Nov 5th, 2008 at 11:17 am
State Legislatures
State Legislature majorities are the deep foundations of national politics. They control congressional redistricting, which is important, and because they also control their own redistricting, control can be hard to reverse. Last night, “Democrats won new majorities in the Delaware House, Ohio House, Wisconsin Assembly, New York Senate, and the Nevada Senate.” That gives them control of both chambers in New York, Wisconsin, Nevada, and Delaware and shifts Ohio to an even split. Nevada and New York will be important redistricting opportunities after the next census, and given the opportunity to redraw the State Senate districts in New York it will be very difficult for the GOP to ever mount a comeback in Albany.
39 Responses to “State Legislatures”
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Abortion
Afghanistan
Basketball
Blanche Lincoln
Budget
China
climate
Congress
Crime
DC
Demographics
Economics
Economy
Energy
Environment
EU
Finance
Football
Gender
Health Care
History
Inequality
Infrastructure
Intellectual Property
International Law
International Relations
Israel
Media
Monetary Policy
National Security
NBA
Palestine
Political Reform
Public Health
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
Sarah Palin
Sports
Stimulus
Sweden
taxes
Technology
Trade
transportation
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 5th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Totally off-topic, but I loved this from Mark Levin over at The Corner (which was then quoted without comment by Glenn Reynolds):
John McCain just gave a classy concession speech. If McCain had won, we were told of possible riots.
November 5th, 2008 at 11:25 am
which is important, because aside from the current anomalous year, governors are one of the reliable feed-stocks for presidential candidates.
more dem governors = better pool from which to select candidates.
November 5th, 2008 at 11:25 am
picked up a governor, as well, right?
November 5th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Taking back Albany is one of the real highlights of the night.
Too bad the pooch got screwed so badly on the Federal downballot races…
November 5th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Remember that, at least in NY, State Senators are elected every 2 years (unlike US Senators).
Which means that this election is not the crucial election for redistricting, the next one is. Of course, winning this year makes it easier to hold the State Senate in 2010, but there is still another chance for the Republicans to win back control of the State Senate prior to redistricting.
(And in any event, I don’t think that redistricting in NY will make a big difference in terms of US House members – how many more seats can the Democrats get?)
November 5th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Too bad the pooch got screwed so badly on the Federal downballot races…
‘K, Petey, I’ll bite: which ones?
November 5th, 2008 at 11:46 am
On the other hand, Republicans got full control of both houses of the Tennessee General Assembly, and will control redistricting and the appointment of constitutional officers. This is a state where Obama actually seems to have dragged Democrats down; Nashville and Memphis aside, we’re more like Alabama than like NOrth Carolina.
November 5th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Too bad the pooch got screwed so badly on the Federal downballot races…
Yeah, Republicans seem to be holding on to every toss-up Senate seat except NC. The Congressional “wave” of generic Democrats didn’t really materialize aside from a couple races in central Florida. Michele Bachmann and Don Young survived and it looks like Virgil Goode may as well.
Also the outcomes on ballot initiatives were pretty horrific across the board.
November 5th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Also the outcomes on ballot initiatives were pretty horrific across the board.
If you ignore all the anti-choice propositions that went down in flames. Pretty fucking far from a perfect night, all the same, but not a total loss.
November 5th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Yeah, Republicans seem to be holding on to every toss-up Senate seat except NC.
OK, people, some perspective here. A few months ago, no one thought GA, MS, KY etc. were even possible Dem pickups. Then the polls started getting tight and we dared to think big. That ultimately they didn’t pan out isn’t evidence of failure. The Dems picked up at least 5, maybe more Senate seats, for fuck’s sake, and 20-25 house seats. Only the incisive mind of Petey could see that as “screwing the pooch.”
November 5th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Also the outcomes on ballot initiatives were pretty horrific across the board.
Maybe I’m reading the results wrong, but it seems like everything without the word “gay” went our way.
