OK, I admit it, I’ve let you down. Not that it’s the first time that’s happened.
I’m not gonna have time to do a comprehensive analysis of all 41 districts and their likely permutations. However, I do have time to look at what George and Jerry might call ‘shrinkage’. Starting first from the basic premise that the D’s should solidify their hold on the House without stretching themselves too thin.
Plus my seminal senate redistricting articles, here, here, and here, clearly show where new districts would likely go (southern NCC and coastal Sussex, for sure), so the real question is…which districts disappear?
Here are the key numbers to remember for this exercise: There are 41 House districts now, there will be 41 House districts following redistricting. The average population of each district is around 21,901. A deviation of plus or minus 5% is legally permissible, meaning that the permissible population for each House district will range from a low of 20,806 to a high of 22,996.
The post-census district populations are as follows (thanks to my inside source):
| House District | 2000 pop. | 2010 pop. | change | Over/under 21,900 | over/under % |
| 1 | 18,293 | 17,648 | -3.5% | -4,252 | -19.4% |
| 2 | 19,953 | 19,571 | -1.9% | -2,329 | -10.6% |
| 3 | 19,993 | 19,215 | -3.9% | -2,685 | -12.3% |
| 4 | 18,198 | 18,103 | -0.5% | -3,797 | -17.3% |
| 5 | 20,148 | 21,154 | 5.0% | -746 | -3.4% |
| 6 | 19,786 | 19,877 | 0.5% | -2,023 | -9.2% |
| 7 | 18,626 | 17,251 | -7.4% | -4,649 | -21.2% |
| 8 | 18,161 | 34,905 | 92.2% | 13,005 | 59.4% |
| 9 | 18,174 | 28,290 | 55.7% | 6,390 | 29.2% |
| 10 | 19,468 | 20,187 | 3.7% | -1,713 | -7.8% |
| 11 | 19,340 | 18,472 | -4.5% | -3,428 | -15.7% |
| 12 | 18,682 | 19,321 | 3.4% | -2,579 | -11.8% |
| 13 | 20,079 | 20,700 | 3.1% | -1,200 | -5.5% |
| 14 | 18,482 | 25,997 | 40.7% | 4,097 | 18.7% |
| 15 | 19,204 | 27,756 | 44.5% | 5,856 | 26.7% |
| 16 | 19,683 | 19,396 | -1.5% | -2,504 | -11.4% |
| 17 | 19,569 | 19,739 | 0.9% | -2,161 | -9.9% |
| 18 | 19,658 | 19,810 | 0.8% | -2,090 | -9.5% |
| 19 | 19,905 | 19,301 | -3.0% | -2,599 | -11.9% |
| 20 | 19,729 | 19,614 | -0.6% | -2,286 | -10.4% |
| 21 | 19,077 | 18,919 | -0.8% | -2,981 | -13.6% |
| 22 | 19,176 | 18,853 | -1.7% | -3,047 | -13.9% |
| 23 | 20,079 | 22,367 | 11.4% | 467 | 2.1% |
| 24 | 19,230 | 19,060 | -0.9% | -2,840 | -13.0% |
| 25 | 20,066 | 20,925 | 4.3% | -975 | -4.5% |
| 26 | 19,877 | 21,143 | 6.4% | -757 | -3.5% |
| 27 | 18,671 | 20,226 | 8.3% | -1,674 | -7.6% |
| 28 | 18,187 | 22,917 | 26.0% | 1,017 | 4.6% |
| 29 | 18,168 | 27,839 | 53.2% | 5,939 | 27.1% |
| 30 | 18,201 | 22,102 | 21.4% | 202 | 0.9% |
| 31 | 18,157 | 20,814 | 14.6% | -1,086 | -5.0% |
| 32 | 18,121 | 20,481 | 13.0% | -1,419 | -6.5% |
| 33 | 18,176 | 24,737 | 36.1% | 2,837 | 13.0% |
| 34 | 18,205 | 23,514 | 29.2% | 1,614 | 7.4% |
| 35 | 18,334 | 22,751 | 24.1% | 851 | 3.9% |
| 36 | 19,134 | 26,484 | 38.4% | 4,584 | 20.9% |
| 37 | 19,722 | 24,694 | 25.2% | 2,794 | 12.8% |
| 38 | 20,029 | 25,569 | 27.7% | 3,669 | 16.8% |
| 39 | 18,165 | 19,663 | 8.2% | -2,237 | -10.2% |
| 40 | 19,657 | 22,338 | 13.6% | 438 | 2.0% |
| 41 | 20,039 | 26,231 | 30.9% | 4,331 | 19.8% |
