October 17, 2012 State Legislative Competition in 2012: Redistricting and Party Polarization Drive Decrease In Competition John J. McGlennon, Ph.D. Government Department Chair and Professor of Government and Public Policy The College of William & Mary Ian Mahoney, MPP Candidate Thomas Jefferson Program in Public Policy Research Assistant 1 With voting now underway in many states and Election Day less than a month away, competition for the nation s state legislative seats has dropped to its lowest level in the previous decade. Despite an intensely partisan environment, the effects of legislative redistricting combined with the absence of a partisan wave has resulted in only 60.3% of all partisan state legislative districts on the ballot this year having a contest between the two major parties. This lower rate of contested races diminishes the likelihood that we could see a continuation of the significant seat swings that typified the last three election cycles. As public opinion polls showing historic levels of support for one-party control of government, 2 there is still the possibility of the Presidential race affecting state legislative contests. Because neither party seemed to feel an overwhelming confidence in their prospects during the height of legislative 1 We gratefully acknowledge the contributions made to this report by previous graduate research assistants from the Thomas Jefferson Program in Public Policy: Jeremie Amoroso, Stafford Nichols, Lewis Woodard, and Mehs Ess. 2 Dugan, A. (Sept. 27, 2012). Americans Preference Shifts Toward One-Party Government. Retrieved from: http://www.gallup.com/poll/157739/americans-preference-shifts-toward-one-partygovernment.aspx?utm_source=email-a-friend&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign= sharing&utm_content=titlelink. See also: NBC News/Wall Street Journal Survey. (Sept. 2012). Q 15. Study #121404. Pg. 14. Retrieved from: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/ Sections/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/NBCNews-WSJPoll_9-12.pdf.
candidate recruitment season, though, it is likely that any late developing partisan surge will be something of a missed opportunity. In this report, we will detail the level of party competition for state House and Senate seats up for election, the total level of competition in the states and nationally, and important variances from state to state. Finally, we show how this year s contests compare to other election years over the past decade. THE DATA This paper reports the level of major party competition for the over 6,000 partisan state legislative seats that will be decided by voters on November 6. With information gathered from state government offices across the nation, we provide breakdowns for the 44 states which will hold legislative elections this year, as part of a continuing effort to provide information on state legislative competition. We note that six states are not holding any legislative elections this year: Louisiana, New Jersey, Virginia and Mississippi elect only in odd-numbered years. Alabama and Maryland elect their entire state legislatures to four-year terms in even-numbered but non-presidential years. In addition, Nebraska will hold elections this November for its single-house, non-partisan legislature, and Michigan elects only its House of Representatives this year. Finally, California and Washington have adopted a new top two primary system in which the two highest vote-getters in each district advance to the general election, regardless of party. For our purposes, we counted a legislative seat as contested if there was at least one candidate of each of the major parties in the primary election. THE FINDINGS Overall Competition Competition for state legislative seats has hit a decade low this year, with fewer legislative ballots offering voters a choice between the two major political parties than at any time in the past decade. Total 2