[and I'm a CA voter, so yes this is a big fucking embarrassment for me, but as Glenn says, perspective.]
November 5th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
And as far as the Senate goes, I’m not convinced that 60 is a magic number. A) Democratic party discipline is not great and frankly B) the incentive for Republicans to follow the party line on obstruction is gonna be greatly diminished.
I mean, does anybody really think Pryor or Landrieu is going to be a more reliable vote for cloture than Smith or Collins? Come on.
Stevens a major WTF, but it’s Alaska. What else can we do but revoke their Statehood?*
Coleman sucks, but we did run a comedian for his seat. Hopefully a recount will close the gap. 314 votes…Jesus, talk about a GOTV FAIL.
*i am totally in favor of this btw.
November 5th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Taking back state legislatures and governorships is incredibly important. Their decisions actually have the most impact on Americans from income taxes, property taxes, education spending & policy, reproductive health initiatives. Remember, the GOP started their comeback by grabbing power at the local and state level.
November 5th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Illinois is also an important redistricting opportunity.
They say Illinois will lose a seat, which will be taken away from a Republican (Probably Biggert or Roskam, I think – They’ll be forced to duke it out for the redistricted seat). Plus, we’ll be able to consolidate gains over the past couple of years, and make seats like Foster, Halvorson and Bean bluer (perhaps setting up opportunities to primary Foster and Bean).
Maybe we can finally redistrict Mark Kirk out of his seat as well.
So, if handled right, we could reduce the Republican Illinois delegation to only 4 seats.
And 14 Democrats.
November 5th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Um – am I the only person here who thinks that the American way of handing over the job of districting to a partisan assembly is a REALLY, REALLY bad way of assigning districts, one which negates a lot of what democratic elections are supposed to be doing? And I don’t think it suddenly becomes a good way of doing it because it happens here to help a party I support.
In other countries – Britain, for example – redistricting is done by a non-partisan committee applying a set of general geographic criteria. I see that Arnold Schwarzenegger has been trying to do something similar in California – perhaps a partisan move, but I suspect that the bigger factor is that to someone born in Austria, this just looks like a really stupid way of running a democracy.
November 5th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
David44: The simple answer is that finding a non-partisan methodology isn’t as easy as you make it out to be.
November 5th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Um – am I the only person here who thinks that the American way of handing over the job of districting to a partisan assembly is a REALLY, REALLY bad way of assigning districts, one which negates a lot of what democratic elections are supposed to be doing?
You’re not the only one. However,
1. Just explaining the problem to people is complicated enough.
2. Coming up with a solution that doesn’t piss enough of the wrong people off is also hard.
3. Entrenched interests don’t want to see their power reduced, so they stick with an unfair system.
The last I saw, Prop 11 (redistricting) had a very narrow 50.5 to 49.5 lead, with a few precincts still reporting. So cross your fingers.
November 5th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
as far as the Senate goes, I’m not convinced that 60 is a magic number.
Of course it isn’t. Frist could threaten the ‘nuclear option’ with 55 GOP Senators. What’s needed is leadership to force actual filibusters on legislation where McConnell has a strop.
Now, there were always a few wibbly Dems during that 2004-6 period — Landrieu, Lincon, Nelson, etc — who could be peeled on a per-issue basis. Curiously, the confirmed Senate victories for Dems mostly replace less wibbly Republicans, and the ones that are still too close to call include ones who have wibbled in the past. Thing is, while Reid can potentially lean on the Maine Queens, Specter and Gregg, should Smith and Colebag survive they won’t have the same incentives to reach across the aisle that they did before the election.
November 5th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Frist could threaten the ‘nuclear option’ with 55 GOP Senators. What’s needed is leadership to force actual filibusters…
This is a really good point. I hated the nuclear option concession, because it essentially allowed them to override the filibuster (by threatening it), while at the same time preserving their own right to obstruct. At the time, we should have either made/let them do it (knowing that the pendulum always swings), or made a concession in that case for a permanent defense of the filibuster. Instead, we got a cowardly cave (which was par for the course from this Congress).
