Last week, Roll Callpublished a piece on the"political storm" brewing in LA following Katrina. The most immediate effect appears to be in the Third District, one of the few in the nation to shift from GOP to Dem control in the 2004 elections. Republican state Sen. Craig Romero, the likely challenger to Congressman Charlie Melancon, traveled to Washington a week after Katrina hit, handing out demographic analyses suggesting that, as refugees from the south central district were more likely to be Democratic voters, in the aftermath of the hurricane, the district had tilted even more to the GOP. (One-third of the district was unihabitable at the time Romero made his comments.)

Yesterday's Times expands upon the theme, noting that the likely population loss from refugees not returning to the state means that LA may very well lose a House seat following the 2010 Census. Moreover, state politics could substantially change, reducing the influence of New Orleans in the state legislature and in state elections.

If the thrust of the Times and Roll Call stories turn out to be true, the potential political effects are enormous. Louisiana is one of the few Southern states that remain competitive for the Dems. LA was twice carried by Bill Clinton (46% in 1992, 52% in 1996). Until 2004, it was the only state in the country to have never elected a Republican senator. Its senior senator, Mary Landrieu, has twice won election by exceedingly narrow margins; Governor Kathleen Blanco, a Democrat, also won with just 51% in 2003.

Although Romero's timing was questionable, his analysis was correct: the refugees are disproportionately poor and minority, core Democratic voters in a state where the Democrats have no margin for error. Despite the short-term political setback for Bush, the long-term effect of the hurricane, then, could be to move LA into the GOP column firmly.

Looking at this from a historical perspective, I can't think of a comparable situation when a natural disaster so profoundly affected a state's demographic and political alignment.

Dave Matthews - 10/6/2005

"I can't think of a comparable situation when a natural disaster so profoundly affected a state's demographic and political alignment."

For a possibly comparable situation, we need not even leave the region:
In "Rising Tide: The Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 and how it Changed America" John Barry posits that the flood was the final straw for many African-Americans in the late 1920's, convincing them to pull up stakes and head north. Although it may not have had a profound political effect on Mississippi or Louisiana, since most of those who left were barred from voting there anyway, it did impact the states' demographics, and the population loss reduced the clout of the Mississippi and Louisiana delegations. It also helped to bolster the pro-civil rights wing of the Democratic party in such northern states as Minnesota and Michigan. Or at least, that's the impression I get from Barry's book. For all I know, he could be grossly overstating the case.

Robert KC Johnson - 10/5/2005

True--but it's unlikely, at this stage at least, that any demographic shift would be large enough to put Texas into play for the Dems, while the Democratic majority in LA is so narrow that it can't afford much erosion.

Robert KC Johnson - 10/5/2005

Yes, questionable was the most diplomatic adjective for analyzing Romero's comment.

Jonathan Dresner - 10/5/2005

I think "questionable" is the very nicest way of saying that Romero is (apparently) an opportunist who views political calculations as far more important than getting anything productive or helpful accomplished.

And any "analysis" about migration patterns at this point is so premature as to be in the realm of speculative fiction rather than political analysis. It's like those "who's going to win in 2008 if Daffy Duck runs against Goofy" polls.

Rebecca Anne Goetz - 10/5/2005

I wonder if it is a little too early to assume that many people won't return to New Orleans? The water isn't even all pumped out yet. In the absence of firm plans to rebuild, is it at all surprising that many people, the Democratic voters among them, are uncertain about their plans?

Of course, I'm an optimist, and I'd hate to see Louisiana swing Republican because of Katrina.

Ralph E. Luker - 10/5/2005

I'm sure that this is essentially correct -- that the effect will yield a smaller, less black, less Democratic New Orleans. But it's also likely to produce, already has produced, a larger, blacker, more Democratic Baton Rouge. Republicans surely gain an edge in smaller Louisiana numbers, but I suspect that there's a gain for Democrats in Texas, for example. And, if you were simply trading in electoral votes, you'd take Texas for Louisiana any day, wouldn't you?