship at a time when the western part of the state has been trending Republican. With the state Senate likely to remain Republican, and the gubernatorial race a tossup, Democrats' best hope is for a strong showing in the eastern part of the state.

Although Indiana is not slated to lose or gain seats, it is also considered a priority state because Republicans have made it clear they want to redraw districts to minimize Democratic congressional success. The state has a Republican governor and a Republican Senate -- and Democrats control the House by a mere four seats. "If we want a seat at the table, we have to retain control," House Speaker B. Patrick Bauer said.

Democratic advantage

Nationwide, Democrats enter the fray with some initial advantages, according to operatives on both sides of the aisle.

After being at a distinct disadvantage in 2000, Democrats have spent the past decade building up majorities in state legislatures. Control became a higher priority when Republicans, after winning control of the Texas legislature in 2002 for the first time in 130 years, completed a controversial mid-decade congressional redistricting.

"There was concern that this could happen in other states," said William Burke, executive director of the Foundation for the Future. "We are much better prepared."

According to Michael Sargeant, executive director of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, which raises money and provides political support for legislative campaigns, the Democrats have gone from controlling 43 chambers in 2002 to 60 today.

The Democrats' biggest challenge is defending those majorities. Today, in 18 states where the legislature is key to redistricting, the party in control is ahead by four or fewer seats. Democrats control 11 of those.

Fundraising for little-known candidates has been challenging for both parties since 2003, when the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, known as McCain-Feingold, limited the national parties' ability to contribute to state races. Fundraisers have been forced to turn to high-dollar donors, whose contributions to state candidates do not face the same limits and reporting accountability that apply to campaigns for Congress or the White House. One donor in Texas, Bob Perry, for example, has given $2 million to the Republican Governors Association.

But fundraisers say that, for the most part, donors prefer to contribute to congressional races because they're high-profile.

"Our job is to try to go to ordinary people not usually involved, to translate the importance of redistricting," Ickes said. "It's a lot of work."

Research director Lucy Shackelford and staff researcher Meg Smith contributed to this report.