RALEIGH–The 2002 elections surprised many and delighted Republicans on several levels. One of the most telling signs of a potential political realignment was that the GOP achieved a slight majority of legislative seats nationwide–the first in 50 years. More important, after the 2002 balloting Republicans had control of both chambers in 21 legislatures compared with 17 for the Democrats and eleven states where the chambers were split or tied. (Nebraska’s legislature is nonpartisan and unicameral.)
Why did this achievement matter? There are several reasons. State legislatures are where much of the policy action is on such important issues as education, business regulation, marriage, gun control, transportation, and property rights. In some key states, legislatures aren’t just little congresses–they have far more policymaking power than the governor. Also, legislatures (albeit with plenty of outside partisan assistance) draw the political boundaries that increasingly determine the outcome of U.S. House elections and thus the distribution of political power in Washington.
Finally, state senates and houses frequently serve as the training ground for future U.S. senators, representatives, and governors. As Newt Gingrich and other GOPACers figured out long ago, the Republican party needs a healthy system of farm teams if it is going to continue to play in the big leagues. Democrats have traditionally enjoyed an advantage in candidate recruitment. After all, many Democrats really believe in activist government and want to pull its levers of power as a career. Republicans, on balance, crave the power less and prefer other pursuits.
In 2004, the big question is whether the Republican breakout in 2002 was a fluke or a sign of things to come. Essentially, Democrats are demanding a rematch. State government was their domain for so long in so much of the country that they just can’t accept the idea that voters might actually support a partisan realignment. They are aggressively targeting a number of legislative chambers where only a handful of seats could tip the balance to the Ds, with Republicans equally resolute about defending their gains and adding some new ones.
It would be impossible to summarize all of the legislatures where the potential exists for a partisan change. It would take a shift of as few as three seats to change the majority party in about half of the nation’s legislative chambers. Only six states–Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Virginia in the South, plus New Jersey and Maryland–have no legislative seats up for grabs in 2004. Earlier this year, the National Conference of State Legislatures identified ten battlegrounds they believe to be the most competitive. Interestingly, eight of these also feature highly competitive races for president, governor, or U.S. Senate, so prevailing political winds statewide could influence the legislative outcomes in unpredictable ways.
I’ve added a few more chambers to the NCSL list and given a quick summary of each:
‐Colorado. The Republican state senate, led by my former state think-tank colleague John Andrews, will flip to the Democrats if they gain a single seat. As of the last filing period, groups aligned with Democratic candidates have outspent their Republican counterparts by more than two to one, much of the effort being directed at six competitive seats. But the Republicans have superior candidates in the key races. Charges of rampant fraud in voter registration make the situation harder to get a handle on, as do the shifting fortunes of Bush and U.S. Senate candidate Pete Coors.
‐Georgia. The GOP took control of the state senate here in 2002, a surprising and historic accomplishment aided by the still-continuing phenomenon of conservative and centrist Democrats switching parties. This year, it is a new redistricting plan, undoing a previous Democratic gerrymander, that has put Republicans in position potentially to win the state house–thus giving Gov. Sonny Perdue, himself the first Republican in that office since Reconstruction, an opportunity to implement a broader agenda. Still, it would take a 17-seat gain for the GOP to win an outright majority, a major feat even within a more competitive district map.
‐Indiana. Former Bush OMB director Mitch Daniels is running strong in his bid for governor, and would surely welcome a simultaneous takeover of the 51-49 Democratic House. The chamber has been competitive for years now. The Republicans’ slogan is “54 in ‘04,” reflecting the number of seats they think are in play. The downside for the GOP is that they are defending more open seats than the Democrats are. A big issue in the election is the state’s looming $800 million budget deficit.
‐Maine. Republicans appear so far to have fallen short of winning Maine, or at least one of its four electoral votes, for President Bush. But the prospects are better for gaining the one seat they need to take control of the 35-member state senate. The central Republican campaign theme is Maine’s high taxes and the related Democratic failures to control spending, a theme that is being reinforced by the presence of an initiative on the statewide ballot to cap property taxes.