The City of Wilmington will have to lose a district. In theory, you might be able to keep all four if you moved each of them further outside the city limits but it would create geometrically (and geographically) more problems than it would solve. Dennis P. Williams (1st) has said that he’ll run again, and he’s got seniority, plus he chairs the Joint Finance Committee, so he’s in. Stephanie Bolden (2nd) represents a minority/majority district, so she’s in as well. That leaves both Helene Keeley (3rd) and Gerald Brady (4th). I’ve made no secret that I much prefer Keeley, as honesty is a value that I appreciate in an elected official. Organized labor’s made no secret that it prefers its puppet and ‘executive director’ Brady. The only fair thing to do is to put them both in the same district and let them run in a primary. The Senate’s not really an option for either of them, as Keeley resides in the 3rd Senatorial District (Marshall), which will almost surely be eliminated during senate redistricting. Brady is in McDowell’s district, and they are allies, if not exactly bosom buddies. Remaining excess population from the city districts resulting from downsizing from 4 to 3 can go to shore up numbers in the 13th (John Mitchell-Elsmere), the 16th (J. J. Johnson-New Castle) and possibly to shore up R numbers in Lavelle’s district (11th). As to the latter, I’d much prefer to keep the suburban portion of the 4th in the new Keeley/Brady district as the district would still be overwhelmingly Democratic and it would deny #’s to the Rethugs in Chateau Country.
So, basically give or take a wavy line here or there, the City will have three districts and Mitchell and Johnson will have their numbers. Net result: D’s lose one district in the City of Wilmington. Necessary, but no fun.
Now the fun begins. The single most important key to redistricting Brandywine Hundred, Chateau Country, Hockessin, and portions of the Greater Newark area is to do what should have been done 10 years ago. Wayne Smith drew two districts ranging from west of Route 202 down to the Delaware River. He did it to protect both Bob Valihura and Greg Lavelle, who lived west of the Concord Pike, but who needed numbers they could only get from having districts that roamed far afield of their residences. In order to protect and provide the needed numbers for Democrats Deb Heffernan (6th) and Bryon Short (7th), and to provide at least a swing district for Dennis E. Williams (10th), Greg Lavelle’s district must not be allowed to extend east of Route 202.
Here is your one-stop shop for maps. You really should follow along to understand and enjoy what I propose. Click on RD 11, which is Lavelle’s district. Yes, that district is as insanely gerrymandered as it appears. Basically four craggy lumps connected by string, kinda like Wilma Flintstone’s necklace. You will also notice that at most 25% of the residents live in the portion of the district west of 202. Let’s ‘de-lump’ them. If you cut the district at 202, then the McDaniel Crest/Fairfax/Deerhurst portion easily fits into Dennis E. Williams’ district with Foulk Road as a major boundary, the Green Acres/Graylyn Crest portion fits squarely into Bryon Short’s district, with either the railroad tracks or I-95 serving as a boundary, and the remaining Claymont portion fits snugly into Deb Heffernan’s district.
We’re not done with Brandywine Hundred and insane gerrymandering yet, though. Click on RD 10, which was drawn for Bob Valihura, but is now represented by Dennis E. Williams. The district runs from the Kennett Pike to the Delaware River. First, a plea to Dennis Williams, please give up your dream of keeping Jack Markell in the district. LOSE the area west of Route 202. Your district will remain a swing district, so it makes sense to jettison as many of those chateau folks as possible. If you refuse, then Short and Heffernan should at least get the eastern tip of your district (say, to Valley Road) to make it less gerrymandered and to solidify their D numbers.
