Small typo in my original message -- the 2000 changes were all from R to
D, not from D to R (as most readers probably guessed already).

Keith, you are correct that 2001 in CA was a bipartisan
incumbent-protection gerrymander. Condit was drawn out, but it was
carefully done to ensure he lost to another Democrat in the primary.

- Doug



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu
[mailto:owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu] On Behalf Of
rkgaddie@ou.edu
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 4:02 PM
To: Douglas Johnson
Cc: 'Lowenstein, Daniel'; 'election-law'
Subject: Re: RE: "stability" in California House elections


I was under the impression that California was a bipartisan, incumbent
gerrymander, but that Condit was the sacrificial  lamb.

Oh well.

Attached is a plot of the Bush2000 vote share on the 2002 districts
against an open-seat expected vote model from my book with Chuck
Bullock, ELECTIONS TO OPEN SEATS.  We developed this for a CLE in the
summer of 2002. 

I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions.  Red dots are incumbent
D's, blue circles are incumbent R's, and the triangle is the open seat.



_____________________________
Ronald Keith Gaddie
Professor of Political Science
The University of Oklahoma
455 West Lindsey Street, Room 222
Norman, OK  73019-2001
Phone 405-325-4989
Fax 405-325-0718
E-mail: rkgaddie@ou.edu http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/G/Ronald.K.Gaddie-1