levels of competition are closest to those of 2002, the last time that there was an election following redistricting, and continue a downward trend from a peak in competition in 2008. Fig. 1: Percentage of contested elections from 2002-2012 Year Total % Contested 2002 61.60% 2004 64.61% 2006 63.29% 2008 64.47% 2010 63.63% 2012 60.31% The degree to which any particular state noticed an increase or decrease in competition varied widely across the country, further emphasizing the influence of localized factors like redistricting. Overall, twenty-six of the forty-three states with partisan general state legislative elections this November showed an decrease in competition over their 2010 results. Republicans hold a slight advantage over Democrats in the numbers of uncontested seats, with 21.09 percent of GOP legislative candidates not facing a Democratic opponent, while 18.67 percent of Democratic candidates enjoy a similar uncontested status. Upper vs. Lower Chambers As is normally the case, seats in state senates have slightly higher levels of competition than lower house seats, in part because the lower house seats are more likely to have smaller constituencies which can be drawn more easily to decisively favor one party or the other. 3
Fig 2. Competition Levels in the Upper and Lower Chambers, 2002-2012 Year Senate House/Assembly 2002 64.25% 60.62% 2004 64.75% 64.49% 2006 68.11% 61.84% 2008 66.73% 64.03% 2010 68.12% 62.26% 2012 61.37% 60.03% Redistricting Redistricting appears to have played a role in the decreased competition, though its impact is not consistent from state to state. In some cases, news reports indicate that redistricting may have discouraged competitive legislative races, as the party in control of drawing legislative maps used their power to create smaller numbers of swing districts and more safe party seats. 3 By spreading one party s supporters over a large number of districts which substantially favor the majority party and packing a smaller number of districts with as many opposition party voters as possible, reapportionment plans might be expected to discourage competition. Alternatively, plans which are carried out in a more non-partisan way can uproot legislators from familiar territory or disrupt carefully cultivated constituency relations. Our study does not capture intra-party competition, nor does it address the once-a-decade possibility of member-vs.-member inter-party competition, but that may be a factor in the overall level of competition. We conclude that it is more than coincidence that the last previous redistricting year, 2002, had the lowest level of competition in the decade before this year. 3 Blake, Aaron. (Mar. 3, 2011). North Carolina: The GOP s Golden Goose of Redistricting. The Washington Post. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/morning-fix/north-carolina-the-gops-golden.html. See also: Bartels, Lynn. (Dec. 3, 2011). Democrats win fight over Colorado Congressional boundaries. The Denver Post. http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_19473229. 4
Variance across states The level of competition in the states shows enormous variation. Michigan, with 98.18 percent of seats having two-party contests represents one end of the spectrum, while Georgia, with 21.61 percent of seats challenged, is at the other end. Not surprisingly, some of the most hotly contested chambers are in states which have seen recent swings in party control. Recently, state legislatures have attracted more than usual attention, as chambers that had been controlled for years or even decades by Democrats flipped to the Republicans in the midterm election of 2010. Coming after two Democratic wave elections, Republican successes in 2010 were unexpectedly wide. Republican legislators moved aggressively to implement conservative, anti-union and anti-tax programs, in some cases reaching stalemates with Democratic