A Look at the Member vs. Member Races of 2022 (So Far)

Rep. Marie Newman (D-IL)

We've been kind of taking a break from politics the past few weeks, partly because my brain couldn't process it post the election (which was such a massive bummer I honestly only tweeted about it) and partially because I do have a real-life job that needs to take priority (since it pays for the internet I write this on).  But I didn't want to let some of the burgeoning conversations that are happening as a result of redistricting go to waste.

The theme of this year's gerrymandering (let's not even do it the courtesy of calling it redistricting, and while both sides are doing it, I don't want to put up with any both siderism here since only one side is trying to stop it) has been "protect incumbents first, take a gain later if you can."  We've seen that in places like Texas, where Democrats are likely going to lose one seat, but the Republicans shored up their recent gains by giving Lizzie Fletcher & Colin Allred blue vote sinks.  We'll likely see it in places like Florida & Maryland in coming weeks as well.  Some political pundits have talked about this like it's a sporting event, not taking into account the grossness that comes with "maximizing your gains through gerrymandering" (not to name names, but Dave Wasserman is 100% who I'm thinking of so yes, I'm going to name some names).  I have been reluctant to talk about this to some degree because political punditry does require a bit of objectivity (otherwise it's not useful), and I don't want to condone any of the behavior here.  What the Republicans are doing by letting gerrymandering stand, particularly in places like Texas & Georgia where it's clear what they're doing is punishing growing metro populations or trying to dilute the strength of people of color, is one of the biggest abuses of American democracy in the history of the Republic, and it's possible that it does in fact break the Republic left unchecked.

But I think it's worth having a conversation about one of the side effects of this "protect incumbents" conversation by looking at how it's causing (so far) a decline in the number of member vs. member races we'll see in 2022 compared to past elections.  To take a step back, when districts are redrawn, it almost always ends up with incumbent members of Congress being drawn into districts they have no hope of winning or into seats that also house other members of Congress.  This can occasionally mean retirements (we saw that with people like David Price, GK Butterfield, & Adam Kinzinger all leaving Congress instead of having to take on a tough, potentially unwinnable race next year).  But sometimes it also means that members of Congress fight each other for a seat, either in a primary or in a general election.

Rep. Sean Casten (D-IL)

In the past three cycles (by my count), this has happened 28 times: 13 in 2012, 8 in 2002, and 7 in 1992.  So far, though, in 2022, this count has been kept to a minimum, as only three member vs. member races have emerged, and all of them are going to be waged in a primary.  They include one Republican primary (David McKinley vs. Alex Mooney in West Virginia), and two Democratic primaries (Marie Newman vs. Sean Casten in Illinois and Lucy McBath vs. Carolyn Bourdeaux in Georgia).

The reasons behind these run the gamut.  McKinley & Mooney was inevitable if all three House Republicans in West Virginia ran for reelection-the state lost a seat in reapportionment, and the entire House delegation is Republican, so only retirement would've prevented this.  Illinois was totally preventable, but the Illinois Democratic Party truly hates Marie Newman, who ousted longtime Chicago political machine devotee Bill Lipinski, and this was their way of punishing Newman (they also created a Latino majority district in the process so it's worth noting that the Democrats didn't actually net lose any seats in Illinois, and in fact look likely to gain one).  And the Georgia Democrats' race shouldn't have happened in a fair world-McBath & Bourdeaux are both in growing districts that shouldn't have needed to change much with district drawing, but the greedy Georgia Republican Party put them together in a highly gerrymandered district (that's going to come back & bite them in the ass by decade's end, potentially costing them not only McBath's old seat reverting back, but also imperiling other Republicans in the Atlanta suburbs as well).

It's not clear, of course, how many more districts might host this sort of member vs. member configuration, but it's worth noting that it might not be as many as you'd think.  Most of the maps I've seen from California would be more about musical chairs rather than member vs. member races (maybe a Democrat vs. Democrat race, but retirements probably make that unlikely).  Maps in Florida, Arizona, Michigan, & Washington haven't been finalized, but very few of them give the impression that they're headed toward a member vs. member race, and especially it seems unlikely any map is going to bet on a member vs. member general election.

This is a noteworthy sign of how little the maps that are being made value competitiveness.  While there are competitive seats in places like Texas, Oregon, Iowa, & Maine, all of those races will be won not by two incumbents, but by either an imperiled incumbent & a challenger or an open seat dynamic.  It is looking increasingly probable that unless something unusual happens, we will have our first cycle in decades (possibly ever...it's hard to tell the further you go back) where there will be literally no incumbent vs. incumbent general election fought in the battle for the House, yet another bizarre aspect of the rampant gerrymandering across the country.