Republicans had line-drawing power in nearly five times as many districts as Democrats. Gerrymandering could hurt GOP

No one disputes Republicans used the once-a-decade redistricting process to lock in their House majority — almost certainly through 2014 and possibly until the next round of line-drawing in 2020.

But the party could pay a steep price for that dominance.


Some top GOP strategists and candidates warn that the ruby red districts the party drew itself into are pushing House Republicans further to the right — narrowing the party’s appeal at a time when some GOP leaders say its future rests on the opposite happening. If you’re looking for a root cause of the recurring drama within the House Republican Conference — from the surprise meltdown on the farm bill to the looming showdown over immigration reform — the increasingly conservative makeup of those districts is a good place to start.

( PHOTOS: Republicans on how to fix the GOP)

The shellacking Republicans took in 2012 has triggered months of consternation that the party is too white, too conservative and too male. But tell that to the increasing number of House Republicans who are safely ensconced with nary a worry that a Democrat might unseat them in the next election.

The bigger threat to them is a primary challenge from the right bankrolled by the Club for Growth or another deep-pocketed outside group angry they went soft on a key vote.

“It’s obviously easier for a House member to focus on their district. They’re in cycle every day of the year, always on the hot seat, and there’s always a challenger around the corner,” said Matt Schlapp, who served as political director in the George W. Bush White House.

( PHOTOS: Republicans, 2016 contenders)

Still, Schlapp added, “You want to be sensitive to the district, but you also need to be cognizant of how your party is going to be successful over time.”

The clash of priorities between the House rank and file and party brass has been on display for months.

In December, House Speaker John Boehner had to pull his Plan B legislation to avert the fiscal cliff before it came to the House floor because it didn’t have enough Republican votes. Last month, 62 Republicans went against Boehner to help sink the farm bill — a measure that typically passes with overwhelming bipartisan support. And most House Republicans appear dead set against an immigration reform bill that cleared the Senate last week with 68 votes — ignoring warnings of GOP leaders that the party is flirting with demographic disaster if they dig in.

( PHOTOS: Senators up for election in 2014)

Gerrymandering and partisanship, of course, aren’t new phenomena in the House. But the post-2010 redistricting process driven by GOP-controlled state legislatures — Republicans wielded line-drawing power in nearly five times as many districts as Democrats — produced significantly more districts that are overwhelmingly conservative.

Of the 234 House Republicans, just four now represent districts that favor Democrats, according to data compiled by The Cook Political Report. That’s down from the 22 Republicans who resided in Democratic-friendly seats following the 2010 midterms, prior to the line-drawing.

They’re also serving districts that are increasingly white. After redistricting and the 2012 election, according to The Cook Political Report, the average Republican congressional district went from 73 percent white to 75 percent white. And even as Hispanics have emerged as America’s fastest-growing demographic group, only about one-tenth of Republicans represent districts where the Latino population is 25 percent or higher.

For Democrats, the GOP conundrum offers a glimmer of hope, with liberal groups trying to tap into the weakness of the party’s brand. House Majority PAC, a prominent Democratic outside group, recently released a Web ad highlighting some of the more silly statements that have come out of the House GOP’s ranks — the vast majority of them from members who occupy overwhelmingly conservative districts.

New York Rep. Steve Israel, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, argued that Republicans in moderate suburban and exurban areas will find themselves under increasing pressure in the months leading up to the midterms.

“The problem for many Republicans in these specific districts is that if they’re less partisan, they face a primary from the right. If they protect themselves from a primary by being more partisan, they’re in trouble in the general election,” Israel said. “They’re getting squeezed. We’re going to make sure that hole is very small.”

While top party hands from Haley Barbour to Jeb Bush to Karl Rove have urged the party to embrace immigration reform, many House conservatives just aren’t buying it. Some are even warning Boehner that his speakership will be on the line if he brings a measure to the floor that lacks support of a majority of Republicans — the speaker has promised not to. The border security-heavy immigration bill that cleared the Senate on Thursday is seen as a no-go in the House.

( PHOTOS: Obama’s top 20 jabs at the GOP)

A look at the numbers shows why there’s more incentive for House Democrats to get behind an immigration bill than Republicans. Nearly two-thirds of Republicans represent districts in which Hispanics make up less than one-tenth of the population, according to the American Community Survey.

The number of House Democrats with such few Latinos in their districts? Fewer than one in three.

When House Republicans have rallied behind legislation, it’s often been for something deeply conservative. Two weeks ago, Republicans passed a measure that would ban abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy. Just six GOP members opposed the bill, including two because it didn’t go far enough.

( Also on POLITICO: GOP can't outrun culture wars)

To the conservatives, softening the GOP’s positions isn’t what’s going to save the party in the long run.

“Political success doesn’t come from moderation,” said Arizona Rep. David Schweikert, a Republican who opposed the farm bill and supported the anti-abortion measure. “It’s from having principles and articulating them in a forthright fashion.”

Schweikert, who represents a conservative Scottsdale-area district that Mitt Romney carried with nearly 60 percent of the vote, called the Senate immigration bill a “nonstarter.” His district is 12 percent Hispanic.

In a detailed autopsy released after the disastrous 2012 election, the Republican National Committee said the GOP is viewed as “scary,” “narrow-minded” and the party of “stuffy old men.” It urged the party to take steps to be seen as more tolerant of gays and advised Republicans to take up the mantle of immigration reform.

“Republicans need to think things through carefully so they reflect the country and not just their districts,” said Ari Fleischer, a former Bush White House spokesman who co-authored the RNC report.

But Fleischer said the authors of the report expected the changes to come gradually. And the party’s 2016 standard-bearer, he argued, will be far more important to the party’s standing than what the House produces.

“Nothing defines the brand more than the person who is going to be the presidential candidate — that ultimately defines the party’s image,” Fleischer said.

Some Republicans running for congressional seats in the less conservative parts of the country, though, remain uneasy with the House GOP’s agenda.

“The Republican Party needs to show leadership,” said Carl DeMaio, a California Republican who is running for a moderate, San Diego-area congressional seat. “This is an important time in our country’s history. You can’t say, ‘Here’s a formula. If I just grandstand on these issues here, I’ll be reelected in my safe seat.’ OK, that may be true, but you’re not showing leadership on the issues that are national in scope.”