At this point, Short, Heffernan and Williams should all be on or near their number. They no doubt will have to undo the rampant dividing of communities that Wayne Smith did in Brandywine Hundred, but ultimately it should be a zero-sum game. The result: Short and Heffernan solidify Democratic districts, Williams remains at least as competitive as before in a swing district. I don’t think D’s should try to shore up the 10th much more than we have here since the effect would be to weaken their edge in the 6th and 7th.. The 6th and 7th remain two solid building blocks that both switched from R to D in the last 10 years. Make them more-or-less secure, and it’s difficult to see the R’s retaking the House any time soon.
Folks, we still have at least two more districts to lose to provide for district shifts to lower NCC and Sussex County. I propose that those districts come from the following: 11th (Lavelle), 12th (Hudson), 20th (Manolakos), 21st (Ramone), and 22nd (Miro). In case my theme is too subtle for you, all 5 have one thing in common: They’re currently held by R’s.
How do you make 2 districts disappear? Isn’t that impossible? Not at all. Let’s look at the math. It takes a minimum of 20,806 residents for a district. For two districts, that’s a minimum of 41,612. However, for purposes of this exercise, remember that each district has an allowable maximum population of 22,996. In other words, if we can get the population numbers for these districts down to 22,996 times three, a total of 68,988, we’ve got three districts instead of five. If my math is right, those five districts are at a current population of 95,179. Under my proposal, we are lopping off at least 75% of the population of Greg Lavelle’s existing district. Buh-bye, 13,854 more. Down to 81,325, just like that. In other words, 4 districts. There are D districts that need numbers that either directly abut these districts, or that can get numbers indirectly from them. And I count at least 15 ED’s (that’s an entire RD right there), not including any of Lavelle’s (which have already been accounted for) that most self-respecting D’s would LOVE to have. Take ’em. Or at least as many as you need. Gilligan (19) can use 3000 more, Barbieri (18) 2500, Osienski (24) 3000, Mulrooney 2500, and ta-da…Jaques 2000. These numbers could probably go a little higher if you move a district to its maximum allowable population. By moving population from the R districts to enable these D’s to make their numbers, the remaining districts are left with a population right around 68,000. Even if Dennis E. Williams excises his Chateau Country territory west of 202, as I think he should, the numbers can easily work to eliminate two R RD’s here.
Here’s the best part. Which two RD’s should go? I don’t care and neither should the D’s. Were I advising the D Caucus, I’d suggest that it simply give the geographical parameters to the R’s, tell them that they can craft 3 districts out of it, and let THEM fight it out. That way, if there are any complaints, it’s not with the D’s, it’s within the R’s own caucus. I think Ramone would go and either Miro or Manolakos, probably Miro. But let them decide.
Finally, a couple of words on Sussex County and what Pete Schwartzkopf might do. Demographics make it clear that eastern Sussex will get at least one, and maybe two, new districts. I would also not be shocked if one district in western Sussex disappears. Wayne Smith was able to carve out a western Sussex district at the expense of eastern Sussex by having all the central and western Sussex districts at the minimum required population levels and by having the eastern Sussex districts at the highest levels. I fully expect and hope that Pete will reverse that this time. After all, virtually all of the growth is in eastern Sussex. Add two districts there…and, as a result, Ruth Briggs King, Harvey Kenton, and/or David Wilson could well find out that ‘three into two won’t go’.
Bottom line: D’s lose a Wilmington district, R’s lose two upstate districts. D’s almost certainly gain two districts in southern NCC. D’s likely gain at least one and possibly two districts in Sussex County, and R’s could lose one. I think that”s pretty good and pretty safe.
I’ve left a lot out of this, but today’s the deadline to make my views known on redistricting to the House, at least until the May public meetings. Consider this my submission.
Feel free to ask me about this and/or the stuff I didn’t cover. I’m off today, and I’ve had lots of caffeine! John Tobin, start yer engine!