‐Montana. It’s the Democratic party that is on the prowl in this traditionally Republican state, with a Democrat leading the governor’s race and a serious effort to reverse the GOP’s not-overwhelming legislative majorities: 53-47 in the house and 29-21 in the senate. An explanation for Democratic salivation is that the state’s independent redistricting commission generated a Democratic-friendly map that packs Republicans into a disproportionately small number of districts. The five-member panel had two appointees from each party. The fifth was supposed to be a pick by the other four, but a deadlock led to a judicially appointed member who ended up siding with the Democrats.
‐Nevada. A presidential battleground that appears to be trending towards Bush, Nevada also features an interesting race for control of the state house. Democrats have a 23-19 majority there, but may have endangered it last year with a vote for a tax increase of nearly $1 billion. One Democratic incumbent reportedly said that he had yet to meet a voter who complains about the tax hike. Republicans are hoping that such insularity says something about the likely outcome on Tuesday.
‐North Carolina. Elections in my home state may signify missed opportunities for both parties. While Democrats failed to sustain an effective Kerry-Edwards campaign and could see a loss of a U.S. Senate seat, Republican chances in races for governor and state legislature are weaker than one might have predicted six months ago. A tenuous 62-58 GOP majority in the state house actually falls short of operational, because of several Republican moderates voting for a Democratic speaker and with Democrats on key issues, including tax hikes. Republicans would likely have to win at least 65 seats to be in charge. In the senate, the GOP has had money and candidate-recruitment problems in challenging the 27-23 Democratic majority but retains an outside chance to erase the gap.
‐Oklahoma. Republican U.S. Senate candidate Tom Coburn’s seeming recovery from a previously weak position against Democratic nominee Brad Carson may be a favorable sign for the party’s efforts to gain the three seats it needs to wrest the house from the Democrats. The GOP would need five seats to win the state senate. State term limits are a big factor here in forcing incumbents up to higher office or out, making way for competitive elections to replace them. Republicans are confident at least about defending their house incumbents, beating one Democratic incumbent and winning two open seats previously Democratic.
‐Oregon. The state senate is tied here. With a same-sex-marriage amendment on the ballot and at least some continuing efforts to make the state competitive for Bush, will Republicans gain the upper hand? Or will culturally conservative Democrats show up to vote for the amendment and their party’s legislative candidates?
‐Vermont. Republican Gov. Jim Douglas was elected in 2002 and seems in good shape for reelection in 2004. This may bode well for Republicans seeking to narrow the 19-11 Democratic majority in the state senate. The state house has an interesting mix of 74 Republicans, 69 Democrats, seven candidates with other affiliations, and a number of competitive races–thus creating multiple possibilities for coalitions after Election Day.
‐Washington. This state has enjoyed (if that’s the right word) perhaps the most competitive legislative elections of the past decade. The 2004 cycle promises to be no different. Democrats have a 52-46 advantage in the house while Republicans have a tiny 25-24 edge in the senate. Most don’t expect the house to change hands this year, but Democrats are targeting GOP-held senate districts in Spokane, Vancouver, and Mercer Island. With a $1 billion budget deficit to address next year, Republicans are warning of Democratic tax increases–and some Ds are whispering that they might be better off sharing the blame for whatever fiscal pain is imposed.
‐Wisconsin. One of the most-watched of the presidential battlegrounds, Wisconsin also has a narrowly Republican senate (18-15). Democrats celebrating the recapture of the governor’s office in 2002 can’t be happy about Bush’s slight edge in the state as of this writing. Republican senate leaders say they have a good chance of adding up to four seats to their total, including an open seat and three held by Democratic incumbents. Democrats seem confident only about keeping or expanding their margin in the assembly.
Tonight, it might be worth an occasional glance over at these and other intensely competitive elections for control of the nation’s state legislatures. The names and battlegrounds may not be as familiar, but the outcomes could tell us a lot about the direction of domestic policy in the United States and the fate of Republican efforts to establish themselves as the new majority party.
–Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation, a syndicated columnist, and the author of the forthcoming Selling the Dream: Why Advertising is Good Business (Praeger).