Governors. This year Michigan, Minnesota, Maine, Connecticut, and Colorado comprised the five most competitive state legislatures. All but one saw at least one house of the legislature flip from Democratic control to Republican in 2010. Ranking just above Georgia as least competitive are South Carolina, Wyoming, Vermont, and Massachusetts, all states with less than 1 out of every 3 seats facing major party contests, and all of which maintained same party control in the last election. All of these states have shown strong preferences for one major party in recent years. Fig. 3: The Most and Least Competitive 2012 State Legislative Elections Rank Most Competitive Least Competitive 1 MI (98.18%) GA (21.61%) 2 MN (96.02%) SC (21.76%) 3 ME (90.86%) WY (26.67%) 4 CT (87.70%) VT (32.22%) 5 CO (85.88%) MA (33.00%) 5
Fig. 4: The Most Competitive State Legislative Elections 2002-2010 Rank 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 1 MI (99.32%) MN (98.51%) MI (96.62%) MN (100%) MI (97.97%) 2 HI (98.33%) MI (98.18%) ME (95.52%) NV (98.08%) ME (94.09%) 3 MN (94.03%) NH (97.64%) MN (95.52%) UT (97.78%) OR (92.11%) 4 ND (88%) ME (94.09%) OH (92.24%) MI (94.55%) CA (92%) 5 CA (86%) WV (94.02%) CA (88%) ND (94.20%) NV (90.57%) Fig. 5: The Least Competitive State Legislative Elections 2002-2010 Rank 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 1 SC (26.61%) AR (25.64%) SC (25%) MA (16.5%) SC (29.03%) 2 MA (31.5%) SC (29.41%) MA (27%) AR (23.73%) AR (32.2%) 3 AR (32.59) FL (30%) AR (27.35%) GA (24.15%) GA (33.05%) 4 FL (35%) TX (38.79%) GA (27.97%) KY (33.61%) WY (34.67%) 5 KY (37.82%) NM (39.29%) WY (34.67%) NM (38.39%) TX (38.55%) What to Watch For The election has competing influences from the impacts of redistricting and the race for the Presidency. With new constituent bases and a hyper-partisan environment, parties have shown themselves to be cautious in recruiting candidates for contests. In a presidential year people are likely to vote based along a party line, which helps explains the reluctance to enter races in districts that already heavily favor one party or the other. However, with the growing belief by voters that the parties are distinctive from each other and that it is better to have one party in control of both the legislative and 6
executive branches of governments, candidates for state senates and houses could benefit from, or be damaged by, an election which breaks decisively for one party. Even with a lower level of competition, parties are still likely hoping that a Presidential-level advantage in their states will produce opportunities for legislative candidates. Should the election of 2012 break decisively for one candidate or the other, state legislatures are likely to feel the effect. For further information, contact John McGlennon, jjmcgl@wm.edu, 757-221-3034. 7
Appendix 1: 2012 State Legislative Competitiveness Data (Percentages in Parentheses) State Races House Races Senate Races CR: House UC: House R UC: House D CR: Sen UC: Sen R UC: Sen D CR: Total UC: Total R UC: Total D AK 59 40 19 26 (65) 10 (25) 4 (10) 15 (78.95) 3 (15.79) 1 (5.26) 41 (69.49) 13 (22.03) 5 (8.47) AZ 90 60 30 35 (58.33) 15 (25) 10 (16.67) 18 (60) 6 (20) 6 (20) 53 (58.89) 21 (23.33) 16 (17.78) AR 135 100 35 48 (48) 26 (26) 25 (25) 16 (45.71) 10 (28.57) 9 (25.71) 64 (47.41) 36 (26.67) 34 (25.19) CA 100 80 20 60 (75) 7 (8.75) 13 (16.25) 17 (85) 0 3 (15) 77 (77) 7(7) 16 (16) CO 85 65 20 55 (84.62) 10 (15.38) 0 18 (90) 2 (10) 0 73 (85.88) 12 (14.12) 0 CT 187 151 36 131 (86.75) 8 (5.3) 12 (7.95) 33 (91.67) 2 (5.56) 1 (2.78) 164 (87.7) 10 (5.35) 13 (6.95) DE 62 41 21 20 (48.78) 6 (14.63) 15 (36.95) 11 (52.38) 2 (9.52) 8 (38.1) 31 (50) 8 (12.9) 23 (37.1) FL 160 120 40 48 (40) 49 (40.83) 23 (19.17) 25 (62.5) 12 (30) 3 (7.5) 73 (45.63) 61 (38.13) 26 (16.25) GA 236 180 56 41 (22.78) 89 (49.44) 50 (27.78) 10 (17.86) 29 (51.79) 17 (30.36) 51 (21.61) 118 (50) 67 (28.39) HI 76 51 25 32 (62.75) 2 (3.92) 17 (33.33) 17 (68) 0 8 (32) 49 (64.47) 2 (2.63) 25 (32.89) ID 105 70 35 56 (80) 14 (20) 0 23 (65.71) 11 (31.43) 1 (2.86) 79 (75.24) 25 (23.81) 1 (.95) IL 177 118 59 48 (40.68) 31 (26.27) 39 (33.05) 29 (49.15) 12 (20.34) 18 (30.51) 77 (43.5) 43 (24.29) 57 (32.2) IN 125 100 25 68 (68) 20 (20) 12 (12) 15 (60) 6 (24) 4 (16) 83 (66.4) 26 (20.80) 16 (12.8) IA 126 100 26 67 (67) 18 (18) 15 (15) 21 (80.77) 4 (15.38) 1 (3.85) 88 (69.84) 22 (17.46) 16 (12.7) KS 165 125 40 82 (65.6) 36 (28.8) 7 (5.6) 31 (77.5) 9 (22.5) 0 113 (68.48) 45 (27.27) 7 (4.24) KY 119 100 19 45 (45) 27 (27) 28 (28) 9 (47.37) 4 (21.05) 6 (31.58) 54 (45.38) 31 (26.05) 34 (28.57) ME 186 151 35 139 (92.05) 9 (5.96) 3 (1.99) 30 (85.71) 2 (5.71) 3 (8.57) 169 (90.86) 11 (5.91) 6 (3.23) MA 200 160 40 53 (33.13) 17 (10.63) 90 (56.25) 13 (32.5) 3 (7.5) 24 (60) 66 (33) 20 (10) 114 (57) MI 110 110 0 108 (98.18) 2 (1.82) 0 0 0 0 108 (98.18) 2 (1.82) 0 MN 201 134 67 130 (97.01) 2 (1.49) 2 (1.49) 63 (94.03) 0 4 (5.97) 193 (96.02) 2 (1) 6 (2.99) MO 180 163 17 79 (48.47) 55 (33.74) 29 (17.79) 8 (47.06) 5 (29.41) 4 (23.53) 87 (48.33) 60 (33.33) 33 (18.33) MT 126 100 26 77 (77) 16 (16) 7 (7) 22 (84.62) 1 (3.85) 3 (11.54) 99 (78.57) 17 (13.49) 10 (7.94) NE 26 0 26 0 0 0 22 (84.62) 4 (15.38) 0 22 (84.62) 4 (15.38) 0 NV 54 42 12 32 (76.19) 5 (11.9) 5 (11.9) 11 (91.67) 0 1 (8.33) 43 (79.63) 5 (9.26) 6 (11.11) NH 424 400 24 319 (79.75) 37 (9.25) 44 (11) 23 (95.83) 1 (4.17) 0 342 (80.66) 38 (8.96) 44 (10.38) NM 112 70 42 34 (48.57) 19 (27.14) 17 (24.29) 19 (45.24) 8 (19.05) 15 (35.71) 53 (47.32) 27 (24.11) 32 (28.57) NY 213 150 63 107 (71.33) 11 (7.33) 32 (21.33) 37 (58.73) 13 (20.63) 13 (20.63) 144 (67.61) 24 (11.27) 45 (21.13) NC 170 120 50 72 (60) 25 (20.83) 23 (19.17) 31 (62) 12 (24) 7 (14) 103 (60.59) 37 (21.76) 30 (17.65) ND 75 50 25 40 (80) 6 (12) 4 (8) 22 (88) 2 (8) 1 (4) 62 (82.67) 8 (10.67) 5 (6.67) OH 116 99 17 87 (87.88) 3 (3.03) 9 (9.09) 12 (70.59) 5 (29.41) 0 99 (85.34) 8 (6.9) 9 (7.76) OK 125 101 24 34 (33.66) 47 (46.53) 20 (19.8) 10 (41.67) 13 (54.17) 1 (4.17) 44 (35.2) 60 (48) 21 (16.8) OR 76 60 16 48 (80) 9 (15) 3 (5) 12 (75) 2 (12.5) 2 (12.5) 60 (78.95) 11 (14.47) 5 (6.58) PA 228 203 25 91 (44.83) 58 (28.57) 54 (26.6) 12 (48) 8 (32) 5 (20) 103 (45.18) 66 (28.95) 59 (25.88)
RI 113 75 38 33 (44) 1 (1.33) 41 (54.67) 16 (42.11) 3 (7.89) 19 (50) 49 (43.36) 4 (3.54) 60 (53.1) SC 170 124 46 20 (16.13) 66 (53.23) 33 (26.61) 17 (36.96) 20 (43.48) 9 (19.57) 37 (21.76) 86 (50.59) 42 (24.71) SD 105 70 35 43 (61.43) 19 (27.14) 8 (11.43) 21 (60) 11 (31.43) 3 (8.57) 64 (60.95) 30 (28.57) 11 (10.48) TN 115 99 16 45 (45.45) 37 (37.37) 17 (17.17) 11 (68.75) 5 (31.25) 0 56 (48.7) 42 (36.52) 17 (14.78) TX 181 150 31 54 (36) 64 (42.67) 32 (21.33) 14 (45.16) 13 (41.94) 4 (12.9) 68 (37.57) 77 (42.54) 36 (19.89) UT 91 75 16 61 (81.33) 13 (17.33) 1 (1.33) 14 (87.5) 2 (12.5) 0 75 (82.42) 15 (16.48) 1 (1.1) VT 180 150 30 44 (29.33) 31 (20.67) 71 (47.33) 14 (46.67) 3 (10) 13 (43.33) 58 (32.22) 34 (18.89) 84 (46.67) WA 124 98 26 58 (59.18) 18 (18.37) 22 (22.45) 17 (65.38) 5 (19.23) 4 (15.38) 75 (60.48) 23 (18.55) 26 (20.97) WV 117 100 17 70 (70) 13 (13) 17 (17) 8 (47.06) 2 (11.76) 7 (41.18) 78 (66.67) 15 (12.82) 24 (20.51) WI 115 99 16 72 (72.73) 4 (4.04) 23 (23.23) 10 (62.5) 2 (12.5) 4 (23) 82 (71.3) 6 (5.22) 27 (23.48) WY 75 60 15 18 (30) 39 (65) 3 (5) 2 (13.33) 12 (80) 1 (6.67) 20 (26.67) 51 (68) 4 (5.33) Total 6,015 4714 1301 2830 (60.03) 994 (21.09) 880 (18.67) 799 (61.41) 269 (20.68) 233 (17.91) 3629 (60.33) 1263 (21) 1113 (18.5) Key: CR Contested Races UC Uncontested Races House House or Assembly Races (Lower House) Sen Senate Races (Upper House) D Democrat R Republican Notes: Three states, Arkansas, South Carolina, and Vermont, have individual races that are not contested by either major party. Individual numbers are subject to change between now and Election Day. Totals reflect all races, including non-partisan contests.