We did neither, but those options haven’t really gone anywhere. I could be happy either way, but what I can’t be happy with is respecting it now as a matter of form and courtesy, only to someday have a “nuclear option” again be used as a pretense to override Dem filibuster efforts.
November 5th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
The simple answer is that finding a non-partisan methodology isn’t as easy as you make it out to be
That sounds more like an excuse than a simple answer. Why precisely can’t America use exactly the same non-partisan methodology as they use in Britain, or indeed just about any other democratic country in the world?
November 5th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
20: How do you know that the district boundaries that are used elsewhere are actually reasonable or non-partisan? Even if you use a strictly rule based methodology, it doesn’t prevent unfair partisan advantages from emerging.
November 5th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Why precisely can’t America use exactly the same non-partisan methodology as they use in Britain
Electoral constituencies in the UK aren’t required to be of equal population size. In the U.S., we have the Senate, which is obviously inequal, but then the House (and any other district in the country, even down to the local level) is required to be as equally-populated as mathematically possible, constrained by the populations of the states.
November 5th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
I am with you David44… Logic seems to indicate that the BS of a Tom Delay redistricting of Texas should equal the BS of redistricting of other states. Besides, doesn’t Iowa, of all places (I see white people…), use some sort of scientific model to create realistic congressional districts? Why can’t other states adopt the same sort of program?
Hell, look at the Illinois 17th congressional district and tell me if it makes sense to you… Especially that island of the district in the middle of nowhere that doesn’t touch any other part of the district. It is idiotic.
I am a progressive, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t believe in democracy as an ideal. Rigging the system for either party is fundamentally wrong… So where as I enjoyed the downfall of the bugman, I certainly hope that the progressive leaders in this country hold his methods as some sort of ideal.
November 5th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Huge typo…
I meant to say ‘I certainly hope that the progressive leaders in this country DO NOT hold his methods as some sort of ideal.’
November 5th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Besides, doesn’t Iowa, of all places (I see white people…), use some sort of scientific model to create realistic congressional districts?
It does, and it should be commended for that. It should be noted, though, that Iowa is a very homogeneous state, and not just because it’s very white. It’s got a couple of smallish cities, one side’s a bit more Democrat than the other, but basically it’s one rural county of roughly equal area and population after another.
November 5th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
The point about Iowa being, of course, that there aren’t a lot of strong interest groups being pitted against each other.
November 5th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Electoral constituencies in the UK aren’t required to be of equal population size. In the U.S., we have the Senate, which is obviously inequal, but then the House (and any other district in the country, even down to the local level) is required to be as equally-populated as mathematically possible, constrained by the populations of the states.
The real solution would be to eliminate Congressional districts altogether, and simply allocate seats in Congress proportionate to each party’s % share of the vote. I’m not sure if it would require a Constitutional amendment (I suspect not).
November 6th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Why is Nebraska uniquely black on the map? … Total absence of state legislature?
November 6th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
By the way, I’ve just had a nice idea about how to redistrict. The distribution should be *maximally responsive* in the sense that no matter how much electoral swing there is (within reasonable limits) the differential amount of swing to flip one seat should be as small as possible.
Obviously this is neither easy nor unique to implement, but it seems to me a good fair political criterion in a 2-party system.
March 1st, 2009 at 5:37 pm
cialis
Incredible site!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:13 am
Great site. Good info
March 12th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 14th, 2009 at 4:56 am
Incredible site!
xanax
March 17th, 2009 at 2:20 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:17 am
buy viagra online
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:19 am
viagra
Great site. Good info
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:53 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:59 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 16th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Hi everyone. There is still a difference between something and nothing, but it is purely geometrical and there is nothing behind the geometry.
I am from Lithuania and learning to read in English, tell me right I wrote the following sentence: “The most low fares for airline tickets, hotels reservations, travel deals, vacation packages and car rentals.”
Thank you very much :p. Aditi.