Redistricting could obscure rural voices, crack some urban Democratic control, and cause more political polarization - Entrepreneur Generations

The 2020 census found that most rural areas have lost population since 2010. That means many could lose state House seats when maps are redrawn.

Some state legislators in Colorado, for example, complained that the proposed map would ignore the concerns of many rural areas because they're lumped into districts with cities, Matthew Bennett reports for the Aspen Daily News. But one of the 11 committee members who approved the map said the larger-than-desired districts couldn't be avoided, since most of the state's 64 counties are rural.

Though grouping rural areas with cities in legislative districts obscures rural voices, the practice also generally weakens Democratic power. In Oklahoma, the Republican-controlled legislature is roping more rural areas into the Oklahoma City district to do just that, Dan Snyder reports for KOKH in Oklahoma City.

The proposed map from Kentucky's Republican state congress would similarly make more rural the 4th District, traditionally a Democratic powerhouse long held by retiring Rep. John Yarmuth, Bob Heleringer writes for the Courier Journal in Louisville. This marks the first time Republicans have been in charge of redrawing the map, notes Ryland Barton of WFPL.

And North Dakota could lose at least one rural district as the two rural legislative districts near Grand Forks are slated to be combined, Sam Easter reports for the Grand Forks Herald.

David Wasserman of the Cook Political Report with Amy Walter believes the new maps could help flip as many as five House seats to Republicans nationwide, and will likely increase political polarization, Louis Jacobson reports for Poynter.

"The widening urban vs. rural chasm has increased parties’ ability to draw safe seats without resorting to crazy-looking gerrymanders, so the most predictable net effect of this round is a significant decline in the number of competitive seats," said Wasserman. "When seats are in the bag, there’s no incentive for parties to recruit candidates with broad appeal, and that means that fringier candidates win primaries instead."

And "the more safe or nearly safe seats that are created, the more the candidates will be responsive to challengers in primaries, because it’s unlikely they would lose a general election," Louis Jacobson reports. "Since primary challenges are usually launched from the right (for Republicans) or from the left (for Democrats), both parties’ caucuses in the House could end up being even more conservative and liberal, respectively, than they are today."

from The Rural Blog https://ift.tt/3CHitbO Redistricting could obscure rural voices, crack some urban Democratic control, and cause more political polarization - Entrepreneur Generations

Posted by Entrepreneur Generations

Tweet