Welcome to this week’s edition of REDMAP Rundown. This addition is a synopsis of redistricting news brought to you by the RSLC’s REDistricting MAjority Project (REDMAP). For those who are new, this weekly update gives you the latest on what those in the Beltway, and across the country, are saying about the impending reapportionment and redistricting process.

In this week’s REDMAP Rundown: Translating legislative control, Dems learning the difference between 10 and 12, Sabato’s Crystal Ball, RGA friends weigh in on a lasting majority, CSM sees a mad scramble, Iowa dealing with loss and Massachusetts is “home” of the gerrymander.

The Washington Post’s Lois Romano kicks off today’s Rundown, reporting, “As the Beltway remains riveted on November’s congressional midterm elections, another political war is taking shape in small communities nationwide … The reason: Next year, state legislatures will take up redistricting, the once-a-decade task of redrawing congressional boundaries based on population shifts gleaned through the census. Some of the biggest names in politics have jumped into the hand-to-hand combat with an intensity generally reserved for a presidential race. Among those at the forefront: Ed Gillespie, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee; former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.); Democratic strategist Harold Ickes; GOP strategist Karl Rove; and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) … ‘Having control of a legislature can translate into U.S. House seats being drawn for Republicans for a decade — compared to fighting it out district by district for control of the House every two years, which would costs millions,’ said Gillespie, who is chairman of the Republican State Leadership Committee.”

“A Democrat who can win in 2010 can be assumed to have a relatively safe district, just as a Republican who won in 2006 and ’08 can,” James Taranto writes for the Wall Street Journal. In 2012, however, 428 of the 435 congressional districts will have been redrawn owing to reapportionment and redistricting (the only exceptions are those that are coterminous with sparsely populated states). Many incumbents will be protected, but some will find themselves in less-safe districts, or in intraparty battles with fellow incumbents in states that lose congressional seats.

Larry Sabato enters Politico’s Arena, saying, “Once lost, the House will be tough to regain during Obama’s presidency. Redistricting is going to help the GOP at least marginally, given the number of governorships and state legislative berths it will add this November.”

The Washington Post reports, “… by January, more than half of the states will probably be under new management, including some of the biggest and most important. … One of the first areas where the changes in the governors’ mansions could be felt will be in the redistricting wars that will break out next year. [RGA Executive Director Nick] Ayers said redistricting presents an opportunity to gain 15 to 26 House seats, depending on who controls the redistricting machinery in the states. That alone could offset whatever happens in House races this November. But the implications go beyond that. Reapportionment and redistricting will affect the shape of the House through much of the coming decade. If Republicans take over the House in November and control enough governorships [and state legislatures] in key states next year, they could use the redistricting process to virtually lock in a majority that could last for several election cycles.”

“All eyes are on the US House in this fall’s election, but that’s not the only place where a political earthquake might shake up power,” according to the Christian Science Monitor’s editorial board. “A mad scramble is also on to influence elections for state legislatures, as well as governors. National political bigwigs and big dollars – record amounts, actually – are focused on these local races. The reason? This is a census year, and it is these newly elected officials who will use the new population numbers to redraw the boundaries of voter districts. Those districts will then set the contours of power and policy for the next decade. Republicans see the opportunity for a long-lasting comeback in Washington if they can tip enough statehouses their way, and thus come up with voter districts likely to elect Republicans to Congress again and again. Likewise, Democrats are working hard to defend their mapping turf.”

“Lawmakers in Iowa are about to launch their most overtly partisan chore: the redrawing of legislative and congressional districts. Every 10 years after the census is conducted, the Legislature must approve new congressional and legislative district lines reflecting changes in population, and the configuration of those lines dictates the politics of a state for the next decade. The task will be especially tricky because Iowa is among at least nine states likely to lose a seat in Congress. That means two of the current five are likely to be paired in a new district.”

MA Republican state committeewoman Cynthia E. Stead, writes, “Massachusetts, the home of the Gerry-mander, will begin its process in April 2011, when the apportionment of Congressional seats is announced after the 2010 census results are processed. Back in 2001, the Joint Redistricting Report said, ‘Lastly, some districts have been combined and new districts have been created. This is necessitated by the extraordinary growth in outer-suburban areas, the decrease in population in certain older urban areas, and the stagnant population in a number of developed suburbs. …That is where people have been moving. This proposal acknowledges that ours is an ever-changing Commonwealth. But as urban Democrats lose their strongholds, gerrymanders may become necessary.”